'Knowledge' of Existence

[Oncedeceived]

Because the laws of logic are laws of thought, and if there are no humans around to think, there is no "logic."

That is not true. The first reason it is not true is that it existed prior to us existing because we HAVE to use the Laws of Logic to have rational thoughts at all. We have to use them to determine a rock is a rock and not a tree or use it to make such a statement. Human minds are not necessary for the Laws of Logic because we MUST USE them for language not to be gibberish, we MUST USE them to describe things, we MUST USE them to make truth statements. Without the Laws of Logic we could not make sense of reality at all. The second reason is if they were 'invented' by humans they would have to be contingent on human minds and humans minds are not all the same. That means that the Laws themselves could be different but they simply can't be different than what they are...truths about truth. If you are going to claim that the Laws of Logic are contingent on human minds, you must provide how this could be true. Making an assertion that the Laws of Logic are contingent on our minds doesn't account for a priori knowledge of the truths of truth set up by the Laws of Logic which is necessary for us to determine a rock is a rock and not a tree and so forth.

Ok, not entirely "meaningless," but uselessly redundant. "All possible worlds follow the laws of logic" is synonymous with "Things are themselves in worlds where things are themselves." This is absolutely no different from just saying "Things are themselves." It doesn't get us anywhere.

This is not the same as 'things just being themselves' this is about the ability to recognize and categorize things just being themselves. Do you really believe that we didn't use the Laws of Logic prior to Aristotle or any other man put words together to describe the Laws of Logic?


[QuoteThat's clearly not self evident since I don't see it that way at all. What does it mean for existence and logic to be "woven" together?[/Quote]If existence exists it can't not not exist. That is a fundamental truth that is woven into existence.

Are facts things, or are they true statements? Or are true statements, themselves, things?

Facts are about things, some are true and some facts are found to be found false; but to determine whether something is true or false one must use the Laws of Logic to determine it. We MUST USE the Laws of Logic for any rational thoughts at all.

As far as I can tell, it's woven into language. All of existence is largely a mystery to me. I wonder what you know that I don't?

One needs the knowledge of the Laws of Logic for language. Language is the token or symbol used to communicate that which the mind produces. The mind could not produce language without the Laws of Logic a priori to it.

But not more reasonable than withholding a final conclusion due to insufficient data (including the possibility that no explanation is indeed needed), I presume?

So disregard scientific study, reality and curiosity is more reasonable? I don't think that is a more reasonable stance no. Do you not agree that for everything that exists something existed to cause it?

The laws of logic... they're literally called the laws of thought.

Yes, they are thoughts. Necessary universal abstract truths about truths. We must use them to think rationally.

Yes, and categorization is a mental process, not an aspect of reality.

A mental process that must use the Laws of Logic a priori.

A=A is the epitome of a definition, and yet, you agree that it is true. So obviously some definitions are true. I might even go so far as to say all definitions are true, except the "truth" of a definition seems to be subject to the consensus of the communities in which it is used as a technical term. A=A, Snake=Legless, scaled reptile of suborder Serpentes. These are truths, and they are definitions.

Which can be made with and only with the Laws of Logic a priori.

I have other reasons to say that it is not God, but for now I am arguing that your reasons are not sufficient to suppose that it is God. The laws of logic are necessary for thought to follow the laws of logic. And?

They are not contingent on human mind. They must be used by the human mind to reason at all. Add this to the mathematical structure of the universe which too points to mind, the purpose behind the mechanics of life itself, appearance of design in the universe as well as in life forms are all reasons to imply God.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Exactly. That is what I said. So rocks and trees having identity of themselves has nothing to do with the truth that a rock is a rock and not a tree.

It has everything to do with it. That's exactly what is entailed by 'things being identical to themselves'. Reality just is that which the laws describe. As such, there is no need to invoke a 'co-existence' where 'Laws' reside and 'interweave' with reality. That is a redundant and needless assumption that illuminates nothing.

In light of that, everything you said after this is superfluous.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You do know that the Laws of Logic are general and abstract truth about truths...right? The Laws of Logic give us the truth that if anything exists, existence does not not exist. You can't have existence without the law that A = A they are woven together. Do you see?

Suppose I'm on a moving train and you're on the ground some distance away. I drop a ball. I see the ball fall in a straight line to the ground. You see it follow a curved path due to the motion of the train. But a straight line and a curve are not the same thing! Who's right and who's wrong?

Suppose I arrange for two lights to flash on the tracks when I am exactly between both of them, being able to observe both simultaneously with mirrors. You see both lights flash simultaneously, but I see one before the other due to the motion of the train. But chronology of events cannot vary depending upon the observer! Who's right and who's wrong?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It has everything to do with it. That's exactly what is entailed by 'things being identical to themselves'. Reality just is that which the laws describe. As such, there is no need to invoke a 'co-existence' where 'Laws' reside and 'interweave' with reality. That is a redundant and needless assumption that illuminates nothing.

In light of that, everything you said after this is superfluous.

So what is it, is it that humans have invented the Laws of Logic (which are truths of truth) which you have already said was not invented by humans or reality just being what reality just is? My next question must be, if there is no co-existence of the Laws of Logic to existence why is existence necessary for the necessary truth of the Laws of Logic? Example: if something exists, the Laws of Logic says that it exists and does not not exist at the same time. How do you escape that truth?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Suppose I'm on a moving train and you're on the ground some distance away. I drop a ball. I see the ball fall in a straight line to the ground. You see it follow a curved path due to the motion of the train. But a straight line and a curve are not the same thing! Who's right and who's wrong?

Suppose I arrange for two lights to flash on the tracks when I am exactly between both of them, being able to observe both simultaneously with mirrors. You see both lights flash simultaneously, but I see one before the other due to the motion of the train. But chronology of events cannot vary depending upon the observer! Who's right and who's wrong?

And who cares? We are talking about the Laws of Logic that give us truth and in doing so, give us what is false. That is the foundation of rational thought.

 

[gaara4158]

That is not true. The first reason it is not true is that it existed prior to us existing because we HAVE to use the Laws of Logic to have rational thoughts at all. We have to use them to determine a rock is a rock and not a tree or use it to make such a statement. Human minds are not necessary for the Laws of Logic because we MUST USE them for language not to be gibberish, we MUST USE them to describe things, we MUST USE them to make truth statements. Without the Laws of Logic we could not make sense of reality at all. The second reason is if they were 'invented' by humans they would have to be contingent on human minds and humans minds are not all the same. That means that the Laws themselves could be different but they simply can't be different than what they are...truths about truth. If you are going to claim that the Laws of Logic are contingent on human minds, you must provide how this could be true. Making an assertion that the Laws of Logic are contingent on our minds doesn't account for a priori knowledge of the truths of truth set up by the Laws of Logic which is necessary for us to determine a rock is a rock and not a tree and so forth.

Here we go again. Everything you just described, everything we MUST USE the laws of logic for amounts to different types of statements, nothing more. We can't think straight, communicate effectively, or describe reality without them. Yes, and? You have yet to demonstrate that there's more to it than that, you've only repeatedly made the bare assertion that this is the case.

The laws of logic are contingent on human minds because the laws of logic belong in the category of concepts. Concepts only exist in the mind. This isn't hard to grasp. The laws of logic didn't exist before we developed the ability to think. Our ability to think created the laws of logic. This stuff you're calling "a priori truths about truth set up by the Laws of Logic" is nothing but a bunch of obfuscating language which translates to "Logic is logical, how do you explain that?"

This is not the same as 'things just being themselves' this is about the ability to recognize and categorize things just being themselves. Do you really believe that we didn't use the Laws of Logic prior to Aristotle or any other man put words together to describe the Laws of Logic?

Ah, so you do recognize there's a difference between the rule that we must categorize things as themselves, and the reality that things are themselves, then? If so, this is progress! "Things are themselves" is a statement. But statements are not the same as reality. The laws of logic apply to statements. Reality just is. The laws of logic don't apply to reality any more than the laws of grammar apply to reality. The laws of logic and grammar are required to make proper statements about reality. Reality itself isn't actually accounted-for. Well, unless you know something I don't?

If existence exists it can't not not exist. That is a fundamental truth that is woven into existence.

No, that is a truism. I'm not impressed.

Facts are about things, some are true and some facts are found to be found false; but to determine whether something is true or false one must use the Laws of Logic to determine it. We MUST USE the Laws of Logic for any rational thoughts at all.

That's not what this particular point is about. You were trying to define truth. You said truth was defined as invariable, unavoidable facts. Now you're saying some facts can be false? What's the difference between a fact and a generic statement? But I digress. We already agreed that statements must be logically coherent to be true. That's not controversial. I'm asking you how you conceptualize truth because you asked the nonsensical question "Is truth true only if stated?" Truths are true by definition, but "truth" being true is incoherent gibberish. "Truth" is the value of being true, so to say "The value of being true is true" is like saying "The speed of light is light."

One needs the knowledge of the Laws of Logic for language. Language is the token or symbol used to communicate that which the mind produces. The mind could not produce language without the Laws of Logic a priori to it.

So the mind produced the laws of logic before it produced language. And?

So disregard scientific study, reality and curiosity is more reasonable? I don't think that is a more reasonable stance no. Do you not agree that for everything that exists something existed to cause it?

No, adherence to scientific study, reality, curiosity, and intellectual honesty is precisely what leads us away from concluding that "God did it" without proper justification. I would like to know, just what scientific study has led to the conclusion that God is a viable explanation for any observed phenomenon?? And of course I do not agree that everything which exists must have a cause. I know very little about "everything that exists" and so to make such sweeping statements about literally everything that exists would be supremely arrogant of me.

Yes, they are thoughts. Necessary universal abstract truths about truths. We must use them to think rationally.

"Necessary universal abstract truths about truths" translates to "Logic is logical." Not so impressive when you say it that way though, is it?

A mental process that must use the Laws of Logic a priori.

You do know what a priori means, right? A priori knowledge is a result of logical deduction. Answer this question for me: How can you logically deduce the laws of logic themselves? You have to assume the laws of logic in the first place before any logical deduction can take place. This is why the laws of logic are fundamental axioms.

They are not contingent on human mind. They must be used by the human mind to reason at all. Add this to the mathematical structure of the universe which too points to mind, the purpose behind the mechanics of life itself, appearance of design in the universe as well as in life forms are all reasons to imply God.

The laws of logic do not vary across different human minds, but they are very much contingent upon minds with the ability to grasp them. This is the nature of all concepts, which is what the laws of logic are. I am beginning to suspect that you are not familiar with the concept of axioms.

Demonstrate the mathematical structure of the universe and how it points to a mind. Demonstrate the purpose behind the mechanics of life itself. Demonstrate the difference between design and nondesign. Finally, demonstrate how all of this points to God, specifically the one you believe in. This should be fun.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And who cares? We are talking about the Laws of Logic that give us truth and in doing so, give us what is false. That is the foundation of rational thought.

Just so we're clear, then, you're not talking about reality or anything of actual consequence?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So what is it, is it that humans have invented the Laws of Logic (which are truths of truth) which you have already said was not invented by humans or reality just being what reality just is?

Humans invented the language to describe reality - logic, maths, scientific formulas etc. They did not invent reality itself. They did not invent things being identical to themselves, only the logical symbols to describe it (A=A). They did not invent that which comports with reality, only a word to describe that condition ('truth'). They did not invent matter and energy being equivalent, only the scientific equation to describe that relationship (E=MC²).

That is the last time I will be clarifying my position on this matter. I'm done repeating myself.

Everything you said after this is vacuous gibberish. Your imaginary category of 'co-existence' is a useless and redundant assumption that illuminates nothing whatsoever. You are only invoking it to make Yahweh appear necessary.

If you care at all about sounding like you have a clue what you're talking about, I suggest reading a basic logic textbook. I recommend Copi & Cohen.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just so we're clear, then, you're not talking about reality or anything of actual consequence?

And do you believe in anything in reality has any meaning or actual consequence?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And do you believe in anything in reality has any meaning or actual consequence?

Consequences, yes. Meaning, no... aside from what we give it.

But the point is that the same path definitely can be observed as a straight line and as a curve at the same time. Do you have a way of encoding this into your logical laws without violating A=A? You acknowledge that physical reality takes precedent over things we humans say about reality, right? Do you acknowledge that humanity invented laws of thought before being aware of counter-intuitive notions like Relativity and quantum mechanics?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here we go again. Everything you just described, everything we MUST USE the laws of logic for amounts to different types of statements, nothing more. We can't think straight, communicate effectively, or describe reality without them. Yes, and? You have yet to demonstrate that there's more to it than that, you've only repeatedly made the bare assertion that this is the case.

Ok, so we both agree that the Laws must be used for any and all thought/statements of thoughts. I think we both agree that these Laws are absolute truths about truth, correct? I think we both agree that they are true in all languages and would be true in any possible world. These are our meeting points. I then ask, if these Laws of Logic are just descriptions of reality it would seem reasonable to assume that other languages or different cultural peoples could have different Laws that describe reality in a different way. Different cultures have differing statements concerning all sorts of things and why not different statements that describe reality?

The laws of logic are contingent on human minds because the laws of logic belong in the category of concepts. Concepts only exist in the mind. This isn't hard to grasp. The laws of logic didn't exist before we developed the ability to think. Our ability to think created the laws of logic. This stuff you're calling "a priori truths about truth set up by the Laws of Logic" is nothing but a bunch of obfuscating language which translates to "Logic is logical, how do you explain that?"

We agree again that the Laws of Logic are conceptual and can only exist in the mind; we have both grasped that element in our discussion. Yet, not all minds are the same. Our ability to think is not just a given either, but I digress. So if all minds are not the same why would the Laws of Logic be universally the same? If 'we' created the Laws of Logic, who are the 'we' who did? If the Laws of Logic are laws of thought they don't really describe the physical universe, but the correct way of reasoning for the ability to describe the physical universe. They describe and govern the correct way of thinking, not the physical universe which is only matter.

Ah, so you do recognize there's a difference between the rule that we must categorize things as themselves, and the reality that things are themselves, then? If so, this is progress! "Things are themselves" is a statement. But statements are not the same as reality. The laws of logic apply to statements. Reality just is. The laws of logic don't apply to reality any more than the laws of grammar apply to reality. The laws of logic and grammar are required to make proper statements about reality. Reality itself isn't actually accounted-for. Well, unless you know something I don't?

The statement, "If I jump off a three story building, I will most likely be extremely injured or killed" is reasoning and logic but the reason I would most likely be extremely injured or killed is not because I make that statement but because gravity exists and it will make me fall to the ground. We didn't create gravity, we can't see it, touch it, smell it or hear it but it exists and existed prior to us thinking about it or experiencing it. If we were to imagine going to the moon, we can imagine that the Laws of Logic would exist there as well. The statement that "moon dust exists and does not not exist" was true before we got there. Even if there were no minds there to make such a statement. Why does the universe/reality as a whole obey logic? If the Laws of Logic 'work' even in places we have never been, how then do you explain that reality itself is not connected to those Laws?

No, that is a truism. I'm not impressed.

Why is it a truism? What makes it such?

That's not what this particular point is about. You were trying to define truth. You said truth was defined as invariable, unavoidable facts. Now you're saying some facts can be false? What's the difference between a fact and a generic statement? But I digress. We already agreed that statements must be logically coherent to be true. That's not controversial. I'm asking you how you conceptualize truth because you asked the nonsensical question "Is truth true only if stated?" Truths are true by definition, but "truth" being true is incoherent gibberish. "Truth" is the value of being true, so to say "The value of being true is true" is like saying "The speed of light is light."

I don't think you thought that one through...
True is true even without a statement about it being true. The making of the statement is not the truth value, it already is true.

So the mind produced the laws of logic before it produced language. And?

If mankind created the Laws of Logic how did they communicate them? Regardless, explain how the Laws of Logic if created by man, are universal, abstract, and invariable.

No, adherence to scientific study, reality, curiosity, and intellectual honesty is precisely what leads us away from concluding that "God did it" without proper justification.

I totally disagree. There is nothing in scientific study, reality, curiosity and most certainly ones grand assumption of their intellectual honesty that leads anyone away from "God did it" and Laws that govern thought and the universe itself provide justification. I haven't seen any justification that mankind created the Laws of Logic. Just assertions. What explanation can you provide that mankind created the Laws of Logic and why they are obeyed universally? What justification do you provide?

I would like to know, just what scientific study has led to the conclusion that God is a viable explanation for any observed phenomenon?? And of course I do not agree that everything which exists must have a cause. I know very little about "everything that exists" and so to make such sweeping statements about literally everything that exists would be supremely arrogant of me.

Do you believe that only knowledge acquired by scientific study is valid?

"Necessary universal abstract truths about truths" translates to "Logic is logical." Not so impressive when you say it that way though, is it?

How do human minds create necessary universal truth? Please explain.

You do know what a priori means, right? A priori knowledge is a result of logical deduction. Answer this question for me: How can you logically deduce the laws of logic themselves? You have to assume the laws of logic in the first place before any logical deduction can take place. This is why the laws of logic are fundamental axioms.

Explain what you mean by 'assume' the Laws of Logic?

The laws of logic do not vary across different human minds, but they are very much contingent upon minds with the ability to grasp them. This is the nature of all concepts, which is what the laws of logic are. I am beginning to suspect that you are not familiar with the concept of axioms.

I know that the Laws of Logic do not vary across different human minds, why? If they are created by human minds that are different, how are they universally known. How were they accepted universally, and how were they established?

Demonstrate the mathematical structure of the universe and how it points to a mind. Demonstrate the purpose behind the mechanics of life itself. Demonstrate the difference between design and nondesign. Finally, demonstrate how all of this points to God, specifically the one you believe in. This should be fun.

I'll have to come back to this. I have an appt.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Consequences, yes. Meaning, no... aside from what we give it.

But the point is that the same path definitely can be observed as a straight line and as a curve at the same time. Do you have a way of encoding this into your logical laws without violating A=A? You acknowledge that physical reality takes precedent over things we humans say about reality, right? Do you acknowledge that humanity invented laws of thought before being aware of counter-intuitive notions like Relativity and quantum mechanics?

Is a straight line a curve? Can a straight line be a curve? That is logical impossible. I don't know what you mean by saying that physical reality takes precedent over things we humans say about it. You'll have to explain. I don't acknowledge that humans invented the Laws of Logic but claim that humans could not have invented them due to the fact they have to use them to invent anything at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Humans invented the language to describe reality - logic, maths, scientific formulas etc. They did not invent reality itself. They did not invent things being identical to themselves, only the logical symbols to describe it (A=A). They did not invent that which comports with reality, only a word to describe that condition ('truth'). They did not invent matter and energy being equivalent, only the scientific equation to describe that relationship (E=MC²).

What evidence do you have that humans invented language? I'll repeat again what I said to gaara4158: If the Laws of Logic are laws of thought they don't really describe the physical universe, but the correct way of reasoning for the ability to describe the physical universe. They describe and govern the correct way of thinking, not the physical universe which is only matter.

Everything you said after this is vacuous gibberish.

Ad hominem attacks are generally used when others don't want to actually think about the argument at hand; or feel they need to sound superior to the other person as to make others think their arguments are not valid. I am speaking the language that we both use, I have said nothing that is illogical so I must assume then these are the reasons why you are casting stones rather than actual support for your assertions.

Your imaginary category of 'co-existence' is a useless and redundant assumption that illuminates nothing whatsoever. You are only invoking it to make Yahweh appear necessary.

I think it is self-evident. I wonder though, are you denying the possibility on rational grounds or is it that you don't like what it implies?

If you care at all about sounding like you have a clue what you're talking about, I suggest reading a basic logic textbook. I recommend Copi & Cohen.

That defeats your position, you claim that the universal Laws of Logic are invented and agreed upon by all people, I am in the all people category. I should have the ability to reason, perhaps not formally, but reason should be the same for me as it is for you.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Is a straight line a curve? Can a straight line be a curve? That is logical impossible.

So you're saying Einstein was wrong about his theory of Relativity?

I don't know what you mean by saying that physical reality takes precedent over things we humans say about it.

The statement speaks for itself.

You'll have to explain.

Sigh... reality is as it is, and what we have to say on the matter does not change reality. Scream "A=A" all you want, tattoo it on your arm, it doesn't matter. Reality will not be changed. The reality is that I can observe an event as a straight path while you observe the same thing as a curve. I explained this to you in explicit detail, borrowing Einstein's famous thought experiment involving a train. You proceeded to say that Einstein was wrong.

I don't acknowledge that humans invented the Laws of Logic but claim that humans could not have invented them due to the fact they have to use them to invent anything at all.

Right, I'm obviously not going to convince you that Platonism is wrong. You seem content to die on that hill. All I can do is show you that physical reality is not beholden to these rules you espouse and then watch you as you open your mouth and cover your ears.

 

[gaara4158]

Ok, so we both agree that the Laws must be used for any and all thought/statements of thoughts. I think we both agree that these Laws are absolute truths about truth, correct?

No. I don't understand what you mean by "absolute truths about truth" and I wouldn't describe the laws of logic with such confusing language.

I then ask, if these Laws of Logic are just descriptions of reality it would seem reasonable to assume that other languages or different cultural peoples could have different Laws that describe reality in a different way. Different cultures have differing statements concerning all sorts of things and why not different statements that describe reality?

They're not descriptions of reality. They're the framework for descriptions of reality. This framework itself isn't a part of reality, it's a function of the mind, which itself is a product of the brain. The laws of logic transcend culture because the brain transcends culture. There's no culture out there that uses a different organ to think.

We agree again that the Laws of Logic are conceptual and can only exist in the mind; we have both grasped that element in our discussion. Yet, not all minds are the same. Our ability to think is not just a given either, but I digress. So if all minds are not the same why would the Laws of Logic be universally the same? If 'we' created the Laws of Logic, who are the 'we' who did? If the Laws of Logic are laws of thought they don't really describe the physical universe, but the correct way of reasoning for the ability to describe the physical universe. They describe and govern the correct way of thinking, not the physical universe which is only matter.

I just addressed most of this, but to answer the "we" part of your question, it is not quite the case that anyone "invented" the laws of logic. It's just that once animal brains became sufficiently complex, they began to produce distinct thoughts, and after a while some humans were able to identify three core premises from which all other thoughts were derived. Thus, the laws of logic/thought were formally codified. They weren't absolute truths waiting to be discovered, they weren't invented by anyone, they're just the set of axioms we're all using when we think logically. They're not falsifiable propositions, so calling them "true" or "truths" is somewhat redundant. We all take for granted that they're true, but the nature of these premises is such that there's no way to confirm them without first taking them for granted. It's more appropriate to call them axioms, which you may not have heard of before if your only exposure to formal logic is from apologetics. I would encourage you to go look up this term before you form your next reply.

The statement, "If I jump off a three story building, I will most likely be extremely injured or killed" is reasoning and logic but the reason I would most likely be extremely injured or killed is not because I make that statement but because gravity exists and it will make me fall to the ground. We didn't create gravity, we can't see it, touch it, smell it or hear it but it exists and existed prior to us thinking about it or experiencing it. If we were to imagine going to the moon, we can imagine that the Laws of Logic would exist there as well. The statement that "moon dust exists and does not not exist" was true before we got there. Even if there were no minds there to make such a statement. Why does the universe/reality as a whole obey logic? If the Laws of Logic 'work' even in places we have never been, how then do you explain that reality itself is not connected to those Laws?

There is no way to describe reality without making a statement. A statement cannot be true without following the laws of logic. Therefore, all true statements about reality must follow the laws of logic. This is the only connection between logic and reality. The logical constraints apply to statements, not to reality.

Go ahead, try to say something about reality without making a statement.

Why is it a truism? What makes it such?

"If existence exists, then it can't not exist" is a truism. It's redundant. "Existence exists" is already a negation of "Existence does not exist" as expressed by the law of non-contradiction. It doesn't say anything new or interesting.

I don't think you thought that one through...
True is true even without a statement about it being true. The making of the statement is not the truth value, it already is true.

I'm asking you to use proper grammar when we're discussing the meaning of truth as a technical term, because it actually does make a difference. "True is true" is itself a statement, albeit another truism. But your original question was "Is truth true?" which needed clarification. If you mean to ask if statements that comport with reality are true, then the answer is by definition yes, but properly stated it should read "Is a truth true?" or "Are truths true?" Truth, when used as a singular noun, could refer to either a single true statement, in which case your grammar was poor, or it could refer to the label we apply to statements that comport with reality, in which case your question was incoherent.

I totally disagree. There is nothing in scientific study, reality, curiosity and most certainly ones grand assumption of their intellectual honesty that leads anyone away from "God did it" and Laws that govern thought and the universe itself provide justification. I haven't seen any justification that mankind created the Laws of Logic. Just assertions. What explanation can you provide that mankind created the Laws of Logic and why they are obeyed universally? What justification do you provide?

All of this is addressed elsewhere in this reply. Mankind didn't create the laws of logic any more than mankind created walking on two legs. It's a thing we do that helps us function. You have yet to demonstrate that any laws or the universe itself suggest the existence of a god.

Do you believe that only knowledge acquired by scientific study is valid?

No, but you included science in your list of things that point to God's existence, so I'm just curious as to what scientific study actually listed God's existence as a viable explanation for anything at all and how on Earth I missed it.

How do human minds create necessary universal truth? Please explain.

I never said they did.

Explain what you mean by 'assume' the Laws of Logic?

Have you looked up the term "axiom" yet? By "assume" the laws of logic, I mean we have to take them for granted as initial premises from which to derive all other conclusions. Any "a priori" knowledge is already based on those laws. So to say you came to know the laws of logic "a priori" is to say that you base the laws of logic on the laws of logic. You reasoned your way to reason. It doesn't work. You shouldn't use terms you don't understand. If you don't understand the terms I'm using, you can just ask me. Don't just throw words into your argument to sound smart. That's dishonest.

I know that the Laws of Logic do not vary across different human minds, why? If they are created by human minds that are different, how are they universally known. How were they accepted universally, and how were they established?

See above.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

What evidence do you have that humans invented language?

The extremely basic and banal observation that people do it every single day, and have done so throughout the course of history.

I find it hard to believe that was a serious question.

Ad hominem...

You can stop right there. That was not an ad hominem. You should look up such terms before you use them.

I think it is self-evident.

You are mistaken.

That defeats your position

No it doesn't. There is nothing I have said in this entire thread is contradicted by any logic textbook, and there is nothing you have said that wouldn't benefit from a basic understanding of the subject. Which you do not appear to possess.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you're saying Einstein was wrong about his theory of Relativity?

I'm not saying he is wrong; there is some new information that might show that the speed of light is slowing down. However, most scientific philosophers don't consider Einstein's theory of relativity showing that logic is shown to be falsified by the theory.

Sigh... reality is as it is, and what we have to say on the matter does not change reality. Scream "A=A" all you want, tattoo it on your arm, it doesn't matter. Reality will not be changed. The reality is that I can observe an event as a straight path while you observe the same thing as a curve. I explained this to you in explicit detail, borrowing Einstein's famous thought experiment involving a train. You proceeded to say that Einstein was wrong.

I don't think I proceeded to say that Einstein was wrong. Is it illogical that perception could be affected by the Laws of Physics? We still understand that on a flat surface a straight line is logically straight and not a curve. Regardless, if you want to claim that the Laws of Logic are not absolutely true and objectively necessarily true, I think you will have a hard time doing so.

Right, I'm obviously not going to convince you that Platonism is wrong. You seem content to die on that hill. All I can do is show you that physical reality is not beholden to these rules you espouse and then watch you as you open your mouth and cover your ears.

Without these rules I 'espouse' we couldn't be debating them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The extremely basic and banal observation that people do it every single day, and have done so throughout the course of history.

I find it hard to believe that was a serious question.

It is a very serious question and one in which scientists are still trying to discover. Last I knew, there were no relevant paths from non-human animals including primates to dialectal communication nor to the biological ability, there is no evidence as support by way of fossils that would imply any of our earliest ancestors as having the ability of language and no genes to linguistic processes. The fact that we 'have done so' throughout the course of history' is begging the question.

You can stop right there. That was not an ad hominem. You should look up such terms before you use them.

'vacuous gibberish'? Not ad hominem? That I am unintelligent, stupid, foolish, brainless, witless and so forth is not ad hominem? Right. This attacks me personally and not the argument at hand. Let me give you the definition of ad hominem, maybe you should have looked it up:
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

You are mistaken.

I guess so.

No it doesn't. There is nothing I have said in this entire thread is contradicted by any logic textbook, and there is nothing you have said that wouldn't benefit from a basic understanding of the subject. Which you do not appear to possess.

Well, yes it does. The Laws of Logic are not the textbook formal logic of which you speak. We both are claiming that all people have the ability of logical reasoning, the fundamental truth that can be expressed in normal natural languages and believed by normal ordinary everyday people. If it were not the case, only those according to you would only be able to make any sense if they read Copi & Cohen. Now if we read any of the great works on Logic we would most certainly be more equipped to formally address logic in those terms, but we are not discussing any formal textbook logic but that of the fundamental necessary Laws that we obey in reasoning and thought of any kind.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm not saying he is wrong; there is some new information that might show that the speed of light is slowing down.

The first and second halves of your sentence contradict one another. Einstein showed that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference. There is no evidence that the speed of light is slowing down. That is creationist propaganda to reconcile deep time out of deep space, so it is not even relevant here.

However, most scientific philosophers don't consider Einstein's theory of relativity showing that logic is shown to be falsified by the theory.

That's because they understand that the scope of logic is limited to its own axiomatic system. You, on the other hand, insist that laws of logic are always true in a any context. I've shown you that you're wrong. Or do you believe that straight equals curved?

I don't think I proceeded to say that Einstein was wrong. Is it illogical that perception could be affected by the Laws of Physics?

So you deny having said that Einstein was wrong, and now you dispute a major point of his for the second time already in this post. The theory of Relativity is not about perception. It's about reality. The path of the ball really is curved. And it really is straight. At the same time. This constitutes irrefutable proof that A=A is not true at all times in any context.

We still understand that on a flat surface a straight line is logically straight and not a curve.

Are you saying that one of the reference frames is wrong? Is there a preferred reference frame? If I understand your meaning here then this is the third time you've contradicted Einstein while insisting to have never done so.

Have you ever read anything about Relativity?

Regardless, if you want to claim that the Laws of Logic are not absolutely true and objectively necessarily true, I think you will have a hard time doing so.

I recall having done so in about two paragraphs.

Without these rules I 'espouse' we couldn't be debating them.

Correction: without Einstein's theory of Relativity we couldn't be debating as satellites wouldn't work.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The first and second halves of your sentence contradict one another. Einstein showed that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference. There is no evidence that the speed of light is slowing down. That is creationist propaganda to reconcile deep time out of deep space, so it is not even relevant here.

You are so quick to show your biases. You are consistent that is for certain.

Is the Speed of Light Slowing Down?

That's because they understand that the scope of logic is limited to its own axiomatic system. You, on the other hand, insist that laws of logic are always true in a any context. I've shown you that you're wrong. Or do you believe that straight equals curved?

Are you absolutely sure that the law of non-contradiction fails with the theory of Relativity?

So you deny having said that Einstein was wrong, and now you dispute a major point of his for the second time already in this post. The theory of Relativity is not about perception. It's about reality. The path of the ball really is curved. And it really is straight. At the same time. This constitutes irrefutable proof that A=A is not true at all times in any context.

Either A = A is true or it is false. How does this provide proof that A=A is false? If it is not true at all times it is false.

Are you saying that one of the reference frames is wrong? Is there a preferred reference frame? If I understand your meaning here then this is the third time you've contradicted Einstein while insisting to have never done so.

Have you ever read anything about Relativity?



I recall having done so in about two paragraphs.





Correction: without Einstein's theory of Relativity we couldn't be debating as satellites wouldn't work.

Provide proof that A=A is false.