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.

I wish my thinking was as clear as yours. You amaze me. The logic does seem to follow in the above example, if the answers were as you have suggested. What would the logic be if both answers # 1 and # 2 were both yes?

If God created matter, how did He do it? Is Spirit devoid of matter? Do objects following the rules of matter have consciousness because they were born of Spirit?

If the answer to #2 were yes then it would appear to follow from that, that a rock has consciousness and could therefore reason.

From my understanding God is spirit and energy.

No, I wouldn't say that Reason (a noun) is "implicit" in the law of gravity. It may be implicit in the structure and function of the human brain. The human ability to reason (a verb) has certainly been instrumental in our theoretical formulation and experimental confirmation of the law of gravity.
I'm not aware of any evidence that they do. Can you suggest an experiment to test the hypothesis? How would you design a consciousness detector and apply it to a star or planet?
If I understand correctly, you're saying that IF Reason is implicit in the law of gravity, and IF suns and planets are NOT consciously aware of the law of gravity, THEN God is Spirit and not matter.

To me, it doesn't "seem to follow" that the answers to either of the original questions have any relevance at all to your conclusion that "God is Spirit and not matter", since they say nothing at all about either God or Spirit, and nothing very specific about matter. Your statement that "the essence of Spirit is Freedom and self contained unity and self-contained existence of Spirit is self-consciousness" sounds profound at first, but the more I try to understand what it actually means, the more I doubt its profundity, and the less connection I see to Reason, gravity, or the possibility of consciousness in material bodies of planetary scale.

I do think the existence and nature of Spirit, and its relation to self-consciousness is an interesting topic, I just don't see how you got to it from where you started.

OG
And to what do you ascribe 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.


Yeah, it's been my experience that ordinary guys don't find philosophy or logic very interesting.

Mine was an exercise in making a logical argument about the essence of spirit being freedom and active Reason relative to Physical Nature, not God. For I hear so many abstractions about God that I couldn’t begin to believe. I could just as easily have used the term Providence, or prime mover in place of the term God.

Oh, I was going by...

I just tried to address the questions you asked, and to examine whether your conclusion followed from the answers you suggested. I still don't see it, but I'd be happy to hear more about why you think it does.
Your experience with ordinary guys has apparently been quite limited.
You may indeed be correct that the essence of spirit is freedom, and that God (or Providence, or The Prime Mover) is spirit and not matter, but you haven't made a valid logical argument to support either conclusion.

Is it even possible to debate it? We are using words. Whether you refer to God, Zeus, Spirit, Allah, Cernunnos or Prime Mover, you still have not defined the "object." What is Spirit, what is matter, what is consciousness, does it matter? What's the matter?

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.

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.:)

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

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.

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.”

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:

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?

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?

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.

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.