No problemo:
Locomotice angina leak and potato soup hold the potato easy on the leak basically quite wet Hofstadter nerk nerk nerk poptart substrate income tax sunshine shoe-shine moonshine spanner spank the monkey shoot the messenger i-ko i-ko iko iko iyay fromage bleu hold the fromage easy on the bleu Einstein Newton Ant and Dec, therefore, it follows that things can be demonstrated, and that demonstrations are valid.
The existence of the universe itself shows that it’s rational – if it contradicted itself, the resulting chaos wouldn’t be able to manifest structured phenomena such as ourselves.
Some things cannot be proven, yes, but some things do not need to be proven. The ‘existence’ of the universe is one of those things – it’s defined only in terms of itself.
Why must this be true? Why couldn’t some properties of the universe be rational and other properties irrational? That would make the universe irrational overall, but can we prove that isn’t true?
Just because the portions and properties of the universe we have immediate contact with are seemingly rational does not mean that sometime in the future we will not discover something inherently irrational in the universe. (Add or subtract sufficient negatives for that to make sense.) To prove the universe irrational we only need to find one circumstance of irrationality. To prove the universe rational we have to fail to find irrationality forever.
The problem here is that a universe which is rational will always obey logic. A universe that is irrational doesn’t have to be always irrational, just irrational sometimes. Hence it could be sometimes rational. And therefore observations of logical behavior do not prove that the universe is rational, only that some parts of it are.
No, all of the universe is rational, because an irrational system wouldn’t be able to “work”: we couldn’t exist in a universe in which two mutually exclusive events took place, for example.
There are things which do not exist in our universe; there are other things which cannot exist in any universe. By definition, nothing could ever violate the internal logic of a universe within that universe.
some things are so essential to the way we live and behave (logic, for example), that they are taken as granted. that some things are “true” is also one of these things. without them, nothing meaningful can be said. there is no concept of proof without them.
do you wish to claim that god’s existence and indescribability should be taken as granted?
i think what Vorlon is saying is that people like to claim that god is not bound by reason while making attempts at reasoned discussions, and that they can’t have it both ways. saying logic doesn’t apply to god is trying to apply logic to god.
Why not? Since, you are saying “the universe is necessarily logical” and I’m saying “we don’t know whether or not the universe is completely logical”, the burden of proof is on you.
What definition are you refering to?
If we assume that our universe is consistent with its own internal rules, how can we know if the standard rules of logic are consistent with the universe’s internal rules? Perhaps our logic only applies to our region of space-time, or only above certain length-time scales, as examples? Just because “A or not A” seems to be always true within our collective experience does not imply that it is always true in the portions of the universe outside our experiences.
“Logic doesn’t apply to God” does not mean “logic never applies to God”. In other words, if God is not constrained by logic, he is not forced to never be constrained by logic. He could choose when to be constrained by logic and when not to be so constrained.
You’re missing the point. We’re not taking a pre-existing concept and saying that it applies to the universe. We’re calling the underlying order of the universe “logic”. Obviously the universe cannot violate its own nature.
What do you think the “standard rules of logic” are based on?
No, He can’t. You’re drawing a logical conclusion about an entity you just asserted is beyond logic.
Ok, I see what you’re saying. And I disagree. When I talk about “logic” I’m thinking of the axioms in mathematics used to prove theorems. In other words, logic is some basic rules for symbol manipulation. The universe never enters the picture.
The rules of logic have been chosen because they seem to fit our universe quite well. But that is only an assumption; the universe is not bound to obey the rules we use to describe it. It’s possible that sometime in the future we will discover phenomena that break our current rules of logic. And then we will either modify our logic, or accept that the universe is not entirely “logical”. If that happens, we can still use our current logic to describe some portions of the universe, since after all it’d worked so well for those parts.
I asserted that some portions of God may be beyond logic. Other portions may be governed by logic.
For those who assert that an entity (God, the universe, etc.) is either entirely governed by logic xor never bound by logic, you must prove that there are no other possibilities. Specifically, you must prove that the most general case (i.e., some properties of the entity are bound by logic and other properties are not) cannot occur.
What’s the difference? Symbol manipulation involves nothing more than a set of relationships between more basic elements. The universe is the picture, buddy.
Your second point is likewise irrelevant. The universe does not violate its own nature – it doesn’t need to match our expectations and assumptions, but our expectations and assumptions were never the issue.
Your third point is meaningless. If some part of God is not governed by logic, we cannot establish how those parts interact with the logical parts – in fact, technically they cannot be said to ‘interact’ at all, since any and all statements about it are equally true and untrue.
The difference is that the logic we use (“human-logic”) may not completely correspond to the logic of the universe we are in (“universe-logic”). When we say for example " ‘A or not A’ is always true", we are making a statement in human-logic, not universe-logic. Our statements cannot be in universe-logic, just as we cannot enforce the law of gravity. The problem is that we cannot prove that our human-logic statements necessarily hold true in the universe, because we have incomplete knowledge of the universe. There is always the possibility that, in some corner of universe beyond our current understanding, human-logic will fail to coincide with universe-logic. That is the difference.
Yes, I agree! I’m not trying to establish how the non-logical parts of God interact with the logical parts of God. I’m stating that “we cannot exclude the possibility that portions of God (or the universe) do not follow human-logic”. My assertion is a negative, stating what we do not know about God, rather than making a positive statement about what we do know.
That is why I take issue with the statement “God (or the universe) is either entirely governed by logic xor never bound by logic”. My disagreement is basically a “God in the Gaps” argument. Although “God in the Gaps” may be distasteful theologically, it’s impossible to disprove. We just don’t know what to expect of what is beyond our current understanding. Sure, maybe the universe is self-consistent (which is an assumption in itself), but even so we have no reason to expect the universe to follow our understanding of logic. It seems to so far, but until we have complete knowledge of the universe, we won’t be certain.
** Utter rubbish. First, what you call “human-logic” is a subset of “universe-logic”. Secondly, if the universe contains interactions which our minds cannot represent, then we simply cannot make meaningful statements about the universe.
That demolishes the majority of religious claims, which purport to explain the supposedly inexplicable and comprehend the supposedly incomprehensible.
If the universe is ineffable, then we need to stop talking about it.
** Oh, really? How do you know that our knowledge of the universe is always incomplete except by human-logic? By your own argument, you must consider the possibility that human-logic can truly be infalliably correct, in which case human-logic leads us to infalliably conclude that it is falliable.
Then we will conclude that our assumptions about the universe were incorrect. You are completely missing the point. If the arguments we have made about the nature of the universe are actually wrong, it means that the properties we asserted the universe possesses are not those it actually has. Its actual properties will still have relationships between them – they’re still governed by logic, even if it’s logic we can’t comprehend.
** Meaningless distinction. You’re making a positive statement that we know something about God: that we do not know something about God.
** It’s impossible to prove, either. There are some things which are part of all universes; that is one.
I never said otherwise. My point was that human-logic and universe-logic are not necessarily identical.
You are making the same error as before (attributing a property of a subset to the whole): just because some part of the universe is incomprehensible, does not mean the entire universe is incomprehensible.
With which I agree. Religious claims are not logically supportable. That does not mean they are necessarily false, although they certainly could be.
Your opinion.
I state that our knowledge of the universe is incomplete at this time. I did not say always.
I do not deny that human-logic may coincide with universe-logic, only that they could be different.
I believe human-logic is self-consistent. That does not imply that the universe is self-consistent. It does imply: if human-logic and universe-logic are one and the same, then the universe is as self-consistent as human-logic.
Isn’t this exactly what I’ve been saying? That human-logic and universe-logic could be different.
I fail to see how “we do not know something about God” is a positive statement.
Yes, and my argument only depends on the fact that “God in the Gaps” could be true, since it has not been disproven.
That is an assumption. A big one since our experiences are limited to exactly one universe.
** No, human-logic is a subset of the order underlying the universe. If the universe doesn’t have the properties that we assume it does, it won’t behave according to our models. That doesn’t mean that our models’ logic is defective.
** Wrong. If part of the universe is beyond human comprehension, then its behavior as a whole is ultimately beyond human comprehension.
** It is not that they’re not supportable, but that they are logically inconsistent, and thus necessarily wrong.
No, it is not my “opinion” any more than I have an opinion about whether two plus two equals four.
The universe is necessarily self-consistent. The things that are self-inconsistent do not exist in any universe.