Logic, Therefore God...

[seer]

4. Such propositions are mind dependent.

All propositions are mind dependent. And?

[seer]

Yeah, but I don't believe proposition 4 is referring to propositions 1, 2, and 3.

Of course it is...

[Stoic]

Of course it is...

Why would it matter if propositions 1, 2, and 3 are mind dependent?

[Stoic]

All propositions are mind dependent. And?

The law of identity may be mind dependent, but the fact that things are what they are is not dependent on the law of identity.

[eider]

You still are avoiding the question - why call any of this god? What do you see in the universe that leads you to assume a deity?

I'm not avoiding the question, you just cannot accept simple answers.
Everything is within the Whole = Logic.
The Whole is One = Logic.
We are part of it all = Logic.

You don't just get to assert "illogical" you need to show a violation of the laws of logic.

You have avoided answering my point about the simple fact that where there are hundreds of billions of stars in each of hundreds of billions of Galaxies in this one universe, your God chose this one planet with it's humans on it to be special, after waiting thousands of millions of years. Illogical. And the 'certain' resurrection of Jesus after his tomb was left alone for so many hours, that is another.
That you have Faith is fine, but trying to pretend that it is all so logical is just not a good idea.

[seer]

The law of identity may be mind dependent, but the fact that things are what they are is not dependent on the law of identity.

But that was not what I was speaking of, I was speaking of propositions or truths - which are mind dependent. BTW do you now agree that the law of identity is absolute?

[seer]

I'm not avoiding the question, you just cannot accept simple answers.
Everything is within the Whole = Logic.
The Whole is One = Logic.
We are part of it all = Logic.

But why call it GOD? That question you have not answered.

You have avoided answering my point about the simple fact that where there are hundreds of billions of stars in each of hundreds of billions of Galaxies in this one universe, your God chose this one planet with it's humans on it to be special, after waiting thousands of millions of years. Illogical. And the 'certain' resurrection of Jesus after his tomb was left alone for so many hours, that is another.
That you have Faith is fine, but trying to pretend that it is all so logical is just not a good idea.

Again, what law of LOGIC have I violated? It may not make sense to you - but that is merely an opinion. Not logic. And BTW - there may be many creatures in the universe that are special to God also...

[Stoic]

But that was not what I was speaking of, I was speaking of propositions or truths - which are mind dependent. BTW do you now agree that the law of identity is absolute?

My thinking is along the lines of the Euthyphro Dilemma.

If it could not be otherwise that "things are what they are", then that is the case whether there is a God or not. If it could be otherwise, then the law of identity is not absolute.

As for propositions being mind dependent, I'm fine with that. If there were no minds, then there would be no propositions.

[Machinist]

My thinking is along the lines of the Euthyphro Dilemma.

If it could not be otherwise that "things are what they are", then that is the case whether there is a God or not. If it could be otherwise, then the law of identity is not absolute.

If things could be what they are not, then it's true that the law of identity would be non-absolute. I'm not sure if Seer would agree here, but I would go further and say that if things are not what they are, then there could be no existence.

[seer]

My thinking is along the lines of the Euthyphro Dilemma.

If it could not be otherwise that "things are what they are", then that is the case whether there is a God or not. If it could be otherwise, then the law of identity is not absolute.

As for propositions being mind dependent, I'm fine with that. If there were no minds, then there would be no propositions.

Well I would not grant that any universe could exist apart from God - therefore if any universe did exist it would have the same intelligibility as ours. So again, do you believe that the law of identity is absolute?

[Stoic]

Well I would not grant that any universe could exist apart from God - therefore if any universe did exist it would have the same intelligibility as ours. So again, do you believe that the law of identity is absolute?

I'm not sure that it is, which is another way of saying "no".

[seer]

I'm not sure that it is, which is another way of saying "no".

How could something, even in theory, not equal itself? Do you have any good reasons not to think it is absolute?

[Stoic]

How could something, even in theory, not equal itself? Do you have any good reasons not to think it is absolute?

Source: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199278245.001.0001/acprof-9780199278244-chapter-8

Here, ‘quantum logic’ is taken to be the underlying logic of quantum physics. Following Schrödinger’s idea that the standard concept of identity cannot be applied to quantum objects, a kind of ‘non-reflexive’ logic called Schrödinger logic is presented, in which the reflexive law of identity is taken not to apply.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Source: https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199278245.001.0001/acprof-9780199278244-chapter-8

Here, ‘quantum logic’ is taken to be the underlying logic of quantum physics. Following Schrödinger’s idea that the standard concept of identity cannot be applied to quantum objects, a kind of ‘non-reflexive’ logic called Schrödinger logic is presented, in which the reflexive law of identity is taken not to apply.

© Copyright Original Source

Do we believe that most physicists would agree with Schrödinger logic? Or is it most likely that we really just don't understand the quantum world? And I'm not sure what it means - that a quantum particle doesn't equal itself? Then what does it equal?

[Stoic]

Do we believe that most physicists would agree with Schrödinger logic? Or is it most likely that we really just don't understand the quantum world? And I'm not sure what it means - that a quantum particle doesn't equal itself? Then what does it equal?

I don't claim to understand it. But for me, it's enough to cast a little doubt on the absoluteness of the law of identity.