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

[Sparko]

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.

What is illogical is that statement. If I give you absolute truth statements, that proves that there are absolute truth statements. duh.

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 just gave you several absolute truth statements that you are capable of knowing and understanding, so you claim is false (that is another absolutely true statement, btw)

Logic is about reality, what is REAL, or TRUE, so if there is absolute truth, then there is absolute logic. It is how we know the absolute truth. Your arguments against it are ridiculous and nonsensical. It is like a 5-year-old arguing that math does not exist and no matter how much you prove to him that it does exist, he just repeats himself. That is you, Shuny. That is you.

[shunyadragon]

What is illogical is that statement. If I give you absolute truth statements, that proves that there are absolute truth statements. duh.



I just gave you several absolute truth statements that you are capable of knowing and understanding, so you claim is false (that is another absolutely true statement, btw)

No you gave me a few examples of non-contradiction on the level of human perception. It remains a logical fallacy to conclude a universal truth based on a few cases. You cannot conclude black swans do not exist, because you only find white swans.

Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Black-swan_fallacy

Black-swan fallacy

The black-swan fallacy is an inductive fallacy that states that if something has not occurred within the speaker's experience, it cannot occur. In other words, the fallacy states that just because something has always been a certain way in the speaker's experience, it is always that way as a matter of universal principle. The example that gave its name to the fallacy is "Every swan that I have ever seen is white; therefore; there are no black swans."

Related fallacies
If the speaker suppresses evidence of black swans, the fallacy becomes the cherry-picking fallacy. If the speaker is shown evidence of a black swan and maintains the position, the fallacy becomes the fallacy of invincible ignorance if the speaker simply ignores that evidence or the no true Scotsman fallacy if the speaker attempts to explain away that evidence.

© Copyright Original Source

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.

[seer]

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

But you already agreed that we can understand the law of non contradiction and that it was absolute! So what the hell are you talking about!

[seer]

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.

Let's try it this way, a definition:

The law of non-contradiction can be expressed simply as such: A cannot be both B and non-B at the same time and in the same sense.

Are you saying that God's definition is different than ours?

[shunyadragon]

But you already agreed that we can understand the law of non contradiction, . . .

Not in the sense of the absolute. Humans comprehend the law of non-contradiction from the fallible human perspective. The citation from the Stanford Dictionary reference deals with that problem

. . . and that it was absolute! So what the hell are you talking about!

The absolute sense is only from the perspective of the ultimate absolute.

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.

[shunyadragon]

Let's try it this way, a definition:

No problem, but it does not address the issue at hand, which is addressed below.

Are you saying that God's definition is different than ours?

God's comprehension is from the absolute perspective of 'absolute truth.' The fallible human perspective is incapable of comprehending God's perspective of 'absolute truth.'

[seer]

Not in the sense of the absolute. Humans comprehend the law of non-contradiction from the fallible human perspective. The citation from the Stanford Dictionary reference deals with that problem



The absolute sense is only from the perspective of the ultimate absolute.

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.

Let's try it this way, a definition:

The law of non-contradiction can be expressed simply as such: A cannot be both B and non-B at the same time and in the same sense.

Are you saying that God's definition is different than ours?

[seer]

God's comprehension is from the absolute perspective of 'absolute truth.' The fallible human perspective is incapable of comprehending God's perspective of 'absolute truth.'

Is God's definition different than ours? Or are they the same?

[shunyadragon]

Is God's definition different than ours? Or are they the same?

I personally do not claim to know God's definition. It's not in my job description and pay grade.

God's comprehension is from the absolute perspective of 'absolute truth.' The fallible human perspective is incapable of comprehending God's perspective of 'absolute truth.'

[Sparko]

No you gave me a few examples of non-contradiction on the level of human perception. It remains a logical fallacy to conclude a universal truth based on a few cases. You cannot conclude black swans do not exist, because you only find white swans.

Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Black-swan_fallacy

Black-swan fallacy

The black-swan fallacy is an inductive fallacy that states that if something has not occurred within the speaker's experience, it cannot occur. In other words, the fallacy states that just because something has always been a certain way in the speaker's experience, it is always that way as a matter of universal principle. The example that gave its name to the fallacy is "Every swan that I have ever seen is white; therefore; there are no black swans."

Related fallacies
If the speaker suppresses evidence of black swans, the fallacy becomes the cherry-picking fallacy. If the speaker is shown evidence of a black swan and maintains the position, the fallacy becomes the fallacy of invincible ignorance if the speaker simply ignores that evidence or the no true Scotsman fallacy if the speaker attempts to explain away that evidence.

© Copyright Original Source

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.

what. the. heck. are. you. talking. about?

I made no statements about self-contradiction.

If I show you a black swan, it is evidence that black swans exists.

If I give you an absolute truth statement, it is proof that absolute truth exists.

You are freaking insane, shuny. I feel like I am arguing with a real life nut case here. I will simply allow you to keep your insanity and stop responding to you.

[shunyadragon]

what. the. heck. are. you. talking. about?

I made no statements about self-contradiction.

If I show you a black swan, it is evidence that black swans exists.

If I give you an absolute truth statement, it is proof that absolute truth exists.

You are freaking insane, shuny. I feel like I am arguing with a real life nut case here. I will simply allow you to keep your insanity and stop responding to you.

You have only tried to show me white swans . . .

I remains a logical fallacy by definition.

No you gave me a few examples of non-contradiction on the level of human perception. It remains a logical fallacy to conclude a universal truth based on a few cases. You cannot conclude black swans do not exist, because you only find white swans.

Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Black-swan_fallacy

Black-swan fallacy

The black-swan fallacy is an inductive fallacy that states that if something has not occurred within the speaker's experience, it cannot occur. In other words, the fallacy states that just because something has always been a certain way in the speaker's experience, it is always that way as a matter of universal principle. The example that gave its name to the fallacy is "Every swan that I have ever seen is white; therefore; there are no black swans."

Related fallacies
If the speaker suppresses evidence of black swans, the fallacy becomes the cherry-picking fallacy. If the speaker is shown evidence of a black swan and maintains the position, the fallacy becomes the fallacy of invincible ignorance if the speaker simply ignores that evidence or the no true Scotsman fallacy if the speaker attempts to explain away that evidence.

© Copyright Original Source

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.

[seer]

No you gave me a few examples of non-contradiction on the level of human perception. It remains a logical fallacy to conclude a universal truth based on a few cases. You cannot conclude black swans do not exist, because you only find white swans.

But that is not what he said, he did not commit that particular fallacy. Black swans exist, that is an absolute truth, it is universally true, and absolutely true for God too. He did not argue that all swans are black from the example of one black swan. That is the fallacy - not what Sparko did. You really don't understand any of this do you Shuny?

[seer]

I personally do not claim to know God's definition. It's not in my job description and pay grade.

Well it can't be different because if it was logical contradictions would then be possible - and they are not. As you already agreed.

[shunyadragon]

Well it can't be different because if it was logical contradictions would then be possible - and they are not. As you already agreed.

It sure can, because the fallible human perspective cannot know the 'absolute truth' of God.

[seer]

It sure can, because the fallible human perspective cannot know the 'absolute truth' of God.

So logical contradictions can exist for God, for God the sun can logically both exist and not exist at the same moment? But you said: Contradictions do not exist in any form in the ultimate absolute nature of our existence whether God exists or not.