hmmm let us hear from them
gusto sad ko makabaw unsa ila tubag ^_
hmmm let us hear from them
gusto sad ko makabaw unsa ila tubag ^_
Mao pud ni sagad nakong masinatian. Second question pa gani, maglikay2x na og tubag ang mga atheist.
for me Ang logic wala nay physical properties kay tool, pamaagi or system ra man na . kung nakuha nako imo gipasabot.
I'm still sort of confused by this question, but let me take a stab at this hoping I could answer your question in the process. Take note that I am NOT an atheist but I found your questions interesting.
Are laws of logic universal?
No. The only reason it's called "universal" is because a lot of people happen to agree with it. Morality is a good example. Majority of us thinks Racism is wrong, but that's only because it is accepted as the universal law. 1 + 1 = 2, but who said this is correct? Almost all of us, because that's the "accepted universal law". I can say that my keyboard exist, this is fact, but that fact is my opinion. Therefore, fact is relative to opinion.
Are laws of logic immaterial?
Yes. Laws of logic are based on opinion, therefore they are not material. Logic is in our heads. Physical laws are observable, but only because we make those laws and conclude something based on our observations, whether they are "facts" or not.
Last edited by Devian; 06-15-2011 at 11:10 PM.
'Usually', BUT NOT always. Here have a look, especially the second point:
immaterial
adj.
1. Of no importance or relevance; inconsequential or irrelevant.
2. Having no material body or form.
src: immaterial: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
Gawas pa, klaro man kaayo ang context sa akong pangutana. Kana imong reply sa taas, mao na usa ka example sa akong nasinatian.![]()
Similar Threads |
|