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

[Sparko]

The bottom line of the reference I gave is the the law of non-contradiction is not absolute from the human perspective.

If you want to contribute to the debate provide an explanation and academic references that will address the claim of 'absolute logic.' Can you provide any justification that 'absolute logic' represents a usable concept from the human perspective?

The "qualifications" you are referencing are built INTO the law of non-contradiction itself, so it is in fact, absolutely true without exception. "A can not be A and Not-A at the same time and in the same sense"

[shunyadragon]

The "qualifications" you are referencing are built INTO the law of non-contradiction itself, so it is in fact, absolutely true without exception. "A can not be A and Not-A at the same time and in the same sense"

Only in the absolute sense beyond fallible human comprehension.

[Sparko]

Only in the absolute sense beyond fallible human comprehension.

again, your response is nonsensical.

You wanted evidence of "absolute logic" - I gave it. Your response was that is was "only in the absolute sense"

Are you an idiot, or insane?

[seer]

Only in the absolute sense beyond fallible human comprehension.

Again that is just silly. the law of non-contradiction is valid everywhere and at all times.

There is a distinct difference between the ultimate reality as 'absolute,' and our world is the fallible human perspective. Are you claiming like logician bones that humans can 'deduce the absolute logic?'

Of course we can deduce absolute logic - the law of non-contradiction is absolute (which you admitted above) and we understand it just fine.

[shunyadragon]

again, your response is nonsensical.

You wanted evidence of "absolute logic" - I gave it. Your response was that is was "only in the absolute sense"

Are you an idiot, or insane?

You have provided no objective evidence for absolute logic, only assertions. The existence of deductive logic does not remotely support the existence of 'absolute logic' from the human perspective.

Obective evidence please . . .

[seer]

again, your response is nonsensical.

You wanted evidence of "absolute logic" - I gave it. Your response was that is was "only in the absolute sense"

Are you an idiot, or insane?

I think his idea of not understanding anything in the "absolute" sense is a religious belief of his.

[Sparko]

You have provided no objective evidence for absolute logic, only assertions. The existence of deductive logic does not remotely support the existence of 'absolute logic' from the human perspective.

Obective evidence please . . .

It is absolutely true that you posted the above quoted words.

bam.

[shunyadragon]

Again that is just silly. the law of non-contradiction is valid everywhere and at all times.

Only in the absolute sense beyond fallible human comprehension as described in the reference in the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy.

Of course we can deduce absolute logic - the law of non-contradiction is absolute (which you admitted above) and we understand it just fine.

This assertion lies at the heart of our disagreement. No, we do not agree fallible humans can deduce 'absolute logic.' I acknowledge the existence of absolute non-contradiction in the ultimate reality whether God exists or not. Again, your claim represents several logical fallacies as previously referenced and defined.

No, we do not share the same understanding and your logical fallacies.

[seer]

This assertion lies at the heart of our disagreement. No, we do not agree fallible humans cannot deduce 'absolute logic. I acknowledge the existence of absolute non-contradiction in the ultimate reality whether God exists or not. Again, your claim is a logical fallacy as previously referenced and defined.

No, we do not share the same understanding and your logical fallacies.

Again this is pure bunk - we do clearly understand the law of non-contradiction which is universal and absolute. So you are just making stuff up again. If not tell me what we don't understand about the law?

[shunyadragon]

Again this is pure bunk - we do clearly understand the law of non-contradiction which is universal and absolute. So you are just making stuff up again. If not tell me what we don't understand about the law?

Again, only from the universal absolute perspective, and not the fallible human perspective. Fallible humans cannot deduce anything from the absolute perspective.

Please respond to my post with references, and stop perpetuating logical fallacies.

What you have failed to demonstrate is 'absolute logic' from the human perspective.'

[seer]

Again, only from the universal absolute perspective, and not the fallible human perspective. Fallible humans cannot deduce anything from the absolute perspective.

Please respond to my post with references, and stop perpetuating logical fallacies.

What you have failed to demonstrate is 'absolute logic' from the human perspective.'

This is silly Shuny, tell me exactly what we don't understand about the law of non-contradiction? You keep making this assertion that we can not know, but you failed to show how the law could possibly be different from what we know.

[shunyadragon]

This is silly Shuny, tell me exactly what we don't understand about the law of non-contradiction? You keep making this assertion that we can not know, but you failed to show how the law could possibly be different from what we know.

I understand the law of non-contradiction very well. Your not responding to the posts.

The fallible human perspective does not represent the 'absolute logic' nor 'absolute certainty.'

You, like logician bones, also have failed to provide any academic references to support your assertion of 'absolute logic.'

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

I understand the law of non-contradiction very well. Your not responding to the posts.

The fallible human perspective does not represent the 'absolute logic' nor 'absolute certainty.'

You, like logician bones, also have failed to provide any academic references to support your assertion of 'absolute logic.'

Still waiting . . .

So you can understand the law of non-contradiction. And that law is absolute. As you said earlier. So where is the problem? And stop with the academic references nonsense, you posted a link that you did not even understand - that it actually disproved what you asserted. Where Aristotle dismantled all the arguments against not understanding the law of non-contradiction.

[shunyadragon]

So you can understand the law of non-contradiction. And that law is absolute. As you said earlier. So where is the problem? And stop with the academic references nonsense, you posted a link that you did not even understand - that it actually disproved what you asserted. Where Aristotle dismantled all the arguments against not understanding the law of non-contradiction.

Aristotle is ancient history, and most definitely not always accurate. I gave contemporary references you have provided nothing.

The claim that 'humans can deduce 'absolute logic' is an unfounded assertion.

Your bald unfounded assertions need academic references.

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

Aristotle is ancient history, and most definitely not always accurate. I gave contemporary references you have provided nothing.

The claim that 'humans can deduce 'absolute logic' is an unfounded assertion.

Your bald unfounded assertions need academic references.

Still waiting . . .

Stop fudging Shuny. You already admitted that you understand law of non-contradiction very well and that that law is absolute - so where exactly is the problem? Are you saying that you don't really understand the law or that it is not absolute (i.e. it could be wrong)? Which is it? And YOU were the one that linked the Aristotle page first - without even understanding it.