Self-evident truth is a thing

[Esquilax]

Are you guys honestly saying that logic itself is not true outside of what we can see and detect? The whole point of logic is that it works EVERYwhere and ALLways.

Yes, and logic is only as good as the premises you feed into it, and those premises need to be demonstrated to be true before logic can lead them anywhere that's also true. Like, for example:

We have a concept called motion, which is a transition from a starting point to an ending point. No matter where or when you are, if something doesn't have a starting or ending point, it's not motion. EVER. There is motion, therefore there is a starting point. Self-evident truth. True everywhere.

You say this, apparently skipping over that we know how motion works, that we have evidence of motion working in accordance with the laws of physics, that we can make predictions based on our knowledge of motion, that we can observe motion and cause motion and alter motion. It's not self evident just 'cuz, it's self evident because it's a self demonstrating phenomenon. It does have evidence for its existence.

Additionally, you don't know that what you've said is true everywhere, you're just making an inductive statement based on what you perceive to be true because of your observations of our physical world. It's the same kind of limited, blanket generalization you've been warned off of making before.

We have a concept called nothing. Anything you can imagine, and anything you can't imagine, is not it. No matter where you are or how much time elapses. nothing will NEVER equal anything, because nothing is not something. Nothing is nothing. Self-evident truth. True everywhere.

We've also never had a nothing to examine, so you can't make any statements about its properties, or even if it's a logically coherent concept. And yet you're still sitting there telling us how self evident it is that nothing has this property, when you don't even know if nothing is possible; what is nothing? How do you know there ever was any? Can you explain to me whether what I just asked even makes sense? Doesn't it seem contradictory, expecting there to be a time where nothing existed?

See, that's the problem you're having here; you keep making leaps to what you want to be true, based on little to no actual information, and then attempting to make those statements invulnerable to criticism by calling them self evident; sorry, I don't play that game. The properties of a self evident thing are emblazoned right there in the name, they're self evidencing, and when you make statements about nothing while not ever giving us a nothing to examine, then the last part of the appellation has suddenly dropped right out, and the first part might not even be applicable.

Because how can any property of nothing be self evident if nothing can't even have a self to be evident on account of how it isn't anything even if you could produce some of it and now I've gone cross-eyed...

I'm sure you get my point, though.