Are Theists Illogical for Believing in God?

[Purple Rabbit]

TFS wrote: "Philosophers use 'possible worlds' in a variety of ways, but always with the objective of saying something about our world. Illogical worlds can tell us precisely nothing about our world. Thus its very difficult to see what philosophical use they could be put to. In view of this, its hardly surprising that theres no literature on the subject. What could the literature possibly be about?"

I agree with you on this one. The "in all possible wolds" often used in philosophy differs from the "in all possible worlds" used in mathematics. The latter is short for "in all possible logical frameworks where a particular set X of axiomas holds" where in most cases X is specified, but not necessarily is about logical frameworks that apply to reality. The former is even more vague about what possible worlds are but strongly suggests they have something to do with reality. IMO this really is an attempt to make assertions on things one possibly cannot know. I side with Wittgenstein here: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

---

---

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?
 

---

I hope you notice I'm adressing you and Ramsin seperately. As if you are two seperate persons. I'm not suggesting in any way that you should share opinion with Ramsin. But the bracketed stuff by you seems targeted at me, that's what I responded to.

I've defined what I mean by different logic in my answer above. I suggest you read it. Some axiomas might be shared but there really in no absolute here. Quantum logic and traditional propositional logic don't share all axiomas. Quantum logic is three valued, propositional logic is boolean.

---

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.

That's bull. I (and nobody here that I'm aware of) haven't asserted that truth ever arises from illogic, only that it is possible to construct incompatible different kinds of logic. And furthermore that it is a question which logic applies to our reality.

But my opinion in this is a rather conservative one. Hilary Putnam, not just some some dude with an opinion, even goes beyond that position and argues that logic is defined by what holds in reality not the other way 'round. In fact he argues for an empirical logic.