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

[shunyadragon]

You could have just asked him if he was absolutely sure there was no absolute logic.

[/cite] http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute." [/cite]

Can you provide a definition of 'absolute logic' from a reliable academic source?

[seer]

Law of contradiction is not absolute. It depends on qualifications of an argument as to what is contradictory and what is not.

No it doesn't, the law of non contradiction must hold universally, must be absolute, or science is nonsense. Can the sun both exist and not exist at the same moment? Of course not. How does science investigate a sun that both exists and not exist at the same moment - pure nonsense - proving that the law of non contradiction is absolute because it can not be otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

No it doesn't, the law of non contradiction must hold universally, must be absolute, or science is nonsense. Can the sun both exist and not exist at the same moment? Of course not. How does science investigate a sun that both exists and not exist at the same moment - pure nonsense - proving that the law of non contradiction is absolute because it can not be otherwise.

Academic sources please!?!?

Law of contradiction is not absolute. It depends on qualifications of an argument as to what is contradictory and what is not.

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

The question is not whether science depends on logic . The question is the claim of 'absolute logic,' which is a fallacy of omniscience.

Source: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

© Copyright Original Source

Please define 'absolute logic' that is not simply logic, and has a reliable academic reference.

[JimL]

Bones,

you are arguing with people who are trying to logically argue against logic and failing because not only is it self-contradictory, but they don't even understand what logic is.

I don't think it is logical or sane for you to continue.

Wrong again as usual. Bones is actually arguing that the world is logical because it is the result of a logical mind which created it, you know, the intelligent design argument. But a logical creator is not a necessity for the formation of a logical world, if it were then it wouldn't have need of evolution to get things right. Eyes have evolved logically to be in the front of the head because of utility, not because of intelligent design.

[seer]

Academic sources please!?!?

Law of contradiction is not absolute. It depends on qualifications of an argument as to what is contradictory and what is not.

Nonsense Shuny, you don't even understand the sources that you are referencing. So I will ask again - is it possible for the sun to both exist and not exist at the same moment. Yes or no, I will be waiting for your answer.

But since you like Aristotle:

According to Aristotle, first philosophy, or metaphysics, deals with ontology and first principles, of which the principle (or law) of non-contradiction is the firmest. Aristotle says that without the principle of non-contradiction we could not know anything that we do know. Presumably, we could not demarcate the subject matter of any of the special sciences, for example, biology or mathematics, and we would not be able to distinguish between what something is, for example a human being or a rabbit, and what it is like, for example pale or white. Aristotle's own distinction between essence and accident would be impossible to draw, and the inability to draw distinctions in general would make rational discussion impossible. According to Aristotle, the principle of non-contradiction is a principle of scientific inquiry, reasoning and communication that we cannot do without.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ar...contradiction/

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Shuny, you don't even understand the sources that you are referencing. So I will ask again - is it possible for the sun to both exist and not exist at the same moment. Yes or no, I will be waiting for your answer.

But since you like Aristotle:

One example of a non-contradictory statement does not address the issue. I have clearly cited a reliable academic source on the problem of non-contradiction. On the other hand you have cited no modern academic references to justify your use of 'absolute logic.'

Again and again and again . . .

Modern academic sources please!?!? You have offered nothing!?!?!!?

Law of contradiction is not absolute. It depends on qualifications of an argument as to what is contradictory and what is not.

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

The question is not whether science depends on logic . The question is the claim of 'absolute logic,' which is a fallacy of omniscience.

Source: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

© Copyright Original Source

Please define 'absolute logic' that is not simply logic, and has a reliable academic reference.

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

One example of a non-contradictory statement does not address the issue. I have clearly cited a reliable academic source on the problem of non-contradiction. On the other hand you have cited no modern academic references to justify your use of 'absolute logic.'

Again Shuny, you have no idea even what you are referencing. The only problem we could have is with subjective understanding or subjective perceptions. These however do not in any way undermine the Law. This is why I offered you a clear logical exercise - which you REFUSE to answer. And I would invite any academic to answer the same question. Can the sun both exist and not exist at the same moment? You know the answer and your refusal to answer just proves my point.

The question is not whether science depends on logic . The question is the claim of 'absolute logic,' which is a fallacy of omniscience.

Is this statement both true and not true?

[shunyadragon]

Again Shuny, you have no idea even what you are referencing. The only problem we could have is with subjective understanding or subjective perceptions. These however do not in any way undermine the Law. This is why I offered you a clear logical exercise - which you REFUSE to answer. And I would invite any academic to answer the same question. Can the sun both exist and not exist at the same moment? You know the answer and your refusal to answer just proves my point.

Academic sources, please!?!?!!? Still waiting . . .

Can the sun both exist and not exist at the same moment? You know the answer and your refusal to answer just proves my point.

Is this statement both true and not true?

The statement is true, but one example of a non-contradictory statement does not address the issue. I have clearly cited a reliable academic source on the problem of non-contradiction. Your using another logical fallacy here. On the other hand you have cited no modern academic references to justify your use of 'absolute logic.'

Source: http://www.conanhughes.com/2011/08/logic-fallacies.html

Absolute Statement

In absolute and qualified statement, the validity of something that is generally true is misapplied to a specific exception. One also commits such fallacy when a special case accepted as true is incorrectly used to create a general statement.

© Copyright Original Source

Again and again and again . . .

Modern academic sources please!?!? You have offered nothing!?!?!!?

Law of contradiction is not absolute. It depends on qualifications of an argument as to what is contradictory and what is not.

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

The question is not whether science depends on logic . The question is the claim of 'absolute logic,' which is a fallacy of omniscience.

Source: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

© Copyright Original Source

Please define 'absolute logic' that is not simply logic, and has a reliable academic reference.

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

Academic sources, please!?!?!!? Still waiting . . .

Academic sources are a meaningless distraction to the discussion. Like I said, they will only deal with problems subjective understandings or subjective perceptions or language discrepancies. Not with the law itself, unless they are speaking nonsense.

The statement is true, but one example of a non-contradictory statement does not address the issue. I have clearly cited a reliable academic source on the problem of non-contradiction. Your using another logical fallacy here. On the other hand you have cited no modern academic references to justify your use of 'absolute logic.'

You are not making sense again. Let me frame it in a way that even you will understand, you have two choices with my example of the sun:

1. Absolute: The sun CAN NOT both exist and not exist at the same moment.

2. Non-Absolute: It is POSSIBLE for the sun to both exist and not exist at the same moment.

If the Law of non-contradiction is not absolute and universal then you only have one option left: That it is possible for the sun to both exist and not exist at the same moment.

[Leonhard]

Decided to take Shuny off ignore to see if he was still as inane as ever. He didn't surprise.

Law of contradiction is not absolute. It depends on qualifications of an argument as to what is contradictory and what is not.

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

There is nothing in that entire article, nor in the quote you're citing that says what you're saying. Also your sentence is broken, 'qualifications of an argument as to what...' ... its not quite clear what exactly you mean.

I suppose you mean "It depends on how we determine whether something is contradictory or not" Unfortunately this is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether true contradictions exist. At least that was the objection of the some early sophists, and a few radical skeptics (those who believe that knowledge of anything is impossible). Most of the article takes Aristotle's stance, and hardly presents the objections.

The principle of Non-Contradiction is pretty much universally accepted by modern day philosophers. If you want to argue against it then present a cogent argument.

But Shuny, you're an amateur who doesn't know the first thing about neither quantum mechanis, nor logic. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. So you presenting an actual argument is the last thing we'll see.

Or maybe for once, after multiple years of hearing you rant nonsensically ad nauseum, you might actually surprise us, but I doubt it.

[Leonhard]

Academic sources, please!?!?!!? Still waiting . . . Again and again and again . . . Modern academic sources please!?!? You have offered nothing!?!?!!?

Calm down, academic sources are kinda wasted on you as it is. Getting you to understand the sources you quickly Google and quote-mine is enough.

The question is the claim of 'absolute logic,' which is a fallacy of omniscience. ... [B]Please define 'absolute logic' that is not simply logic, and has a reliable academic reference.

The word 'absolute' does not cause something to be a fallacy. An absolute position for instance, can have many coherent definitions. In the omniscience fallacy, which is a minor informal fallacy, a person makes a statement that is overly confident without justification. "Its absolutely true that the US will never fall" Ultimately as a rhetorical device. Another way is by appealing to information that might be in question "Everyone believes that the world exist." That might be true, or it might be contested, though strictly speaking it would be so hard to show, that the statement becomes indefensible in this form.

As for what you mean by 'absolute logic' you appear to be the only one who's using that term. What you call 'absolute logic' appears to be ordinary deductive logic, under which contradiction of terms are impossible. If A is true, then A can't also be false.

Metaphysically there's nothing surprising about non-contradiction. And the article you link to pretty much defends that conclusion multiple times using Aristotles own arguments.

[seer]

Metaphysically there's nothing surprising about non-contradiction. And the article you link to pretty much defends that conclusion multiple times using Aristotles own arguments.

Right, so it is clear that Shuny did not even read his own link. Sad, but not unusual.

[shunyadragon]

Decided to take Shuny off ignore to see if he was still as inane as ever. He didn't surprise.



There is nothing in that entire article, nor in the quote you're citing that says what you're saying. Also your sentence is broken, 'qualifications of an argument as to what...' ... its not quite clear what exactly you mean.

I suppose you mean "It depends on how we determine whether something is contradictory or not" Unfortunately this is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether true contradictions exist. At least that was the objection of the some early sophists, and a few radical skeptics (those who believe that knowledge of anything is impossible). Most of the article takes Aristotle's stance, and hardly presents the objections.

The principle of Non-Contradiction is pretty much universally accepted by modern day philosophers. If you want to argue against it then present a cogent argument.

But Shuny, you're an amateur who doesn't know the first thing about neither quantum mechanis, nor logic. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. So you presenting an actual argument is the last thing we'll see.

Or maybe for once, after multiple years of hearing you rant nonsensically ad nauseum, you might actually surprise us, but I doubt it.

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?

[shunyadragon]

No it doesn't, the law of non contradiction must hold universally, must be absolute, or science is nonsense. Can the sun both exist and not exist at the same moment? Of course not. How does science investigate a sun that both exists and not exist at the same moment - pure nonsense - proving that the law of non contradiction is absolute because it can not be otherwise.

If 'absolute logic, absolute truth, or absolute law of non-contradiction, or absolute anything' exists it resides with the ultimate absolute nature of our existence, not among fallible humans. If God exists, God is the ultimate absolute nature of our existence. If God does not exists, the ultimate absolute nature of our existence is natural law.

The problem is any sense of the absolute perfection of logic, and the nature of our existence is beyond fallible human capabilities, and not useful in human use of logic.

[seer]

If 'absolute logic, absolute truth, or absolute law of non-contradiction, or absolute anything' exists it resides with the ultimate absolute nature of our existence, not among fallible humans. If God exists, God is the ultimate absolute nature of our existence. If God does not exists, the ultimate absolute nature of our existence is natural law.

The problem is any sense of the absolute perfection of logic, and the nature of our existence is beyond fallible human capabilities, and not useful in human use of logic.

Shuny, that does not change the fact that the law of non-contradiction is universal and absolute. If you agree that it is impossible for the sun to both exist and not exist at the same moment and that is all I mean by absolute - it is impossible to be otherwise.