Mr. Bolt is confusing the verb “contradict”, which means “to assert or express the opposite of”, with the logical definition of “contradiction”. A logical contradiction occurs if two antithetical propositions are true at the same time.
Mr. Bolt makes the following statement, “So it turns out that “self-evident” propositions really are not “evident” in terms of their “self” and may not be “evident” at all. Perhaps we should call them something else!”
Perhaps I was unclear and should have made the distinction between analytic and self-evident propositions. A self-evident proposition is a proposition that one cannot deny without knowing that one contradicts oneself. This is what makes the proposition evident. An analytic proposition is a proposition that one cannot deny without contradicting oneself, however one may not necessarily be aware of the fact that one is contradicting oneself. These are not necessarily easy to spot. However, this does not change the fact that the laws of logic are self-evident.
“Yes, he is offering an argument for “self-evident logic” while claiming that arguments indicate that the proposition being argued for is not self-evident.”
What is my argument for self-evident logic? It would be great if Mr. Bolt could state it.
If the existence of God is in fact self-evident, then that would mean (if one accepts the given definition of self-evident), one cannot deny the existence of God without knowing that one contradicts oneself. Why then do apologists attempt to find reasonable arguments for the existence of God, when God’s existence is self-evident and those who deny God’s existence know that they are contradicting themselves? Who are they trying to convince of God’s existence?
“Perhaps he can tell me how there can be language conventions if there are no physical objects.”
The same way there can be laws of logic if there are no physical objects. When we imagine possible worlds, we must imagine it in some conceptual space, which is the framework for language. It is possible for me to imagine possible worlds in which there can be language conventions if there are no physical objects.
“If the laws of logic are language conventions, how do they apply to possible worlds in which there are no language conventions?”
How does logic apply to possible worlds in which logic does not exist? What is the relevance of this question?
“Perhaps Agreus can explain how we can “agree” with one another without having the ability to communicate with one another, because it looks rather impossible to me.”
I agree that it’s not possible to agree with one another without having the ability to communicate with one another, but this does not mean language conventions are based upon the ability to communicate with one another. Communication ability means something entirely different than language convention.
Agreus states “Mike, the question as to whether or not logic is self-evident appears to be a moot point in this discussion as Chris already acknowledged that it is self-evident. If you are skeptical as to whether or not logic is true, then by all means feel free to attempt to refute logic.”
I am not skeptical about whether or not logic is true, the question is why you think logic is true.
Logic is self-evident but that is not the reason I believe it is true. I believe logic is true because, according to my worldview, it reflects the thinking of GOD. According to my worldview, GOD thinks rationally (logically) and GOD created an orderly and rational world. We, in turn, can think rationally because we were created in the image of GOD.
You say logic is true because it’s self-evidence but you don’t explain why you believe self-evidence necessarily leads to truth. I gave you the example of Euclidean Geometry that, for two thousand years, was considered to be so self-evident it was beyond doubt – and yet it turned out to be false. So why, according to your worldview, do you think logic is true?
“I am not skeptical about whether or not logic is true, the question is why you think logic is true.”
Logic is true because it is inconceivable for it not to be true. It is true by definition. That is why I think logic is true.
” I believe logic is true because, according to my worldview, it reflects the thinking of GOD”"
How are the laws of logic similar to a thought process? Are God’s thoughts contingent upon logic? This is extremely vague and you have yet to establish that God isn’t but a concept floating around inside your head.
Unfortunately, I’ve become somewhat busy lately so I will not be responding to this thread anymore either. Thanks to all for the discussion.
Mr. Bolt is confusing the verb “contradict”, which means “to assert or express the opposite of”, with the logical definition of “contradiction”. A logical contradiction occurs if two antithetical propositions are true at the same time.
Mr. Bolt makes the following statement, “So it turns out that “self-evident” propositions really are not “evident” in terms of their “self” and may not be “evident” at all. Perhaps we should call them something else!”
Perhaps I was unclear and should have made the distinction between analytic and self-evident propositions. A self-evident proposition is a proposition that one cannot deny without knowing that one contradicts oneself. This is what makes the proposition evident. An analytic proposition is a proposition that one cannot deny without contradicting oneself, however one may not necessarily be aware of the fact that one is contradicting oneself. These are not necessarily easy to spot. However, this does not change the fact that the laws of logic are self-evident.
“Yes, he is offering an argument for “self-evident logic” while claiming that arguments indicate that the proposition being argued for is not self-evident.”
What is my argument for self-evident logic? It would be great if Mr. Bolt could state it.
If the existence of God is in fact self-evident, then that would mean (if one accepts the given definition of self-evident), one cannot deny the existence of God without knowing that one contradicts oneself. Why then do apologists attempt to find reasonable arguments for the existence of God, when God’s existence is self-evident and those who deny God’s existence know that they are contradicting themselves? Who are they trying to convince of God’s existence?
“Perhaps he can tell me how there can be language conventions if there are no physical objects.”
The same way there can be laws of logic if there are no physical objects. When we imagine possible worlds, we must imagine it in some conceptual space, which is the framework for language. It is possible for me to imagine possible worlds in which there can be language conventions if there are no physical objects.
“If the laws of logic are language conventions, how do they apply to possible worlds in which there are no language conventions?”
How does logic apply to possible worlds in which logic does not exist? What is the relevance of this question?
“Perhaps Agreus can explain how we can “agree” with one another without having the ability to communicate with one another, because it looks rather impossible to me.”
I agree that it’s not possible to agree with one another without having the ability to communicate with one another, but this does not mean language conventions are based upon the ability to communicate with one another. Communication ability means something entirely different than language convention.
“Thank you” to everyone who took part. I do not plan to respond again in this thread.
Agreus states “Mike, the question as to whether or not logic is self-evident appears to be a moot point in this discussion as Chris already acknowledged that it is self-evident. If you are skeptical as to whether or not logic is true, then by all means feel free to attempt to refute logic.”
I am not skeptical about whether or not logic is true, the question is why you think logic is true.
Logic is self-evident but that is not the reason I believe it is true. I believe logic is true because, according to my worldview, it reflects the thinking of GOD. According to my worldview, GOD thinks rationally (logically) and GOD created an orderly and rational world. We, in turn, can think rationally because we were created in the image of GOD.
You say logic is true because it’s self-evidence but you don’t explain why you believe self-evidence necessarily leads to truth. I gave you the example of Euclidean Geometry that, for two thousand years, was considered to be so self-evident it was beyond doubt – and yet it turned out to be false. So why, according to your worldview, do you think logic is true?
Mike,
“I am not skeptical about whether or not logic is true, the question is why you think logic is true.”
Logic is true because it is inconceivable for it not to be true. It is true by definition. That is why I think logic is true.
” I believe logic is true because, according to my worldview, it reflects the thinking of GOD”"
How are the laws of logic similar to a thought process? Are God’s thoughts contingent upon logic? This is extremely vague and you have yet to establish that God isn’t but a concept floating around inside your head.
Unfortunately, I’ve become somewhat busy lately so I will not be responding to this thread anymore either. Thanks to all for the discussion.