Are Theists Illogical for Believing in God?

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

---

I encounter only one problem,

a) We exist in our universe, and we're thinking about the possibility of other universes with possibly different axioms.
b) If so, how can we use our axioms (ex. a=a) for many universes? Since we're saying that they have different axioms.
c) Arguing about a universe (A) is different from universe (B) but as the same as universe © demands the very basic axiom, since: A=C≠B.
d) We can't use our axioms for multitude universes, unless all of them share at least one fundamental axiom, in this case (a=a).
e) Therefore the discussion of many universes without any single axiom is totally useless.

Here comes another question, whether those universes are in a system with each others or are totally set apart from each others?
There is no evidence for something to be totally separated, since every known and predicted entity is in a system.
Even if a universe appears to be totally isolated, you can think of it and compare it to another. Its existence is possible because you're comparing it to others by using axioms. Therefore that universe should be in a system.
If those universes are in a system, then all of them should share at least one fundamental axiom.

---

I don't think that it is particularly fruitful to talk about universes with different (or no) axioms. Apart from anything else, its extremely difficult to do so, since its difficult/ impossible to actually conceive of what such universes would be like. And given this, its hard to see what role they can play in philosophical discussions.

Ime, philosophers are concerned with 2 sorts of possible world/ universe:

- Logically possible worlds. That is: worlds that share our logic, but not necessarily our physical laws.

- Nomologically possible worlds. That is: worlds which have the same physical laws as ours, but may be different in other respects.

Clearly, the set of nomologically possible worlds is a subset of the set of logically possible worlds.

what other aspects would be different about a nomological world? 'logically possible'. k a world, reality, or universe whatever is only 'logically possible' under some premise, perhaps the premise that "there are an infinite set of worlds of varying physical axioms" but whether or not a universe is logical or illogical is a different matter. a universe can't be 'illogical' There may be a universe where bigger objects fall faster and maybe the curvature of space has nothing to do with it, sure, but you would be able to form logical arguments based on this new physics. i would really like to read philosophers talk about logics in terms of multiple universes. I highly doubt that any reputable philosopher is saying there may be 'illogical universes'.

---

---

spherical triangles... ugh. why did you even bring that up? it's a tangent that there is a group of shapes called spherical triangles. You can't think of a universe were x = x would not be a starting point because it's illogical. it's like saying God can do the logically impossible or the illogical like make edged circles... Sure you can say it but it's senseless. this discussion parallels arguments against a deity that doesn't need to be created, and you're the one saying 'God exists outside of our universe, he doesn't need to be created.' You're reasoning looks the same: "just because you can't imagine it or find reason in it, doesn't mean it's not true"

---

We're talking about other universes here. In our own universe, the rules of our logic apply. Something akin to 'god' might exist in another universe- no reason why not. But in our universe, 'god' is incoherent nonsense. As for spherical triangles- you're the one who brought the subject of triangles up. I agree that its tangential to the thread.

i brought triangles up with fake properties not so you could find out that there is a group of shapes which aren't strictly triangles anyway... this huge branch of this thread is a tangent but i think it's really important. i think this branch is still example of atheists confusing logics with reality. saying other universes exist is not much different than saying a deity exists, in my opinion, despite the scientists that support the possibility. but whether not other universes exist has nothing to do with whether or not an illogical universe can exist or has meaning at all.

my saying that the 'god exists out of our universe' discussion parallels this discussion is off. since sure it's possible that deities exist outside of our universe, meaningless, but sure; I'm saying that there are no illogical universes because an intelligence in any universe would have to be able to make logical arguments. if you go to another universe, you should be able to deduce something logically about that universe. if there is no reason that you would be illogical (incapable of forming logical conclusions) in another universe, there is no reason to believe that there could be a reason you would be illogical (bertrand russell). I guess there is no way for me to prove that every universe is logical but there is no reason to believe in an illogical universe. We haven't even defined an illogical universe besides 'a universe where it's impossible to come to logical conclusions'. What is that supposed to mean?

'i think therefore i exist' should be an axiom for all universes.