Absurdity of Morality Apart From God

[Tassman]

A = A will always be true because it's a tautology. The LNC flows form that tautology. The LEM is admittedly iffy.

Indeed. But it is no more than a statement of the obvious.

[seer]

Indeed. But it is no more than a statement of the obvious.

But absolute...

[Diogenes]

But absolute...

Tautologies are inherently absolute and universal. That's just how they function.

[seer]

Tautologies are inherently absolute and universal. That's just how they function.

Do you agree that the law of non contradiction is absolute?

[Diogenes]

Do you agree that the law of non contradiction is absolute?

To me, the Liar's Paradox and Dialetheism is more about the LEM, not the LNC. LNC follows from the LOI, which, in itself, is a tautology. I don't have an issue with the LNC being absolute, but the LNC being absolute doesn't require a deity.

[Tassman]

But absolute...

"Absolute" only in the sense that we define them to be absolute as per the agreement we reach in accepting that 2 + 2 = 4.. There are no absolute true premises, except ones we ourselves define to be true and absolute..

[seer]

"Absolute" only in the sense that we define them to be absolute as per the agreement we reach in accepting that 2 + 2 = 4.. There are no absolute true premises, except ones we ourselves define to be true and absolute..

No, absolute in the sense they can not be other than they are like A = A. The law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself. This is universally true no matter what premises you start with.

[Tassman]

No, absolute in the sense they can not be other than they are like A = A. The law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself. This is universally true no matter what premises you start with.

Logic can be used to deduce true consequences from true premises. But we have no true premises except those to which you are referring. Namely tautologies which we define and accept to be true (such as 2+2=4). In short, logic alone is limited in its application. It can tell us nothing new about the real world.

[seer]

Logic can be used to deduce true consequences from true premises. But we have no true premises except those to which you are referring. Namely tautologies which we define and accept to be true (such as 2+2=4). In short, logic alone is limited in its application. It can tell us nothing new about the real world.

Yet the laws of logic are the primary things that make science even possible.

[Tassman]

Yet the laws of logic are the primary things that make science even possible.

Logic is necessary, as in ALL discourse, to ensure self-consistency and prevent errors of false inference - but that’s all it does, it’s an agreement as to how we use language. It is totally unable to generate new truths about nature in and of itself.

It is science, NOT Logic, that has the mechanism to discover, or construct and test scientific laws and theories NOT Logic.

[seer]

Logic is necessary, as in ALL discourse, to ensure self-consistency and prevent errors of false inference - but that’s all it does, it’s an agreement as to how we use language. It is totally unable to generate new truths about nature in and of itself.

It is science, NOT Logic, that has the mechanism to discover, or construct and test scientific laws and theories NOT Logic.

Again, science can not work without logical. Logic proceeds and under girds all science. Without these laws science is useless.

[Stoic]

Again, science can not work without logical. Logic proceeds and under girds all science. Without these laws science is useless.

That still doesn't mean the laws of logic have to be absolute.

[seer]

That still doesn't mean the laws of logic have to be absolute.

Then in reality your above statement could be both true and false.

[Stoic]

Then in reality your above statement could be both true and false.

No.

[seer]

No.

Why not? If the LONC is not absolute you could never know that.