Absurdity of Morality Apart From God

[Stoic]

Except your change would constitute irrationality if the LONC does not hold universally. True contradictions could exist on all levels. Even including the very claims you made above.

I think most logicians would disagree with you about whether that would constitute "irrationality".

[Tassman]

That is why I said that these laws describe how the universe actually is. And true contradictions in nature do not exist.

No, these laws describe how we use language, nothing more. It is science that “describes how the universe actually is”, the laws of logic are merely the language used to describe it. Logic alone cannot verify facts about nature, only science can do this.

The sun does not, and can not, both exist and not exist at the same moment.

Of course not, one statement excludes the other by definition. It’s a truism, not a profound insight into the absolute nature of your ‘absolute deity’ as you seem to be implying.

[seer]

I think most logicians would disagree with you about whether that would constitute "irrationality".

How are true contradictions not irrational? If your above statement could mean what it says and not mean what it says then that constitutes irrationality.

[seer]

No, these laws describe how we use language, nothing more. It is science that “describes how the universe actually is”, the laws of logic are merely the language used to describe it. Logic alone cannot verify facts about nature, only science can do this.

The laws of logic were known and discovered long before science really came into vogue. Science depends on these laws being absolute - they make science possible.

[Stoic]

How are true contradictions not irrational?

True contradictions are certainly irrational under classical logic.

They're just not absolutely irrational.

[Tassman]

The laws of logic were known and discovered long before science really came into vogue. Science depends on these laws being absolute - they make science possible.

Formal logic was not “discovered” as though it was an absolute entity in its own right – i.e., something to be “discovered” like the say, the laws and constants of the natural world. Logic is a tool of language, nothing more. It’s useful when it comes to deductions from a true premise, but logic on its own has no means of formulating verifiable premises – only science can do this. Interestingly Aristotle, who first formulated Formal Logic, was wrong about nearly every argument and conclusion he made about physical science – obviously, because he didn’t have access to modern scientific methodology.

[seer]

True contradictions are certainly irrational under classical logic.

So in theory you this could mean both:

True contradictions are certainly irrational under classical logic.

True contradictions are certainly rational under classical logic.

I don't care what system of logic you use this would be irrational.

[seer]

Formal logic was not “discovered” as though it was an absolute entity in its own right – i.e., something to be “discovered” like the say, the laws and constants of the natural world. Logic is a tool of language, nothing more. It’s useful when it comes to deductions from a true premise, but logic on its own has no means of formulating verifiable premises – only science can do this. Interestingly Aristotle, who first formulated Formal Logic, was wrong about nearly every argument and conclusion he made about physical science – obviously, because he didn’t have access to modern scientific methodology.

Not the point, yes or no, can science work without the laws of logic being absolute?

[Stoic]

So in theory you this could mean both:

True contradictions are certainly irrational under classical logic.

True contradictions are certainly rational under classical logic.

I don't care what system of logic you use this would be irrational.

No, the possible existence of true contradictions does not mean that every contradiction is possibly true.

[seer]

No, the possible existence of true contradictions does not mean that every contradiction is possibly true.

Again, how could you know where and when a true contradiction took place?

1. Your above statement is true.
2. Your above statement is false.

How could you possibly demonstrate that your statement is both true and false? What would that look like?

[Stoic]

Again, how could you know where and when a true contradiction took place?

1. Your above statement is true.
2. Your above statement is false.

How could you possibly demonstrate that your statement is both true and false? What would that look like?

Obviously, a statement that is both true and false would be a paradox. I think we have some ability to recognize paradoxes.

[seer]

Obviously, a statement that is both true and false would be a paradox. I think we have some ability to recognize paradoxes.

A paradox is generally not a contradiction, that is why we use the word paradox: : a statement that is seemingly contradictoryor opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true...

And I would suggest that when we find possible paradoxes in nature, like in the quantum world, that would be do to our lack of knowledge. We really don't know what is going on. And I would like to see an example of something that is both true and false that is not irrational.

[Stoic]

A paradox is generally not a contradiction, that is why we use the word paradox: : a statement that is seemingly contradictoryor opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true...

And I would suggest that when we find possible paradoxes in nature, like in the quantum world, that would be do to our lack of knowledge. We really don't know what is going on. And I would like to see an example of something that is both true and false that is not irrational.

From Merriam-Webster:

2 a: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
b: a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
c: an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises

Obviously, not all paradoxes would be dialetheia, but all dialetheia would be paradoxes.

[seer]

From Merriam-Webster:

2 a: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
b: a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
c: an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises

Obviously, not all paradoxes would be dialetheia, but all dialetheia would be paradoxes.

So do you have an example of something that is a clear and true contradiction that isn't irrational?

[Stoic]

So do you have an example of something that is a clear and true contradiction that isn't irrational?

No, because by convention, we use classical logic. And according to classical logic, a clear and true contradiction is always irrational.