"Thus, while thinking "religiously", one cannot think of meaningful (in option 1) or rational (option 2) things. This is sort of nihilistic. The "total nihilist" bit was a half-joke on my part." Royalchicken.
... hmmm, I see. I think this will go into history as
the "Your Money or Your Life" thesis .......😉
IvanH.
" I'll be the first to admit that my reasoning isn't always flawless, but in matters of simple logic I don't think there really is room for error."
Pyrrho.
I'm not talking about errors.
For instance : Newton was not in error , but Einstein, standing on his shoulders, showed us is that there is "more".So I cannot exclude that
in the future science will show us that there is "more" than the logic we
know now.
IvanH.
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo matter how strong the emphasis on "may" - 1+1 is still 2. I don't believe I'm being unreasonable when I say with great emphasis that logical contradictions may NOT exist.
"... are you saying that things that contradict logic may exist in reality ..." Pyrrho.
Yes, with the emphasis on "may".
IvanH.
Allowing for logical contradictions in one's world view leads to all sorts of trouble - if we were to allow for outright violations of logic, then the entire foundation for discussing or thinking about anything rationally completely falls off. Then there is no way of discriminating between reasonable beliefs and irrational ones, or even completely silly ones. Believing in polka dotted flying invisible monkeys that molded the world out of ear wax while singing christmas carols would be a worldview conteder on an equal footing with the naturalistic world view or the one that Christians espouse. 🙄
Would you really rather have that than admit to the reasonable conclusion that if there is a god, he may "merely" be unimaginably powerful - not omnipotent?
-Jarno
Originally posted by PyrrhoJarno, I agree with you, but this is totally tautological. While I think you are quite right in supporting logic, why not use in it supporting your claim? Of course it is true that if we allow for violations of logic, then we can't be rational. The two mean the same thing.
...if we were to allow for outright violations of logic, then the entire foundation for discussing or thinking about anything rationally completely falls off. Then there is no way of discriminating between reasonable beliefs and irrational ones...
Originally posted by royalchickenYou do make a valid point - indeed supporting logic with reason is a bit silly, as logic is the very foundation of reason. However, if you look at Ivanhoe's replies to my claim of the mutual exclusiveness of omniscience and free will, it seems that he is not contending the reason or logic of the claim, but rather doubting the validity of logic itself. Why further use logic to defend my contention when the contention is not under attack, and the validity of the foundational principles of logic are contested?
Jarno, I agree with you, but this is totally tautological. While I think you are quite right in supporting logic, why not use in it supporting your claim? Of course it is true that if we allow for violations of logic, then we can't be rational. The two mean the same thing.
I do agree that what I said was tautological, but I can't for the life of me think of a way to argue against a denial of logic in any way that is not tautological. 😕
-Jarno
Originally posted by royalchickenWhat GOD did was make an exploding Universe.All stars go away at a vast rate.So why? He did not want planets bumping into other planets so he invented an expanding universe.
I do not profess to understand how life originated on earth. I will say one thing, however, and that is that from any sufficiently large system (physical, mathematical, whatever), certain well-defined types of order may inevitably be observed. Maybe have a look at:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RamseyTheory.html
" " ...[text shortened]... t for slightly different reasons.
(Hey-I have to push the Cult of Maths-linked site somehow.)
Linda
"if we were to allow for outright violations of logic, then the entire foundation for discussing or thinking about anything rationally completely falls off" Pyrrho.
I'm not talking about violations. Are the things Einstein said violations
of the Newton laws, of course not.
Nowadays astronomers do not exclude the possibility that there may
be more than just one universe.Maybe an infinite number of universes
with maybe their own physics laws with their own ways of "reasoning".
So I'm not dwelling in the Realm of Angels here , but that is what
scientists are seriously thinking about and if my memory serves me well, the passages between those universes are called "wurmholes".
They even speculate that Black Holes àre these wurmholes.
These universes are not separate realities, together they form our
reality.So therefore I cannot exclude that logical contradictions can exist in reality. The processes that are going on in the passages between the universes must be mindboggling !
These guys are going to rock our world and they are going
to provide humanity with new insights, new tools with which we can
tackle that everlasting question "Is there a God?".
We are now analysing, reasoning and working with the tools of
caveman. Maybe that's the reason why we are going round in circles,
maybe .......
I guess spaceship Earth can expect some rough wheather.
Fasten your seatbelts guys and lets play a game of chess .......
IvanH.
Ivanhoe, you have not mentioned any violations of logic, only violations of acepted conventions in physics. Jarno, I see your point. You may want to consider the logical consequences of abandoning logic in favour of some alternative, and see how ridiculous things get. one of my earlier posts touches on this.
Originally posted by missleadVery interesting. Did He do anything else? (I do not intend to mock, although the tone might be such.)
What GOD did was make an exploding Universe.All stars go away at a vast rate.So why? He did not want planets bumping into other planets so he invented an expanding universe.
Linda
Ivanhoe, you trap yourself. If logic is not valid in some circumstances (ie there are situations where it is somehow legitimate to allow contradictions to be recognized as true, or tautologsie as false), then on what basis does one decide when to use logic? How are these illogical circumstances recognized?
Clearly they can't be recognized by logic. If another structure, one which necessarily admitted contradictions as true, were used, then what would the consequence be?
"Ivanhoe, you have not mentioned any violations of logic, only violations of acepted conventions in physics. Jarno, I see your point. You may want to consider the logical consequences of abandoning logic in favour of some alternative, and see how ridiculous things get. one of my earlier posts touches on this."Royalchicken.
Royalchicken,I'm not talking about violations of any kind and I'm certainly not talking about abandoning logic .Einstein did not wipe
away the findings of the scientists before him on the contrary he
stood on their shoulders.(But to make sure that I understand the English correctly I'm gonna ask you this question: Do you think Einstein violated the laws of Newton?)
I've got a problem (no jokes,please 😀)
I do not know the English term for the Dutch term "lek in de logica"
I could translate it as "leak in logic", but unfortunately my memory
is letting me down. I don't remember what it was all about, but I've
got a strong feeling this fits in here someplace ...
Can you or someone else tell me what it is all about ?
IvanH.