Logic, Therefore God...

[seer]

We could, if we had some reason to.

Why would we need a reason? We could just do for the sake of doing something different. Just as we could change the rules of chess to make it more interesting. The fact is Stoic, you and I could agree to change the laws of logic until the cows come home and the sun will never both exist and not exist at the same moment. And we both know that to be the case.

[Machinist]

That does not change the fact that God is the source of both rationality and morality, whether the LONC could be violate or not in other worlds is immaterial.

Just reading through the thread again.

Question : If the law of non-contradiction could be violated in any world, wouldn't reason and all rationality be rendered null and void?

Because you said above " whether the LONC could be violated or not in other worlds is immaterial". That's a very curious statement.

If it were violated, in any world, that would be a problem wouldn't it? Even for us to consider the possibility...

The universe and all space and time would cease to be.

Relativity doesn't rest well with me, but it seems to with others.

Also, would you agree that self evident truths are necessary truths?

[Juvenal]

But there are alternatives that work better than classical logics, depending on the application.

You have to take these laws or ideals for granted for rationality to be possible. For instance Juvenal said: "But there are alternatives that work better than classical logics..." If I turned around and said that this also means that there are no alternatives that work better than classic logic ...

If we assume "there are alternatives that work better than classical logics" and "there are no alternatives that work better than classical logics," then by the rules of classical logics, you have successfully created a contradiction, from which all statements can be proven to be true.

That's called a unary logic. It's entirely consistent, but lacks any meaningful applications as far as I'm aware.

[seer]

Just reading through the thread again.

Question : If the law of non-contradiction could be violated in any world, wouldn't reason and all rationality be rendered null and void?

Because you said above " whether the LONC could be violated or not in other worlds is immaterial". That's a very curious statement.

If it were violated, in any world, that would be a problem wouldn't it? Even for us to consider the possibility...

The universe and all space and time would cease to be.

Relativity doesn't rest well with me, but it seems to with others.

Also, would you agree that self evident truths are necessary truths?

The point about the LONC being violate had to do with God being the source of logic. Since God would be the necessary source of logical truths in all possible universes the question is moot. IMHO. And yes rationality would be destroyed if the LONC was not universally valid. Every statement, claim or scientific conclusion, in theory or in reality, could be both true and false at the same time. So I believe these truths are self evident. A=A you are a human, you are not a lion...

[seer]

If we assume "there are alternatives that work better than classical logics" and "there are no alternatives that work better than classical logics," then by the rules of classical logics, you have successfully created a contradiction, from which all statements can be proven to be true.

That's called a unary logic. It's entirely consistent, but lacks any meaningful applications as far as I'm aware.

No, it is nonsense. And if that doesn't undermine all human rationality then what could? I will ask you what I asked Stoic - is it possible for the sun to exist and not exist at the same moment?

[seer]

Just reading through the thread again.

Question : If the law of non-contradiction could be violated in any world, wouldn't reason and all rationality be rendered null and void?

Because you said above " whether the LONC could be violated or not in other worlds is immaterial". That's a very curious statement.

If it were violated, in any world, that would be a problem wouldn't it? Even for us to consider the possibility...

The universe and all space and time would cease to be.

Relativity doesn't rest well with me, but it seems to with others.

Also, would you agree that self evident truths are necessary truths?

BTW you may like this debate:

[Juvenal]

No, it is nonsense. And if that doesn't undermine all human rationality then what could? I will ask you what I asked Stoic - is it possible for the sun to exist and not exist at the same moment?

Logic doesn't require the sun to exist, to not exist, or to exclusively exist or not exist.

It's possible that what we perceive as the sun is actually an illusory construct designed by an advanced intelligence to fool us into thinking the sun actually exists, when it doesn't. Possibly, it's part of a cosmic simulation, and it exists, but not in the sense we expect. And possibly, it only exists when we're looking at it, and only for the one who's looking, so it exists and doesn't exist at the same time!

Something like tens of millions of Americans think we didn't land on the moon, proving both that human rationality isn't hard to undermine and that undermining human rationality doesn't in itself cause civilization to come crashing down around us.

If the existence of your God depends on your ability to reason, then maybe that's a problem for you, but it's not a problem for me, and I'd imagine it's not a problem for most Christians who already accept the existence of God while remaining noncommittal on your reasoning abilities.

[seer]

Logic doesn't require the sun to exist, to not exist, or to exclusively exist or not exist.

It's possible that what we perceive as the sun is actually an illusory construct designed by an advanced intelligence to fool us into thinking the sun actually exists, when it doesn't. Possibly, it's part of a cosmic simulation, and it exists, but not in the sense we expect. And possibly, it only exists when we're looking at it, and only for the one who's looking, so it exists and doesn't exist at the same time!

That is just silly. And it doesn't answer the question. I'm not speaking of perceptions, which are faulty and subjective, but a proposition. So is it conceivable for the sun (or you for that fact) to both exist and not exist at the same moment?

If the existence of your God depends on your ability to reason, then maybe that's a problem for you, but it's not a problem for me, and I'd imagine it's not a problem for most Christians who already accept the existence of God while remaining noncommittal on your reasoning abilities.

Of course I would say that you only have rational abilities because of said God. As far as I know brain chemicals don't care about or aim for rationality.

[Machinist]

Seer,

Just to get a fresh angle, I have replaced "necessary" with "Self Evident". Do you feel like it alters the meaning in any way?



1. Self Evident truths exist.

2. The law of identity (A=A) is a Self evident truth.

3. Self Evident truths are true in all possible worlds.

4. Such propositions are mind dependent.

5. Human minds are contingent, they are not necessary in all possible worlds, therefore the propositions they harbor can not traverse all possible worlds..

6. An eternal transcendent Mind would accommodate Self Evident Truths in all possible worlds.

7. Therefore an eternal transcendent Mind is necessary for Self Evident Truths to exist in all possible worlds.


Also, what would a "possible world" be? What would be a satisfactory answer to that? The only possible world I can think of is my own. Anything outside that is unknown and as far as I know cannot be known. I'm not clear as to why your syllogism needs to have "possible world" in it at all.

Thanks!

[Machinist]

BTW you may like this debate:

I'll set aside some time over the weekend to watch this. Thanks. I'm really interested in getting a handle on this!

Thanks!

[seer]

Seer,

Just to get a fresh angle, I have replaced "necessary" with "Self Evident". Do you feel like it alters the meaning in any way?



1. Self Evident truths exist.

2. The law of identity (A=A) is a Self evident truth.

3. Self Evident truths are true in all possible worlds.

4. Such propositions are mind dependent.

5. Human minds are contingent, they are not necessary in all possible worlds, therefore the propositions they harbor can not traverse all possible worlds..

6. An eternal transcendent Mind would accommodate Self Evident Truths in all possible worlds.

7. Therefore an eternal transcendent Mind is necessary for Self Evident Truths to exist in all possible worlds.


Also, what would a "possible world" be? What would be a satisfactory answer to that? The only possible world I can think of is my own. Anything outside that is unknown and as far as I know cannot be known. I'm not clear as to why your syllogism needs to have "possible world" in it at all.

Thanks!

I like your take, I see no problem with it. All possible worlds is simply a mental exercise suggesting that these things must remain true in any situation or world (or universe). If God did in fact create other worlds these truths would be evident in them also, and dependent on Him..

[Machinist]

The proposition about "changing over time therefore i'm not the same I", can be reduced further.

It can be reduced to "I am human".

It seems that the self evident and necessary truths are the irreducible ones.

The sun exists for the sunbather, but does not exist for the say, the blind man. The sun exists and does not exist at the same time. That is true as a proposition.

But it can be reduced further to "the sun exists".

Agree/Disagree?



I'm just clarifying some thoughts here.

[seer]

The proposition about "changing over time therefore i'm not the same I", can be reduced further.

It can be reduced to "I am human".

It seems that the self evident and necessary truths are the irreducible ones.

The sun exists for the sunbather, but does not exist for the say, the blind man. The sun exists and does not exist at the same time. That is true as a proposition.

But it can be reduced further to "the sun exists".

Agree/Disagree?



I'm just clarifying some thoughts here.

But the sun still exists, even if the blind man doesn't see it. The main point is that the sun can not both exist and not exist at the same moment. That is the true proposition. And that is not dependent on our subjective view of the sun or lack of. It would still be true even if no human minds existed.

[Machinist]

But the sun still exists, even if the blind man doesn't see it. The main point is that the sun can not both exist and not exist at the same moment. That is the true proposition. And that is not dependent on our subjective view of the sun or lack of. It would still be true even if no human minds existed.

Yes, but you can say that it doesn't exist to the blind man, and in a sense that would be true...it would be somewhat sensible, somewhat communicable. You would naturally understand what was meant by that.

The fact is that people (minds) can agree that something can exist and not exist at the same time. This seems to be the foundation for the atheist worldview. That everything hinges on what can be formulated with relative logic when describing subjective perceptions. That is given more weight in the atheist worldview, more priority than the physical real world where things exist independent of minds. I would like to ask the atheist why this is given more weight and consideration? Surely, there are self evident truths that we all can perceive...that are universal to all.

[seer]

Yes, but you can say that it doesn't exist to the blind man, and in a sense that would be true...it would be somewhat sensible, somewhat communicable. You would naturally understand what was meant by that.

The fact is that people (minds) can agree that something can exist and not exist at the same time. This seems to be the foundation for the atheist worldview. That everything hinges on what can be formulated with relative logic when describing subjective perceptions. That is given more weight in the atheist worldview, more priority than the physical real world where things exist independent of minds. I would like to ask the atheist why this is given more weight and consideration? Surely, there are self evident truths that we all can perceive...that are universal to all.

That is why I said to Juvenal:I'm not speaking of perceptions, which are faulty and subjective, but a proposition. So is it conceivable for the sun (or you for that fact) to both exist and not exist at the same moment?