Are the laws of logic important to theology?

[Songsmith]

Firstly, what are they?
Law of identity: A is A
Law of non-contradiction: A can't be A and non A at the same time and in the same way
Law of excluded middle: A is either A or non-A, there is no in between.

So, the questions are these. Are these laws absolute? If they are then how does the relativist deal with the fact that there are absolutes while still holding to the view that there are not? If they are not then can you explain how or why? And finally, if there are absolutes then what would preclude God from declaring that there are such things as sin (for our purposes falling short of an absolute standard of behavior), for example murder, rape, etc.?

 

[Chany]

Firstly, what are they?
Law of identity: A is A
Law of non-contradiction: A can't be A and non A at the same time and in the same way
Law of excluded middle: A is either A or non-A, there is no in between.

So, the questions are these. Are these laws absolute? If they are then how does the relativist deal with the fact that there are absolutes while still holding to the view that there are not? If they are not then can you explain how or why? And finally, if there are absolutes then what would preclude God from declaring that there are such things as sin (for our purposes falling short of an absolute standard of behavior), for example murder, rape, etc.?

I would like to comment that there are different logic systems with different axioms and ways about going about issues. The problem is with an assumption: you assume the laws of logic behave in a metaphysical sense, that they are about things. However, they are about ideas and concepts, not physical things. Logic just might be my human mind creating a system upon a reality I experience. It already assumes that the laws of logic are universal, despite the very limited knowledge one has. They are really more like statements of what we experience, similiar to our erroneous assumptions about the laws of gravity that can change when we gain more information and data from the world.

 

[Songsmith]

I would like to comment that there are different logic systems with different axioms and ways about going about issues. The problem is with an assumption: you assume the laws of logic behave in a metaphysical sense, that they are about things. However, they are about ideas and concepts, not physical things. Logic just might be my human mind creating a system upon a reality I experience. It already assumes that the laws of logic are universal, despite the very limited knowledge one has. They are really more like statements of what we experience, similiar to our erroneous assumptions about the laws of gravity that can change when we gain more information and data from the world.

I think I would have to question your assertion that these laws are simply a statement of our experience. I wonder how one might go about refuting, experientially or otherwise, that a thing can be itself and not itself. It is not the same kind of thing that we run into when discussing science and our ever changing understanding of it based on new information and discovery. It is, as near as I can tell, an immutable truth. In order for a thing to not be itself it would have to...I don't even know how to finish that statement. If you can help I would appreciate it.

 

[terryjohn]

Not sure logic can say anything save it does not know many things at all.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think the laws of logic need a world to relate to. For A to be A then there needs to be an A in the first place.

So therefore the laws of logic depend on existence of some sort. If there was "nothing" or the pure absence of things, what sense would logic make.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Firstly, what are they?
Law of identity: A is A
Law of non-contradiction: A can't be A and non A at the same time and in the same way
Law of excluded middle: A is either A or non-A, there is no in between.

So, the questions are these. Are these laws absolute? If they are then how does the relativist deal with the fact that there are absolutes while still holding to the view that there are not? If they are not then can you explain how or why? And finally, if there are absolutes then what would preclude God from declaring that there are such things as sin (for our purposes falling short of an absolute standard of behavior), for example murder, rape, etc.?

I'm a moral relativist...and I think can answer those questions for you pretty easily.

Sure, there are laws of logic and they do appear to be absolute. Luckily for me and my relativistic views, they don't have anything to do with ethics/morality. You see, in addition to facts...we also have opinions. Opinions can be all sorts of ideas about all all sorts of things. Here's an example...

Vanilla ice cream is the best!

Now, maybe you say to yourself...."Vanilla ice cream is the best! How can that be an opinion?" Well, there's an easy way to tell....

Ask yourself "Can I prove or demonstrate that vanilla ice cream is the best?". I'll bet you realize really fast that no, you cannot. This is a strong indicator that the statement about vanilla ice cream being the best is just an opinion. Even if everyone else agreed it's the best, it's still just an opinion. Let's move onto a moral statement...

"Stealing is wrong/bad."

Can you prove or demonstrate that stealing is wrong or bad? If so...you'd be the first. It's an opinion, and like all opinions... it's relative to many many factors.

Welcome to relativism.

 

[juvenissun]

I think the laws of logic need a world to relate to. For A to be A then there needs to be an A in the first place.

So therefore the laws of logic depend on existence of some sort. If there was "nothing" or the pure absence of things, what sense would logic make.

With a set of assumptions, a theology is totally based on logic.

For example: how logic could a miracle be?

The logic: BECAUSE God is omnipotent, SO THAT He performs miracles.

WHY is God omnipotent? That is a basic definition (assumption) of God. If that assumption is changed, then the theology would be different, but would be constructed based on the same logic system.

For example, IF a god is powerful, but is not omnipotent, THEN that god can perform some miracles, but not all miracles.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'm a moral relativist...and I think can answer those questions for you pretty easily.

Sure, there are laws of logic and they do appear to be absolute. Luckily for me and my relativistic views, they don't have anything to do with ethics/morality. You see, in addition to facts...we also have opinions. Opinions can be all sorts of ideas about all all sorts of things. Here's an example...

Vanilla ice cream is the best!

Now, maybe you say to yourself...."Vanilla ice cream is the best! How can that be an opinion?" Well, there's an easy way to tell....

Ask yourself "Can I prove or demonstrate that vanilla ice cream is the best?". I'll bet you realize really fast that no, you cannot. This is a strong indicator that the statement about vanilla ice cream being the best is just an opinion. Even if everyone else agreed it's the best, it's still just an opinion. Let's move onto a moral statement...

"Stealing is wrong/bad."

Can you prove or demonstrate that stealing is wrong or bad? If so...you'd be the first. It's an opinion, and like all opinions... it's relative to many many factors.

Welcome to relativism.

Any statement you make is provable or unprovable depending upon the assumptions you are willing to make. If my basic assumption is that my opinion is fact then it logically follows that

A My opinion is fact
B In my opinion vanilla ice cream is the best
C therefore vanilla ice cream is the best.

See I have proven through faultless logic that vanilla ice cream is the best. You may disagree with my basic assumption and say that it is ridiculous but the logic used is absolutely spot on. All logical statements start with at least one assumption and usually contain unstated ones as well as stated ones and many people will stick to basic assumptions that are as frivolous as the one in my example.

 

[quatona]

Firstly, what are they?
Law of identity: A is A
Law of non-contradiction: A can't be A and non A at the same time and in the same way
Law of excluded middle: A is either A or non-A, there is no in between.

So, the questions are these. Are these laws absolute?

These laws don´t govern reality, they govern our use of language.

If they are then how does the relativist deal with the fact that there are absolutes while still holding to the view that there are not?

Are you referring to moral relativists? Absolutes in general don´t pose a problem for them, just moral absolutes would.

And finally, if there are absolutes then what would preclude God from declaring that there are such things as sin (for our purposes falling short of an absolute standard of behavior), for example murder, rape, etc.?

I´m not quite understanding the logic here. I don´t know how you get from a law of logic to a moral prescription. Apparently you feel that for something to be an absolute it´s sufficient that someone declared it an absolute. This is not my opinion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Any statement you make is provable or unprovable depending upon the assumptions you are willing to make. If my basic assumption is that my opinion is fact then it logically follows that

A My opinion is fact
B In my opinion vanilla ice cream is the best
C therefore vanilla ice cream is the best.

See I have proven through faultless logic that vanilla ice cream is the best. You may disagree with my basic assumption and say that it is ridiculous but the logic used is absolutely spot on. All logical statements start with at least one assumption and usually contain unstated ones as well as stated ones and many people will stick to basic assumptions that are as frivolous as the one in my example.

"My opinion is fact" breaks the rule of non-contradiction.

So yes, if we use faulty logic we can make opinions facts .

 

[grasping the after wind]

On circular reasoning. Try proving that our five senses give us a true picture of reality without assuming that our five senses give us a true picture of reality. It is much the same as proving that the Bible is infallible without assuming that the Bible infallible. Once either assumption is made then what flows from that is not circular reasoning but pure logic. BTW the Bible itself never claims to be infallible or the Word of God those are basic assumption made by some believers but not all. Logic would require one to note the difference between Some and All when coming to any conclusions.

 

[grasping the after wind]

"My opinion is fact" breaks the rule of non-contradiction.

Only if one assumes that my opinion is not fact. If my basic assumption is that my opinion is fact then there is no contradiction unless one assume that my assumption is incorrect. One can do that for any assumption but it does not make the logical train of thought that proceeds from that assumption faulty. . You are assuming that your opinion about reality is somehow superior to mine because you insist that your basic assumption is correct and mine is not while your only proof of that is that mine is different than yours and in yours my assumption contradicts itself. If you can prove my basic assumption is false without assuming that it is while yours is not without assuming that it is not then go ahead and do it. You must prove that my opinion is not fact and that your assumption that when I assume that my opinion is fact I am somehow contradicting myself is factual. How you do this without assuming that my opinion is not fact and that your assumption that 'my opinion' and "fact" are contradictory ideas, I do not know.

So yes, if we use faulty logic we can make opinions facts .

Sorry your statement does not in any way apply to what I have previously written. You have challenged my logic by disagreeing with my assumption. That is illogical. Your statement would be logical if instead it said "yes if we use ridiculous assumptions we can say opinions are facts.". But, who can say which assumptions are more ridiculous without assuming that they are?

 

[True Scotsman]

Firstly, what are they?
Law of identity: A is A
Law of non-contradiction: A can't be A and non A at the same time and in the same way
Law of excluded middle: A is either A or non-A, there is no in between.

So, the questions are these. Are these laws absolute? If they are then how does the relativist deal with the fact that there are absolutes while still holding to the view that there are not? If they are not then can you explain how or why? And finally, if there are absolutes then what would preclude God from declaring that there are such things as sin (for our purposes falling short of an absolute standard of behavior), for example murder, rape, etc.?

Yes they are because the law of identity is absolute. The relativist uses rationalization, which is the opposite of reason. Your last question is moot since the law of identity and the other axioms of philosophy make a god metaphysically impossible.

 

[True Scotsman]

On circular reasoning. Try proving that our five senses give us a true picture of reality without assuming that our five senses give us a true picture of reality. It is much the same as proving that the Bible is infallible without assuming that the Bible infallible. Once either assumption is made then what flows from that is not circular reasoning but pure logic. BTW the Bible itself never claims to be infallible or the Word of God those are basic assumption made by some believers but not all. Logic would require one to note the difference between Some and All when coming to any conclusions.

No it is not the same. Since our senses and our mind are the only means by which we can prove anything, the validity of the senses is axiomatic. The test is, if you must accept their validity in order to attempt to deny their validity. If knowledge is possible to man then his senses and his mind are valid. If his senses and his mind are not valid then no knowledge of any kind is possible. When you make the claim that man's senses are not valid then you are making a knowledge claim and therefore you are proving the senses and the mind valid.

There is also the fact that the senses validate each other in a non-circular way. If we see an apple on the table and we aren't sure it's an apple we can double and triple check this by picking it up and feeling its smooth skin and dried stem and the shape. We can smell it. We can taste it. We can hear the distinctive sound it makes when we bite into it.

Anyone who denies the validity of the senses and the mind only refutes his own arguments and claims and ends up proving the validity of the senses.

The truth of axiomatic concepts is directly observable. The claims of the Bible are not. In fact we have no alternative but to imaging the things claimed in the Bible as far as the supernatural stuff. The Bible can never be evidence for the truth of the Bible that is circular reasoning flat and simple. The truth of the Bible does not have to be accepted in order to deny it, therefore its truth is not axiomatic. Big difference.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So, the questions are these. Are these laws absolute?

They are assumptions, assumed to be true in a particular logical system.

If they are not then can you explain how or why?

Heraclitus wrote "You cannot step twice into the same river". In a manner of speaking, this is a rejection of the law of identity. The law of identity does not have to be assumed; you can do without it.

 

[Colter]

"A logical and consistent philosophic concept of the universe cannot be built up on the postulations of either materialism or spiritism, for both of these systems of thinking, when universally applied, are compelled to view the cosmos in distortion, the former contacting with a universe turned inside out, the latter realizing the nature of a universe turned outside in. Never, then, can either science or religion, in and of themselves, standing alone, hope to gain an adequate understanding of universal truths and relationships without the guidance of human philosophy and the illumination of divine revelation." UB 55'​

 

[Ana the Ist]

On circular reasoning. Try proving that our five senses give us a true picture of reality without assuming that our five senses give us a true picture of reality. It is much the same as proving that the Bible is infallible without assuming that the Bible infallible. Once either assumption is made then what flows from that is not circular reasoning but pure logic. BTW the Bible itself never claims to be infallible or the Word of God those are basic assumption made by some believers but not all. Logic would require one to note the difference between Some and All when coming to any conclusions.

Is this post directed at me because of my signature?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I wouldn't assume this...

"...assuming that our five senses give us a true picture of reality."

...because I don't believe it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Is this post directed at me because of my signature?

Not at you personally but your signature made me consider the idea so it is what caused me to comment on the subject.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I wouldn't assume this...

"...assuming that our five senses give us a true picture of reality."

...because I don't believe it.

I'm not trying to do anything more than give my POV on the subject of circular reasoning. I hope I did not give you the impression that I thought you were close minded on the subject. That was not my intent. I specifically did not quote you as my comment ], though inspired by your signature, was not meant to be about you but more a general comment.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Only if one assumes that my opinion is not fact.

I don't actually need to assume this... by definition opinions aren't facts. If you're using some definition of opinion that is equivocal to the word "fact" then you're still using faulty logic, it's just a different logical fallacy.

 

[grasping the after wind]

No it is not the same. Since our senses and our mind are the only means by which we can prove anything, the validity of the senses is axiomatic. The test is, if you must accept their validity in order to attempt to deny their validity. If knowledge is possible to man then his senses and his mind are valid. If his senses and his mind are not valid then no knowledge of any kind is possible. When you make the claim that man's senses are not valid then you are making a knowledge claim and therefore you are proving the senses and the mind valid.

There is also the fact that the senses validate each other in a non-circular way. If we see an apple on the table and we aren't sure it's an apple we can double and triple check this by picking it up and feeling its smooth skin and dried stem and the shape. We can smell it. We can taste it. We can hear the distinctive sound it makes when we bite into it.

Anyone who denies the validity of the senses and the mind only refutes his own arguments and claims and ends up proving the validity of the senses.

The truth of axiomatic concepts is directly observable. The claims of the Bible are not. In fact we have no alternative but to imaging the things claimed in the Bible as far as the supernatural stuff. The Bible can never be evidence for the truth of the Bible that is circular reasoning flat and simple. The truth of the Bible does not have to be accepted in order to deny it, therefore its truth is not axiomatic. Big difference.

The senses actually contradict each other in many cases and in others are simply silent on the subject of whether one of the senses is correct. We also cannot be sure that it is not necessary to have more than five senses in order to really understand reality. The five we think that we know we possess may be far too limited in scope to perceive all there is to perceive. Additionally, we think from experimentation that other creatures may possess not only more finely tuned varieties of the five we posses but even some senses that we entirely lack. So to assume that the five we possess are somehow completely authoritative is just that, an assumption as any other axiom is. An axiom is merely an assumption that we have decided to assume is self evident.