It is a conceptual truth that a mind who exists and is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent 'is' God. — Bartricks
Your premise of "God" is very similar to that of Plotinus and his "One": — Gus Lamarch
I think you're seeing Plotinus everywhere. — Bartricks
God. Reason is not strong in this one. — Bartricks
Thems is rules such as "do an act if doing so will serve your ends and won't violate another rule of reason" and "be nice" and "believe in the truth of the conclusions of sound arguments" and so on. — Bartricks
How does a mind create laws of reason?If there are laws of Reason, then there is a mind whose laws they are — Bartricks
What does an omniscient mind do? It would be pointless for example for such a thing to think.The mind whose laws are the laws of Reason is omniscient — Bartricks
A mind not bound by the laws of reason cannot be reasoned about.The mind whose instructions and commands constitute the laws of Reason would not be bound by those laws, as they have the power over their content. — Bartricks
How does a mind create laws of reason? — InPitzotl
What does an omniscient mind do? It would be pointless for example for such a thing to think. — InPitzotl
A mind not bound by the laws of reason cannot be reasoned about. — InPitzotl
If you think there's a problem with the argument, use your extensive knowledge to highlight it. — Bartricks
A law of Reason is an imperative or instruction to do or believe something. — Bartricks
Sorry, but you didn't answer my question. That's a nice hypothetical example of your issuing a prescriptive imperative using the English language to another sentient entity who speaks English over a virtual medium via text, but how does a mind create a law of reason?Here's a law of Bartricks: if you have money, give me money.. — Bartricks
That does not follow. I believe there is a yellow crayon in this box sticking out just to the left of an orange crayon, and I use reasoning to believe it, but it's not clear that I followed an instruction. I tend to think I just looked at the box.Well, clearly one of the things he wants is for us to do and believe things, hence the instructions of Reason exist. — Bartricks
Well for example if I divide two numbers in my head, I might carry out the operations to figure out what the quotient is. An omniscient entity would presumably simply know; so there's no point doing the thinking. If I were playing chess, I might plan ahead. But again, an omniscient entity would presumably just know all moves, so there's no point in thinking. It's easy to say there's an all knowing mind, but such a thing is so alien to how minds work, it's questionable whether or not it even is one.As for it being pointless for him to think - I don't see how you get to that conclusion. — Bartricks
The mind not limited by reason could command reason and irrationality both. You would have no way of describing by reason any violation of reason commanded by this entity. Could this mind command that 1+1=3? And if so, how can you be sure he didn't? Pretty sure the only way you could be sure such a mind only commands reason is by applying a doctrine, and if you're applying doctrines you're not applying reason.Yes it can. See above. I am not bound by what I say, but I can nevertheless tell people about myself. Likewise for Reason. Think it through!! — Bartricks
Sorry, but you didn't answer my question. That's a nice hypothetical example of your issuing a prescriptive imperative using the English language to another sentient entity who speaks English over a virtual medium via text, but how does a mind create a law of reason? — InPitzotl
That does not follow. I believe there is a yellow crayon in this box sticking out just to the left of an orange crayon, and I use reasoning to believe it, but it's not clear that I followed an instruction. I tend to think I just looked at the box. — InPitzotl
That was a prescription given in a language. Reason is surely descriptive.Sorry, but it did. You accept, I take it, that I did what I did: I, a mind, issued an instruction to you. — Bartricks
What else?As for your example, it's an example of something else. — Bartricks
There's quite a bit of sapience required to relate the visual experience to such things as colors sticking out of a box and their spatial relations.For what you describe is a visual experience causing in you a belief, without any inferential activity on your part. — Bartricks
That was a prescription given in a language. Reason is surely descriptive. — InPitzotl
Nope. I'm denying that someone must be commanding the laws I use to do so.So you are denying that you ought to draw the conclusion of a valid argument? — Bartricks
Certainly not instructions someone gave me in English. Except in those cases where they did, but in all such cases those were simply minds of one or more other humans. Imperatives and instructions are things humans convey to each other using language.And what are you following when you reason, if not some kind of directive? — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.