Proof A=A

[Violet]

I honestly don't quite understand... why did you post the A=A thread, Rabbit?

This little mystery is puzzling me I don't see anything 'new' or the like added... was it just to have an official AF stance on the law of identity?

[Purple Rabbit]

I honestly don't quite understand... why did you post the A=A thread, Rabbit?

This little mystery is puzzling me I don't see anything 'new' or the like added... was it just to have an official AF stance on the law of identity?

This topic first was posted by me in the Mathematics section (its mathematical counterpart has the same form). The Mathematics section is for some reason dominated with puzzles by Adrian who asks to solve 'm. But Adrian decided that my post belonged here in the Philosophy section. So now it sits here looking as a puzzle.

I am not asking an official AF stance om A=A. AF, if it indeed has any definition at all in terms of a legal entity, has no authority whatsoever on logic. I am asking argumented opinion from everyone who likes to give it on the subject because I wanted to hear whether all that is accepted as true must be provable.

[Tiberius]

The only reason I moved it is because you seemed to be talking about the law of identity, which is more closely related to philosophy than mathematics. If you are actually talking about mathematics, then I can move it back, but from your post above it seems like you want to have a discussion concerning philosophy.

[Violet]

I am asking argumented opinion from everyone who likes to give it on the subject because I wanted to hear whether all that is accepted as true must be provable.

I don't think that a thing has to be 'provable' to be accepted as 'true'... eg: Can I prove there are no gods? No. Do I believe it to be true that there are none? Yes.

As far as logic goes, logic is the tool that we use to prove things... but that applies to itself as well, and there is nothing but logic to support itself. Do I believe logic to be true (at least for us)? Yes. Can I prove it? Only with itself.

You could make a similar statement about the Bible or the like... but at least logic gets us somewhere and appears to work (although this is no guarantee that it will always be so or has always been so).

[fr0d0]

You can't use (non) evidence. You can't use logic to disprove God but you can have a lot of fun trying, and make tons of money too. More money than the churches at the moment it seems with the crowds attracted to the various events around the world. Religion or anti religion is still fleecing you for your cash. But we're all having a great time getting together

[Welsh cake]

You can't use (non) evidence. You can't use logic to disprove God but you can have a lot of fun trying, and make tons of money too.

Not true fr0d0. Logic alone can actually refute impossible beings outside our plane of existence that violate reality, what it can't do is prove countless possible beings existing anywhere without evidence first, you see, any attempt to argue for either position is rationally unjustifiable. Without any kind of reliable evidence, you can't establish God as fact.

Also, its not up to Atheists to disprove God with or without logic, its up to you to try and establish an existence claim for your creator concept first and then see if it'll stand up to scrutiny.

Now in terms of practical meaningful knowledge, strong Atheists can reject your concept for God outright only because you haven't even presented a valid working definition of what this "God" is yet.

And without evidence and/or logic to support your claim, I'm afraid you literally have nothing to work with, but fallacious arguments that most weak Atheists can very quickly cut through.

[fr0d0]

Not true fr0d0. Logic alone can actually refute impossible beings outside our plane of existence that violate reality

Ok cake I stand here waiting for proof prepared to be amazed....





I guess that'll be a long wait. Meantine...

1. No one is trying to establish God as fact.. seems you don't quite grasp the subject in hand. (answer: God cannot be known as fact)

2. What is this existence claim you speak of that would stand up to scrutiny? Is this a scientific requirement for proof of a transcendental entity perhaps?

3. Strong Atheists (that know God doesn't exist) are as equally intellectually bankrupt as people that know God does exist.

[Welsh cake]

Ok cake I stand here waiting for proof prepared to be amazed....

As I just explained, logic can disprove impossible entities with ease, but it can't prove unknowable entities without evidence.

I hope you're not trying to shift the burden of proof onto those who aren't asserting an all-loving sky daddy exists. But even if you want to retreat behind agnosticism, your god concept has attributes that are self-contradictory, therefore is arguably an impossible being, not simply an unknowable one.

[fr0d0]

Looks like you re-stated some stuff and dodged providing evidence of your own claim cake.

Here it is again: "Logic alone can actually refute impossible beings outside our plane of existence that violate reality"

[Welsh cake]

Looks like you re-stated some stuff and dodged providing evidence of your own claim cake.

Here it is again: "Logic alone can actually refute impossible beings outside our plane of existence that violate reality"

Correction. I'm responding to your claim that logic alone can't disprove non-physical beings that transcend reality. You're basically suggesting I've started a straw-man argument, but your argument collapses under moderate scrutiny because you haven't even established what this god-guy is yet; you're trying to assert scientific logic can't disprove your claim of whether something impossible exists outside reality or beyond the fundamental forces of the universe or not which subsequently falls into the logical fallacy of Untestability.

Sorry, but these are the basic rules of logic fr0d0 (i.e. you cannot make a proposition that is both true and false simultaneously), so its not logic or myself who are at fault, but that your argument's invalid is actually the root of the problem here. You've made an unjustified presupposition and I don't need to remind you that the idea of god is insupportable by either logic or evidence do I? It can refute your God concept because it has many contradictory attributes (omnipotence anyone?) and therefore he belongs in the category of the logically impossible.