Originally posted by finnegan Rather than 'valid' what he wrote was "true" as in " If logic is conceptual (a process of the mind) and certainly appear to be universally true, then what are the conditions that must be in place in order for the laws of logic to be universally true..."
I am well aware of what he wrote. But his English is far from exemplary and I tried to explain what he probably meant.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk I know my English is far from exemplary but if I wanted to kill myself, I would climb up to your ego and jump down to your IQ level. 😀
So someone tries to help you out and you insult him. I never cease to be bemused by how unpleasant (self proclaimed) Christians turn out to be when questioned. It suggests that I am not mistaken in choosing to take your words as presented and let dig your own way out of your own holes.
Originally posted by finnegan So someone tries to help you out and you insult him. I never cease to be bemused by how unpleasant (self proclaimed) Christians turn out to be when questioned. It suggests that I am not mistaken in choosing to take your words as presented and let dig your own way out of your own holes.
It's a joke lighten up. It was aimed at his self proclaimed mind reading abilities.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk It's a joke lighten up. It was aimed at his self proclaimed mind reading abilities.
It may have been a joke, but it was clearly also a deliberate insult. And I have not claimed to have mind reading abilities making your claim I 'self proclaimed' them a blatant lie.
Originally posted by twhitehead It may have been a joke, but it was clearly also a deliberate insult. And I have not claimed to have mind reading abilities making your claim I 'self proclaimed' them a blatant lie.
Is that a fact? If so I guess it's not true then by your own admission.
Originally posted by twhitehead It may have been a joke, but it was clearly also a deliberate insult. And I have not claimed to have mind reading abilities making your claim I 'self proclaimed' them a blatant lie.
It may have been a joke, but it was clearly also a deliberate insult.
Oh yes I forgot only you are allowed to insult people about their reading comprehension etc.
And I have not claimed to have mind reading abilities making your claim I 'self proclaimed' them a blatant lie.
Oh so when you were saying you "knew" what I meant, and when you said I insulted you "deliberately", you were not claiming to be a mind reader?
Originally posted by finnegan I am not convinced that logic is in itself any sort of truth statement and certainly not universally true.
"If A then A" is a statement of logic but in what sense is it true?
I am not convinced either that we can use logic to show truth, though I do see we can use it to make inferences about statements - but that is redundant really and not helpfu ...[text shortened]... ueen of England may (or may not) be found and the truth of my statemenet established or refuted.
I've got a slight difference with you here. Classical logic is a language, and assigning the status true or false to it is as silly as asking if the moon is true - ignoring the meaning of true used in carpentry where it more or less means straight (which is where we get the word true from) - so far we agree. Classical logic is expected to preserve truth. So if I have "if A then B" and A is true then we expect B to be as well, independently of what A and B are. Logical statements such as "if A then A" are tautologies and they are true, unconditionally so, but are trivial.
The "truth test" in logic, at least classical logic, isn't connected with usefulness but whether one can deduce a false statement. The nonsense statement "If I am a giraffe then the planet Mars is green." is true, because one cannot make an incorrect deduction from it. I'm not a giraffe, so nothing can be concluded about what colour Mars is and Mars is not green so one can correctly conclude that DeepThought is not a giraffe. Summary, usefulness isn't a criterion for truth, something can be nonsense or trivial, but nevertheless true.
Originally posted by DeepThought I've got a slight difference with you here. Classical logic is a language, and assigning the status true or false to it is as silly as asking if the moon is true - ignoring the meaning of true used in carpentry where it more or less means straight (which is where we get the word true from) - so far we agree. Classical logic is expected to preserve trut ...[text shortened]... ulness isn't a criterion for truth, something can be nonsense or trivial, but nevertheless true.
Summary, usefulness isn't a criterion for truth, something can be nonsense or trivial, but nevertheless true.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk All rational discussions (even those related to the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes.
I would say they require the prior foundation of truisms.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk I see you have 'answered' only the first question with two questions of your own. Are you even going to try to answer the rest of the questions? And no I never claimed that God created logic.
You answered Think Of One with 2 questions on the first page , so ....
24 Jun '16 19:40
Atheism and logic
Back to Top