God, Santa, and The Tooth Fairy

[polymath257]

Thank you for putting that in bold because the key issue is in fact an intelligibility that transcends circumstances. If their maths are true, they will be true in the same way ours is and for the same reasons.

But only if we share the same physical reality. A universe with different physical laws may necessitate different tools to describe and understand it. Is there a way to show that can’t be a possibility?

In particular, different logic and different math.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Thank you for putting that in bold because the key issue is in fact an intelligibility that transcends circumstances. If their maths are true, they will be true in the same way ours is and for the same reasons.

But only if we share the same physical reality. A universe with different physical laws may necessitate different tools to describe and understand it. Is there a way to show that can’t be a possibility?

Quite the contrary! Absurdism is always a possibility. It is what I consider one of the main existential stances, just as one can believe that we live in a rationally ordered universe. No one knows for sure...maybe there is a deep order always beyond our ken or maybe its all just random chance. Those are faith based positions.

So think about what the skeptical position above is advocated for in order remain against the theistic position. They are suggesting that logic can be illogical because physics does not entail a rational order. And they have the conceit to present this as the rational position. To me it sounds like cleverly disguised absurdism.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yeah, LCs proposal is not absurdism 

[Jehanne]

But only if we share the same physical reality. A universe with different physical laws may necessitate different tools to describe and understand it. Is there a way to show that can’t be a possibility?

Quite the contrary! Absurdism is always a possibility. It is what I consider one of the main existential stances, just as one can believe that we live in a rationally ordered universe. No one knows for sure...maybe there is a deep order always beyond our ken or maybe its all just random chance. Those are faith based positions.

So think about what the skeptical position above is advocated for in order remain against the theistic position. They are suggesting that logic can be illogical because physics does not entail a rational order. And they have the conceit to present this as the rational position. To me it sounds like cleverly disguised absurdism.

Read the Poverty of Agnosticism in Professor Richard Dawkins' the God Delusion; few atheists are in Category 7, absolutely certain that there is no god.

[The Architect Of Fate]

But only if we share the same physical reality. A universe with different physical laws may necessitate different tools to describe and understand it. Is there a way to show that can’t be a possibility?

In particular, different logic and different math.

Yup totally possible 

[polymath257]

But only if we share the same physical reality. A universe with different physical laws may necessitate different tools to describe and understand it. Is there a way to show that can’t be a possibility?

Quite the contrary! Absurdism is always a possibility. It is what I consider one of the main existential stances, just as one can believe that we live in a rationally ordered universe. No one knows for sure...maybe there is a deep order always beyond our ken or maybe its all just random chance. Those are faith based positions.

So think about what the skeptical position above is advocated for in order remain against the theistic position. They are suggesting that logic can be illogical because physics does not entail a rational order. And they have the conceit to present this as the rational position. To me it sounds like cleverly disguised absurdism.

Nope. That is mostly an argument counter to one of the theistic arguments. It is not in itself an argument against theism.

And no, it isn't the same as absurdism. Paraconsistent logic is a workable logic that is not subject to 'explosion' and has value in some studies. Intuitionist logic denies excluded middle and has been used as the basis of mathematics. These are workable, used, versions of logic that are different than classical logic. that does not make them absurd.

And there is nothing absurd about the *fact* that there is more than one possible geometry, more than one possible set theory, more than one possible logic. etc. We choose the rules of these to help us in our understanding. They are NOT fixed in advance of any possible world (oh, how I hate modal 'logic').

But let's get to a nub: God is called the 'source of existence'. What, in this context, does it even mean to be a 'source'? And, if that source itself exists, how is it its own source? And if it doesn't, how can it be a source of anything?

This is why I consider the whole concept of a 'source of existence' to be incoherent. It seems to be more absurd than any alternative logic would be.

I have to admit the Hart book is getting to be boring. He goes on and on about contingency and how all physical things are absolutely contingent (how doe she know this?) and that only an infinite being can fail to be contingent (how does he know this?) and that it would have to be *logically* and not just 'metaphysically' necessary (which, as far as I can see, is conclusive about the non-existence).

If anything, this book has shown just how much we need a new metaphysics: the old one is failing badly.

[LadyForCamus]

But only if we share the same physical reality. A universe with different physical laws may necessitate different tools to describe and understand it. Is there a way to show that can’t be a possibility?

Quite the contrary! Absurdism is always a possibility. It is what I consider one of the main existential stances, just as one can believe that we live in a rationally ordered universe. No one knows for sure...maybe there is a deep order always beyond our ken or maybe its all just random chance. Those are faith based positions.

So think about what the skeptical position above is advocated for in order remain against the theistic position. They are suggesting that logic can be illogical because physics does not entail a rational order. And they have the conceit to present this as the rational position. To me it sounds like cleverly disguised absurdism.

I’m not seeing it that way at all.  If we were able to describe a different set of physical laws in a different universe, that would mean those physical laws and that universe are just as intelligible and rationally grounded as our own; simply different. Our logic makes sense for this universe because its physical laws are such that they are. I don’t know of any reason to think that classical logic transcends the physical. I’m not even sure that’s a coherent concept. What is a descriptive tool without some *thing* to describe?