Is there an answer to this question?

[essentialsaltes]

I think folk are getting all weird about logic. Saying that logic is true is the same as affirming that the law of noncontradiction is true. Or that the rules of logic are true. To deny these things seems self defeating - especially if you try to use logic to show how untrue logic really is.

The problem with your position is that there is no one thing that can be called "the rules of logic".

There are many different systems of logic, built on different assumptions, but that are consistent.

We assume a particular set of axioms when we set up a logical system, and then truth exists within that system.

It makes no sense to say that "the law of the excluded middle" is true. In some logics it is assumed to be true, and in other logics it is rejected.

Euclidean geometry is not true in some absolute sense. It is a consistent system based on axioms that are assumed to be true. Lobachevskian geometry is likewise based on a set of chosen axioms. And Gaussian geometry. And Aristotelian logic, and Godelian logic, and so on.

The reason all these formal systems are named after people, is that those people set down the set of axioms that they chose to play with.

 

[durangodawood]

Why is logic true?

If love is real how much does it weigh? Because surely every material thing has a mass and could, at least in theory, be weighed.

Love is an action, an activity, a verb. Actions dont have mass.

Love is done by beings, which do have mass.

Are actions "real"? I'd say yes. But they dont exactly 'exist'. Instead, they 'happen'.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I guess using the word "true" is bad. And Logic is also a human concept. But what I mean was logic tells us A will always be A and will never be not A. So I meant to illustrate that logic can be trusted to help us draw conclusions and therefor can be considered true at some point.

But A is not necessarily always A. For example, I once was a sinner, and now I am saved. I once was a child, and now I am a man.

I have a text editor and i can replace an x in my own documents any time I want to. In fact, I did that where you see the x. (It was originally an "a".)

So its trivially easy to have an a not be an a in the future.

 

[TillICollapse]

But A is not necessarily always A. For example, I once was a sinner, and now I am saved. I once was a child, and now I am a man.

I have a text editor and i can replace an x in my own documents any time I want to. In fact, I did that where you see the x. (It was originally an "a".)

So its trivially easy to have an a not be an a in the future.

How do you personally define what an equals sign is ?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Love is an action, an activity, a verb. Actions dont have mass.

Love is done by beings, which do have mass.

Are actions "real"? I'd say yes. But they dont exactly 'exist'. Instead, they 'happen'.

In the English language "love" is more than a verb; love is a noun in the statement "God is love". And being a noun it's intended to denote something that has existence in its own right. God and Love exist albeit God's existence is in a wholly different class from the existence of his creation.

EDIT: a common dictionary definition of "love" says this:

love

noun

1. a strong feeling of affection.
   "babies fill parents with intense feelings of love"
   synonyms: deep affection, fondness, tenderness, warmth, intimacy, attachment, endearment; More
   antonyms: hatred
   a strong feeling of affection and sexual attraction for someone.
   "they were both in love with her"
   synonyms: besotted with, infatuated with, enamoured of, love-struck by, smitten with, passionate about, with a passion for, consumed with desire for; More
   affectionate greetings conveyed to someone on one's behalf.
   "give her my love"
   synonyms: best wishes, regards, good wishes, greetings, kind/kindest regards, felicitations, salutations, compliments, best, respects
   "my mother sends her love to you"
   a formula for ending an affectionate letter.
   "take care, lots of love, Judy"
2. a great interest and pleasure in something.
   "his love for football"
   synonyms: liking, weakness, partiality, bent, leaning, proclivity, inclination, disposition; More
3. a person or thing that one loves.
   "she was the love of his life"
   synonyms: beloved, loved one, love of one's life, dear, dearest, dear one, darling, sweetheart, sweet, sweet one, angel, honey; More
   BRITISHinformal
   a friendly form of address.
   "it's all right, love"
   informal
   used in affectionate requests.
   noun: a love
   "don't fret, there's a love"
4. (in tennis, squash, and some other sports) a score of zero; nil.
   "love fifteen"

verb

verb: love; 3rd person present: loves; past tense: loved; past participle: loved; gerund or present participle: loving

1. feel deep affection or sexual love for (someone).
   "do you love me?"

synonyms: be in love with, be infatuated with, be smitten with, be besotted with, be passionate about;​

 

[durangodawood]

In the English language "love" is more than a verb; love is a noun in the statement "God is love". And being a noun it's intended to denote something that has existence in its own right. God and Love exist albeit God's existence is in a wholly different class from the existence of his creation.

EDIT: a common dictionary definition of "love" says this:

All of those noun definitions are basically things you DO, rather than things that have their own material existence.

And if "God is love", why not think of that in terms of an action? Makes a lot more sense than vainly trying to find the mass of love, or some other wild goose chase.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's only a wild goose chase for folk that think that what exists must has a mass.

 

[durangodawood]

It's only a wild goose chase for folk that think that what exists must has a mass.

I think "exists" is a word tasked with trying to do too much.

For example: legs and running both "exist", broadly speaking. But they exist in totally different ways, so different that we should be using two different words for "exist".

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think "exists" is a word tasked with trying to do too much.

For example: legs and running both "exist", broadly speaking. But they exist in totally different ways, so different that we should be using two different words for "exist".

Yes indeed; and isn't that the point being made about God existing in a wholly different category from anything in creation?

 

[durangodawood]

Yes indeed; and isn't that the point being made about God existing in a wholly different category from anything in creation?

If God is love, then he could exist in a way thats completely familiar. Like the way running or thinking exists.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

But A is not necessarily always A. For example, I once was a sinner, and now I am saved. I once was a child, and now I am a man.

wait wait wait, I didn't see this.

No A will always be A. You cannot be not A. And that's a fact. So if you're a child (A) you're not a man(B). If you're a man (A) you're not a child (B).

 

[durangodawood]

wait wait wait, I didn't see this.

No A will always be A. You cannot be not A. And that's a fact. So if you're a child (A) you're not a man(B). If you're a man (A) you're not a child (B).

Seems obvious.

But you are constantly changing from A to not-A

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Seems obvious.

But you are constantly changing from A to not-A

No just making it so the original claim is A. If he claims Child, Child is A. And if he claims man, Man is A. Sorta consistent.

 

[durangodawood]

No just making it so the original claim is A. If he claims Child, Child is A. And if he claims man, Man is A. Sorta consistent.

Yes. But it relies on the artificial notion that you can stop time. Only in that contrived moment does A = A. But reality takes place in time, during which A is constantly changing to NOT A.

You can get around that by concocting artificial but useful categories. Like "child", "adult" and so on. If A represents a category rather than a real thing, then the logic system works.

 

[contratodo]

Why is logic true?

If love is real how much does it weigh? Because surely every material thing has a mass and could, at least in theory, be weighed.

Science will tell you that at the speed of light there is infinite mass.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Science will tell you that at the speed of light there is infinite mass.

The only things that can move at the speed of light are things that, when at rest, have no mass.

 

[dad]

The only things that can move at the speed of light are things that, when at rest, have no mass.

This includes spirits, then.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

This includes spirits, then.

Please cite your evidence for the spirits having lack of mass.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes indeed; and isn't that the point being made about God existing in a wholly different category from anything in creation?

No, not at all. For example, the examples of legs and running are easily observed. Gods fail that standard of evidence. You have to make up special rules to keep those normal standards from ruling gods out - gods live in a magical land we can't see, gods hide when we try to test them, you have to wish that gods were true before you can see them, and so on.

 

[dad]

Please cite your evidence for the spirits having lack of mass.

Is mass physical?