Are Theists Illogical for Believing in God?

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

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.
 

omg! people say so much worst and you're bugging me about suggesting that he get to the point. anyway, if you read further you'll see that i actually agree with him in the end that there is no way to prove an illogical universe doesn't exist but there is way to prove that an illogical universe is even possible since we can only fathom universes where logic is possible... as far as we know.

---

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.

dude... this has been covered. Ramsin never said that quantum physics was derived purely from logics. Someone was suggesting that quantum logics was completely independent of logics and Ramsin responded that quantum logics is derived by the use of normal logics (or just 'logics'). It's like someone saying 'Calculus' is a different type of math Independent of algebra. You wouldn't say that Calculus is entirely independent of algebra would you?

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.

the only way this example would be relevant to the discussion was if it was an example of a truth coming out of an illogical argument which it's not (alright that's confusing since the conclusion of an illogical argument may still be 'true' but maybe the next sentences will have more meaning). this has more to do with the best way to describe our reality 'our physics' (you're saying 'general relativity explains our reality better than euclidean geometry or Newtonian physics) than whether or not you should be able to form logical argument in all universes.