Logical fallacy: appealing to consequence.
Either you think you can be correct while committing a fallacy, or else you disagree that this is a fallacy, or else you didn't know and you will correct yourself now.
You are claiming that logic is not absolute, how do you then turn around and claim an error in logic? That is contradiction and that too shows that logic must be absolute. Either there are logical absolutes and absolute truth or your accusation of me being in error can be dismissed just as your claim that there is no absolutes in logic or truth.
It can also be noted that if we do accept that there can be errors in logic, that provides proof that there is absolute logic, which means then I was not using a logical fallacy of appealing to consequence due to the fact that I am stating that truth exists which must be true for you to claim that I am creating a logical error in my logic which self-refutes your argument and the accusation of the fallacy.
Also, you dodged my question.
No. You made your question irrelevant. If Logic is not absolute then any argument you present is irrelevant.
OK, let's review:
You said,
I have to look at the belief behind your argument here and determine that when you claim that logic itself is not absolute and true, your argument then is not absolute or true. It doesn't matter what means you are supplying to argue your point if your point is that logic is not absolute or true. It doesn't matter if something can or can not actualize a contradiction as you have no reason to believe that a contradiction is important when you believe that the laws of logic are not absolute or absolutely true.
I replied,
It doesn't matter if I think I'm the Buddha. My argument is valid and your only response is an ad hominem.
You are literally rejecting my argument because of my beliefs.
Fallacy after fallacy...
I see where you became confused to my response. I said to look at your beliefs but those beliefs are relative to your entire argument, thus, when I claimed we must look at your belief we must because your argument is that logic is not absolute and truth can't be known. So with that your argument is based upon that belief. It doesn't matter if you are a Christian, a Buddhist or atheist if you believe that there is no absolute truth or absolute logic then that is the belief I am speaking against. So I am not making an ad hominem error because it is not against your personal label but your belief that there is no absolute truths or logic .
What is the purpose of God performing logic? Is it to "be rational"? What do you mean by that?
To me, being rational means that logic is informing my actions. It means I have to stop and think, "OK, if I do X, then the other guy does Y, and I respond with Z." So are you saying that logic informs God's actions? But he does not need to go through this process because he is already omniscient. Logic does not inform God's actions; his own omniscience does that. So in what sense exactly do you mean God is rational?
No, that is a straw man argument, God's actions are absolute rationality in action. God is logic. Logic is not separate to inform. God's thoughts are absolutely true and absolutely rational in right thought.
Firstly, it's called the Incompleteness Theorem.
Good catch. Do you agree with this statement:
“Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove.”?
Secondly, it makes no mention of God, the universe, or causality.
Then why did you make mention of God not being omniscient if it has nothing to do with God and causality if it makes no mention of such. You seem to be all over the place...God can't be omniscient because He is bound by logic, but logic is not absolute nor can we know truth but you claim your argument is valid because of logic. And you say I'm incoherent.
So I have no idea where on earth you pulled that first sentence from. I can only assume it's some kind of copy/paste error that was not corrected after you finished composing your argument, because to intentionally type out such words is to be monumentally uninformed on the topic of discussion.
The Incompleteness Theorem claims that there is always something outside of the set, the set cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the set, something that we have to assume but cannot prove. This should apply to everything, including the universe. There must be something outside of the universe that explains it. Do you disagree, if not why?
Now let's look at this syllogism. There are quite a few problems with it, but the neat thing about the logic you hold so dear is that I really only need to point out one error to cripple the whole thing.
The problem with that statement is that it takes logic being absolute for there to be an error. So your argument self-refutes.
So let's just grant you the first three premises and make the following substitution:
Premise 4. Satan is not physical.
Premise 5. Satan is outside of the system.
Therefore, Satan caused the universe.
This argument for God is that God is not a created Being and that He is eternal. That is not the case with Satan. Satan can not be the first cause as He was created as we are within the system. He is part of the system and not outside of it. So premise five is false, thus the conclusion is as well.
Your argument is invalid. You've employed yet another fallacy: non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Just because God is not physical and outside of the system does not mean he caused the universe. Your argument sort of looks like this:
1. Someone with a rocket launcher blew up a train.
2. The person with the rocket launcher was not on the train.
3. Donald Trump was not on the train.
4. Therefore, Donald Trump blew up the train.
As I've shown your premises were invalid making your conclusion invalid. What makes my argument valid is that God is actually outside the system. There is nothing that you can substitute to take place of God because God is that one thing we must assume that we can not prove but must be true. God is eternal and outside the system.
Even though your argument was invalid, I appreciate that you tried to respond to my graphic. But you will have to either try again or concede the point. Also, you still have not satisfactorily replied to the question that precipitated it.
Recall I said this:
The form of causality that a carpenter uses to cause a table to exist is NOT the form of causality that brought about the universe. The form of causality that brought about the universe has unknown properties, does not require space or time to operate, and is completely beyond our understanding. In short, we might as well not even refer to it as causality in any way, shape, or form.
Just because it is beyond our understanding doesn't negate the reality that the universe had to have a cause. That God is the one thing we must assume that we can not prove would be a valid conclusion.
And your "response" was this:
What you are saying here is that since we can't know how God brought forth the universe, and since it is not in the same way that the universe and causality work, it is false? Truth is truth and whether or not we can determine it doesn't change the fact that it is true. Now while it might be true that God didn't use the same form of causality as we see in the physical world, which to me makes sense since He is not of the physical world, it is not to say that He could not have caused the universe to exist. This is an assertion on your part.
If it's not the same form of causality that we see in the physical world, I can only assume you will be intellectually honest from now on and refer to it as something else so as to avoid the fallacy of equivocation. Also, I'd really like to know in what sense God's act of creation was similar to the causality we know.
The universe did not always exist according to scientific research, that means it began to exist. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. The cause could not be the same form of causality that we see in the physical world as the physical world did not exist.
Fallacy: appeal to consequence.
That is not a fallacy, if logic is not absolute there is no error in logic. Not only that, you are implying that logic is true and valid and that my position is incorrect and false. It is pure rationality that logic is necessary to understand anything at all. The laws of logic are truths about truths. The problem is you are trying to use logic and claiming it is not absolutely true which makes your argument not absolutely true. If it is not absolutely true then it is not presenting truth at all. Either truth has to be absolutely true or it is not true.
How could I be wrong when there is no absolute truth in logic? The most you could reasonably say is that my thinking doesn't match yours. Since no absolute truth exists, your argument is no more valid than any other argument.
Also you dodged yet another question.
I went back to the post and I don't see any question I missed.
How does that make logic true? Or was that supposed to be a proof of the law of non-contradiction? I don't know for sure what your intentions were with that, but I can say with confidence that you failed to show whatever it is you were trying to show.
You asked: Please show me what true or false logic looks like.
I showed you what true logic looks like.
You dodge too many questions. You use so many fallacies that I've lost count. I'm going to start listing questions that you're avoiding at the bottom of posts in enlarged text from now on until you answer them.
Fallacies are irrelevant if you claim that logic is not absolute.
Depends on what form of mathematics you are using.
Prove the law of non-contradiction.
You seem to think it is true.
You must use it to argue against it. It is a logical impossibility to claim it is false.
Explain what "true logic" is.
The laws of logic.
In what sense was God's act of creation similar to the causality that we know?
It caused something to exist that didn't exist.
