Origin of Articles

[Angrboda]

Ah yes, the claim that Thwarb violates the principle of non-contradiction, but which you didn't actually give reasons for claiming that it does so.

Here's your quote. Feel free to explain how your claim is anything but a bare assertion, which is worth nothing.

What you have described can't exist since it violates the law of non - contradiction. thwarb can't exist and not exist at the same time in the same relationship since laws of logic have always been (biblical God) and were not created. It would have to be a created entity and Laws of logic do not violate themselves.

(Actually, rereading it, I think you need your medication adjusted. It's nothing but a meaningless, glossolaliac attempt to parrot the form of reason, without any of the substance. There is no distinction between created and uncreated things, so the last half is bollocks.)

[Oh, and to save a reply, please provide me a reference to the passage in your bible where God explicitly said that logic is uncreated, as you claim above.]


But here's the thing. There are logics in which there is no principle of non-contradiction. So we have your claim that the principle of non-contradiction is a universal principle of logic, but a universal principle of logic which is not universal. Now, you can continue to hold that the principle of non-contradiction is universal, in which case the principle is itself a violation of the non-contradiction principle. Or, we can dispense with the principle of non-contradiction to restore consistency to your worldview, which brings Thwarb back into the picture. What ad hoc justification are you going to turn to next, hmm?

Your move.



For what it's worth, I don't have any objection to the relativization of logic. As long as people agree on the rules of the game, the results can be quite useful. Logic doesn't have to be transcendental to be useful. In the last century we've seen a virtual explosion of logics, all useful and perfectly valid in their domain. The operation of the universe doesn't depend on our framing it with logic. Stars will keep burning. Water will still be wet. And so on. It's comparable to the situation in mathematics. Thanks to Godel, we know there are mathematical truths we can never know, and it is impossible to determine whether a given mathematics is even consistent, for a great many mathematics. Monsters didn't suddenly appear on the horizon, we can still make change at the grocery, and how's that computer working out for you? I presume you're not posting by telekinesis — you're depending on extensions of Godel's work in computational theory.

Now it's your turn to justify. What phenomenon requires logic be transcendental for it to occur? (And keep in mind, if you claim that the logic we use depends on universals, you'll be required to justify that claim. Just yesterday, more out of curiosity, I pulled out my copy of The Cambridge Introduction To Non-Classical Logic and browsed the variety of classes of non-classical logics — not individual logics, but whole sets of logics — which you apparently are completely ignorant of. I'm aware of dialetheic logics, para-consistent logics, fuzzy logics, super-valuationist logics and multi-valued logics, just to name a few. Your apparent notion that "logic" is one well defined thing only highlights your ignorance and the poverty of the apologetics you're practicing.)

And then comes the next hurdle. Consistency is an incredibly low bar. You can go into any library or bookstore and find book length descriptions of fictional worlds, all consistent, all based on nothing. If all you're claiming is consistency, then I have no reason to think more of your God and bible than I do of a science fiction novel.

Oh, and lest I forget, there are specific books in the Vedas which deal specifically with the principles of logic and inference, passed down from Brahmin to Brahmin, word for word, inflection for inflection, from before your little Jewish fairy tale even got started. So thank you for once again demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about. (Oh, and before you stick your foot in your mouth again and claim that I believe in multiple gods... I don't. Stop making shit up out of thin air. I believe in a single god, whose existence perfectly accounts for all the relevant facts of existence. My worldview is every bit as comprehensive and consistent as yours. Feel free to justify why I should adopt your worldview in preference to my own, when both are complete. That god, is not Yahweh. I've read parts of your bible. Your god is himself inconsistent. But I'm curious which sections of your "holy book" describe the laws of logic. Would you be so kind as to quote me chapter and verse?)

Oh, and I wasn't angry. I was simply parroting back my reasons in the same form as the ones you claimed were "rational" justifications. That was the point, dear. Or is it simply your position that only Christian presuppositions are acceptable. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.