Comments on: No, That Wasn’t A Figment Of Your Imagination http://calvindude.com/dude/2007/04/09/no-that-wasnt-a-figment-of-your-imagination/ The Theological and Philosophical Musings of CalvinDude Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:49:55 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: CalvinDude.com » A Question of Logic http://calvindude.com/dude/2007/04/09/no-that-wasnt-a-figment-of-your-imagination/comment-page-1/#comment-1459 CalvinDude.com » A Question of Logic Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:52:24 +0000 http://calvindude.com/dude/blog/2007/04/no-that-wasnt-a-figment-of-your-imagination/#comment-1459 [...] this post, a person by the name of Sik90 asked some interesting questions regarding logic. Since the original [...] [...] this post, a person by the name of Sik90 asked some interesting questions regarding logic. Since the original [...]

]]> By: sik90 http://calvindude.com/dude/2007/04/09/no-that-wasnt-a-figment-of-your-imagination/comment-page-1/#comment-1458 sik90 Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:36:48 +0000 http://calvindude.com/dude/blog/2007/04/no-that-wasnt-a-figment-of-your-imagination/#comment-1458 I want to pose a question regarding your logic argument but I cannot find any contact number in your blog so I'll just ask it here (even if this is unrelated to your post): Can logic be just the self-sustaining thing? The just is? In other words, there is no conceivable world where logic cannot exist. Since there is something (meaning an existing reality/world) then logic necessarily must exist. The problem of the absurdity of proving logic arises when we ask, "Why is logic logical?" So to solve the problem, we just have to accept it as it is and stop asking "why." Logic is logical, period. Anyway, if you invoke God, we'll also have to stop asking "why" at that point. Either way, asking "why" has to stop. Since it has to stop, and it seems from the fact that we cannot make do without logic, then perhaps, logic is the "just is." We have to end there. If you add God to the equation, you're just extending it unnecessarily. You will say that God is "just is" at a particular point meaning a "just is" X is metaphysically necessary. But I contend that God and logic are just on the same footing. What we could ask of logic also applies to God since the non-existence of logic (or for you, God) is not permissible in the great scheme of reality. Hence logic is the just is "X". If you invoke God then I might as well ask, "why is God's nature logical?" To further my point, the question "why is God's nature logical?" is basically the same as "why is logic logical?" Stopping at logic suffices, invoking God is not necessary (since you can still formulate the same question anyway). -- PS: Whenever we want to say something, I agree that we have to use logic. We cannot NOT use logic. But when you use logic to prove that logic is not self-sufficient (requires X or God), you already have to admit by doing so that logic is self-sufficient (for you cannot make any argument for logic being below God unless you accept the self-sufficiency of logic). Hence again I contend that logic is self-sufficent. When a thing is self-sufficient, you cannot ask "why" or question its self-sufficiency (just as theists contend that one cannot ask why God is self-sufficient/uncaused/etc., God is just like that). I could just easily say that Logic is just like that. Period. I want to pose a question regarding your logic argument but I cannot find any contact number in your blog so I’ll just ask it here (even if this is unrelated to your post):

Can logic be just the self-sustaining thing? The just is? In other words, there is no conceivable world where logic cannot exist. Since there is something (meaning an existing reality/world) then logic necessarily must exist. The problem of the absurdity of proving logic arises when we ask, “Why is logic logical?” So to solve the problem, we just have to accept it as it is and stop asking “why.” Logic is logical, period. Anyway, if you invoke God, we’ll also have to stop asking “why” at that point. Either way, asking “why” has to stop. Since it has to stop, and it seems from the fact that we cannot make do without logic, then perhaps, logic is the “just is.” We have to end there. If you add God to the equation, you’re just extending it unnecessarily. You will say that God is “just is” at a particular point meaning a “just is” X is metaphysically necessary. But I contend that God and logic are just on the same footing. What we could ask of logic also applies to God since the non-existence of logic (or for you, God) is not permissible in the great scheme of reality. Hence logic is the just is “X”.

If you invoke God then I might as well ask, “why is God’s nature logical?” To further my point, the question “why is God’s nature logical?” is basically the same as “why is logic logical?” Stopping at logic suffices, invoking God is not necessary (since you can still formulate the same question anyway).
–

PS: Whenever we want to say something, I agree that we have to use logic. We cannot NOT use logic. But when you use logic to prove that logic is not self-sufficient (requires X or God), you already have to admit by doing so that logic is self-sufficient (for you cannot make any argument for logic being below God unless you accept the self-sufficiency of logic). Hence again I contend that logic is self-sufficent. When a thing is self-sufficient, you cannot ask “why” or question its self-sufficiency (just as theists contend that one cannot ask why God is self-sufficient/uncaused/etc., God is just like that). I could just easily say that Logic is just like that. Period.

]]>