Is Reason implicit in the unchangeable laws governing the movement of the solar system?
Can the sun or the planets which revolve around it according to these laws, be said to have any consciousness of them?

If the answer to question #1 is yes, and question #2 no, then it would seem to follow that God is Spirit and not matter because the essence of matter is gravity and has only idyllic unity, while the essence of Spirit is Freedom and self contained unity and self-contained existence of Spirit is self-consciousness - consciousness of one's own being.

ordinaryguy

No, I don't think it is, and I don't think that's what we're doing. We're demonstrating our human penchant for mental gymnastics. The point isn't to do useful work, it's to keep the machinery in good working order, in case an important job does come along.
I agree, but logically, the flaw is more fundamental than that. Regardless of how the terms might be defined, the essential elements of the stated conclusion (God is Spirit and not matter) are not even mentioned in the premises that are claimed to support it: 1) Reason IS implicit in the law of gravity, and 2) The material bodies of the solar system are NOT conscious of the law that governs their motion. Regardless of how you answer either of the initial questions, the answers have no bearing on the conclusion stated.

Dark_crow

Yes, I think it is possible to debate it.

Wikipedia gives a passably good definition of both matter, spirit, and consciousness. Does it matter; well, not to everyone. OG for instance has pointed out that he does not find it interesting. He apparently is just killing time throwing “Red Herrings” at sometime he is not interested in…strange as it sounds.

Dark_crow

Ordinary = common…unremarkable…usual.
I didn’t say it was a valid argument; as a matter of fact I only said it “seems” to follow. Now if it don’t “seem” that way to you it’s fine by me.

ordinaryguy

Oh, but I do! Here's what I actually said:
How careless of me to overlook that qualifier. I guess I was distracted by your characterization of what kind of exercise you were engaging in:
I do see now that you didn't actually claim that the logical argument you're making is a valid one, so the fact that it isn't valid bears only on its relevance, not on your veracity.

My own opinion is that rigorous logic isn't really the right tool for the job of exploring and grasping the ineffable. Nevertheless, I'm still interested in attempts to use it for that, even though I don't think the likelihood of success is very great.

Dark_crow

What I was doing is exploring Hegel's argument, if I understand it right of course.
My position on what to do with the differing accounts that jostle with or contradict each other: The philosophical conclusion I come up with is that the best we can do is base it on the evidence and argument. That is, that the best argument is the best theory until a better one comes along.

I have no use for rigorous logic when addressing abstraction. That is why I ask your opinion as to what you “…[A]scribe to the workings of the universe …chance; as did Epicurus. For it would seem to follow that there is a reasoned cause or simply chance. Or perhaps there is some other cause you have in mind.”

ordinaryguy

Here's a concise summary of Hegel's argument: Philosophy and the proof of God's existence by Roger Jones

Good. Then I hope you won't mind if I answer your question poetically rather than logically:

Dark_crow

I long ago came to the conclusion that it adds much more to a greater understanding to read an author himself, than to another person’s analysis.

Just to clear things up a bit…in Hegel’s own words, “It is, for example, a widely current fiction, that there was an original primaeval people, taught immediately by God, endowed with perfect insight and wisdom, possessing a thorough knowledge of all natural laws and spiritual truth;…”

“It was Socrates who took the first step in comprehending the union of the Concrete with the Universal. Anaxagoras, then, did not take up a hostile position towards such an application. The common belief in Providence does; at least it opposes the use of the principle on the large scale, and denies the possibility of discerning the plan of Providence. In isolated cases this plan is supposed to be manifest. Pious persons are encouraged to recognise in particular circumstances, something more than mere chance; to acknowledge the guiding hand of God; e.g. when help has unexpectedly come to an individual in great perplexity and need. But these instances. of providential design are of a limited kind, and concern the accomplishment of nothing more than the desires of the individual in question.

From: THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY*
by G. W. F. Hegel
Translated by J. Sibree
I like poetry well enough but better a clear statement of fact attaching a simple yea or nay…Do you believe the solar system began to operate by chance alone?

ordinaryguy

Nay. I think both the beginning and the subsequent development of our particular solar system is adequately explained by the straightforward operation the law of gravity.

Whether the Big Bang (which forged the atoms that make up the solar system) was precipitated by "chance", or by some causative factor, I have no knowledge or opinion.

As you use the term, what does it mean to say that something happened "by chance"? Do you mean that there was NO causative factor involved at all? Or do you mean that there was a cause, just not one that originated in the mind of a sentient being?

Dark_crow

What Law of gravity, so far as I know gravity is as abstract a term as intention. We only see the results, not the action of gravity.

When I say by “chance” I use it in relation to reasoned cause. Reasoning is freedom from pure chance.

simoneaugie

Reason, along with the ideas of Socrates is only part of the picture. Reason is not freedom from pure chance. Reason is simply the vehicle, within it, you use the abstraction of language to minimize what you don't get. Perhaps after you die, the reason will become clear.