Funny Quotes About Losing Your Hair?

human logic and divine logic

The most popular response to the contradictions of theists made emerge from the attributes of God:

(a) is our human logic, and can make mistakes, so the contradictions are not shown to be reliable.
First it should be noted that for centuries the logic has been developed thanks to studies of theologians who considered the only way to get an understanding of God or the demonstration of its existence, the origins of this attitude are to be found in Pythagoras and all his successors, where mathematics was inextricably fused with religious mysticism. But leaving aside these historical observations, we can say something about the logic to respond to the argument in terms of surface (a).

Thanks to Darwin today we know that our mind has evolved over time in particular we need to keep in mind that nature ensures high efficiency. Rationality is precisely what allows us to have a true vision of reality as far as possible, and allow survival.

The logic is nothing more than the formal explanation of the rational processes of the mind. So, knowing that rationality adheres to reality and that logic is the explication of rationality, we can safely conclude that the logic is consistent with reality. At this point, you have two problems: (1) when I speak of logic, a logic which I refer? (2) the logic is truly able to represent every rational process? Response (1): I refer to all known logic, because each is preferable to the other depending on context. Answer (2): the logic fails to capture nuances of natural language, both spoken and written, but we can admit, I think without problems, it includes all the basic atomic processes of reasoning.

He showed that the logic is a good way to analyze and understand the reality. But the error, some theologians say, is in applying it to God it does not work with.

To answer (a), we can divide the metaphysical reality in three worlds: Realms of existence, the realm of ideas and the Kingdom of God The use of "existing" is here distinct from "being" is understood as that which may be exercised by the senses. Being encompasses everything, including that of which there can be no experience; admit this domain in the realm of ideas, they belong to the mathematical ideas and arguments of all predicates and all propositions expressible in the languages, and a hypothetical Kingdom of God Let w1 = realms of existence, the realm of ideas = w2, w3 = Kingdom of God We know from the theology that God is the Creator of the universe, and therefore of w1, but if you created the whole ' existing, will also being led at least all the truths of mathematics, geometry and logic, as is consistent with w2 w1, w2, therefore, God has created. Finally, you can learn from w1 w2, w3, but not. Now, let's point of view of w3, we realize that God has designed the other two worlds by running them with the same logic, given that he has implanted it in the universe and w2, and considering that, in accordance with the believers God has spoken to humanity through the sacred texts, we can deduce that also applies the same logic w3 w1 and w2. But, for (a), w3 could be worth a few more unknowable logic (let's call l3).

Following Kripke semantics, this can be represented by three sets corresponding to each world w, w2 with w1 looking, looking w1 w2, w1 and w3 watching himself watching himself and the other two worlds. The sets will be limited to contain only those elements as a logical function within the world. Formalizing:

wn ↔ ln ln ε is the set of all logical coherent wn. W = {w1, w2, w3}; R = {(w1, w2) (w2, w1), (w3, w3), (w1, w1), (w3, w2) (w3, w1 )}; U = {l1, l3}; I (l1, w1) = V i (l1, w2) = V i (l1, w3) = V I (l3, w3) = V

It follows that, from our point of view, w1, the logic that we know (ie, l1) is valid in every world, and therefore it is necessary: \u200b\u200b

(W, R, I), w1 │ = L LL1

'all the logic contained in l1 are therefore indispensable, even if w1 w3 can look with the addition of the ordered pair (w1, w3) to the set R. Considering now (a) shall apply to the situation created, we are implicitly told that certain propositions as true l3 shows that l1 (putting aside the epistemic logic, since we are talking about God) are contradictory, and false: L1 and L3 systems are in conflict and can not coexist in the same world w. If incorporates l3 l1, l3 is then inconsistent, because it exists at least one theorem that its negation can be derived as a theorem. In particular, (W, R, I), w1 = │ ⌐ ML3

So there are only two possibilities: l1 our logic is absolute for all possible worlds, including w3, and there is no logical alternative l3; God has placed in the worlds w2 and w1 l1 logic, who knows but that does not obey, instead responds to a logic l3 unknowable and incompatible with our logic l1.

In the case of the truth of (1), the consequences would be devastating for the privileged world w3, and contradictions that the logic points in the attributes of God such as to be able to destroy the very concept. By the theorem of potential non-uniqueness of God as set out in the previous chapter, there would be as likely to have one God or gods infinite, if one were to accept his omnipotence, further, or is omniscient or is free, or is omniscient omnipotent, or is infinitely good or omnipotent. The contradictions are so numerous and intertwined that their resolution would lead to a concept very different from what is generally meant by God, so much different from not being classified as such (assuming omnipotence, omniscience and infinite goodness are the basic features for a divinity).

accepting (2) however, we can see that from the point of view of logic as w1 l3 is inconsistent and meaningless (because it makes true propositions contradictory to each other). Then l1 is necessarily true in all possible worlds, but only in those accessible from w1. Since L1 is incompatible with l3 and w3 can not be reached either by or from w1 w2 from w1 and w2 w3 no sense and it is not possible to say anything. But if on w3 can not say anything, then you can not even say what it is and what God has attributes, nor whether there. So even accepting (2) the classical concept of God is to refuse. "On what you can not speak, thereof one must be silent, "he wrote at the conclusion of Wittgenstein's Tractatus.