I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Kyuuketsuki]

Second, tell me how logic can be tested without first presuming logic. For instance, in the case of the law of contradiction, how do you conclude that a contradiction of the law of contradiction has been made on grounds of experience, without first assuming the very fact of the law of contradiction, namely the fact of contradiction?

Logic is a reasoning tool that evolved as our minds evolved ... we (humans) invented the concept of contradiction, we define what it is.

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

Logic is a reasoning tool that evolved as our minds evolved ... we (humans) invented the concept of contradiction, we define what it is.

And that sentence has no meaning without the presumption of logic.

You didn't answer how you would falsify the law of contradiction. The problem is, you cannot falsify it, because if the law of contradiction is not true, then it is not not true, because to say that it is not true is to invoke the law of contradiction in your refutation of the law of contradiction, which is not a falsification but a reaffirmation of it.

And if we, human beings, define logical truth, then I define p "God exists" as true. A subjectivist definition of logic doesn't account for the non-uniformity of human subjective minds, and cannot. You need to invoke objectivity in contradistinction to popular and subjective opinion for that.

[Tiberius]

And that sentence has no meaning without the presumption of logic.

That is irrelevant, and it certainly does not disprove what Kyu stated. We evolved language over time too, but nothing we say makes any sense without the presumption of language. You are making a strawman.

You didn't answer how you would falsify the law of contradiction.

It is easily falsifiable. Just show that two contradictory statements can be true at the same time. It can't happen in reality because of the nature of what we define "contradiction". The law of contradiction is then a descriptive law rather than prescriptive. It is born out of our definition; logic is not born out of the law.

The problem is, you cannot falsify it, because if the law of contradiction is not true, then it is not not true, because to say that it is not true is to invoke the law of contradiction in your refutation of the law of contradiction, which is not a falsification but a reaffirmation of it.

Not true, since you are assuming that if two contradictory statements can be true and false at the same time, then *all* contradictory statements can be true and false at the same time. It could be possible perhaps, that under certain conditions true can be false.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Logic is a reasoning tool that evolved as our minds evolved ... we (humans) invented the concept of contradiction, we define what it is.

And that sentence has no meaning without the presumption of logic.

Its a relative observation thing (tree forest falling cyanide cats, you know) ... some things can only exist when there is an observer (human or otherwise) because they require intelligence to be so.

You didn't answer how you would falsify the law of contradiction. The problem is, you cannot falsify it, because if the law of contradiction is not true, then it is not not true, because to say that it is not true is to invoke the law of contradiction in your refutation of the law of contradiction, which is not a falsification but a reaffirmation of it.

Didn't I? Bummer! It doesn't require falsification because it ain't science!

And if we, human beings, define logical truth, then I define p "God exists" as true. A subjectivist definition of logic doesn't account for the non-uniformity of human subjective minds, and cannot. You need to invoke objectivity in contradistinction to popular and subjective opinion for that.

Truth is not something science deals with therefore I reject the concept except as a mathematical concept.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Mind is simply the English term for a knowing or thinking entity. In other words, a nous, or an intellect.

I know what mind is...

The point is that whether you call it mind or not makes no difference. You say that the fact that I detect the objective subjectively is 'irrelevant', what's relevant is that I'm a 'mind'. You simply assert that I'm a 'mind'. You could just as easily assert that I'm a 'body'.

You could say that I'm a body with a mind, or a mind with a body, either way - the words you choose to describe exactly the same thing makes no difference.

When you say that I'm 'a mind', You have not given any evidence for this. I have a mind, yes - in the sense of a brain. And I also have a body, in which the brain is part of, whether you call that a 'mind' or not, or whether you call that 'mental' or 'physical'. We still actually have evidence of exactly the same things.

Now - me in my entirety, you can say that I'm simply a 'mind', yeah. But what does that even mean? The fact you say I'm a 'mind' what does that actually change? What are you describing? I still have feet and arms and legs, etc, etc - how am I not physical? What are you actually 'on about'?

You could just as easily say "Ah, but the fact that you understand subjectively is irrelevant, what really matters is the fact that you are a purple cabbage" - by simply saying I'm a 'mind', once again - what are you actually on about? I know what a mind is.

What it means? It means you have failed to substantiate your claim that "objective truth exists independently of us (..)

I have already answered this:

[...]We don't have to absoutely demonstrate or know that the universe exists objectiively. Actually, it's not just that we don't have to - we can't! As subjective minds we can't absolutely know or absolutely demonstrate. Because for all we know - we could still be wrong.

From my own personal experience, I have grown up realizing - like others - that life is logical and things make sense. I have my own evidence of logic and rationality in the universe....

[...]You can't know beyond your own subjectivity, and if you are unsatisfied with that, tough. Unless you can somehow magically demonstrate otherwise to me.

Furthermore: Truth and logic can be measured in our own heads (at least potentially in principle) in the sense of how we understand what's true or not. Truth and logic itself doesn't exist outside our heads, but it's true whether something exists or not outside our heads (and also true inside of course).

Truth and logic are not things that exist in and of themselves, they are tools and concepts. Stuff either exists or doesn't, it's true that it does or doesn't....so truth and logic doesn't have to exist in itself - only the things we are talking about whether they are 'true' or rather, real or not - in other words whether they exist or not.

EvF

[Jon Paul]

It is easily falsifiable. Just show that two contradictory statements can be true at the same time.

If two contradictory statements are true at the same time, then the law of contradiction has been contradicted, and then it doesn't apply, and the law of contradiction is not contradicted either, since to say that it is contradicted presupposes the law of contradiction.

Not true, since you are assuming that if two contradictory statements can be true and false at the same time, then *all* contradictory statements can be true and false at the same time.

You just said that the criterion for falsification of the law of contradiction is exactly to show that two contradictory statements are true at the same time, in which case the law of contradiction has been contradicted, but since the law has then been contradicted, then the law does not apply and has not actually been contradicted since that would require to invoke the law of contradiction, and is still unfalsified.

---

When you say that I'm 'a mind', You have not given any evidence for this. I have a mind, yes - in the sense of a brain. And I also have a body, in which the brain is part of, whether you call that a 'mind' or not, or whether you call that 'mental' or 'physical'. We still actually have evidence of exactly the same things.

Whether I call you a mind, a brain, or a body, is irrelevant to the fact that you are a thinking and knowing intellect capable of intellection, or that you derive your knowledge of logic and truth from that fact of intellection and conceptual realisation. That I call you a mind or not is not an actual premise for the argument I made, and thus, you have failed to refute my argument.

[Edwardo Piet]

Whether I call you a mind, a brain, or a body, is irrelevant to the fact that you are a thinking and knowing intellect capable of intellection, or that you derive your knowledge of logic and truth from that fact of intellection and conceptual realisation. That I call you a mind or not is not an actual premise for the argument I made, and thus, you have failed to refute my argument.

No I haven't -once again, you said:

It means you have failed to substantiate your claim that "objective truth exists independently of us (..)

And, as I said:

I have already answered this:

[...]We don't have to absoutely demonstrate or know that the universe exists objectiively. Actually, it's not just that we don't have to - we can't! As subjective minds we can't absolutely know or absolutely demonstrate. Because for all we know - we could still be wrong.

From my own personal experience, I have grown up realizing - like others - that life is logical and things make sense. I have my own evidence of logic and rationality in the universe....

[...]You can't know beyond your own subjectivity, and if you are unsatisfied with that, tough. Unless you can somehow magically demonstrate otherwise to me.

I don't have to prove objective truth to exist. The fact I experience this world subjectively, and the personal experience and the evidence I have of its rationality and logic - is enough, it will have to do. Why? Because that's also all anyone else has access to, yourself included. We can only know things through our own subjectivity. Unless you can evidence me otherwise.

EvF

[Tiberius]

You just said that the criterion for falsification of the law of contradiction is exactly to show that two contradictory statements are true at the same time, in which case the law of contradiction has been contradicted, but since the law has then been contradicted, then the law does not apply and has not actually been contradicted since that would require to invoke the law of contradiction, and is still unfalsified.

No, it would mean that the law of contradiction did not apply in certain circumstances. It may well continue to work for most other things in logic.

Take another example. Newtonian physics works to a degree, and can predict to a high level of accuracy. However it fails on the small scale, and Einsteinian physics replaces it. Nobody would say that Newtonian physics is completely wrong, just wrong in certain circumstances.

Anyway, your challenge was to find a way of falsifying the law of contradiction. To falsify something, you have to come up with an example which does not apply to the law. The law of contradiction says that something cannot be both true and false at the same time, so the way to falsify this would be to find something that could be both true and false at the same time.

I never said I'd found any examples that held to this, but it is a way of falsifying it. The law though is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's an attribute of our logic; logic isn't an attribute of the law.

[Dotard]

Well I did go thru the first three pages then and again now.

Looks like the Kalam to me.

Reading thru this thread a couple times to be certain, I notice you use a whole hellofa lot of words just to say "It's God! He can do anything!" or "Goddidit".

[Jon Paul]

No, it would mean that the law of contradiction did not apply in certain circumstances. It may well continue to work for most other things in logic.

Then it is not a falsification of it which you are speaking of. If there could be two contradictory true statements, then the common truth of those statements would be a violation of the law of contradiction, and those statements could not be said to presuppose the law of contradiction, a law that contradicts the statements themselves, a fact that denies the statements their possibility of contradicting the law of contradiction, since that requires the application of the law of contradiction, a law that is in direct contradiction with the statements and unapplicable.

---

(..)

I don't have to prove objective truth to exist. The fact I experience this world subjectively, and the personal experience and the evidence I have of its rationality and logi - is enough, it will have to do. Why? Because that's also all anyone else has access to, yourself included. We can only know things through our own subjectivity. Unless you can evidence me otherwise.

My argument nowhere disputed our subjectivity. The locus of my argument was the existence or non-existence of logic and truth as conceptual realities independently of what human minds think about it.

What it means? It means you have failed to substantiate your claim that (quoting EvF) "objective truth exists independently of us (..) independent of us, and independent of whether we believe in it or not", because to substantiate the claim that logic and truth exist independently of the intellectual realm, you are forced to appeal to the intellectual realm, by exactly appealing to your (as an intellect/nous/mind) own conceptual realisation of logic and truth. You have demonstrated the opposite of your claim (that logic and truth exist somehow apart from mind): namely that logic and truth are conceptual realities, that only exist insofar as intellect exists.

Does that mean that logic and truth are not real? No. It means that conceptual realisation that they do, is exactly a realisation of an actually existing reality which is conceptual, and that a conceptual reality thus applies to the natural world, is true of objects that exist in the natural world (object X exists, X is not not X, and X does not not exist). It has no implications for whether logic and truth are real or not; but for what kind of reality they are. They are known realities, thought realities, conceptual realities.

And in reality, we already knew this, by way of knowing logics fundamental transcendence of all non-intellectual parts of reality. For truth and logic cannot be weighed, cannot be measured, cannot be photographed, and are therefore not a material; and the truth and logic apply both before and now, here and there, that is, don't change based on distance in space or time, and are therefore not spatial or temporal. It is not a physical reality, in other words, it is a transcendent conceptual reality that applies to the physical reality but is not itself equal to it.

But what is the implication of this? Let's consider it. I am starting with analysing atheism, the non-affirmation of Gods existence. The realisation of the intellectually confined nature of the conceptual reality of logic and truth, leads to the nonsense conclusion, given atheism, that the truth is not true and is not a reality, and logic is not a reality, unless it is conceptually defined to be reality by a human being, for that is the only kind of intellect and mind that we actually know exists, given atheism.

The absurdity is striking: the conceptual reality of logic does not apply to the physical world unless a human mind agrees with it, has thought up logic, which would mean that it didn't apply unless and before temporal human minds existed, which would mean that the physical world necessary to produce human minds would have never pre-existed human minds in such a manner of obeying the conceptual realities necessary to produce human minds.

But we know, after the effect that this is not so; we know that the natural world did exist in such a manner of obeying the conceptual realities necessary to produce human minds, because human minds were produced, and we are obviously here to attest to it. This knowledge, after the effect, leads to the conclusion of a intellectual reality transcendent to temporal human existence; an eternal and subsistent intellect (mind) independent of temporal human minds (God), sufficient to produce the conceptual reality necessary to produce human minds in the natural world, by transcending the subjective conceptual realisation of any temporal intellect of the transcendent conceptual realities.

---

Reading thru this thread a couple times to be certain, I notice you use a whole hellofa lot of words just to say "It's God! He can do anything!" or "Goddidit".

If you mean the words "actuality" and "potentiality", those words are referring to different kinds of ontological states of realities, one being a possible state of existence, the other being an actual state of existence. The state of potentiality, which we can also call latency, possibility, or tendency, without actuality, was used by Heisenberg to describe the probability function (in quantum mechanics) and actuality/actualisation to the observation and subsequent wavefunction collapse.