ISUN=Incomprehensible System of Universe and Nature !

Everything sensed or non-sensed also comes from ISUN...

Research MODELING TRINITY ANALOGOUS TO SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Incomprehensible_System_of_Universe_Nature_ISUN_Omnipotent_as_both_creator_evolver_So_ISUN_is_better_etymologic_logical_word_than_God

This question just raises the Euthyphro dilemma, applied to logic instead of ethics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Logic comes from everyone

“Does logic come from God? Why? How?”

- a really scientific answer to the question above is possible only if the phenomena/notions “Logics” and “God” are scientifically defined,

- for what is necessary before to understand what are all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”; which are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream philosophy and sciences, and so in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental problem, then result is completely inevitably is transcendent/mystic something.

As that is in religions also, the difference is only in that while religions frankly state that their dogmas in this case are completely transcendent/mystic ones, in innumerous mainstream philosophical publications always it is stated that all what is in the publications is quite scientific. Despite that, again, really all these publications are only – when really address to any really fundamental points – transcendent sets of transcendent, by no means scientifically grounded, sets of words.

The phenomena/notions above can be, and are, scientifically defined only in framework of the

Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- where it is completely rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, which exists absolutely objectively, because of It fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent and so exists absolutely eternally, having no Beginning and no End.

At that the utmost general definition of the absolutely so fundamental phenomenon/notion Information” is

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”

- where, say, the absolutely so fundamental phenomena/notions “Space”, “Time”, “Logic Rules” are the “Logos” elements. I.e. any/every informational pattern/system can exist only in some space, and only if is constructed by implementing logical rules.

Including in this case any “God(s)” , if exist, are absolutely for sure some informational systems, some versions of the specific informational system “Consciousness” [some versions of this systems are, say, all living beings on Earth have, including version “human’s consciousness].

Including, say, with a well non-zero probability Matter was designed and made by some extremely smart and mighty Creator, more see section “Cosmology” in the link above, which understood what is “Information”, including what is “Logos” element “Energy”, which is really completely mysterious for humans now,

- and humans if don’t use the SS&VT conception above – use logics only completely instinctively – as that all living beings transcendently/instinctively do.

More see the link above.

.

Cheers

Karl Pfeifer and it’s essentially answered the same way…. It’s not that God creates logic. Nor is it that he appeals to logic. Any thinking theist, will try to ground it essentially in Gods nature, as an essential necessary identity. That is if the theist wants to ground it as such. It’s not necessary to do so

Mark Slomp

Of course it might be an essential property of God that he is logical. "Grounding logic in God" is another matter. I'd still like to see a coherent account of that.

“…Of course it might be an essential property of God that he is logical. "Grounding logic in God" is another matter. I'd still like to see a coherent account of that. …..”

- in the SS post above completely rigorously and clearly it is explained that the “Grounding logic in God” problem really doesn’t exist, because of the “Logics Rules” is the “Logos” set element,

- and , since any/every informational pattern/system is constructed absolutely obligatorily “by” all “Logos” set elements, the informational system/an element of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set is made/constructed including, absolutely obligatorily “by” Logics Rules, and interacts with other the Set’s elements only because of all the Set’s elements are made/constructed including, “by” Logics Rules as well.

Including, say, every element – a particle, etc., , of informational system/the Set’s element “Matter”, is made/constructed also “by” Logics Rules, and interacts with other Matter’s elements in some logical constructions “interactions” that are rigorously determined by system of fundamental laws/links/constants, which concretely actualizes Logics Rules in Matter.

Quite equally humans at interacting/exchanges by information with other informational patterns/systems – other humans and/or, say, with some material objects, make that in some logical constructions “interactions” that are determined by the concrete system of fundamental laws/links/constants, that concretely actualize Logics Rules in human’s consciousness construction - and, at communicating with material structures – correspondingly really determined by Matter’s basic set above.

Again – that fundamentally non-material humans’ consciousnesses understand something in Matter, make some material things, say, smartphones, which Matter doesn’t make, etc., fundamentally is possible only because of everything is made from only one stuff “Information”;

- and the fundamental specific difference in this case is only in that material objects use Logics Rule completely automatically – i.e. completely “instinctively”, humans, after Aristotle, make that “consciously” understanding what they do logically – though ~ 100 000 years before used completely instinctively, as that material objects, and, say, bacteria, do.

Nonetheless yet now, if outside the SS&VT 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception [see the link in the SS post above], humans eventually make that only instinctively, since outside the conception any human cannot answer to the question – what is “Information”, why it is as it is?, etc., including what are Logics Rules?, etc.

Again, God(s) – i.e. “God(s) consciousness(es)”, if exist, is/are some versions of the specific information system “Consciousness”, and so don’t differ principally from, say, the version “human’s consciousness”; the difference is only in that the Set/s element/system “God’s consciousness” is extremely more functionally developed than human’s consciousness.

More see the pointed conception paper.

Cheers

Karl Pfeifer there’s a few accounts that I find coherent at least. Most imply idealism… but that’s not a cost, that’s a plus😀. Josh Rasmussen from APU has some accounts at least worth taking seriously. I wouldn’t find it surprising (given theism) that, that which we call “rules of reason” or rational thought is exhaustively defined as a reflection of the operation of “mind at large”. thinking of the top it might imply necessitarianism as well… maybe. But I don’t find that a terrible cost either

A logical outcome of the creation of the world could be the initiative of God to start this procedure (the creation). The latter could be something maybe more related to religion than science itself and at that point, there is an obvious controversy if we take into account that science gives us a more logical option (without refusing that religion has also some logic).

Argument from logic is one of the arguments given to prove God's existence

I don't know any more

This is Leibniz's answer: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gzCbFNFM62_v3QV0ErEcAqZCgNlioRfg

The thread question is rigorously scientifically answered/commented in a couple of SS posts on page 1, so here only a comment to

“…Argument from logic is one of the arguments given to prove God's existence

I don't know any more…”

- really that is rather strange “Argument” , since for this argument be real argument, it is necessary to explain really scientifically – what is “logic”?, and for/by what really scientific reason/way some “God” has to logic some relation?

Again, that is fundamentally impossible in any quite frankly transcendent religions, which fundamentally postulate that God(s) are some completely transcendent, and so by no means understandable by humans, Essence(s),

- and in really quite equally completely transcendent mainstream philosophical doctrines, schools, etc., etc., etc. despite that all doctrines in the mainstream are claimed as highest level fundamentality scientific ones. Though yeah, most of mainstream philosophers quite frankly believe that they are really scientists.

More see the SS posts on page 1 and links in the posts, where it is explained including, what is “logics”, and why really with a well non-zero probability existent God(s), humans, and quite equally particles, atoms, star systems, etc., use logics. SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition/246pages 242, 243, 244, 246, and 251, though,

- are relevant in this case as well.

Cheers

Since logic is already implicit in every rational, especially scientific, analysis (i.e. a priori to it), the question is not a “scientific” one, but a metaphysical one. Demanding a "scientific" answer necessarily assumes ideological (unscientific) scientism.

Leibniz's argument should not be misunderstood as a "proof of God", but rather as a definition of the Logos of God as the immaterial "eternal substance" of logic and mathematics.

And that

“…Since logic is already implicit in every rational, especially scientific, analysis (i.e. a priori to it), the question is not a “scientific” one, but a metaphysical one….”

- is a typical transcendent/irrational, i.e. really unscientific, mainstream philosophical/ mainstream scientific claim, where as some “scientific truth” it is claimed that for/by really some mystic reasons/ways some mystic “a priori logic” exists, which again for/by really some mystic reasons/ways

- “is already implicit in every rational, especially scientific, analysis”, which again really for the poster for/by really some mystic reasons/ways existent “humans”, especially “scientists”, do.

Again in the thread - the really scientific answer to questions what are “logics”?, “humans”?, why and how humans use logics at any, including scientific, analysis?, and what can be really rather probably existent “God(s)” , are possible, and are given only in Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception,

- more see the SS posts above, first of all on page 1, and links in the posts.

Cheers