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

[shunyadragon]

NO ONE SAID THAT ONLY WHITE SWANS EXIST. I, and Sparko, said the black swans exist - how is that a generalization?

In the fallacy; white swans are non-contradictions and black swans are possible contradictions. No, you did not indicate that it is possible that contradictions possibly exist.

[seer]

In the fallacy; white swans are non-contradictions and black swans are possible contradictions. No, you did not indicate that it is possible that contradictions possibly exist.

What the hell are you talking about? How on earth is the fact that black swans exist a possible contradiction? But you do agree with your link: there are absolutely no round squares.

[shunyadragon]

What the hell are you talking about? How on earth is the fact that black swans exist a possible contradiction?

My recommendation is go back to elementary school and work your way up to philosophy 101, and come back when you understand the basics of logic and fallacies.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".

For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

No, Shuny brought God up in our discussion, ask him.

Well, that is what the whole thread is about seer. If you can't answer that then you are just wasting your time on this thread.

[shunyadragon]

What the hell are you talking about? How on earth is the fact that black swans exist a possible contradiction? But you do agree with your link: there are absolutely no round squares.

Again and again . . . you are indicating only one possible non-contradiction example. In this case only one white swan. Read again, if by some chance you are actually literate.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".

For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

My recommendation is go back to elementary school and work your way up to philosophy 101, and come back when you understand the basics of logic and fallacies.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".

For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.

© Copyright Original Source

Shuny, you are the one who is completely clueless. We are not making a inductive argument. We did not say that all swans are black - we said that black swans exist. Period. So again how is that a possible contradiction like you said? That is an objective fact, and absolute truth. If you think otherwise please show why it isn't.

[seer]

Again and again . . . you are indicating only one possible non-contradiction example. In this case only one white swan. Read again, if by some chance you are actually literate.

Shuny, I never claimed that that we could know every absolute truth or fact, be we certainly can know some. Like from your own link: there are absolutely no round squares. So you agree that this is absolute and we can know some absolute truths or facts - correct?

Here is another one from you: from the perspective of God an 'absolute truth' there are absolutely no contradictions.

So there is another absolute truth we can know.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you are the one who is completely clueless. We are not making a inductive argument. We did not say that all swans are black - we said that black swans exist. Period.

Too many periods.

Yes you did make an inductive argument. You said all swans are white, therefore there are only non-contradictions, and there are no contradictions, or black swans. Your basic understanding of English and logic is just not there. If you admit there are possible contradictions (black swans) from the human perspective, and humans cannot deduce absolute truth, than you agree blacks swans are possible.

Are you now saying that logical contradictions (black swans) are possible from the human perspective?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I never claimed that that we could know every absolute truth or fact, be we certainly can know some. Like from your own link: there are absolutely no round squares. So you agree that this is absolute and we can know some absolute truths or facts - correct?

Here is another one from you: from the perspective of God an 'absolute truth' there are absolutely no contradictions.

So there is another absolute truth we can know.

Your back peddling big time, before, like logician bones asserted humans can deduce absolute truth. Simplistic examples of non-contradictions do not demonstrate that humans can deduce absolute truth or absolute causality. You need to go back and follow logician bones' posts, reasoning, and understand the consequences of this claim. One thing logician bones concluded is that humans can absolutely logically prove the existence of God, and therefore logically deduce absolute causality.

You also need to not conflate induction and deduction. Your attempt to demonstrate that fallible humans can deduce 'absolute truth,' you used an induction argument that because humans can perceive some obvious non-contradictions you conclude that the law of contradiction is absolute from the human perspective.

It took a multitude of repetitive posts, but it is nice to hear you agree with my view. There are possible logical deductive contradictions from the human perspective. There are limits to what humans can induce and deduce, and humans cannot deduce 'absolute truth.'

[Sparko]

And if god doesn't exist, then A could still not be A and not-A at the same time. Or are you, seer, and bones, arguing that if god didn't exist, then A could be A and not-A at the same time?

You are right. even if God didn't exist A could not be A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense. God doesn't create logic, logic is how we describe reality and truth. It exists because reality exists.

[Sparko]

The problem is the claim of 'universal generalization' of the claim of absolute truth.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or "show to be false".

For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.

© Copyright Original Source

Logician bones, Sparko and you are claiming a universal generalization in absolute truth and the absolute view of the law of non-contradiction, which is the fallacy.

In science the quest is not 'universal generalization,' but a process of falsification that considers estability and does not consider anything absolutely true.

Shuny, you are not making a lick of sense. In fact, all you are showing is that you don't even understand the arguments at all. You are arguing against something that hasn't happened. It is like we were talking about black swans and all of a sudden you were arguing against fish sticks for some reason. You are nutso.

[seer]

Too many periods.

Yes you did make an inductive argument. You said all swans are white, therefore there are only non-contradictions, and there are no contradictions, or black swans. Your basic understanding of English and logic is just not there. If you admit there are possible contradictions (black swans) from the human perspective, and humans cannot deduce absolute truth, than you agree blacks swans are possible.

Are you now saying that logical contradictions (black swans) are possible from the human perspective?

Shuny where did I say that all swans are white? I never said any such thing, why are you lying? I said what Sparko said: that black swans exist - period. How is that a "relative" rather than "absolute" truth?

[seer]

Your back peddling big time, before, like logician bones asserted humans can deduce absolute truth. Simplistic examples of non-contradictions do not demonstrate that humans can deduce absolute truth or absolute causality. You need to go back and follow logician bones' posts, reasoning, and understand the consequences of this claim. One thing logician bones concluded is that humans can absolutely logically prove the existence of God, and therefore logically deduce absolute causality.

You also need to not conflate induction and deduction. Your attempt to demonstrate that fallible humans can deduce 'absolute truth,' you used an induction argument that because humans can perceive some obvious non-contradictions you conclude that the law of contradiction is absolute from the human perspective.

It took a multitude of repetitive posts, but it is nice to hear you agree with my view. There are possible logical deductive contradictions from the human perspective. There are limits to what humans can induce and deduce, and humans cannot deduce 'absolute truth.'

Shuny, you said: from the perspective of God an 'absolute truth' there are absolutely no contradictions.

Is that an absolute truth or a relative truth?

And again, stop lying, I did not back peddle for one instance. And yes I'm claiming that law of non-contradiction is absolute because it is impossible to be otherwise, no matter what our human perspective is. If you think otherwise offer just one example of a genuine contradiction.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny where did I say that all swans are white? I never said any such thing, why are you lying? I said what Sparko said: that black swans exist - period. How is that a "relative" rather than "absolute" truth?

Your argument that the law of non-contradiction was absolute.

[seer]

Your argument that the law of non-contradiction was absolute.

Again, I said nothing about all white swans. My whole argument was that true contradictions CAN NOT exist. A position BTW - I think you agree with.