Did God create logic? Or is logic further evidence of God�s existence?

[Sparko]

Your argument that the law of non-contradiction was absolute.

can you provide even one example where it is not?

[shunyadragon]

Again, I said nothing about all white swans. My whole argument was that true contradictions CAN NOT exist. A position BTW - I think you agree with.

Than you are of very limited comprehension to understand English and logical fallacies.

[seer]

Than you are of very limited comprehension to understand English and logical fallacies.

Are you kidding Shuny? It was a very clear point - I'm claiming that true contradictions can not exist - do you agree or not?

[seer]

Shuny, we are not speaking of people holding views that are in contradiction, people are often irrational. We are speaking of true contradictions like with my sun example, real physical contradictions.

[Sparko]

Source: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4/handouts/phl4contradiction.htm

Logical Consistency and Contradiction

G. Randolph Mayes

Consistency and Contradiction

We say that a statement, or set of statements is logically consistent when it involves no logical contradiction. A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and its denial not-S. In logic, it is a fundamental law- the law of non contradiction- that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time. Here are some simple examples of contradictions.

1. I love you and I don't love you.
2. Butch is married to Barb but Barb is not married to Butch.
3. I know I promised to show up today, but I don't see why I should come if I don't feel like it.
4. The restaurant opens at five o'clock and it begins serving between four and nine.
5. John Lasagna will be a little late for the party. He died yesterday.


These all seem to be contradictions because they seem either explicitly to state or logically imply a certain statement and its denial. (1) is an explicit contradiction. You can't love someone and not love someone at the same time. (2) is an implicit contradiction. It depends on the unstated but well known principle: if x is married to y, then y is married to x. (3) is also an implicit contradiction. It depends on the unstated meaning of promising, namely, that whenever you promise to do something you thereby acquire a moral obligation to do it.

Very often contradictions are only apparent. For example someone in a love-hate relationship might utter something like (1), meaning "I love you in some ways, but I hate you in others". This, of course, is not a contradiction at all. (4) also can look like a contradiction, but this may just be the result of unclarity. Perhaps the restaurant opens at 5:00 in the morning. (5) is not literally a contradiction, since a dead person could show up at a party. We call it a contradiction just because the statement "John will be a little late for the party," strongly suggests that John will be alive when he shows up.

When we tell people that they aren't making any sense, it is often because we think that they are saying something contradictory. In a Dilbert cartoon one of Dilbert's office mates is complaining that she hasn't been trained how to use the new computer. The conversation proceeds as follows:

Dilbert: Why don't you just read the manual?
Office mate: Right. Who has time to do that?
Dilbert: You mean you have time to go to a training session, but you don't have time to read the manual? That doesn't add up.
Here Dilbert's point is obviously that she is contradicting herself : She is saying that she has time to learn and she doesn't. Of course she might not really be contradicting herself at all. It may be that she finds computer manuals very hard to understand, so that the time it takes to be trained really is far less than the time it would take to learn from the manual.
This example shows that while it is very important to be logically consistent, it is also important to permit people to be so. When people speak in a way that seems logically contradictory it is often just because they are not speaking completely or clearly. So the point of exposing apparent contradictions is not, ultimately, to criticize peoples views as nonsensical, but rather to make them be clearer about what they are saying.

Even when someone really is contradicting himself we often tend to go too far in the criticism. For example, if I were to tell you that I do not like to eat fish, and you knew that I often ate and enjoyed tuna salad sandwiches, you would be justified in pointing out that I was involved in a logical contradiction and you might reason as follows:

"I know you like tuna sandwiches, and tuna is fish, so you are saying that you both do and don't like fish. That makes no sense."
It is important to observe, however, that you would not have been justified in responding as follows:
"I know you like tuna sandwiches and since tuna is a fish you do like at least one fish."
The difference between these two responses is subtle but important. In the first case you have informed me, correctly, that I can not both like tuna and not like tuna at the same time, but you allowed me to make up my mind about which statement I am going to revise. In the second case you assumed that my commitment to liking tuna is stronger than my commitment to not liking fish, and instructed me to revise my view that I don't like fish. But suppose that the information that tuna is a fish made me sick to my stomach- perhaps I had never fully appreciated this fact- I may, as a consequence, never touch tuna again. In that case, I would have revised the statement that I like tuna and thereby preserved the generalization that I don't like fish . You might consider this to be an absurd outcome, but it's not actually logically contradictory, because its not a contradiction to like tuna at one time and not like it at another.
The point here is that exposing a logical contradiction is just the beginning of a useful criticism. If the contradiction we point out is real, then we have essentially challenged the speaker to revise his or her views in one of several possible ways. A full, fair, critique, must take account of the various possible ways that this can be done.

Consider another example: Suppose I believe that atheists are bad people, and that all my friends are good people. But Mr. Pheeper, my long-time friend, decides that he is an atheist. I am now faced with accepting the following list of statements:

(a) Mr. Pheeper is my friend
(b) All my friends are good people.
(c) Mr. Pheeper is an atheist.
(d) All atheists are bad people.

These four statements are logically contradictory, because they jointly imply that Mr. Pheeper is both a good person and a bad person. Logic requires some sort of revision to my set of beliefs, but logic does not demand one particular revision. I could (a) decide that Mr. Pheeper is no longer my friend, (b) decide that atheists aren't necessarily bad people, (c) decide that not all my friends are good people, or (d) decide Mr. Pheeper is not an atheist even though he says that he is. The point is that these are all possible solutions, each of which must be examined on their own merits.

© Copyright Original Source

again, that only proves that the law of non-contradiction IS absolute. I asked for evidence that it was NOT. Try again.

[seer]

again, that only proves that the law of non-contradiction IS absolute. I asked for evidence that it was NOT. Try again.

It is strange that he would try and use the idea of people holding irrational views. No one is arguing that people don't.

[shunyadragon]

can you provide even one example where it is not?

Source: http://www.nov79.com/qntm.html

Contradictions in Quantum Mechanics

electrons

Physicists admit there is a contradiction in quantum mechanics. They say radiation exists as particles and waves. Even though the two concepts contradict each other, physicists apply them both to light.

The reason for assuming radiation is like a particle is that it imparts energy to orbiting electrons in large leaps. Electrons which orbit nuclei will only increase their energy in stages, as they jump from one "orbital" to another. The radiation which imparts energy to orbiting electrons has to be just the right frequency. The assumption is that the reason why the frequency has to be just right is because there are different amounts of energy in each frequency, and a particle of energy seems to be required.

That isn't what happens. Particles have length, width and height; energy does not. The reason why the frequency has to be just right is because a wave must bump the electron on one side of its orbit only. If both sides are bumped, one effect will neutralize the other. When the frequency is just right, an electron can be bumped repeatedly, until it acquires enough energy to jump to a higher orbit. With repeated bumps, a wave does not have to have the same energy within it as the electron acquires.

How can physicists be so wrong with quantum mechanics and be such wizards on subjects such as relativity? Relativity is nonfalsifiable, because it is totally contrived. It is only the obscurity which makes it unquestionable fact. There are other areas in physics more visible to outside observers which show obvious contradictions. The nature of chemical energy is an example.

. . .

There is no way to increase chemical energy other than radiation. (ATP and similar reactions do not increase energy; they transfers energy with some loss.) Heat and pressure will not increase chemical energy, because they act upon nuclei, while chemical energy is in electrons which spin around nuclei. There is nothing that can be done to nuclei which will increase the motion of electrons which spin around them short of a nuclear reaction. (All chemical reactions go down-hill energetically with some energy loss as heat. There is not a one which does not lose energy apart from photochemical reactions.)

It means so-called fossil fuels did not originate with biological materials, because they were not exposed to light in a way which would increase the chemical energy from carbohydrates to hydrocarbons.

Physicists do something similar in the study of ATP. Several rotating proteins have been found in the mechanism for energizing the chemical energy carrier, ATP, through respiration. Biophysicists said that "binding force" and motion transfer energy from the rotating proteins to the ATP precursor. They assume chemical energy is derived from the kinetic energy of force and motion. Kinetic energy cannot be transformed into chemical energy; only radiant energy can.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

[cite=http://www.nov79.com/qntm.html]
Contradictions in Quantum Mechanics

electrons

Physicists admit there is a contradiction in quantum mechanics. They say radiation exists as particles and waves. Even though the two concepts contradict each other, physicists apply them both to light.

Good, finally something! So Shuny do you believe that this is a true contradiction or an apparent one due to our lack of knowledge? BTW Shuny, this guy whom you quote - Gary Novak - also believes that Global warming is a hoax. Is this who you want to rely on? And he believes that most of science get most everything wrong: http://www.nov79.com/scbr.html

[Sparko]

Source: http://www.nov79.com/qntm.html

Contradictions in Quantum Mechanics

electrons

Physicists admit there is a contradiction in quantum mechanics. They say radiation exists as particles and waves. Even though the two concepts contradict each other, physicists apply them both to light.

The reason for assuming radiation is like a particle is that it imparts energy to orbiting electrons in large leaps. Electrons which orbit nuclei will only increase their energy in stages, as they jump from one "orbital" to another. The radiation which imparts energy to orbiting electrons has to be just the right frequency. The assumption is that the reason why the frequency has to be just right is because there are different amounts of energy in each frequency, and a particle of energy seems to be required.

That isn't what happens. Particles have length, width and height; energy does not. The reason why the frequency has to be just right is because a wave must bump the electron on one side of its orbit only. If both sides are bumped, one effect will neutralize the other. When the frequency is just right, an electron can be bumped repeatedly, until it acquires enough energy to jump to a higher orbit. With repeated bumps, a wave does not have to have the same energy within it as the electron acquires.

How can physicists be so wrong with quantum mechanics and be such wizards on subjects such as relativity? Relativity is nonfalsifiable, because it is totally contrived. It is only the obscurity which makes it unquestionable fact. There are other areas in physics more visible to outside observers which show obvious contradictions. The nature of chemical energy is an example.

. . .

There is no way to increase chemical energy other than radiation. (ATP and similar reactions do not increase energy; they transfers energy with some loss.) Heat and pressure will not increase chemical energy, because they act upon nuclei, while chemical energy is in electrons which spin around nuclei. There is nothing that can be done to nuclei which will increase the motion of electrons which spin around them short of a nuclear reaction. (All chemical reactions go down-hill energetically with some energy loss as heat. There is not a one which does not lose energy apart from photochemical reactions.)

It means so-called fossil fuels did not originate with biological materials, because they were not exposed to light in a way which would increase the chemical energy from carbohydrates to hydrocarbons.

Physicists do something similar in the study of ATP. Several rotating proteins have been found in the mechanism for energizing the chemical energy carrier, ATP, through respiration. Biophysicists said that "binding force" and motion transfer energy from the rotating proteins to the ATP precursor. They assume chemical energy is derived from the kinetic energy of force and motion. Kinetic energy cannot be transformed into chemical energy; only radiant energy can.

© Copyright Original Source

That is not an actual contradiction. It just means that photons can act as both waves and particles. We thought that was impossible but it isn't. That is just us learning new things. That is not an example of an actual contradiction. The photon is not actually existing and not existing at the same time for instance. Remember the law of non-contradiction? A cannot be A and NOT-A at the same time and in the same sense? A photon is not a wave and not a wave at the same time in the same sense. It is both a wave and a particle at the same time, in different senses.

So again, would you like to give an example of an actual contradiction that exists in reality? not apparent ones that are not actually contradictions?

[seer]

That is not an actual contradiction. It just means that photons can act as both waves and particles. We thought that was impossible but it isn't. That is just us learning new things. That is not an example of an actual contradiction. The photon is not actually existing and not existing at the same time for instance. Remember the law of non-contradiction? A cannot be A and NOT-A at the same time and in the same sense? A photon is not a wave and not a wave at the same time in the same sense. It is both a wave and a particle at the same time, in different senses.

So again, would you like to give an example of an actual contradiction that exists in reality? not apparent ones that are not actually contradictions?

Never mind that the guy he quotes believes that most of science has most everything wrong: http://www.nov79.com/scbr.html

[Sparko]

Never mind that the guy he quotes believes that most of science has most everything wrong: http://www.nov79.com/scbr.html

Shuny is using google logic. If you google something that agrees with you, then it must be true.

[seer]

Shuny is using google logic. If you google something that agrees with you, then it must be true.

I mean he is really getting desperate! Shuny would probably disagree with everything else he says.

[Sparko]

I mean he is really getting desperate! Shuny would probably disagree with everything else he says.

he didn't bother to check his source. he googled something, found a tidbit that seemed to agree with him and grabbed it. A true google scholar.

Shuny seems to have totally lost it long ago. He stopped making sense many, many pages ago.

[Leonhard]

There's nothing wrong with using Google to look up something. Its a fine enough search-engine, and if you know what you're looking for, you can often find something good and reliable if you have critical sense.

What's wrong is that Shunya doesn't seem to read what he Google searches in haste to come up with an answer. He doesn't know what he's looking for, and he doesn't know how to sort crap from good things, and even he found a reputable source, he doesn't really read it. He just skims it for keywords such and cite a part he thinks agrees with him, and then doesn't respond to criticism of how he's citing his sources.

Something as basic as spotting whether the guy you're citing is a total crank, as seer pointed out, really speaks to your reading comprehension. I mean the most recent guy cited doesn't believe fossil fuels came from decaying matter, and babbles incoherently about physics.

Which is kinda like Shunya who doesn't know the first thing about Quantum Mechanics or Cosmology for that matter. Just what he's read in Pop Sci articles.

[JimL]

You are right. even if God didn't exist A could not be A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense. God doesn't create logic, logic is how we describe reality and truth. It exists because reality exists.

Thank you. So, in answer to the O.P., there is no reason to believe that a god created logic, nor that logic itself is evidence of a gods existence. I think this case is closed.