-->
@Double_R
So in order to ask for proof of anything you are already accepting at the outset that A=A.
I want to add more to this specific claim here, as it exposes more circular logic, before I forget it.
So let me get this right.
Your proof for "A=A" claim is that I am asking for proof?
So if I ask proof for God, is God then true too?
Or your claim is that ability to prove something depends on "A=A" being true?
In that case, how do you prove "A=A", if "A=A" must be true in order to prove it?
Or is your claim that asking for proof is impossible if "A=A" isnt true?
This doesnt even prove your case. If asking for proof is impossible, then your case cannot be proved.
Or is your claim that you can only ask for proof if "A=A" is already true?
This is circular logic. If I need "A=A" to be already true in order to ask for proof for it, then the only way to prove "A=A" is with "A=A", which is fallacy. "A proves A" is a logical fallacy. If all proof in order to be true completely depends on "A=A" being true, then no proof can ever even prove "A=A".
To put it simply:
All proof = Depends on "A=A" being true in order for proof to be true
All proof = Proved by "A=A"
"A proves B, B proves A" = This is logical fallacy
All proof = Cannot prove "A=A" true.
So here, in simple words, proof can only be true if claim is true, thus proof cannot be used to prove claim.
The mere concession that there is no proof without "A=A" means that proof can never be used to prove "A=A", because proof depends on "A=A" in order to be true itself.
So here, we have a case of:
If A true, then B true.
If B true, then A true.
How does one prove A or B here?