Yes. It takes the form of logic itself: a tautology.



Lol. You're relying on tautological statements to make that deduction (the laws of logic).



I've done it. Perhaps you mean you cant?




It gives rise to, and follows the laws of logic.

This is false. All squares have four sides, but not all shapes with four sides are squares.

You can have P implies Q without Q implying P. The logical statement P implies Q does not generate a tautology between P and Q. Unless, of course, you're also mangling the word "tautological" the same way you've mangled other mathematical terms and notation (like "topological" and your use of set concepts).

But the universe isn't logical. There are things that don't make sense all the time.

LOL. So this is what you've reduced your position to? Do you even logic at all? Or do you just say stuff?

The statements that make up logical laws are tautological

Please describe your use of the word tautological.

There are logical laws that only exist in certain logical systems. They are axiomatic and not tautological. But at this point, I don't really expect that you're using the word tautological correctly, nor do I think you actually know enough about logic to try to advance this argument in a meaningful way.

I meant the logical laws themselves, but you can arrange any definitional statement (which is what the logical laws themselves are) into a tautology. This example you've given here is quite indicative of your level of willful misrepresentation.

A square isn't rigorously defined as having 4 sides, as you well know. It's a two dimensional shape that has four sides with each internal angle being 90 degrees.

That definition can be arranged into a tautology thusly:

A square is a two dimensional shape which has 4 sides and 4 internal angles of 90 degrees because a two dimensional shape which has 4 sides and 4 internal angles of 90 degrees is a square.

Better go back to the beginning Aaron

http://sites.millersville.edu/bikena...th-tables.html

A tautology is something that is always (immutably) true. The converse is a contradiction.

The statement "The universe is inherently logical because logic is inherent to the universe" is tautological because its opposite, "the universe is inherently illogical because illogic is inherent to the universe" is a contradiction.

Okay. Now tell me exactly what statements you think are tautologically true. Because the word "tautology" in the context in which you are using it is a claim about logical statements, not the logical laws themselves.

Also, the "converse" only applies to logical implications (the converse of "if P then Q" is "if Q then P") and not to general statements (there is no converse of "P").

No, this is you just uttering words that you like rather than words that are meaningful.

A tautology is not an argument for your position. Circular arguments are false arguments.




Nope, I dont think you understand the laws of logic



Well, I suppose you can define words to mean whatever you want, but then the discussion with others become meaningless unless you can agree on definitions. Inherent most certainly does not mean the same as immutable




How do you know?

A "definitional statement" (which we normally just call a "definition") is not a logical law. So you're making an analogy between two different things.

I never said that I was defining anything. I was talking logic. Were you not talking logic and instead talking something different?

Except that a square in hyperbolic geometry doesn't satisfy the angle condition. (And I'll not bother you with the fact that your definition of a square is an abject failure for other reasons, even though... well... obvious reasons are obvious.)

Logical laws are self-definitional statements. They are also the basic statements of the language of reason.




Ok, so you're pointing out some mistake in rigorousness I made in my definition that you yourself made when you defined a square as having the property of having 4 sides, and thinking it's a super-smart gotcha moment? You're brilliant.

Please state what you mean by this.

Please provide an example of such a statement.

LOL - I didn't provide a definition of a square. I invoked a specific property of a square. But I don't really expect you to be able to distinguish between the two ideas given that you haven't shown the capacity to distinguish between other distinct concepts in this and other threads.

Your inability to understand this in any meaningful manner provides me with more evidence to believe that you aren't actually saying anything meaningful as you progress in your presentation. You haven't shown the ability to follow along with basic logic, so I don't have any reason to think that you're going to be successful with anything here.

so what? Where do you think that gets you? Im not even sure your statement about squares is a tautology.

A tautology is a statement that is always true (by definition). Since the laws of logic are tautologies, they are always (immutably) true.

P v ~P<=>~(P∧~P)

Lots of examples in the link I provided. I won't do your homework for you.

So did I. Just like my properties weren't rigorous enough to define a square, neither were yours.

You just implied two posts ago that logical laws aren't tautologous.

I know where it gets me. The universe is logical <=> the universe is not illogical.

Do you agree that the universe is logical?

Okay. But this isn't what anyone who is doing logic would call "a law of logic." What you have here is a consequence of the laws of logic. I'm asking you to provide me an example of "a law of logic."

Uhhhhhh.... right... You're going to tell me that the thing you called a definition wasn't actually intended to be a definition now?

LOL.

I didn't imply that. I asserted that very directly. A tautology is a property of a logical statement. And whatever it is that you think you're talking about when you're talking about "logical laws" are not the type of thing that anyone who does logic would call a "logical statement."

If you wanted to get super technical, we can start talking about the logical operators as functions on boolean algebra, but that would just mask the fact that whatever you're talking about is working on the basis of axioms, and that you really are trying to claim that axioms are tautologies here.

ok you have totally lost me. How do you get from

to

No.

Logic applies to statements (or propositions). "The universe" is not a statement or proposition, so to say that the "universe is logical" strikes me as a Category Fallacy.

Actually, all circular arguments are logically valid. Circular arguments are uninformative, but not false. (Technically, arguments aren't true or false, but are rather valid or invalid.)

FWIW, I used to teach logic at a community college.

I reject it's conclusion (because like Hulme, I don't agree that just because we can imagine something means that it actually exists), not the premise used in the argument that there must be a maximal being no greater being than which can be imagined. That part I agree with.


Seems that you're using the logic of the ontological argument here. As I said already, I'm not actually convinced by the ontological argument, but more pertinently to my point, in the universe that I think must be the necessary result of the properties awarded to god, there are no moral choices either. Morality may exist in that there are things that are right and that are wrong, but we have no choice about what we do. And yes, the implications of that are not lost on me.

God can't not know how everything will be, he knows everything in the moment of creation because he created it. Plus I'm not even sure if Determinism applies here in the sense of everything we do being determined by "previously existing causes" because it's only us that experiences things in such a linear fashion. God doesn't experience time.

I did address the idea of foreknowledge though, I pointed out that it's "not even an issue or a conflict to be resolved because how could he not know what he decided would be".

Moving from ad homs to straw men.

I haven't said anything about reason, but I have said that even god has to obey the laws of logic, not because they're some external set of guidelines that he must obey, there isn't anything external to god, but because they're an inherent property of the universe he created, a property we can observe and test, that is useful and predictive, internally and externally consistent (and so, ironically, it's scientific in that it meets the criteria required for something to be considered a scientific theory...)

Unlike you, who are simply awarding powers to god without even being able to explain how they might work and in the face of an explanation that does work, I can offer reasons for my point of view, in that even god can't create a coulder so large that he can't lift it, because that's logically impossible, he also can't be omniscient but know that there's something he doesn't know, or know two contradictory facts simultaneously. These are laws of logic and you'd think you'd agree given that these flawed arguments are often given by atheists as proof that god can't exist and your response should be to simply shoot them down with my response.

It does seem somewhat nonsensical for you to be using the laws of logic to try to defeat the idea that they don't always apply... it's... illogical....


How about you give an example of something that logic would determine illogical, but is true? For example, you could offer two contradictory facts that are both true simultaneously, therebye disproving the law of non-contradiction.

Or another example if you prefer.

Indeed. Little indicates that the universe follows strict logic or is very intuitive.

When we go to certain levels of interactions in physics, even causation seems to fall apart. Not in the sense that there doesn't seem be relationships between events, but in the sense that we can't necessarily tell what is the cause and what is the effect. And determining that is an integral component of logic.

I don't see anything of the ontological argument in my response. Please explain.

Your OP was about how to resolve an apparent conflict between free will and a God that is perfect and maximally powerful and knowledgeable. You think there is a conflict because you think a perfect god must create a world without moral choices. Why? There are moral theories that view free will as the basis of morality, so why doesn't it instead follow from this view of god that a perfect god must create a universe that has free-willed beings in it in order for it to have any moral value (surely a requirement of a perfect universe) and so anything that follows from this claim must also be true (including that some things happen that are not what this perfect god intended)? Or that this god doesn't know everything that happens in the future?

You are assuming this when you need to argue for it. Perfect foreknowledge of the future might not be an implication of an omnimax god if (a) an omnimax god would prefer to create a universe with free-willed beings and (b) a universe with free-willed beings cannot be perfectly foreknown.

The dogma that god doesn't experience time is not a requirement of Christian theology nor universally accepted by Christians.

This isn't "addressing" it, it is you just asserting your thesis in the face of objections to this specific point. I and others have told you exactly how an omnimax god might not know what he will decide to do - if the future is not yet set because it is at least partially the result of freely chosen decisions that have yet to be made. God can't know what is impossible to know, even an omnimax god.