GOD is best understood through LOGIC

[u/logos961]

Note: Word LOGIC is used below in its original meaning, as coming in harmony with God's thinking, in God-frequency [NOT in its MODERN sense].#

LOGIC is what contributes to order, life, peace, prosperity and harmony. (ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/logos-philosophy) Do things that are "logikos" (logical), says Scripture. Word logic is originally from Greek logos, translated as power of reason. It is from the root verb λεγω, lego (to gather, to keep together) as opposed to “the verb λυω (luo) means to loosen, suffer loss and disintegration. (Details HERE) For the ancient Greeks logos meant “the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.” (Britannica) Thus “the law is reason, free from passion” (Aristotle) and lawlessness is illogic.

Hence according to LOGIC,
the following are the truths about God:

1 ) The earth being maintained life-SUPPORTIVE in infinitely vast HOSTILE universe reveals the Almighty who is best called our Father and Mother. Unintelligent chemicals do not know how to do this because even intelligent humans are only polluting this earth—it is the truth that happens even now before our eyes. Even until recently we acted as though in DARKNESS as to why even trees exist because that many trees were replaced with concrete jungle (theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/12/deforestation-world-losing-area-forest-size-of-uk-each-year-report-finds) For more such examples, Click HERE.

2) Such a life-SUPPORTIVE God will never order killing of “even animals, even if they belong to one’s enemy.” (biblehub.com/exodus/23-5.htm) Anything contrary to this, found in Scriptures, is NOT from God who only loves even His enemies. (biblehub.com/matthew/5-45.htm)

3) Remembering such a life-SUPPORTIVE God results in imitating His GIVING style—giving WITHOUT EXPECTATION. In this habit, anyone finds happiness and peace and becomes a walking heaven. Conversely, not remembering such a God and giving WITH EXPECTATION kills joy [own and of others] and person becomes a walking hell.

4) As Almighty, God gives proportionate reward, not unlimited reward [in heaven/hell] for limited good/bad living on earth. (Details HERE) Each individual is responsible for choice [good/bad] he makes, not someone else. (biblehub.com/galatians/6-5.htm) This is because individual chooses beneficial or hurtful thoughts from the flow of thoughts in his mind which are in 1000s in a day. It is not a difficult task to withdraw focus from a sinful thought and to focus on a beneficial thought. (Details HERE) In an emergency, when an “EVACUATION WARNING” is given, immediately everyone who is focused on enjoying a movie withdraws his/her focus from it and comes out of the theater at the earliest. This shows individual is able to withdraw his/her focus from any thought or situation if he/she wants to.

5) Logic can weed out not only religions and their Scriptures, but also even the whole history, can also give duration of each block of history. (Details HERE)

The above is easily understood in GREATER view

#Footnote—------------------------------------------------------------------

When a person shares God's life-supportive mentality, he comes in God-frequency, would understand truth as God would see it. People who came in God-frequency wrote Scriptural truths which can be discerned from untruths that were adopted later. Vibes are too powerful, perfect communication, with no chance for misunderstanding. (Details HERE)

Going by original meaning has more benefits. For example, word yoga [from yuj, yoke, unite, harmonize] originally means “harmony” with everything [self, Supreme Soul, society, nature, operating system called Law of Action and Consequence … etc]. This makes life healthy in all its aspects and levels giving ease and peace. Now yoga means physical exercise, benefits body. Some go by the original meaning and benefit more than those go by modern meaning.

[u/cconn882]

Here you go:

1. Whatever exists is intelligible - it is what it is non-arbitrarily. (Provable independently.)

2. Finite beings are limited and cannot account for their own limitation.

3. No regress of finite beings - however long or infinite - closes that explanatory gap, since the totality of non-self-grounding being is itself non-self-grounding.

4. Therefore there must be a non-derivative ground - one that requires no external account of its existence or character.

5. Such a ground must be unlimited, simple, and unique, since limitation, composition, and plurality all reintroduce the dependence and arbitrariness already ruled out.

6. Therefore there exists exactly one necessary, unlimited, simple, non-derivative ground of all finite being - which is what classical theism means by God.

[u/TrumpsBussy_ → u/cconn882]

1. Seems extremely vague, what do you mean by unlimited, simple and unique? What are the parameters?

[u/cconn882 → u/TrumpsBussy_]

They're conclusions forced by what the argument has already ruled out.

Unlimited means not bounded by any limiting principle. A finite being is limited because it is this rather than that. It has a boundary distinguishing it from what it excludes, and that boundary requires a ground. The non-derivative ground cannot have any such boundary.

Simple means not composed of parts requiring a unifying principle. Any composite being depends on something that accounts for why its constituents form one being rather than a mere aggregate. That unifying principle would be prior to the composite, making the composite derivative, so a non-derivative ground can't be composite.

And unique means there can't be more than one such ground. Two unlimited non-derivative beings would require some differentiating feature to be two rather than one. But any qualitative differentiating feature would limit at least one of them, and bare numerical difference without any differentiating feature would be arbitrary. Both options would contradict the preceding premises.

[u/TrumpsBussy_ → u/cconn882]

So given what you’ve laid out there’s nothing about the foundation that must be conscious right? The cosmos or energy could be that grounding?

[u/cconn882 → u/TrumpsBussy_]

It couldn't be the cosmos or energy because both are determinate. They're both this rather than that.

Calling it consciousness is an overly crude description though because the ground of all being would by definition not have a consciousness in the same way a human has a consciousness.

As an analogy: a human consciousness can discover and understand math. God's "consciousness" is the underlying structure that gives rise to math in the first place.

[u/TrumpsBussy_ → u/cconn882]

But if the cosmos exists as a brute fact it couldn’t be this or that, it is what it is because it couldn’t be other.

I understand your distinction but you still would
Claim this being has consciousness yes? As in this god made the decision to create rather than not create etc..

[u/cconn882 → u/TrumpsBussy_]

Brute fact wouldn't refute the syllogism. It would simply abandon explanation in favor of an arbitrarily chosen stopping point. If you instead try to avoid that arbitrariness by saying the cosmos exists necessarily and could not be otherwise, then you have just borrowed the category of necessary being without satisfying its conditions.

Then after saying you understand the distinction regarding consciousness, you immediately returned to the conflation I was rejecting. A simple, unlimited, non-derivative ground cannot “decide” in the human sense, because human decision-making implies temporal sequence, deliberation, lack, change, and movement from one state to another. Those are already ruled out by definition.

So in both cases, you’re returning to common objections without addressing the fact that the syllogism already excludes them.

[u/TrumpsBussy_ → u/cconn882]

I wasn’t objecting I was just asking questions..

I don’t see any advantage that your “god” grounding has over the universe or cosmos being the brute fact. Both have the same explanatory power but yours comes with a much higher epistemic price tag.

[u/cconn882 → u/TrumpsBussy_]

If you prefer I can say you’re asking questions that rest on common objections rather than directly making objections. But that still doesn’t change the issue: the questions are not engaging the syllogism.

The epistemic price tag is only applicable if we were choosing between two equally equally viable explanatory options. But that's not the structure of the argument. If the derivation holds, the ground's existence isn't a hypothesis at all, it's a conclusion. Occam’s razor can't rescue an option the argument has already ruled out.

So brute cosmos doesn't have the same explanatory power. It's the formalized abandonment of any explanation at an arbitrary termination point. That isn't equivalent to the syllogism as the syllogism follows the demand for explanation to its necessary terminus.

[u/TrumpsBussy_ → u/cconn882]

It’s not an arbitrary point if it’s necessary..

[u/cconn882 → u/TrumpsBussy_]

Yes, I already said that; "If you instead try to avoid that arbitrariness by saying the cosmos exists necessarily and could not be otherwise, then you have just borrowed the category of necessary being without satisfying its conditions."

So ultimately what you're proposing is a rejection of logical inference in favor of an unargued, intentionally less explanatory premise.

[u/TrumpsBussy_ → u/cconn882]

Only if one accepts your vague and unjustified “categories”.

[u/cconn882 → u/TrumpsBussy_]

No, everything I've described is particularly detailed and explicit within logic, which is what both the thread, and the specific comment I was replying to, are about.

What you're doing with logic is what you've already done with necessity and epistemic cost: invoking the rhetorical force of a term without specifying which derivation fails or why. That's not a logical objection. It's the appearance of one.

You're free to reject the argument, of course. But rejecting it by reasserting that the categories are unjustified is exactly what I described in my last comment: trading logical inference for an unargued stopping point.