Causality is a nature of the universe and consequently all physical laws explain causation.
It would follow then that even presuming the existence of God at best he can only be one instance and expression of causation as each state of causation would have to represent a source of natural laws of expression as an independent source.
The existence of mathematics implies a non life form who's only existence is to be coherent, not to survive.
The impersonal expression of natural laws would ultimately be an expression of its source that mirrors the theistic first cause argument which was borrowed from Lucretius On The Nature of Things for the big bang that out of nothing nothing comes can be reformulated that what is an impersonal mechanical birth must have come from an impersonal mechanical source.
For theism to be coherent everything would have to be personal in its expression and source and the material world would have to be an illusion.
Mathematics deductively proved that expressions of mathematics in and of themselves are not personal.
It would follow that God as defined cant logically exist as a personal source of all existence.
He may or may not be the source of all life as a contingent necessity by natural mechanical inevitability, but he himself cant be the impersonal source of his own impersonal mechanics, otherwise math doesnt exist.
But math does exist.
Therefore God as conceived as the source of everything cant logically exist unless he is only the contingent source of all life that is responsible to life, but not an owner of life and cant own life, otherwise he would be everything and nothing would exist.
This is a logical argument from math that i just wrote upon reading your paper.
I enjoyed Quentin Smith's works very much but thought his work lacked a neutral simplicity when he engaged with the sciences.
His logical argument from evil though lacks coherence though.
If everything has a moral component then so does nihilism.
What he does prove is that in order for God to be coherent then the universe would already be perfect as it is, but moral outrage implies that it isnt. This implies that at its core the universe isnt moral, but coherent and morality is an expression of God's purpose if he exists as a contingent steward of life his purpose as a steward of life. His persona would have had to have come from an impersonal source that reflects a strive for perfect coherence of life.
Neutrality is more ethical than a universe at war with itself and so I strive to be neutral and indifferent and to only insist on my right to exist as a free human being.
That would be the ultimate goal of God as a steward of life would be a state of neutrality between himself and all life forms.
The only time it doesnt look like that is when the universe is becoming more coherent.
*This argument was inspired by Quentin Smith's argument that God cant cause anything, but i argue the opposite, that God cant logically necessitate anything because thats the nature of impersonal existence but as a steward of natural order God can cause coherence by action logically made clear by logic.
It occurred to me that even if God exists then he would only be the first of many logically coherent necessities.
That would mean that no one can be God in a sense of ruling the universe because then God would have to be superior to himself which is logically impossible.
No comments:
Post a Comment