RE: Logical Absolutes
March 21, 2021 at 8:07 pm
(This post was last modified: March 21, 2021 at 9:08 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(March 21, 2021 at 2:45 pm)Angrboda Wrote: With regard to Dillahunty and Slick, theism does provide an explanation for the origin or source of these things that naturalism currently lacks.
In what way does naturalism lack an explanation for logical absolutes? Could you expand on that?
Quote:As to things like the laws of logic being reflections of empirical facts or merely descriptive, I'd have to disagree. The idea that 2 + 2 = 4 seems true in a way that is more than just a convention of language.
But when we say 2 + 2 = 4, we’re referencing something tangible. “1” meaning “a thing.” “2” meaning “a thing and another of that thing.” I’d argue that logical absolutes (here I mean the law of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) are contingent upon the existence of some world or reality; of some thing. I think where it gets dicey is when we try to conceive of a world that operates so differently from ours that it has a different set of fundamental logical truths, and if something like that is even possible. But, asking myself if that’s possible seems akin to asking what came “before” the big bang.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
