Atheists religions; a rose by another name

You are misinformed. Systems logics can be formulated that treat their own fuzzy logic as just another variable, with no intrinsic meaning or value.

You are misinformed. Classical logic has proven to be tautological and self-contradictory, with a mathematical analysis of classical physics and mathematics concluding that any number of arbitrary simple metaphors can be used to describe the world equally well in classical terms. In other words, you can argue that everything is ultimately composed of super balls, noodles, clockwork, lime Jell-O, or little tiny tornadoes that carry you away to somewhere over the rainbow, while nobody can ever prove you wrong if they rely upon classical logic and ignore the actual physical evidence. I could go on for hours citing one example like this after another, but my favorite is Donald Hoffman, who is a Game theorist, who spent ten years studying all the neurological evidence and running one computer simulation after another, only to finally conclude that if the human mind and brain had ever remotely resembled anything like reality, we would already be extinct as a species.

Sadly, the ugly reality of Platonic idealism, is that Plato and every academic after him have been notorious for their stunted sense of humor, and overblown egos, while the evidence accumulated over the last century all implies academics are largely full of crap, explaining why they constantly complain that nobody ever listens to them and, according to their own evidence, after a century and half of public education, one in five Americans still insists the sun revolves around the earth. Academics are the paid mouth pieces of the mainstream, and the military-industrial complex, and teaching complete idiots how to destroy the planet.

 

Isn't Quantum Mechanics primarily utilized and tested by academics ?

As with the aforementioned Flying Spaghetti Monster, one cannot disprove non-existence, so I don't know by what sense you mean self-contradictory. However, that does not mean the FSM or any of those examples you gave are necessarily good starting points for a sound argument about the nature of reality. I understand with the quantum world that reality might be a lot less concrete than our experience of it, but that is exactly why I stated in my previous post that resolution between whatever mechanisms that make quantum behavior decohere to give way to our seemingly macroscopic "solid" experience of the world needs to be further understood. My question to you is, and please try to answer the question directly rather than another tangent, how does one develop a theory of everything without necessitating a dualistic approach to test for the evidence?

For instance, let's say the graviton, the particle needed to sew the loose ends of the fundamental forces provides a promising candidate for String Theory being the Theory of Everything... But the graviton requires a particle detector with more or less the energy of Jupiter to be discovered, how is it that we are going to validate this?

 

I think that theists would say that they come to their beliefs through logic, as well. Not many theists would say “my beliefs are totally illogical but I believe anyway.”

I’m spiritual, and while there are personal reasons for that, I feel there’s logic (for me) in my choice. Yet, I can’t prove to you or anyone in an objective way, why I believe what I do. No side is intellectually dishonest, it’s just we come to our own sense of logic however we define that, if that makes sense.

 

String theory is another good example of classical logic inevitably contradicting itself and spitting out meaningless infinities. Over the decades it has produced a series of theories which, each in turn, has indicated an ever larger growing number of String theories, beyond the astronomical, can explain the universe all that much more compellingly. It is as if nature were tweaking their noses, and insisting they lay off the beauty of String theory and work on their sense of humor instead. These are what physicists call yin-yang push-pull dynamics that express reality or existence, the arrow of time, and the laws of physics as all reflecting the ground state, or default state, that exists because, evidently, if the universe were different none of us would be around to discuss the issue.

John Wheeler was the first to champion this position for over thirty years and proposed a "Participatory Anthropic Principle" that implies consensual reality. His work is still the foundation of modern Standard theory in quantum mechanics. My own position, is that modern science is slowly uncovering a mountain of evidence that all of their own ideals, ethics, and abstractions are ultimately just so much useful gibberish. That's because 42 is as good an explanation as any other for the meaning of life, the universe, and everything when without faith in our own memories, awareness, and dreams we can have none of these. The proof for all of this is currently being assembled by four different teams of scientists around the world all searching for fractal recursions in nature and, among others, by computer scientists who estimate they will produce the evidence with the next generation of computers.

It means classical logic requires slight modifications to be expressed as fuzzy logic and these must inevitably be able to express quantum mechanics as all reflecting our own mortal fallibility as much as anything else. The specific equation is a multidimensional multifractal of a Fractal Dragon and Mandelbrot pattern. Once the systems logic is derived it should be capable of reconciling Relativity and quantum mechanics, along with thermodynamics and everything else including psychology. Because everything is ultimately paradoxical or metaphorical, we are seeing the evidence for all of this emerge first from the physical and cognitive extremes, with Roger Penrose's theory of quantum mechanics in the brain already receiving its first two experimental confirmations. The best way to test if dreamer and the dream are one, is by follow Alice down the rabbit hole, and the evidence suggests that requires a sense of humor, while atheists and academics alike are notorious for the lack of a sense of humor, explaining why they are now waiting for the computers to spit out the numbers.

 

You can feel free to correct me but the impression that I get of the way you are using the term logic, is more like reasonable justifications. I mean more like a proper form of LOGIC as in formulating arguments with premises leading to a conclusion, validity and soundness. I agree that logic can be utilized by theists as well and likely a proportion of them use such tools but that doesn't seem to happen frequently on these forums. There is a lot more of the personal, subjective justifications of faith, which is fine but it more or less shields any discussion on the subject from analysis, counter argument, or validation.

 

Quantum mechanics implies logic is contextual, only applying in a limited number of situations, with Intuitionistic mathematics being roughly four times as complex and capable of taking a wide variety of shortcuts that make classical logic look silly and childish in its inflexibility.

 

String Theory was just an example and not one that I necessarily espouse, so you brought up Theory of Everything initially, is there any that you had in mind or just these tentatives 'slight modifications' that have yet to be realized?

 

I've already mentioned a Fractal theory of everything, which is related to Quantum Chaos theory (not to be confused with classical chaos) and Quantum Darwinism. However, it is obvious you know almost nothing about artificial intelligence or the latest research in physics. To a theoretical physicist, anything older than a decade is the age of the dinosaurs. These theories are currently formulated using classical mathematics, merely because we don't have the mathematics we need to formulate them any differently. That's what the computers will soon spit out, finally proving at long last, that academics and atheists prefer the sound of their own voices because, hardly anybody ever listens to them unless, of course, there are money or guns involved.

 

However you define logic, that’s how theists view their faith. Many believe that logic (the actual definition) is how they came to their beliefs. A lot of believers think the Bible is logical, not just a spiritual text. (for example)

 

I didn't invent logic and not using it arbitrarily.

I.E logic like:

To have died is to not be alive
Barbara Bush died
Therefore Barbara Bush is not alive


Do you care to share some examples of some claiming the Bible is a logical text? I don't doubt that but most of what I've read from Christian Philosophers rarely ever incorporates the Bible.

 

Logic is context dependent according to both the physical and mathematical evidence. Words and concepts only have demonstrable meaning according to their uses in specific contexts. Without a context the Liar's Paradox is merely splitting so many semantic hairs, while fuzzy logic insists everything can be treated as partially true, rather than an absolute, calling the principle of identity into question. The implication is we might as well be the ants climbing the empire state building, confused as to why everything just blurs into the horizon the higher we climb. That's the same results we should eventually see in every branch of the sciences as they steadily accumulate evidence nothing makes sense when viewed in any extreme context with, for example, every astronomy headline now contradicting the last one. Making sense out of nonsense can get complicated when talking about at least 8 dimensions within a singularity, but physicists and mathematicians are currently developing all the tools required.

 

I edited your original post to have more substance.

 

Just jokes, I found the original post incomprehensible ...

What is the point you are trying to make?

 

That he can get 4 pages of dialogue going off vague musings since there are not any other compelling threads in this forum at the moment.

 

Darwin was an optimist,
Like Murphy after a few drinks.
For sex, is never about survival,
But, who is actually more creative!​

 

Hmmm...Every non-denominational pastor I’ve ever known? lol But the Catholic Church views much of the Bible as allegory.

 

I think you are confusing them asserting the bible as true with asserting the bible as logical. The belief in truthiness of the Bible is part of their faith, the logicalness of any Theologians whose views I've found to hold any weight would be something like First Cause.

 

I think for some, the line between the two is blurred.

 

Do you want to throw me a bone of anyone's work you can point to?

 

I read about Billy Graham recently, and in my opinion, he felt that his faith was also logical. He never wavered.

And a pastor that I know in a church I visit, sometimes. He seems to believe that his faith...that Christianity...can be logical.

I feel that faith is a matter of the heart but I find some of my own beliefs to be logical. I don’t think you can take faith though and apply the scientific process to it, I think that is what you’re asking?