No.  Logic is a reflection of God's intellect.  The reason that we are logical is because we are made in His image.

It's pretty clear from this post that you've now put on blinders and assumed a stance of pure pretense against conceding the evidence and argument I have put forth. You're posing questions that are already, demonstrably clearly and unmistakeably answered, claiming ignorance of a proof given to you the language of your own purported profession (Its a philosophical paper not a scientific one, I would not have given you a scientific one since you wouldn't understand it.) and falling back ultimately on a crude bald assertion as the only defense against the contradiction of said assertion in reality which doesn't even have to be analysed with logic to understand it is an indefensible position. Just think screaming at an elephant to be a goat now and that's all there is to it.

'Sample set' is a term from probability theory which should hardly be beyond you to grasp if you are the scholar of set-based philsophy that you claim to be. I believe your objection is pure pretense, I think you are feigning ignorance to avoid the point. 

Again, this is simply a term used in probability theory.

The entire point of this sentence is to summarise the Central Limit Theorem which I linked to the Wiki of in order to help clarify. Again. this is all pretense, surely, it cannot possibly be beyond an educated person to understand a simple argument from statistics that large numbers of variables without logical order group primarily around an average. 

This is just ill-mannered behaviour now and its entirely unbecoming. I told you exactly what it is, not only have you skimmed it and feigned ignorance of words you should understand if you are a college graduate and then to top it off you've mangled my words in retort.

Logic is order, the order which is found in central limit of random data is proof that order in the form of logical consistency comes naturally out of large amounts of data. Brains are hubs receiving in every instant massive amounts of input sensory data it follows from Central limit theorem that such order naturally emerges in this environment.

Aside:It follows from physics that order can emerge naturally here also, in fact, I contend, given the position of our identity in the universe it follows from every flavour of scientific observation of what occurs in this universe, given local conditions, order, in the style of logic, must arise there. Mi

I did not say that, and what I did say does not commit me to any such implication. I said humans and mice work like we do in every physical sense. That means what physically happens in the location of our identities physical happens in the location of a mouses identity. Since that's the same what reason, independently verifying the claims of your book, do you have for believing that anything else regarding the likeness of mice and men makes mice inferior?

WTF kind of insanity is that? I didn't characterise the bible I quoted a single saying, one, I might add, which put your attitude to animals to absolute shame. What's this shit about saying "it is written" being called 'characterisation' of the bible now, do you even conceive of how unholy, hypocrite freaking pathological cult-dogma that is? Seriously, did you swallow that moronic propaganda whole or did you have it fed to you in sound-bite sized pieces.

You're avoiding mine. Have been consistently for a week now. Maybe now's the time for you to be told -- just deal with it mate. You don't always get what you want.

No, the justifications are not rational. They are mostly pragmatic, sometimes emotional and occasionally based on nothing immediately tangible at all.

No it makes perfect sense that rationality is what harmonises in the greatest quantity with ourselves and our reality. You're the one missing the point.

Because Logic Is Not absolute. I have to face up to the fact of contradiction if I am going to deal with real reality.

You're fantasising but I am a scientist, fantasy is not my trade.

YUM! Tastes like INTEGRITY.

This is getting too long, may continue later.

Since my previous post was basically a rant directed at your display of quintessential poor-form you can consider it rhetorical and not reply if you choose. Most of the actual meat of the continuing discussion in in this post anyway.

I gave you a very famous example already, written specifically for people with the qualifications you claim to have. Proverbially, putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "Don't Want" won't make it go away, OK. 

If logic says it's true and reality says it's not which one are you going to believe.

We've got the scientific method. If you feel strongly that your pain is associated with the doctor pricking your skin you can kick him in the nads till he takes the pin out and then see first hand if it helps. That would falsify his theory quick smart, and possibly serve as a deterrent to him advancing it next time too.

Yeah, well OJ walked, so Bully for logic providing objective means, huh. What a dumb example.

Things like this aren't really decided by objective means, legal systems are just us striving hard towards the fantastic ideal of bringing consistent things together before taking the plunge and committing to put the force of collective will behind action. Ultimately what is true falls to the will of the collective to decide.

You're quite obsessed with this absoluteness qualification aren't you. We should be so lucky but reality has other ideas.

Really, that's just your ego talking, reality has offended your pride. Diddums. So you can't stake out any intellectual high ground for yourself, poor you.  Why should you be able to, anyway, are you God? 

It's extremely simple, and explained in philosophical language (not scientific language) in the quote I posted.

You can think of "an electron" as having to be in one of two states spin up, or spin down. +1/2 or -1/2  in any given direction. These are the lay terms. The scientific terms are purely mathematical.

Now logically one can infer that an electron with up spin in the vertical direction must by distributive law mean that in the horizontal direction the electron has spin up or down. The problem is that there is no certainty to the spin in the horizontal direction once you have certainty in the vertical direction. This is because of the wave-particle duality of the electron (demonstrated in the double slit experiment)

Somewhere in the instance of measuring the vertical spin the state of the horizontal spin is rendered 'fuzzy' so that it can be both up and down at once in the direction not measured. Making the distributive law patently false for this object in our reality.

I study and test the theories with my own hands. So no, and I was never asked to simply accept it either.

In the same sense that an electron is.

The link I gave you has an excellent interactive illustration of what happens when you fire electrons at a wall with two holes in it, behind the wall a pattern forms with evenly regular gaps in it called an intereference pattern. There are literal rows on the back wall where the presence of the electron has been 'cancelled out' and lines where the presence of the electron has been divided across space. 

Things that occupy points in classical space can be smashed apart and thus divided across the space, but when they are the result is an irregular blob not a regularly spaced line. Propelling waves of energy through a small gap, on the other hand, does geometrically result in pattern of regular intervals, so therefore, by the slit experiment electrons must be waves.

Same with Photons (Light particles), in a double slit experiment a pattern will form that demonstrates light acting like a wave. However, when a black body radiates (think red hot kettle) reality demonstrates unequivocally that light is emitted in finite packets (quanta). Waves are not finite, they are the opposite by their very mathematical nature.

Every man and his dog, including Einstein, have tried to make this contradiction go away, only to, consistently (and you don't see this kind of consistency that often) find themselves inadvertantly reinforcing it instead. 

Reality says logic is not absolute.

Okay.  So are we assuming so far that for any one direction, "+1/2" and "-1/2" are antonymic pairs?

a = the electron has up spin in vertical direction

b = the electron has up spin in horizontal direction

c = the electron has down spin in horizontal direction

a--->a & (b v c)

Do I have this correct?

Okay, so does this translate to:

(1) a & (b v c)

(2) a---> <>~(b v c)

(3) <>~(b v c) ---> <>~ [a & (b v c)]

(4)  a---> <>~[a & (b v c)]     2,3: HS

(5)  a

(6)  <>~[a & (b v c)]      4,5; MP

(7) [a & (b v c)] & <>~[a & (b v c)]   2,6; Conj

Is that an accurate formalization of this?

So then we have not established that it is objectively in two antonymic states at once, we've merely labeled it as being "fuzzy" due to our limitations, no?

Who ever said that different spatial constitutions have to be antonymic, anyway?  According to Christian theology, God is everywhere at once.  Depending on the nature of our discourse, I can accept the possibility of being in two places at once.  The Christian God does it.

Actually, they don't. They are just symbolic constructions. (And by the way, you're contradicting your later claim that you're "consistently referring to metaphysical/logical possibility".)

Which only holds if your premise 4 holds, but unfortunately, it does not.

Even accepting your bizarre interpretation of 'eternal' to mean 'exists in all possible worlds, or exists in none, regardless of what those worlds represent', it is still possible for e not to exist in any possible world, because your argument relies on premise 4, which is false. Contradictions are not the only things that don't exist in all possible worlds. This model disproves your argument:

w0 = { a }

w1 = { b }

There is no eternal being there. There is no entity which exists in all possible worlds. If you want it explicit, here's another example.

w0 = { a, ~e }

w1 = { b, ~e }

Though e does not exist in any possible world, it is not contradictory. It can't be, because it's an atomic logical symbol.

This may be a good time to quote myself from my very first post in this thread, where I magically prophesied that your argument would end up in this position:

So reality and logic are identical?

So reality isn't really real?

Wait. But. That's just what reality is, everything that exists. So reality is really real? And if there's no distinction between reality and logic, is logic everything that exists? You're confusing me. lol

"Come on. The scientists? With their theories and their facts, you know? That's nonsense. Everybody knows it was a talking snake and a tree. We all know that! That's how the earth started. It wasn't this long, protracted evolutionary process. It was a talking snake and a tree. Please, we all know that."
- David Cross, comedian

Wait. But. If you're strictly referring to logical possibility, then you can also make true statements about unicorns and the FSM. For instance, in your model, you can say "The FSM exists" is true. That's a logical possibility, after all. You admit that, right?

So, again: Existence exists. Why call it 'god'?

Wait. But. Are you now saying that your argument is *not* dealing with logical possibility, but physical possibility? Cuz I seem to recall you saying that material things can't be eternal. But if you're talking about logical possibility, then they can. So again, you're confusing me.

Ummmmm, nearly all of them?? I think it's called the First Law of Thermodynamics. Oh, right! You're talking about your particular theological brand of 'eternal', which is actually more of a specialized, possible-worlds version, that's not really used in theology, but whatever.

Darn, just when I thought I had your concept of 'eternal' figured out, you go and confuse me again. Does 'eternal' also mean 'has a mind', and 'wrote the Bible'? I think I see where this is going.

Consistently? Are you sure about that?

"Come on. The scientists? With their theories and their facts, you know? That's nonsense."

If you've got an argument, make it. Don't whine about it.

Absolutely? From the same page you quoted:

And from your original post:

Nowhere in your original post did you say that eternal meant 'existing outside of time and in all possible worlds'. In fact, your initial definitions *implied* time. You can't 'stop existing' if you're not referring to a time t(n) where you exist and a time t(n+1) where you don't exist.

My handling of eternal operates correctly according to your initial definitions. If e exists at all times in timeline A, then it is 'without beginning', 'without end', and has no potential to 'stop existing'.

But fine, you want to change definitions. No problem. Well, there *is* one problem. Namely, the best your argument can ever say is "Existence exists." Actually, two problems, because it fails to do even that. Premise 4, remember?

Brave, Sir Robin!

That's the most awesome defense of a logical argument I've ever heard! "No, it had nothing to do with my terrible formulation. It's because you're not familiar with my idiosyncratic brand of theology! If only you would read the Bible the way I read the Bible, then my logical argument would make sense to you!"

This is the last refuge of the presuppositionalist, and the reason why they spend so much time with these kinds of arguments. Because, at the end of the day, it all boils down to, "Well, you have your presuppositions, and I have mine, and mine are right because my presuppositions tell me so. So there!" It's the most lame and obvious circular reasoning and special pleading in the world. So lame and obvious that they try to hide it all behind arguments like TAG, and abuses of modal logic.

No, sorry. A logical argument is a logical argument. It's valid or it's not. It's sound or it's not. Theology ain't got nothing to do with it. Burden of proof = on you.

I pointed it out from the very beginning: Either way, your argument doesn't work. If you're talking temporal eternity, it doesn't work. If you're talking all-possible-worlds eternity, it still doesn't work. Premise 4.

The best your argument can do is: Existence exists. And the tragedy is: It doesn't even get that far.

Oh, fuck me, no. You do not get to lecture me about asking for clarification. Do you want me to list all the questions I've asked you that you *completely* ignored? I asked you for all sorts of clarification. *You* didn't have the courtesy to respond. In my very first post, I count three unanswered questions.

This has nothing to do with winners or losers. If you've got a good argument, bring it.

After all this, you still haven't acknowledged that your premise 4 fails. Anybody can see that a thing doesn't have to be a contradiction to not exist in all possible worlds in a particular model. It can simply not exist. Here's a perfect example:

w0 = { a }

e does not exist in any possible world. e is not a contradiction. e is eternal (as per your new definition). Your premise 4 fails.

If you can bring an argument that works, do it. The end.

They are operative principles which allow us to reason in a specific way.  This is manifest in actuality. 

I don't know how I can make this anymore clear.

Would you also deny that the law of non-contradiction says nothing about reality?  That although (x) ~(x & ~x) is true in its provincial territory, it does not apply to reality?

No, it does not contradict what I said earlier.  Logical possibility is a direct reference to the state of reality which allows it to manifest itself in different ways. 

Okay.  Give me an example of something which is not contradictory, but cannot possibly exist. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "what those worlds represent", but my interpretation isn't bizarre.  I specifically linked you to sources which vindicate my definition. 

Give me an example to the contrary, please. 

What is "w0" and "w1"?  Are those possible world sets? 

You've posited a possible world where an eternal being does not exist, but I've already established that if an eternal being does not exist, then it is impossible for such a being to exist... meaning that you will have to demonstrate: (1) That the concept of an eternal being is inherently contradictory or (2) That something can be non-contradictory but still potentially exist.

I never heard of an "atomic symbol".  Do you mean "atomic sentence" (which it isn't)? 

"Existence exists" is an unintelligible statement. 

No.  For two things to be identical, they both have to be things.  Since "reality" is essentially a linguistic operator, it is discernible from the mental process that we call logic.

Umm, the word "reality" is real, yes? 

Right.  So why would you say that logic has nothing to do with actual existing things when the laws of logic themselves are actual and are used in the context of an actual world?

It isn't an issue of you describing things in a way that they need to be described.  It is you disingenuously presenting yourself as a propagater of truth by virtue of your expertise in certain areas, such that you deliberately present your arguments in ways that you know onlookers will not understand so as to confuse them into thinking that you know what you are talking about because they have no idea what you are talking about.  It's just a cheap tactic for you to satisfy your own intellectual ego. 

I would not insult the actual scientific community by putting you in their league.

"<>FSM" is true statement. 

 "[]FSM" is a false statement.

"Existence exists" is a meaningless statement.  Are you saying that existence is some thing that is out there? 

No, it is dealing with logical possibility.  It is logically possible to have different physical constitutions.  What's the problem? 

Uh, no.  For a material thing to be eternal would be logically contradictory because that would presuppose the necessity of something which we already know to be contingent, namely particular arrangements of matter.  Are you suggeting that there are possible worlds where what is contingent becomes necessary???? 

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  Nowhere does it say that it is without beginning or without end.   The laws of physics have reasonably established (1) that we cannot create matter ex nihilo, we will have to use preexisting matter... and (2) we cannot take away what is already there.  Obviously, atheists have hijacked the Law in order to prove an eternal universe, which I have never seen propagated by any credible physicist.

I've shown you that it is used in theology. 

It's not my concept.  Blame Aquinas.

Where does it say that?  I entered this quote in "find on this page" and came up with nothing.  Are you talking about the Aquinas page?

Nowhere in your original post did you say that eternal meant 'existing outside of time and in all possible worlds'. In fact, your initial definitions *implied* time. You can't 'stop existing' if you're not referring to a time t(n) where you exist and a time t(n+1) where you don't exist.

All correct.

No. But that is the question most people ask so you aren't alone in thinking it.

Euclid, Des Cartes, Newton, their visions may have been flawed but they were great visions nonetheless, the proof of the pudding is in how it has, no less, managed to feed us. 

Yes... but logic cannot.

What I've made very clear is that I do not treat reality as an individual thing.  I think that distinction you are trying to make is a distinction between truth statements and what they refer to, and you want to say that we can invent our own formal system whereby truth statements, even if they do not really reflect reality, can be consistent within the rules of the system itself.  Intrinsic in this notion is the idea of really.  You are agreeing that there is an objective truth outside of our formal systems.  It is for this reason that while you may be able to create a formal system which adheres to your own subjective criteria of rational, it is not an objective criteria for rational.  I'm sorry to trample all over your relativism, but truth really does exist.  This is intrinsic in the notion of real because you are making an objective distinction between real and not real, which at it's very core, is a dichotomy between true and not true.

No, it proves that people can posit wrong models.  The FSM is either contingent or necessary.  He cannot be both.  If you wan to say that there are possible worlds where the contingent are necessary, then you are making contradictory statements.  But I guess that is okay since reality is not logical, right?

Really?  Quote me where I've said that. 

No.  Truth is not relative to any particular model.  You are talking nonsense, and I'm not making that statement relative to my own model.  Understand?

Ah, so an objectivity exists.  No?

Maybe your logical possibility does not.  Mine does.

The FSM is logically possible and it is not real.  I've agreed on that point.  But the actuality in which that truth manifests is just that, actual.  Therefore, there is a connection between logic and what you call "reality".  If there was not, then we would not be using it.  Of course, under your worldview, you have no way of accounting for the fact that it is useful.  It just happens to be that way.

Because they are wrong.  They can possibly exist.  In the case of "e", we can extrapolate the necessity from the possibility. 

Why would they?  I defined "eternal" as "without beginning and end", why would they reference modal logic?

I've already read your examples.  This all trades on your false notion that truth is relative to one's formal system and that is just not how it works.

I have defended it.  You cannot give me one example of something which is not contradictory, but cannot possibly exist.  You've merely said that "Fred", "FSM" are examples and they are not.  It would be like if you asked me for an example of something that is contradictory but really exists and I said, "A squared circle."  Your next question would be, "How do you figure that a squared circle actually exists?"

Nothing there about atomic symbols on the first two sites.  I'll look at the other two later.

Okay.  What is existence and how does it exist?  Were things existing before existence started existing?

God is by definition a being who is necessary, immaterial, eternal, intelligent, ultimate source of being.  His necessity (existence), immaterality, self-suffiency (ultimate source of being), can all be inferred from his eternality.  His intelligence can be inferred from the nature of his creation and the eternal conceptual realities.  

Just so you are aware, this is based upon what you would call "reality".  Not on my formal system. 

Just because you are wrong does not mean that I do not understand it.

LOL

You may as well call it a day.

Once again, what physicists have said that matter/energy are eternal?  The First Law of Thermodynamics is a governing principle.  It does not say anything about the origin of matter/energy. 

Physicists have agreed that time did not always exist.  And yet it exists.  Did time have a beginning?  If so, couldn't it have only began in time, thus time would have to already exist?

Why would they?  I didn't define "eternal" using the terms of modal logic.  I applied an individual constant in a modal argument.

See above.

Although modal logic was not formalized until later, people understood the difference between contingency and necessity.  Yes, they did not frame in the langauge of "possible worlds", but you can go back to St. Anselm and you could see that they were talking about the exact same thing.

Right.  It says that many people use it to mean what I mean by it.

I've cited him as a source to demonstrate that your definition of "eternal" is not set in stone.  Aquinas was possibly the greatest apologist that ever lived, so I think it was appropos to cite him.

No, I said that they argument does not prove the God of the bible.  We cannot go from "God exists" to "God sent his only begotten Son to Earth so that he could die for our sins."

Right.  And my definition was specifically without beginning, without end. 

"Stop" does not imply time, it only implies motion.  Motion may be atemporal.

Right, "without beginning/end" can imply time if you want it to.  But you obviously projected it upon my argument so you could attack it with your stock rebuttals.  If you had asked, I would have explained that my argument has no temporal implications.

I am sincere.  I just don't care enough to rummage through all of your unsupported nonsense to find some questions.

Sorry.  I'm not convinced.  Even if we grant that this argument is sound, we have not established (p & ~p).  We merely established "(p & <>~p)", which may not even be a true conclusion.  It is just another way of saying that we are so uncertain that we refuse to even defer to the law of non-contradiction.

The existence of logic does not necessarily mean that we are not going to encounter things which we do not understand.  The Holy Trinity is also one of those things that seemingly defies logic and no theologian has been able to come up with a perfect analogy.  Logic does not preclude mysteries. 

But you are the expert.  Not me.  So if you think there are some parts of this I am missing, go ahead and let me know. 

And again I reiterate, it doesn't. This is something that can be very difficult to believe, I understand, but math is like this, non-intuitive stuff pops up all the time. This pattern forms itself under a very simple condition, by definition (AKA characteristic function), sufficient data will organise itself around a mean.

It's a process which is physical, yes, and no it has no obviously inherent rationality but rationality results from it regardless.

Yeah it is, and incidentally it is the observed nature of statistical (random) data which asserts it, I am just relaying that to you in terms you can understand.

It could also mean logic is deriving exceptionally faster and/or more efficiently through our perceptions by refinement of the instrument. Presupposition of logic is not necessary, then.

You have evidence of this then?

You know this for sure? The only epistemic justification you have for this is a controversial assertion that logic is absolute. This doesn't give you pause to wonder if it might be a deluded position to take.

And you don't remember exemplifying to him by your own interactions with him that you operate with regard to your laws of logic? How could you not have done? The only way to be sure that the logic your child displays was not gradually constructed in infanthood through his perceptions and interactions is to have cut him off completely from all contact and stimuli. Nobody would do that to their children, so thus, you can not know that his logical by "God" magic because you haven't ruled out the more evidential possibility yet.

As with before, we don't seem to be able to know that until it's in our faces either. But whether it's advantageous ultimately or not is moot, my point was that habits which we adopt due to their practical benefit do in turn cause us pain. We are guided by pragmatism, emotion and chance -- rationality emerges from them.

Problem of comprehension, I'm afraid. You do not 'derive' rationality -- it derives and then "you" exist so to speak. 

I didn't say I knew it. I hypothesised that it would account for shared rationality.

Of course you do. And as I said, you are not the first. It's unfortunately very frustrating for anyone who seeks to win the day for parsimony over Quantum Mechanics, it just doesn't work.

At this point yeah, they are either dishonest or a little too enthused with their own ideas, no "interpretation" of QM has actually been proven as yet. But many strange phenomenon predicted by it have.

I'm telling you, this is how you're introduced to quantum physics, to be sure you understand the dilemma it poses quite thoroughly, you use logic and it fails, you get to see it fail dramatically. It's in the best interests of the science of physics to show everyone in physics this problem from beginning to end, let us reason our way to the contradiction and see if we can explain it.

It's the rite of passage for quantum physicists -- you use logic and then it fails, and then Quantum logical models are introduced.

Bull.

I think you should go ahead and back that up.

And your last response to me just confirms that you are circling your black hole and unable to get yourself out of it. You didn't respond substantively to any of my points. Sorry, I can't hold your hand. Only you can save yourself.

Not only does your argument fail, but you've exposed that you don't even understand the nature of logic (or reality for that matter!). Almost certainly this is due to your prior faith commitments to your particular brand of theology. Which just goes to show, once again, how dangerous faith is. It breeds ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, and fuels the Dunning-Kruger effect. Like most presuppositionalists, FS, you're too willfully ignorant to even see your own self-imposed ignorance.

Here's a challenge for you: Present your modal argument to any professor or academic who works regularly with modal logic. (Hint: Not a presuppositionalist; at least, not if you aspire to intellectual honesty.) See what they say. My bet is that they'll respond with the same points I've made. No doubt, given your irrational faith commitments, you'll reject their advice as well.

Aren't you contradicting yourself there, Fortunate_Son? Either logical possibility does not equal reality, or it does, which is it?

How did you get from "works with modal logic" to "someone who agrees with your opponent"?

Which hasn't got jack with why you don't want to confront someone who knows modal logic and doesn't have a bias toward either side. I believe if you had run this by someone who knows what the hell they're talking about you'd be telling people. Presuppositionalists aren't the only people out there.

So since all you've got now are ad hominem attacks, can we safely assume you've conceded your argument? (and no, I'm not gay - sorry to burst your stereotyped bubble - then again, why does someone being gay scare you to the point that you consider it an insult?)I mean, others have shredded your arguments so badly that you act like those posts aren't there, what more do I need to add?

I don't hate religion either - I'm not crazy about some of its practitioners. Does someone hating religion scare you also or is that just your bias coming out to protect you?

And you are still scared of finding someone without bias who knows modal logic to discuss this argument with. Not having a bias does not mean that the person would automatically agree with your opponent. It would mean that your arguemnt would be judged on its merits... never mind, I just found out what scares you.

I never said I rejected god for a reason (rational or otherwise). If you must know, I am still confused about Christians who treat others like shit and point to scripture where it says they are supposed to (or at least are allowed to). I see Christians that treat people well and I see people like you that claim the title with equal scriptural credibility. It makes no sense on so many levels.

Well, you did take shots at Eloise and natural after they eviscerated your argument. Is your denial of that an extra concession.

No, I asked you if you knew what the hell natural was talking about when he suggested that you take your argument to an unbiased student or expert in modal logic. I see that you still do not.

one on one with you? Nah. To borrow from Dawkins - it would do more for your CV than it would for mine. See, I am here to learn from these threads. When I see someone who ignores counter-arguments and starts insulting people instead of discussing things rationally, I do not see anything I can learn from that person.

Yep - the only difference between you and I is that you have no understanding of what the hell you're talking about and you keep talking anyway.

It is impossible to be without bias, as far as philosophy is concerned, unless you are entirely agnostic.

Of course he is. Obviously computer logic programs are biased against presuppositionalists -- or their first lines would all be:

bool godExists = true;

Going back a few steps:

e = eternal being

Cx = x has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction

In the above, I don't understand why "x" appears on both sides of the "=" sign.

Is it meant to mean that x "is a thing", and C "violates the law of non-contradiction" - giving Cx the definition of "A thing that violates the law of non-contradiction?"

EDIT: Addressed to anyone.
 

Well... I said it sounded almost entirely on the mark - there was always the possibility that some further clarification would be needed.

Now specifically you said ".. then we instinctively detect patterns as more data emerges. At the epicenter of all this is the "I", which we come to know as the underlying component to our experience.  Logic is data which is concomitant with our experience as subjects." .......

..... which is not the same as "we detect patterns and order it around an "I"." at all, is it?

Your paraphrase of my proposal was not wrong specifically because, in it, you have delineated the pattern detection from the formation of the I with appropriate punctuation. However, what you're now trying to tell me that you meant by it is a very inaccurate representation of what I proposed.

I didn't agree to that, sorry.

If it is true that sensory data organises itself then there is no gap, 'knowing' is simply the apparition of the organised perception directly produced by the volume of information.

This requirement is so to hold on to the vanity that we are eminent and intelligent in the face of the universe. It's really just a circle jerk, the universe isn't beneath us. There is no gap.

It just does.

Ok, two things:

1. I said 'observed nature of random data' -- do you understand what I mean by that? I'm talking about statistical math.

2. You know we have never observed that someone can derive the law of non-contradiction from sense experience how, exactly?

You're saying they are justified by agreement among Logicians, are you?

For the record, under my model the "laws" of logic aren't Laws, or hadn't you noticed?

Under my model the "laws" of logic are codified experiences and are relative to a mean value of data present at the locus of an "I".

Well, I disagree that there is an necessity to establish that nature 'must' behave this way, that is just your desire for an absolute position, to esteem yourself with, talking again. However, physical "laws" have been observed and modelled giving you exactly what you've asked for; see Shannon Entropy.

So what is at stake, then? Your discomfort with having the same humility in the face of all that is as has a physicist? Does finding out that you aren't top of the heap really spell the end of being for you?

I mean, you're saying, alas if its true then everything is meaningless and nihilism...

Why must it be that?  If it was true yesterday and we went about making our way through life having and sharing priceless experiences, have we really lost anything by the revelation of it today?

Only for people who are scared to be humbled by the universe, by god and his creation. For everyone else it's liberating and awe inspiring to find out man is dumb and insignificant yet somehow couched in sheer majesty.

Surely you don't entertain yourself resting on the assumption that hundred years of Masters and Doctors of physics, whom by prerequisite would then also be formidable logicians, concluding that Classical Logic does not apply in the Quantum Domain, all jumped to that conclusion prematurely?

Cocksure much?

No, mostly my rejection of "Christianity" is visceral all the umbrage and self-indulgence disgusts me.

It's a sentence form.

"x has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction" is the English translation of the symbol "Cx".  "x" is an independent variable, such that if x = a dog, then Cx = a dog has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction.

In predicate logic, sentence forms become actual sentences when we apply universal quantifiers, such that "(x) (Cx)" would be translated as "Everything has a nature which violates the law of non-contradiction".  Or if you applied an existential quantifier; "(Ex) Cx" is "Some things have a nature which violate the law of non-contradiction".

Then I'm sorry but I do not fully understand your position.  You are obfuscating so much that it is impossible to respond to, which is what you did about a week ago when we tried having this discussion.  What is pretty clear is that you believe logic is a process that automatically emerges from natural behavior and I'm arguing that this just does not work.  It does nothing to bridge the gap between what we know and what we perceive, and lends no justification for the principles themselves or the propositions we make which are dependent on these basic propositions.  It merely assumes that the gap is somehow bridged and that no real justification is required as we are fully capable of acting in the face of uncertainty.

No, that is false.  Just because something is, in itself, organized does not automatically entail that we can comprehend it.  In fact, things can appear to be organized and not actually be organized... or do you lend creedence to Ray Comfort's teleological argument (the world appears ordered, therefore someone must have ordered it)?

Knowing is an immaterial qualitative state.  Order or appearances would fall under the category of things that are known, it would not be knowledge itself.

Then you are essentially saying that we do not know anything, which means that you cannot even posit the truth statements that you are giving me now.

Not really. 

I've been explaining the whole time-- we have to assume it in order to be able to comprehend the things in which we receive.  That's why it's an axiom.

They are rules of proper thinking and discourse.  Sounds like a law to me.

But that does not make any sense.  It's a flawed model.

Gotta get back to work.  I'll respond to the rest later.

What is x?