(November 12, 2016 at 6:37 am)Edward John Wrote:(November 12, 2016 at 6:18 am)Mathilda Wrote: Equivocation between factually wrong and morally wrong.
Define what you mean by absolute truth.
Do you mean absolute truth as in real or as an absolute truth in no limit to our understanding?
You ignored this point the last time I asked because you couldn't answer it. I'll just continue asking until you do.
In order to tell you what exactly I mean by absolute truth, You'll have to answer my question.
The question is this I Don’t Know what Absolute Truth means? Pick A or B
A: Absolutely True that I don't know what absolute truth means.
B: Absolutely False that I don't know what absolute truth means.
Pick A or B
Or you could just explain what an absolute truth is.
Is it
A) Reality
B) Absolute knowledge about reality
Pick A or B
(November 12, 2016 at 6:37 am)Edward John Wrote: SO you said Logic does not exist - that it was invented. Now which was it? One interesting thing about denying logic, is that since you DO NOT believe in logic, you actually DO believe in logic, Yes a true non sequitur. If there were not logic, then you could have no problem with that contradiction. Pick A or B.
A: I used logic to conclude that logic does not exist.
B:I came to the conclusion about logic arbitrarily.
Pick A or B
Equivocation on your part again. You are equivocating between logic existing as something that has been discovered and as something that has been invented.
Logic has been invented. If you don't believe me, then what form of logic do you think was discovered? First order predicate logic? Higher logic? Fuzzy logic?
How can I argue that logic does not exist yet also argue that it was invented? You are making a strawman argument.
I argue that logic has been invented and exists as a concept, much in the same way that languages are created and exist.
Wipe out the human species and language disappears. Same with logic.
