Questions for the Atheists

[pinoy_09]

---

if its changing can you negate the classical laws of logic which is constant like the law of identity, law of non contradiction, and law of excluded middle?

These axioms are not constant; they can be manipulated.

[ketllac]

@ketllac

Kaning laws of logic bay, mao gyud ni ang pundasyon sa science ug mathematics. Kun wala ni siya, math and science will not make any sense. Maski mga atheist, uyon ani.

Pero kasagaran sa ila nalimot nga ang laws of logic mismo, dili gikan sa matter and therefore is not bounded by space and time. The laws of logic trancends the material world.

I see your point bai. bisan kani man ang pundasyon pero ang science ni separate na sa philosophy kay ang concern ana nila is kanang more on empericsm na..Kini nga emphasi man gud more on metaphysics like sa philosophy ni Hegel sakto ba ko?

[ketllac]

These axioms are not constant; they can be manipulated.

Can you nullify it?

[pinoy_09]

Can you nullify it?

Can rules be nullified? I would like to think so.

[ketllac]

Can rules be nullified? I would like to think so.

What I am referring to is the law of identity. Can you invalidate it in other words?

[pinoy_09]

What I am referring to is the law of identity. Can you invalidate it in other words?

I thought you were referring to the three laws of logic altogether.

You can nullify the rules to decide whether it's true or not. Can God exist and not exist at the same time? Yes, even though this whole thing sounds like a paradox.

[pinoy_09]

What about the statements above? Are they true everywhere at all times? Why?

This is why I was careful to put truth in quotation marks, to emphasize that just because it is "universal" doesn't mean it is the "truth". So no, they are not true everywhere at all times. I hope I made sense.

[ketllac]

I thought you were referring to the three laws of logic altogether.

You can nullify the rules to decide whether it's true or not. Can God exist and not exist at the same time? Yes, even though this whole thing sounds like a paradox.

akong ipa nullify nimo ang kana lang nga axiom (Law of identity) kay pirti ng taasa sa atong discussion. Kini nga topic ni gawas man ni sa idea nimo nga dili constant ang laws of logic.Ang iyang pag ka constant dili man na exclussively applicable lang sa God but sa sensible thing nag sugod ug nahimo ni siyang constant dili tungod sa proposition nga naay Ginoo but sa sensible thing nga diha kita maka infer. Since you can't disprove it then it safe to say at this point nga constant ni sya nga law kay dili tungod ni agree tanan tawo. Like the sun is same sun that people see everyday throughout the world. can you disprove that the sun is not the same sun people see in other parst of the world? Can you disprove pinoy09=pinoy09? . If you can't disprove it then it is universal..

Mato pa ni Aristotle nga "the fact that a thing is itself" allows for "a fixed constant nature of sensible things.

[pinoy_09]

akong ipa nullify nimo ang kana lang nga axiom (Law of identity) kay pirti ng taasa sa atong discussion. Kini nga topic ni gawas man ni sa idea nimo nga dili constant ang laws of logic.Ang iyang pag ka constant dili man na exclussively applicable lang sa God but sa sensible thing nag sugod ug nahimo ni siyang constant dili tungod sa proposition nga naay Ginoo but sa sensible thing nga diha kita maka infer. Since you can't disprove it then it safe to say at this point nga constant ni sya nga law kay dili tungod ni agree tanan tawo. Like the sun is same sun that people see everyday throughout the world. can you disprove that the sun is not the same sun people see in other parst of the world? Can you disprove pinoy09=pinoy09? . If you can't disprove it then it is universal..

Mato pa ni Aristotle nga "the fact that a thing is itself" allows for "a fixed constant nature of sensible things.

Good points, bro.

If you argue that pinoy09=pinoy09, aren't you explicitly stating that a "thing is thing"? If we say A=A and not A=B, aren't you merely stating the equivalent of what the thing is and not another thing (in this case, B)? Why do you think 1 + 1 = 2 and not 1 + 1 = 4? Whoever said math was right? Do you see the point bro. This is why I said it can be manipulated, although some laws are considered self-evident. It all boils down to semantics, wouldn't you agree?

[ketllac]

@ketllac

we can say A is A but not explicitly because we can't deny the fact that pure objective knowledge about the very nature of things is impossible to attain in the sense that our thinking is influenced by subjectivity. That is why Aristotle didn't explicitly claim that A is A.However it doesn't mean that this law is not constant , its just that we can't go to a deeper aspect when it comes to objectivity. In math you can change the standard of counting but you can't change the tangible things that you derived your inference from. The law is constant but our explanation might have a semantic content.

As the saying goes The thingness of a thing makes a thing a thing..hehhehe