Are Theists Illogical for Believing in God?

[Purple Rabbit]

TFS wrote:" [deleted all the useless stuff and added bold emphasis] Whatever logic that was derived, based on, or refers to quantum mechanics was derived from 'normal logic' and that is what Ramsin said in slightly different words."
 
The condescending tone in your bracketed reply is no invitation to substantiate any points. Please let me know if you want any discussion at all or are solely interested in your own conclusion. It saves typing.
 
Quantum mechanics is not derived from logic, but from empirical results such as the double slit experiments in nature, results that have no simple interpretation in terms of traditional logic. Currently there are more than 5 interpretations of QM to choose from. These interpretations each defy aspects of traditional logic. In some there is particle-wave duality (please appreciater what this means, i.e. that the very nature of a thing in our universe is twofold at the same time), in some there is time travel of information back in time and so on. Each of these interpretations constitutes a different logic. Nobody has been able to reconcile these interpretations or to weed out a winning QM interpretation. This is by no means a simple problem to solve. Einstein found it troublesome. The Feynman quote about the unintelligibility of QM is famous.
 
It is true that these interpretations were arrived at from empirical observation by scientists using their logical reasoning. But that is not the same as saying that the logic that resulted fits into one logical framework, only that some (but not all and not necessarily the same rules throughout all interpretations) rules are shared among the different interpretations. They've adopted different sets of basic assertions (the axiomas) and thus arrived at different logical frameworks. If you drop the law of excluded middle from propositional logic you essentialy allow many-valued logic and you've set your first step on your way to quantum logic.
 
The key point is that it is possible to formulate different (i.e. unreconcilable) logical frameworks to describe reality and that we somehow have to choose the logical framework that fits reality best. It certainly is not the case that every logic we come up with is applicable to reality. It is undeniable that it is possible to construct different (as in 'incompatible') logical frameworks by choosing different axiomas and it is undeniable that there is an ongoing search to find out which logical framework(s) can be applied to (which part of) nature. Also it should be noted that there isn't necessarily a correlate in reality for everything we put in the mathematical models with which we try to describe reality. Quantum mecahnics is described by quantum logic and Hilbert spaces but no one knows the correlate in reality of a Hilbert space, which has an infinte number of dimensions.

Purple Rabbit Wrote: " A clock is an abstraction of time by humans, not time itsel. Presenting it in a periodic cycle is a handy way to sync our practical daily use time to the rotation of the earth, but it is not applicable to time as a dimension of our universe. That is, as we currently understand it, a continuous timeline"
RK wrote: "What do you exactly mean? Knowing what time is is still arguable.
I just wanted to make an easy example."
 
I mean that modular arithmetic in a restricted sense is applicable to our reality, but it is not an accurate description of all aspects of time in our reality.
 
PR wrote: "Axioms are unproven assumptions of mathematics."
RK wrote: "Such axioms are self-evident."
 
Self-evident is nothing but a word saying "I can't see how this could not be true". But reality has learned us a valuable lesson with the refutation of Euclidean Geometry by General Relativity. What seems self-evident does not have to be true in reality. In Euclidean Geometry the sum of all angles of a triangle equals 180 degrees. In GR this can be less than 180 degrees, because GR describes spacetime as curved by matter. In EG a straight line is the shortest distance between to points, this isn't so in GR.
 
PR Wrote:  "Some were later shown not to hold in our universe. As a result Einstein and Minkovski replaced it with a new geometry."
RK wrote: "Give me an example. What do you mean by "not to be held in our universe"? Because the new geometry is developed from the old one.
Do you mean like, straight lines in Euclidean-geometry and geodesics in modern geometry? "

See the example above. I mean that the geodesics of EG are incompatoble with the geodsics of curved space as in GR.
 
PR wrote:  "All I say is that QM can be described with a logic that's different from the normal stuff. That is quantum logic."
RK wrote: "All its math is evolved from the simple logical math, its math has its roots in the self-evident axioms. "
 
No. Quantum logic as opposed to propositional logic is a multi-valued logic in which there are more than two truth values. Another way of saying this is that in quantum logic the law of the excluded middle is dropped. (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-manyvalued/)
 
PR Wrote:  "I assume you know that quantum physics currently hasn't been unified with general relativity? If not google it. The underlying math is different."
RK wrote: "What has this to do with logic? I know they are two different theories, and the major problem is that gravity is not unified the three other fundamental forces.
They are different mathematical models but uses the same underlying logical rules of math."
 
No, they are mathematical descriptions of reality that use different axiomas at their basis that make their mathematical formulation unreconcilable. If you think otherwise then show me how you reconcile many-valued logic, more specifically quantum logic, with traditional propositional logic.

---

Here is an attempt, let's say that the set (N) is the collection of all the universes, whether logical or illogical.
N = {X, Y, Z, ...}
The elements (X), (Y) and (Z) are just existent real universes.

Notice that (N) does not necessarily exist in reality, in this case, it's an abstracted mental idea.
The elements of (N) do exist only if each of them contain something.
Every element/universe can be considered as smaller set, a subset, so:
X = {...}
Y = {...}

For a universe to exist, it should contain something. If a universe contains nothing then it's as good to say that such a universe does not exist, since even space and time have quantities and are something, therefore:
If: X = {A, B, ...} => This universe does exist.
If: Y = ∅ = {} => This universe does not exist and should be removed from (N) since (N) is a set for the existent universes.

For (X), its existence is an axiom, therefore it is logical and has no empty set of axioms.
For (Y), we know that it does not exist, it has an empty set of axioms, therefore no logical conclusions can be made of that.

Therefore: N ≠ ∅
All existent universes should at least share one axiom and that is the existence axiom:
(Axioms of Universe A) ∩ (Axioms of Universe B) = [The axiom of existence]

It's circular. You've derived existence from defining it.