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

[shunyadragon]

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.

Still fudging 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 . . .

[seer]

Still fudging 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 . . .

Shuny, you are not making sense. You were the one who linked the Aristotle page. And you said that you understood the law of non-contradiction - "very well." And that that law was absolute. So you are agreeing that we can understand the law and that the law is absolute. What exactly are you disagreeing with me about? And what contemporary references are you speaking of? Can you re-post one?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you are not making sense. You were the one who linked the Aristotle page. And you said that you understood the law of non-contradiction - "very well." And that that law was absolute. So you are agreeing that we can understand the law and that the law is absolute. What exactly are you disagreeing with me about? And what contemporary references are you speaking of? Can you re-post one?

No

Still fudging 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 . . .

[Sparko]

shuny is dodging mightily. He totally ignored my last post that gave him evidence of an absolute logical fact.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post335508

[seer]

No

Still fudging 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 . . .

Shuny, I don't know what you are objecting to? You already agreed that we we can understand the law of non-contradiction and that it was absolute. What exactly is your objection?

[seer]

I gave contemporary references you have provided nothing.

Where is the reference that you posted that claimed that we can not understand the law of non-contradiction and that it is not absolute. I can not find it. Please re-post it.

[shunyadragon]

shuny is dodging mightily. He totally ignored my last post that gave him evidence of an absolute logical fact.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post335508

zip, nada, negatory no evidence what so ever still waiting . . .

[seer]

zip, nada, negatory no evidence what so ever still waiting . . .

Where is the reference that you posted that claimed that we can not understand the law of non-contradiction and that it is not absolute?

[shunyadragon]

Where is the reference that you posted that claimed that we can not understand the law of non-contradiction and that it is not absolute. I can not find it. Please re-post it.

We are talking about the law of contradiction from the human perspective. The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy addresses this. Here is the reference I cited which deals with the problem of the human perspective of the law of non-contradiction. Please note the 'thorny issues of modern philosophy.'

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/

Aristotle's discussion of the principle of non-contradiction also raises thorny issues in many areas of modern philosophy, for example, questions about what we are committed to by our beliefs, the relationship between language, thought and the world, and the status of transcendental arguments. Arguments from conflicting appearances have proved remarkably long-lived, and debates about skepticism, realism and anti-realism continue to this day.

© Copyright Original Source

Still fudging 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 . . .

I have acknowledged that the law of non-contradiction is valid from the absolute perspective of God if God exists, and from the perspective of the ultimate Natural nature of our physical existence if God does not exist, but not from the human perspective, as the reference from the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy indicates.

[Sparko]

zip, nada, negatory no evidence what so ever still waiting . . .

merely handwaving the evidence away, the evidence that you ASKED for, doesn't make it ACTUALLY go away. You wanted evidence of an absolute logical fact, I gave you one.


The Sun is not 400 million miles away from us right now.
My car has four tires and one spare.
My home has three bedrooms.
You have a beard in your avatar picture.
If I have two oranges and you give me two more, I will have four oranges.

These are all absolute logical facts. Truths. You cannot deny them or prove them wrong.

All truth is ultimately absolute, shuny. even if you don't understand it, or keep trying to deny it. All that shows is that you are either stupid, or acting like you are.

[seer]

We are talking about the law of contradiction from the human perspective. The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy addresses this. Here is the reference I cited which deals with the problem of the human perspective of the law of non-contradiction.

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/

Aristotle's discussion of the principle of non-contradiction also raises thorny issues in many areas of modern philosophy, for example, questions about what we are committed to by our beliefs, the relationship between language, thought and the world, and the status of transcendental arguments. Arguments from conflicting appearances have proved remarkably long-lived, and debates about skepticism, realism and anti-realism continue to this day.

© Copyright Original Source

Are you kidding Shuny, that is the very link where they show how Aristotle dismantles most of those arguments. You don't even understand what you are linking. There are some in that link that would deny that the law of non-contradiction is valid, in any sense, that is their main objection. Are you agreeing with that?

I have acknowledged that the law of non-contradiction is valid from the absolute perspective of God if God exists, and from the perspective of the ultimate Natural nature of our physical existence if God does not exist, but not from the human perspective, as the reference from the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy indicates.

But you said you did understand the Law - "very well." Are you changing your mind now?

[seer]

All truth is ultimately absolute, shuny. even if you don't understand it, or keep trying to deny it. All that shows is that you are either stupid, or acting like you are.

I often feel like I'm taking advantage of someone who is mentally slow...

[shunyadragon]

merely handwaving the evidence away, the evidence that you ASKED for, doesn't make it ACTUALLY go away. You wanted evidence of an absolute logical fact, I gave you one.


The Sun is not 400 million miles away from us right now.
My car has four tires and one spare.
My home has three bedrooms.
You have a beard in your avatar picture.
If I have two oranges and you give me two more, I will have four oranges.

These are all absolute logical facts. Truths. You cannot deny them or prove them wrong.

I do not deny them as wrong, but it is a logical fallacy to conclude that anything is universally true based on selective examples which are true.

All truth is ultimately absolute, shuny. even if you don't understand it, or keep trying to deny it. All that shows is that you are either stupid, or acting like you are.

I have never denied that truth is ultimately absolute. Please cite me where I made this claim. There is most definitely ultimately absolute truth, but humans are not capable of this knowledge as far as a I know. If God exists, absolute truth resides with God. If God does not exist absolute truth lies with ultimate laws of nature and the ultimate physical nature of our existence.

I have posted the following several times. Apparently your having difficulty with elementary level reading comprehension.

I have acknowledged that the law of non-contradiction is valid from the absolute perspective of God if God exists, and from the perspective of the ultimate Natural nature of our physical existence if God does not exist, but not from the human perspective, as the reference from the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy indicates.

[shunyadragon]

I often feel like I'm taking advantage of someone who is mentally slow...

Sorry to here of your mental problems. I hope you seek medical or psychological help. It may improve your ability to respond coherently to my posts.

[shunyadragon]

Are you kidding Shuny, that is the very link where they show how Aristotle dismantles most of those arguments. You don't even understand what you are linking. There are some in that link that would deny that the law of non-contradiction is valid, in any sense, that is their main objection. Are you agreeing with that?

Still fudging seer!?!?!!?

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

Your bald unfounded assertions need academic references.

Still waiting . . .