My apologies must have missed this.
if the universe could have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before there were people around to ‘make’ the laws of logic? Yes or no.
I have no idea what that means sorry.
Uh, are you implying that you are psychic (or have a time machine, etc)?
Sorry I missed that one, not that it matters, as you say it’s impossible to understand what on earth is being asked, let alone give a facile yes or no answer to it.
I and several others have explained logic is a man made method fo reasoning, not sure why that needs explaining though.
It’s has a (trivially) valid form; just like the argument you posted.
It is the same form as a proof I was joking about just the other day. It’s a recipe for how to prove anything you want; almost like a Mad Lib.
The more I think of it, the more it looks like a “If a bear shit in the woods and there is noone around to smell it, does it stink?”(*) type of question.
(*) or, if you want to be more conventional: “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
3 Likes
Yeah, I love those kind of cryptic questions.
You’re in a room naked, there are no windows and no door.
So how much does a crate weigh?
Socrates was not a deity
Bingo! You accept the
Socrates argument (even though P1 obviously begs the question) and reject the one I’ve posited (which does not beg the question) simply based on your underlying precommitment to Naturalism. This reduces your complaint to simply arbitrary personal preference and reveals an irrational double standard.
You simple assumed this deity existed in your first premise.
But you have no problem with the P1 of the Socrates argument which clearly begs the question. Again, this exposes the double standard.
In an argument when you just assume the thing t you are arguing for, that’s called a begging the question fallacy, this makes your augment irrational
Oh? Can you provide an argument for the validity of your senses and reasoning without assuming the validity of your senses and reasoning in the argument?
What about this argument?:
P1 Logic is required for sound reasoning
P2 People can reason soundly
C Logic exists
Surely you’re not about to argue that believing in logic is therefore illogical because it is assumed in P1?
It simply means that man clearly did not make the logical law of non-contradiction, since the universe itself is bound by it. Unless, of course, you’re prepared to argue that the universe could have existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way prior to the creation of the law of non-contradiction by mankind. I wouldn’t recommend it, though.
Is the Socrates argument true or false?
It is true if the premise(s) are true.
How would you prove true the universal claim made in P1 in your worldview?
He is resorting to Aristotle and his principle of non-contradiction.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/
He is attempting to wish a god into existence using a philosophy 2,300 years old, dated, and discarded.
Word salad.
2 Likes
How would I prove a postulate (is that what you are asking)? I wouldn’t even try. I try to avoid tilting at windmills.
1 Like
Translated: Do not answer the question, Sheldon, as it is devastating to the position that logical laws are man-made!!!
Priceless!! 
You are trolling. Please refrain. This is your first warning.
I respect and welcome a healthy debate on differences in positions. But when you attempt to play off forum members against each other, it is no longer a debate, and you have crossed the line.
2 Likes
Since you are the one making the claims here, the burden of proof is on you to prove or bring forth evidence that backs them up. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof here, and that’s a very bad discussion technique. You made the claim P1, thus you (not any of us) have the burden of proof when it comes to show whether your claim is true or not.
1 Like
The Universe simply always existed, it just changed form. From singularity to what we have now.
Any information about what it was like before the singularity is not accessible. In fact, it’s a meaningless question since the word “before” implies the passage of time, but time is an emergent property of The Universe and did not exist when it was in it’s singularity form - so the question cannot properly be asked.
Remember: The Universe’s ways are not our ways. The Universe works in mysterious ways. And other similar arguments that I hear for the ways of god (or gods).
1 Like
I think I already said that. But in a less civilised tone. His direction was obvious from the start. a template “christian”, with all the originality and honesty of resin cast ming vase.
2 Likes
Also: The Universe is what it is. No amount of clever word salads can change how the Universe started to exist(*), or how it is composed and works today. We can only observe and figure out the laws of Nature. That is the domain of physics (cosmology, quantum gravity), not philosophy. Amateurish philosophical musings are meta arguments only; they will not change the laws of Nature, but can at best illuminate, at worst confuse the matters. In any case, empirical observations are king here. If your statements contradict empirical observations, your statements are wrong, no matter how cleverly formulated.
(*) inaccurate formulation, but will suffice here. We really don’t know if it had a start, or even if the concept of time is valid for the earliest stages.
1 Like
Well you’ve got me, there’s no arguing with that kind of smarts, that thinks the premise “all men are mortal” is an unevidenced assumption, also the arument wasn’t for that, so a doubly idiotic claim, well done.
Yeah it did beg the question for an extant deity, which was what you were arguing for, and I’ve made no claims about naturalism, so well done, you’ve used another straw man fallacy.
Ok champ. 
I know right, almost as if we have overwhelming evidence all men are mortal, like the fact they all live a finite life and die? 
Easily, but a far bigger challenge at this point, would be to provide one for yours.
What about it?
Dear oh dear, one more time then, it is not an unevidenced assumption, since we have objective evidence for the efficacy of that method.