Contradictions prove that the world is not logical.

[Ted Grant II]

It is commonly thought that logic and sometimes mathematics can be used to prove that a god exists. Indeed, many theologians and philosophers have written great tracts that offer proofs that God exists, although, people are rarely converted by such proofs, but they are pleased to know that their beliefs are well founded.

Unfortunately, it can be shown quite easily that there are contradictions in logic (Russell's paradox) and with some effort, it is possible to produce contradictions in mathematics (Kurt Godel's inconsistency).

When we study the natural world, however, there cannot be contradictions. There are just facts.

Logic and mathematics are human constructs and as such are fundamentally flawed. We are not gods.
It follows that our logic (so far) is not an exact model of the world. The world is not logical in that sense.

Suppose I tell you I have a pet dog and you said, "prove it".
I wouldn't consider using a mathematical proof, I would produce physical evidence.
For example, I could show you a photograph and unless are are pedantic, that would be proof enough.
If you demanded absolute proof, then I have to do a lot more work, too much to bother, perhaps.

So if your project is to prove that God exists and you tell me he's undetectable, then you have no hope.
You certainly can't do it using human logic.

 

[Seattle]

Do you have a dog?

 

[Michael 345]

Do you have a dog?

I have a cat named Jesus

Would he do as evidence?

 

[exchemist]

It is commonly thought that logic and sometimes mathematics can be used to prove that a god exists. Indeed, many theologians and philosophers have written great tracts that offer proofs that God exists, although, people are rarely converted by such proofs, but they are pleased to know that their beliefs are well founded.

Unfortunately, it can be shown quite easily that there are contradictions in logic (Russell's paradox) and with some effort, it is possible to produce contradictions in mathematics (Kurt Godel's inconsistency).

When we study the natural world, however, there cannot be contradictions. There are just facts.

Logic and mathematics are human constructs and as such are fundamentally flawed. We are not gods.
It follows that our logic (so far) is not an exact model of the world. The world is not logical in that sense.

Suppose I tell you I have a pet dog and you said, "prove it".
I wouldn't consider using a mathematical proof, I would produce physical evidence.
For example, I could show you a photograph and unless are are pedantic, that would be proof enough.
If you demanded absolute proof, then I have to do a lot more work, too much to bother, perhaps.

So if your project is to prove that God exists and you tell me he's undetectable, then you have no hope.
You certainly can't do it using human logic.

And bears sh1t in the woods......

The problems with either proving or disproving the existence of God are extremely well known. I cannot see what it is you think you are adding.

 

[Michael 345]

And bears sh1t in the woods......

I thought it was

Is a bear a Catholic?

And Does the pope......

Oops never mind

 

[exchemist]

I thought it was

Is a bear a Catholic?

And Does the pope......

Oops never mind

Yeah both......

 

[geordief]

Does the phrase "interface between a logical system and a physical reality" have a useful/valid meaning or import?

 

[Ted Grant II]

The problems with either proving or disproving the existence of God are extremely well known. I cannot see what it is you think you are adding.

My point is not about proving the existence of God. That was just an example.

My point is we have not got a firm foundation for logic and mathematics as demonstrated by the contradictions possible in those lines of thought.
Yet, we think we are capable of "being logical" when we try to prove things.
As there is no firm foundation for logic, we cannot be sure our logical conclusions are correct, about anything, except we assume that nature isn't illogical.
However, we can't be sure that the world is logical, since we have to use logic to arrive at that conclusion.
Therefore, because we cannot be sure that nature is logical, we have (using our logic) to conclude nature is illogical.

As far as I know, nobody has ever thought that nature is illogical, therefore I am adding something !

 

[Ted Grant II]

I cannot see what it is you think you are adding.

By the way, thanks for your reply. It made me think a bit harder about how to express the point I was trying to make.

I'm not sure if I succeeded however, as my brain is subject to unreliable processes and unpredictable quantum effects.

So I await a contribution that might help. Try to be critical, as criticism sharpens my illogical thoughts.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that human efforts are ultimately futile as in a few billion years or so, the sun will expand and sterilize our puny planet.

The Bible, the Mona Lisa, Beethoven's 5th symphony and Strawberry Fields will be no more.
(ignoring copies on space ships that will probably never be seen)

 

[exchemist]

By the way, thanks for your reply. It made me think a bit harder about how to express the point I was trying to make.

I'm not sure if I succeeded however, as my brain is subject to unreliable processes and unpredictable quantum effects.

So I await a contribution that might help. Try to be critical, as criticism sharpens my illogical thoughts.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that human efforts are ultimately futile as in a few billion years or so, the sun will expand and sterilize our puny planet.

The Bible, the Mona Lisa, Beethoven's 5th symphony and Strawberry Fields will be no more.
(ignoring copies on space ships that will probably never be seen)

Ah well, that calls into question what "human efforts" are and how they are directed, I suppose.

Sometimes I think we all feel like Macbeth: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." But maybe that is because we set our sights unrealistically high.

 

[exchemist]

My point is not about proving the existence of God. That was just an example.

My point is we have not got a firm foundation for logic and mathematics as demonstrated by the contradictions possible in those lines of thought.
Yet, we think we are capable of "being logical" when we try to prove things.
As there is no firm foundation for logic, we cannot be sure our logical conclusions are correct, about anything, except we assume that nature isn't illogical.
However, we can't be sure that the world is logical, since we have to use logic to arrive at that conclusion.
Therefore, because we cannot be sure that nature is logical, we have (using our logic) to conclude nature is illogical.

As far as I know, nobody has ever thought that nature is illogical, therefore I am adding something !

That there are contradiction in those lines of thought does not mean that logic itself is flawed, just that there may be flaws in the definitions, the assumptions or the processes of deduction involved in applying logic to that particular question.

We assume nature is logical because when we apply logical thought to what we observe, we can see consistent patterns in nature. This is what we call natural science, in fact.

 

[Michael 345]

As far as I know, nobody has ever thought that nature is illogical, therefore I am adding something !

Nature is nature

Full stop

End of line

na·ture
\ˈnā-chər\
noun

• : the physical world and everything in it (such as plants, animals, mountains, oceans, stars, etc.) that is not made by people
• : the natural forces that controlwhat happens in the world

Mirriam-Webster

It is not logical or illogical

It is not happy or sad

It is not good or bad

It is not fat or skinny

It is a descriptive noun word as above

the physical world and everything in it (such as plants, animals, mountains, oceans, stars, etc.) that is not made by people

Stop trying to make it anything else

Stop trying to redefine and give it human attributes

As there is no firm foundation for logic, we cannot be sure our logical conclusions are correct, about anything, except we assume that nature isn't illogical.

Yes there is a firm foundation for logic

Yes there are contradictions and paradoxical results

If YOU assume NATURE

(ie the physical world and everything in it (such as plants, animals, mountains, oceans, stars, etc.) that is not made by people)

a descriptive noun is illogical please advise how you concluded this revelation

I don't think even Humpty Dumpty can / could manage that

 

[DaveC426913]

Logic and mathematics are human constructs and as such are fundamentally flawed.

While, in practice, our logic may well be flawed, it does not stand to reason that it must be so, simply because we are human.

Defend this.

Unfortunately, it can be shown quite easily that there are contradictions in logic

It doesn't show flaws in logic as a tool; it shows flaws in particular logical examples, by showing premises that lead to contradictory results.

 

[Baldeee]

I suppose what I am trying to say is that human efforts are ultimately futile as in a few billion years or so, the sun will expand and sterilize our puny planet.

The Bible, the Mona Lisa, Beethoven's 5th symphony and Strawberry Fields will be no more.
(ignoring copies on space ships that will probably never be seen)

"Unmitigated Blackness is coming to the realisation that as fucked up and meaningless as it all is, sometimes it's the nihilism that makes life worth living." - Paul Beatty, The Sellout.

 

[Baldeee]

It doesn't show flaws in logic as a tool; it shows flaws in particular logical examples, by showing premises that lead to contradictory results.

Logic can only be shown to be a flawed tool when true premises lead to untrue conclusions despite the correct application of the logic.

 

[DaveC426913]

I suppose what I am trying to say is that human efforts are ultimately futile as in a few billion years or so, the sun will expand and sterilize our puny planet.

I am fairly confident that 5 billion years will be enough time for humans to colonize other star systems. Are you not?

 

[Michael 345]

I suppose what I am trying to say is that human efforts are ultimately futile as in a few billion years or so, the sun will expand and sterilize our puny planet.

ultimately futile implies a target goal which is not or cannot be met

Care to share what that goal is?

 

[kx000]

An undetectable God, who we certainly have not detected? Is it evidence or hearsay.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I am fairly confident that 5 billion years will be enough time for humans to colonize other star systems. Are you not?

I am not.
Why are you?

<>

 

[DaveC426913]

I am not.
Why are you?

100 years ago, we did not have heavier-than-air flight. Now, air travel is ubiquitous.
50 years ago, we'd never made it to orbit. Now we've sent probes out of the solar system.

What do you think will happen that will prevent us from colonizing another star - or heck merely another planet farther out, such as Mars - if we were given 100 million times longer? In 5 billion years, we could literally walk to other stars.

(Remember, this argument is in the context of our sun consuming the Earth, and thus human life - so it assumes we survive as a species that long.)