Does God Exist? (Part 3) *Must the first cause be conscious?*

Does the temporal spatial creation require a first cause? Can that first cause be material, or must it be immaterial? Must the first cause have to be conscious? Is it true examining the fact that there is so many immaterial, universal, unchanging laws and standards in the temporal spatial creation that they are subjective, or are they objection presupposing God's existence?

For a long time, people have had many unanswered questions, concerns, or difficult questions that many at times don't know how to give an answer for. My youtube channel is dedicated to these such questions and turn them into videos so everyone can know who God is and the amazing love He has for us. Am I saying I have all the answers? No. But I will help dedicate my time to solving questions as best as I can in hopes that an answer may be reached. If you wish to discuss anything, please feel free to message me. The ratings are also disabled do to the fact that I wish for people to make up their own minds rather than follow a basing platform for what others believe, or simply rate the clip because of how others feel. God bless.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Does God Exist
• Existence
• Big Bang
• Infinite progression
• Miracles

[Gnomefro]

It should also be clear that you would be in the wrong in that situation, no matter if logic exists as a transcendental entity or not - because you're contradicting your own standard. Now, before we had agreed upon a common system of labeling it wouldn't have mattered to anyone else, but failure to adhere to A=A clearly destroys all forms of communication and other people would be unable to relate to what you say at all. Even if it was all subjective definitions agreed upon in a community.

[TheRealDarthKye]

@Gnomefro On the contrary, I have in no way contradicted myself in anyone of my videos on Does God Exist, especially this one. When you make all the connections and tie all the knots, it actually all comes together without error. I am in no way contradicting any standard. As a matter of fact, these are not my standards. As for logic being a system, how can a system even have an objective standard if everything is subjective?

[TheRealDarthKye]

@Gnomefro Let's look at it as this, if there is no objective standard for logic, than you can have any logic which never has an objective standard that calls it invalid, valid, or sound. Now you might say we invented the standard, but our standard's are always subjective and therefore the standard to the logic we create is subjective. If that's true, than your logic is only an opinion which I don't have to follow because as far as I am concerned, my logic is just as valid and sound.

[TheRealDarthKye]

@Gnomefro Now since I know you won't stipulate to that, I know you may than say it is possible that the standard was always there and we just found it. Well if that's true, how was it there? Who created it? Obviously something had to because laws don't just happen unless something or someone creates them. Was it abstract or conscious? Obviously it would have to be conscious because something like 7 cannot create the law of non-contradiction or the standard of morality for that matter.

[TheRealDarthKye]

@Gnomefro Either way you look at it, you can't just have any Joe Shmo tell me that this is a standard because he said so or because him and bunch of other people said so. Why? Because the formula is still only created by subjective beings with subjective standards which are subjective to change. Since that is the case, any logic is acceptable due to the fact that since there is no objective standard that says other wise, no logic could be invalid or unsound.

[TheRealDarthKye]

@Gnomefro Again, since I know you won't stipulate to that, I can only guess it's because you do believe in an objective standard and the very second you do that, your presupposing God's existence because God is the objective standard.

[NickBlackDIN]

hey kyle, i can't find th pm function thing. butanyway's you free to do some drumming this or next weekend?

[Gnomefro]

You can also view the laws of logic on a more human level. If I point to something and say "We'll call that A", and you agree, yet down the line when I point to that something again and ask you to name it, you answer B. You're both contradicting your own labeling standard and demonstrating inability to relate to reality. It would be a useless behavior regardless of whether or not reality operated according to transcendental logic.

[Gnomefro]

So logic is really nothing more than a set of restrictions a classification system must obey to let us talk about the things that are being classified. Again, this is not "immaterial truth", but ways of making our reality models function without contradiction. Ultimately, the laws of logic can be said to be a formalization of the concept of existence, because existence is the natural set of existing things, but it's not like the laws exist as a separate entity.

[Gnomefro]

Mathematics is not non-material. Our systems of mathematics exists in human brains and computers, both of which are material. Similarly, logic does not exist as a non-material entity. Rather, it's a consequence of you deciding to assign a label to something you observe for the purpose of distinguishing it from something else. If you ever find that A doesn't equal A, it means your classification system is broken and can't be used to perform deductive reasoning with.