Absurdity of Morality Apart From God

[Stoic]

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

By convention, we all use classical logic. So we can know that a statement can't be true and false at the same time.

It's kind of like how two chess players have to agree on the rules of the game in order to play. From observing a chess tournament one might think the rules are absolute, but they aren't.

[Tassman]

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

Indeed. But it is WE who have decided to agree on the rules of logic just as it is, WE who have decided on the rules of football or etiquette. They are not “absolute” in and of themselves.

[seer]

By convention, we all use classical logic. So we can know that a statement can't be true and false at the same time.

It's kind of like how two chess players have to agree on the rules of the game in order to play. From observing a chess tournament one might think the rules are absolute, but they aren't.

No Stoic, that is not correct. You are suggesting that classic logical laws are not absolute so your statement, in theory, can be both true and false. If true contradictions are a possibility then they are possible - even as applied to your statement.

[seer]

Indeed. But it is WE who have decided to agree on the rules of logic just as it is, WE who have decided on the rules of football or etiquette. They are not “absolute” in and of themselves.

That makes no sense - if the laws of logic are mere conventions that we agree on rather than universal truths that we discover then they are relative and not absolute. The sun could not both exist and not exist at the same moment - whether there were any minds in the universe to agree with the LONC or not.

[Tassman]

That makes no sense - if the laws of logic are mere conventions that we agree on rather than universal truths that we discover then they are relative and not absolute.

The Laws of Logic have their place but they can do no more than deduce true consequences from true premises. They do NOT have the means to obtain scientifically true premises on their own – for this you need scientific methodology.

The sun could not both exist and not exist at the same moment - whether there were any minds in the universe to agree with the LONC or not.

The existence of the sun, or any other natural phenomena, is a problem for science, NOT formal logic as Aristotle discovered. Nearly every argument and conclusion he made about the physical sciences was wrong.

[seer]

The Laws of Logic have their place but they can do no more than deduce true consequences from true premises. They do NOT have the means to obtain scientifically true premises on their own – for this you need scientific methodology.


The existence of the sun, or any other natural phenomena, is a problem for science, NOT formal logic as Aristotle discovered. Nearly every argument and conclusion he made about the physical sciences was wrong.

Again, science can not function without the laws of logic. They are essential to scientific inquiry.

[Stoic]

No Stoic, that is not correct. You are suggesting that classic logical laws are not absolute so your statement, in theory, can be both true and false. If true contradictions are a possibility then they are possible - even as applied to your statement.

In theory, gravity could reverse itself tomorrow, and we could all go flying off into space.

But I'm not too worried about it.

[Cow Poke]

In theory, gravity could reverse itself tomorrow, and we could all go flying off into space.

But I'm not too worried about it.

Wait, WHAT? That's a THING?

[seer]

In theory, gravity could reverse itself tomorrow, and we could all go flying off into space.

But I'm not too worried about it.

But you can't categorically claim that your statement couldn't be both true and false. As you did.

[Stoic]

But you can't categorically claim that your statement couldn't be both true and false. As you did.

You can according to classical logic, which we all use by convention.

[Tassman]

Again, science can not function without the laws of logic. They are essential to scientific inquiry.

Logic has its place in science. It is the glue that holds the scientific structure together by ensuring self-consistency and preventing errors of false inference. But it cannot generate new facts about the real world. For this you need science.

[seer]

You can according to classical logic, which we all use by convention.

Sheesh Stoic, you question the very absoluteness classical logic. So no you don't get to have it both ways. Either it is possible for true contradictions to exist or it's not.

[seer]

Logic has its place in science. It is the glue that holds the scientific structure together by ensuring self-consistency and preventing errors of false inference. But it cannot generate new facts about the real world. For this you need science.

Well we agree on that!

[Stoic]

Sheesh Stoic, you question the very absoluteness classical logic. So no you don't get to have it both ways. Either it is possible for true contradictions to exist or it's not.

That's like saying you can't play chess unless you agree that the rules of chess are absolute. Turns out you can.

You can use classical logic, and even make some pretty good arguments, without agreeing that the laws of classical logic are absolute.

You are free to believe that the laws of logic are absolute, since I can't prove they aren't. (Though I think the existence of non-classical logics is pretty persuasive.)

By the same token, I'm free to believe they are not absolute, since you can't prove that they are.

[seer]

That's like saying you can't play chess unless you agree that the rules of chess are absolute. Turns out you can.

You can use classical logic, and even make some pretty good arguments, without agreeing that the laws of classical logic are absolute.

You are free to believe that the laws of logic are absolute, since I can't prove they aren't. (Though I think the existence of non-classical logics is pretty persuasive.)

By the same token, I'm free to believe they are not absolute, since you can't prove that they are.

So do you believe that true contradictions are possible?