Logic and god

[swansont]

 

If you coud write or create a circuit of logc that defined everything in the universe (in a single expression), then the mere existence of religion, superstition etc within our universe and hence the expression mean they are logical. (self defined if you wish)

 

It sounds like you're saying that if you could do this one impossible thing, then these other things are possible, since they are a subset of the impossible thing. That's a pretty meaningless claim, since there's no way to demonstrate that it's true. You're just asserting it.

[Phi for All]

If you coud write or create a circuit of logc that defined everything in the universe (in a single expression), then the mere existence of religion, superstition etc within our universe and hence the expression mean they are logical. (self defined if you wish)

 

So... I just invented a new religion where, if you hold your breath until you die, you get to live forever inside the hole in a Cheerio our god has ingested. Unless your face turns either red or blue, in which case you get a Porsche made from grass clippings that runs on charm but only if nobody is looking.

 

Logical because it exists, right?

 

I can see where logic can be used to argue for the existence of religion, that it could be an inevitable outcome given our proclivity for imagination and our need to discover patterns, but I can't agree that because something exists it's automagically logical. IOW, religion and superstition may have a logical reason why they exist, but the specific religion or superstition need not be logical at all, and in fact rarely are in my experience.

 

Calling everything logical just because it exists reduces the value of logic, imo.

[DevilSolution]

 

So... I just invented a new religion where, if you hold your breath until you die, you get to live forever inside the hole in a Cheerio our god has ingested. Unless your face turns either red or blue, in which case you get a Porsche made from grass clippings that runs on charm but only if nobody is looking.

 

Logical because it exists, right?

 

I can see where logic can be used to argue for the existence of religion, that it could be an inevitable outcome given our proclivity for imagination and our need to discover patterns, but I can't agree that because something exists it's automagically logical. IOW, religion and superstition may have a logical reason why they exist, but the specific religion or superstition need not be logical at all, and in fact rarely are in my experience.

 

Calling everything logical just because it exists reduces the value of logic, imo.

 

Now your distorting the logic, the logical outcome is obviois but the creation of the statement is logical. You could only makethat statement because logic dictated you could.

 

and it on reduces the value subjectively, objectively, if possible, theres a lot of opportunity.

Edited December 17, 2014 by DevilSolution

[Phi for All]

 

Now your distorting the logic, the logical outcome is obviois but the creation of the statement is logical. You could only makethat statement because logic dictated you could.

 

and it on reduces the value subjectively, objectively, if possible, theres a lot of opportunity.

 

I don't see how I'm distorting anything. I invented a religion that has as much evidence as any other, and by your definition, it's completely logical just because it exists.

 

And you have reduced the value of logic, since if everything is logical just because it exists, then we don't need logic as a concept, do we? You've removed the reasons for there to be a distinction between what is logical and what is illogical. You're trying to invent a one-sided coin.

[DevilSolution]

 

I don't see how I'm distorting anything. I invented a religion that has as much evidence as any other, and by your definition, it's completely logical just because it exists.

 

And you have reduced the value of logic, since if everything is logical just because it exists, then we don't need logic as a concept, do we? You've removed the reasons for there to be a distinction between what is logical and what is illogical. You're trying to invent a one-sided coin.

 

Your religion is just part of a larger expression, taking it out is subjecting it, taking it out of context, the real context is the full expression. You cant reduce the value of logic, it is what is, it gives itself value.

[Ophiolite]

Could you rephrase that? I understand all the words, just not what they mean in the order in which you have placed them.

[Strange]

 

Now your distorting the logic

 

How can he distort it? According to you, everything is logical and logic is subjective. Which is complete nonsense, of course.

[Sensei]

A propos of nothing - Epicurus came from a small island you can drive across in a hour or so which I visited last year; also born there were Aristarchus and Pythagoras. That's a pretty amazing trio

 

When people don't have other jobs to do, they are starting thinking..

[swansont]

 

So... I just invented a new religion where, if you hold your breath until you die, you get to live forever inside the hole in a Cheerio our god has ingested. Unless your face turns either red or blue, in which case you get a Porsche made from grass clippings that runs on charm but only if nobody is looking.

 

 

My Lord Fizzbin (PBUH)

[Phi for All]

 

My Lord Fizzbin (PBUH)

 

Exactly, that's His name on Thursdays.

[MigL]

Gave Sensei a +1.

thought he was implying DevilSolution should get a job and not confuse himself with his own thoughts.

[DevilSolution]

 

How can he distort it? According to you, everything is logical and logic is subjective. Which is complete nonsense, of course.

 

By using it out of context, i stated that if everything in the universe could be defined as single expression then that would be the objective perspective, subjective is any subset of that logic, by using logic subjectively you obscure it from the objctive truth... if i wasnt on a mobile device i would construct the concept more clearly but i really cant be bothered right now. MigL WITHOUT calling you pathetic, what did your comment hope to achieve?

Could you rephrase that? I understand all the words, just not what they mean in the order in which you have placed them.

 

Are you being pedantic or sarcastic?

Edited December 18, 2014 by DevilSolution

[Strange]

Are you being pedantic or sarcastic?

 

I don't think he was being pedantic: the post was just plain incomprehensible. (If he were being pedantic he might have just pointed out you have a comma in the wrong place).

 

And he wasn't being sarcastic. If he had been sarcastic, he could have been much briefer (e.g. "well that makes a lot of sense").

[DevilSolution]

 

I don't think he was being pedantic: the post was just plain incomprehensible. (If he were being pedantic he might have just pointed out you have a comma in the wrong place).

 

And he wasn't being sarcastic. If he had been sarcastic, he could have been much briefer (e.g. "well that makes a lot of sense").

 

Well its been rephrased, and im sure he can answer for himself, you can be subtle with sarcasm. Generally the more witty the person the less obvious the sarcastic approach. Also you replied to a totally unrelated comment to the one i answered yours with......why?

Edited December 18, 2014 by DevilSolution

[Ophiolite]

Are you being pedantic or sarcastic?

Neither. I find your posts extremely difficult to understand. I do appreciate the difficulty of writing in a foreign language, but all I am asking for is that you make a second attempt with the subject that made absolutely no sense to me. This was the passage:

 

Your religion is just part of a larger expression, taking it out is subjecting it, taking it out of context, the real context is the full expression. You cant reduce the value of logic, it is what is, it gives itself value.

 

You have clauses that do not fit in the sentence, yet cannot stand alone as an independent sentence.

 

While preparing this I see you have added a reply. You say that you have rephrased it. Where?

[Acme]

...as a little side note, considering the probability of your existence is infidecimally small, playing the lottery is actually rather logical. ...

The probability of Swansort existing is 1. This is also the probability that what you are presenting is gobbledygook. On a scale of one to ten I give you a schmeeblegorkan.

[DevilSolution]

Neither. I find your posts extremely difficult to understand. I do appreciate the difficulty of writing in a foreign language, but all I am asking for is that you make a second attempt with the subject that made absolutely no sense to me. This was the passage:

 

Your religion is just part of a larger expression, taking it out is subjecting it, taking it out of context, the real context is the full expression. You cant reduce the value of logic, it is what is, it gives itself value.

 

You have clauses that do not fit in the sentence, yet cannot stand alone as an independent sentence.

 

While preparing this I see you have added a reply. You say that you have rephrased it. Where?

 

I make leaps that refer to a previous post that "if everything in the universe could be shown in a single logical expression", if you had read it perhaps you would hav grasped the meaning behind tht jumble of words. I appreciate your patience with (fellow?) polyglots. In the reply to strange, i explain how taking a subset of logic from the whole expression is subjecting it and hence distorting it (taking it out of context). Lets hope this clears your misunderstanding.

Edited December 18, 2014 by DevilSolution

[Strange]

Also you replied to a totally unrelated comment to the one i answered yours with......why?

 

I replied to the part I could understand. I'm not really what reply to me was supposed to mean. You appear to be saying that logic is subjective. This is obviously wrong so I assume I have misinterpreted it.

[Ophiolite]

 

I make leaps that refer to a previous post that "if everything in the universe could be shown in a single logical expression", if you had read it perhaps you would hav grasped the meaning behind tht jumble of words. I appreciate your patience with (fellow?) polyglots. In the reply to strange, i explain how taking a subset of logic from the whole expression is subjecting it and hence distorting it (taking it out of context). Lets hope this clears your misunderstanding.

I'm sorry, but this is very frustrating. I do believe you are sincerely trying to communicate, but it is not working. It looks as if Strange and Acme are having similar problems.

 

I don't think it is a problem of language. It seems more like a problem of following a logical train in your argument. For example, consider this.

 

1. You make a post that I do not understand.

2. I tell you I do not understand.

3. You tell me you have rephrased the words I did not understand.

3. I ask you where.

4. You point me to a post you made before the one I did not understand.

5. That cannot be a rephrasing of what you have said, unless you have a time machine.

 

And, even having read that I still not any wiser. No, I just tried putting the two together, in different patterns, trying to find any meaning in them. I cannot. It does not make any sense to me at all.

[Sensei]

thought he was implying DevilSolution should get a job and not confuse himself with his own thoughts.

 

Job is good thing.

Thinking is even better thing.

But job where you're thinking is the best thing*..

 

*) thinking about things good for human kind, like science.. So banker etc. kind of people, thinking how to screw up other people, excluded.

[Phi for All]

I make leaps...

I think this is part of the problem. Science and logic are not compatible with "leaps". Leaps are unpredictable, and don't take advantage of the power of the methodology of slowly building evidence, making sure the foundations of your explanations are sound.

 

In the reply to strange, i explain how taking a subset of logic from the whole expression is subjecting it and hence distorting it (taking it out of context). Lets hope this clears your misunderstanding.

Terminology is also part of the problem, you're putting words together in non-mainstream ways that suggest you aren't familiar with their proper usage. When you say, "...taking a subset of logic...", are you talking about a mathematical subset? Logic is a subset of mathematics, so you can probably see why it could be confusing. "Subjecting it" is a bit odd as well. Are you making up a process of taking objective assessments and "subjectifying" them?

[DevilSolution]

A subset of anything refers to that object, a subset of fruit is apple....i express the object as a logical exprssion that defines everything in the universe.

 

Does a subset of this object go against linguistic sense?

 

The leaps are my fault but obviously in my head it already makes sense, and im also on a mobile device which makes it more difficult.

[overtone]

The notion that a deity of a nature sufficient to earn the label "God" might not be operating within the basic human logic we are familiar with is kind of interesting - we have hints of this possibility in a few areas in which our logic seems to confuse, rather than clarify well described situations replicable at will (various quantum phenomena, especially, which have proved difficult to handle within a logic incorporating excluded middles), in the discovery of such consequences of our logic as Godel's theorems, and in the apparent success (or at least suggestion of interest) of various explorations into what one might term non-Euclidean logic (longest familiar: G Spencer-Brown's "Laws of Form").

 

But that does not seem to be the OP concern, as far as I can make out.

[DevilSolution]

No the original post simply implies that the creation (hence creator) is an illogical construct. I think it strayed into the realms of what may be described as a penthiestic logical debate.

[PeterJ]

Hi DevilSolution. I get what you're saying and think it is important. You've hit on one of my favourite topics.

 

Consider this solution.

 

Something and Nothing are conceptual constructs. This is not an issue in everyday life where these are useful relative terms, but it is a fundamental issue in metaphysics where these are supposed to be absolute terms. If we reify either of them we have departed from logic and started speculating.

 

When we ask (for instance) whether the world began with Something or Nothing we are making a very grand assumption. Over the centuries it has become clear that neither idea works or makes sense, and thus that this assumption is not plausible.

 

So, this means we need to look beyond these conceptual distinctions for a (logical) solution. Many folk think that there can be no third option on the grounds that Something-Nothing is a dialectic contradiction such that it is subject to Aristotle's laws and the tertium non datur rule.

 

This is a mistake. The laws of dialectical logic cannot decide whether the world began with Something or Nothing. The definition for a true contradictory pair of propositions states that one must be true and the other must be false. If we cannot show that this is the case then logic cannot decide between them.

 

It's a tricky area of thinking. Paul Davies is very good in The Mind of God but does not find the solution. I have a directly relevant essay here:

http://theworldknot.com/do-we-regularly-make-a-mistake-in-metaphysics

 

You would be exactly correct. Creation and Creator would be illogical constructs. But these words can be used to mean something rather different from our usual meaning, more in the sense that 'fire creates smoke and is its creator'. Natural processes iow. Try reading Chuang-tsu, Lao-tsu or other 'non-dual' philosophers, and you'll see that they avoid digging a logical hole for themselves by avoiding the reification of a distinction between Something and Nothing. There would be a third option, and it would be perfectly in keeping with the laws of dialectic logic.