# Is logic valid?

Author: SirAnonymous ,

## Posts

Total: 61
Debates: 3
Posts: 3,221
3
7
10
3
7
10
I used this argument in a different forum and decided that it needs its own topic simply because it is so unusual and counter-intuitive.

There is no way to be certain that logic is valid. We can divide any possible argument into the two categories of logical and illogical. Since anything that is not logical is by definition illogical, and vice versa, these are the only two possible categories. My argument follows inevitably from these simple and indisputable premises.
P1: Every argument is either logical or illogical.
P2: Any attempt to use logic to prove that logic is valid is circular, because the use of logic presumes that logic is valid.
C1: It is impossible to use logic to prove that logic is valid.
P3: Any attempt to use illogic to prove that logic is valid is inherently contradictory.
C2: It is impossible to use illogic to prove the validity of logic.
C3: Because of P1, C1, and C2, there is no possible argument that can prove that logic is valid.
As a result, no matter how self-evident logic seems or how well it is supported by the evidence, we cannot prove that logic is valid because such arguments are logical and therefore circular. Since it is impossible to be certain that logic is valid, and since all knowledge is dependent on the validity of logic, it is impossible to be absolutely certain that knowledge is true. Consequently, knowledge cannot exist, since any knowledge would be based on the uncertain assumption that logic is valid.
So what do you think? I'm guessing we all agree that logic is valid, but do you think it's possible to prove that logic is valid? Is my reasoning correct, or does it have a flaw(s)?

In other words, can we prove logic is valid, or do we just have to assume that it's valid out of necessity?

Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
4
8
11
--> @SirAnonymous
In other words, can we prove logic is valid, or do we just have to assume that it's valid out of necessity?
Join the club!

More serious answer, given that your argument can be pretty much be used to say anything can't really be valid we rely on assumptions or axioms as a baseline of when we have conversations.
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
0
0
2
--> @SirAnonymous
(hidden P1) There is no way to be certain that logic is valid.
(hidden P2) We can divide any possible argument into the two categories of logical and illogical.
(hidden P3) Since anything that is not logical is by definition illogical, and vice versa, these are the only two possible categories.
(hidden P4) My argument follows inevitably from these simple and indisputable premises.

P1: Every argument is either logical or illogical.
....
The 'argument' has four hidden premises that attempts to take themselves as granted.

There is no way to be certain that logic is valid.
this is not necessarily true.

We can divide any possible argument into the two categories of logical and illogical.
this imposes an unnecessary boundary condition.

Since anything that is not logical is by definition illogical, and vice versa, these are the only two possible categories.
this further imposes an unnecessary boundary condition(s).

My argument follows inevitably from these simple and indisputable premises.
is thus intrinsically presumptuous.

thus it follows:
P1: Every argument is either logical or illogical.
is an assumption subject to the problems highlighted above.

Nevertheless, to address the problem of logic:

P = P contains a hidden assumption:
P = P without variability
The root of any variable P has two possible answers: -P and +P
and it is the same in mathematical logic: 1 = (-1 x -1) or (+1 x +1)
therefor if taken as a root, there is an intrinsic variability of 1 / P.

P =/= P
P = (-)P or (+)P
P = *P
____________
*variablility: allows (-) or (+) orientation/direction/motion

thus Aristotelian 'logic' only serves as far as its own assumptions permit. Because motion is an intrinsic property of the cosmos, if/when dealing with any unknown variable, variability re: (e)motion(s) must be acknowledged and thus granted into the assumption: one assumes there to be the *potentiality for variability via acknowledgement that (e)motion(s) is an intrinsic property of the cosmos. Therefor, the 'logic' is further refined to reflect the real 'nature' of the cosmos' intrinsic property of motion(s).

Now that *P has a definite variability, it can be used as a definite variable to calculate orientation re: any two potential poles:
Satan/God
Evil/Good
Dark/Light
Ignorance/Knowledge
Irrational/Rational
Illogical/Logical
etc.

That *P is variable allows it to be one-or-the-other-as-both
according to any particular (of infinite number of) context(s)
which allows the exchange of one to the other and vice versa.
This 'logic' thus allows (!) its own inverse to exist: illogical (?)

Is such an allowance of 'illogical' logical or illogical
if ever allowing either to exist?

P1: Every argument is either logical or illogical.
is thus argued by myself as being otherwise: it can be both
thus P1 is not necessarily true
just as P = P is not necessarily true
(P)roof:

P =/= P
P = (-)P and/or (+)P
P = *P
and so neither are the four hidden premises that precede it necessarily true.

Debates: 32
Posts: 9,113
4
7
11
4
7
11
ture, what is logic?

Debates: 32
Posts: 9,113
4
7
11
4
7
11
--> @Anonymous04
DO NOT JOIN HIS NIHILIST CLUB
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
4
8
11
--> @AGnosticAgnostic
this imposes an unnecessary boundary condition.
How is this an unnecessary boundary?

Debates: 6
Posts: 5,659
3
6
9
3
6
9
--> @SirAnonymous
In the arena of logic, "valid" means that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set premises, combined with logical inferences such that, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true.

So the question becomes whether all forms of logical inferences are necessarily true in all cases.

But this is a trap.

The key is to realize that "logic" is just a framework in which we decide and define what the "valid" logical inferences are. Something is valid within that logical framework (of which there are many, there isn't just a single "logic") if it adheres to the rules define for that framework.

Not all logical frameworks use the same set of logical inferences, so something that may be valid in one framework is not valid in another.
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
0
0
2
--> @TheRealNihilist
How is this an unnecessary boundary?
"Only-one-of-two" is a boundary: both can be valid context-dependent.

In the arena of logic, "valid" means that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set premises, combined with logical inferences such that, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true.

So the question becomes whether all forms of logical inferences are necessarily true in all cases.

But this is a trap.

The key is to realize that "logic" is just a framework in which we decide and define what the "valid" logical inferences are. Something is valid within that logical framework (of which there are many, there isn't just a single "logic") if it adheres to the rules define for that framework.

Not all logical frameworks use the same set of logical inferences, so something that may be valid in one framework is not valid in another.
Thus any/all 'logic' is limited to the framework with/in which it is established and operates.
However, it is certainly possible to construct the framework of the logic with/as definitely unknown variables that allows for any/all discovery via trial/testing. It is essentially what any kind of science is, including conscience (ie. ones own method of inquiry).

Belief is not a conscious process: it is an unconscious process that retards conscience. See belief-based ideologies that worship books/idols.
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
4
8
11
--> @AGnosticAgnostic
Are you ebuc?

"Only-one-of-two" is a boundary: both can be valid context-dependent."

Don't understand. Can you make it simpler?

Don't say retard. You are using a someones non-changeable problem as your insult.
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
0
0
2
--> @TheRealNihilist
Are you ebuc?
No.

Don't understand. Can you make it simpler?
A = logic is valid
B = logic is invalid
C = logic is valid up-to degree x but invalid at/beyond degree y

State 'C' allows both to be simultaneously true when variability is allowed for: degrees.

P =/=P
P = *P

Don't say retard. You are using a someones non-changeable problem as your insult.
Retardation is not necessarily:
i. personal
ii. unchangeable
and has a purely practical implication(s) to conscience: a 'state' can be retarded due to having no conscious knowledge of their own ignorance for militarily/religiously "believing" everyone else is ignorant, despite their own belief-based assumptions/presumptions to have catastrophically lethal consequences viz. hundreds of millions of people are dead.
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
4
8
11
--> @AGnosticAgnostic
No.
Have you heard of him? I think you both would get along.
A = logic is valid
B = logic is invalid
C = logic is valid up-to degree x but invalid at/beyond degree y

State 'C' allows both to be simultaneously true when variability is allowed for: degrees.

P =/=P
P = *P
So basically you are saying a third option?
Is this correct way of seeing what you said:
A= Yes
B= No
C= Yes until x but No until y
Retardation is not necessarily:
i. personal
ii. unchangeable
Even if that is the case when you call people retards you are attributing them to having a slow process of growth. This would be comparing them to people who have a slow process of growth.
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
0
0
2
Have you heard of him? I think you both would get along.
Of, yes, but do not know.

So basically you are saying a third option?
Is this correct way of seeing what you said:
A= Yes
B= No
C= Yes until x but No until y
Basically, yes. Less basically: x/y is invariably/variably,
therefor A and B can be XA / YA or XB / YB
thus an intrinsic variability re: variability-in-and-of-itself,

P =/= P assumes no variability.
P = *P allows any/all dipole variability (+) / (-)

The theorem I am working on designates a Primordial Antithetical Dichotomous Dipole (PADD) of Belief-Based Ignorance / Knowledge wherein:
+P is any/all belief-based ignorance <-*believers believing evil is good / good is evil
-P is knowledge-negating-belief(-based ignorance) <-*tends towards all-knowing god reconciling/knowing good/evil

Plotted as a figure-8:

-2 .............-1
+1 ....P.....+2

+2 (any/all) <-*creation
-1 KNOW <-* Tree of Living Forever
0/P I am willing to...(equal capacity for (+) / (-))
+1 BELIEVE <-* Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
-2 *not to* <-*destruction
___________________________
0 +1 - 2 + 2 - 1 = 0 I am willing to BELIEVE *not to* I am (any/all) KNOW I am <-*leads to: suffering/death
0 - 1 + 2 - 2 + 1 = 0 I am willing to KNOW (any/all) I am *not to* BELIEVE I am <-*leads to: inverse of ^^^

This solves for the properties of the two Edenic trees as it applies to Judaism/Christianity/Islam and/or their respective "religions".

Even if that is the case when you call people retards you are attributing them to having a slow process of growth. This would be comparing them to people who have a slow process of growth.
I didn't call people retards. Any belief-based ideological 'state' can be retarded, without consideration to its adherents (ie. people) because they could be victims of the retarded ideology, thus not necessarily retarded themselves. For example, Islam is certainly retarded due to belief-based ignorance(s) which has/is/will result in a retarded development of emotional maturity because the idol/model of Islam suffered the same: emotional retardation.
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
3
8
11
--> @SirAnonymous
BUT HOW CAN YOU PROVE THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS VALID!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Checkmate
Debates: 3
Posts: 3,221
3
7
10
3
7
10
--> @PressF4Respect
BUT HOW CAN YOU PROVE THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS VALID!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Checkmate
Precisely.
Debates: 15
Posts: 4,534
3
3
3
3
3
3
--> @PressF4Respect @SirAnonymous

Stalemate then.
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
4
8
11
--> @AGnosticAgnostic
Basically, yes. Less basically: x/y is invariably/variably,
therefor A and B can be XA / YA or XB / YB
thus an intrinsic variability re: variability-in-and-of-itself,
But for the purpose of his arguments there was only 2 choices.
I think having a third option would still have him reach the same conclusion. I don't think it is a good enough defense to discredit what he did.

All the person has to do is add in a thing can be either logical or illogical or on a spectrum. This would be for P1.
After this he would need to add another premise and conclusion in between Conclusion 2 and 3
As follows:
P1: Any attempt to use something more valid than in valid or vice verse is inherently contradictory.
C2: It is impossible to use illogic to prove the validity of logic.

I am probably missing your much better argument because I don't understand it which is why I didn't answer it. Hopefully someone else decides to talk about it.

Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
0
0
2
--> @TheRealNihilist
But for the purpose of his arguments there was only 2 choices.
What is the purpose of the argument if, in reality, there is more than "only" two choices?

I think having a third option would still have him reach the same conclusion. I don't think it is a good enough defense to discredit what he did.
The conclusion has to follow from the premises, and the first one can be undermined.

All the person has to do is add in a thing can be either logical or illogical or on a spectrum. This would be for P1.
After this he would need to add another premise and conclusion in between Conclusion 2 and 3
As follows:
P1: Any attempt to use something more valid than in valid or vice verse is inherently contradictory.
C2: It is impossible to use illogic to prove the validity of logic.
Not on a spectrum: a third option entirely - (n)either.

A = Logical
B = Illogical
C = (N)either

P1 is thus now itself inherently contradictory.

I am probably missing your much better argument because I don't understand it which is why I didn't answer it. Hopefully someone else decides to talk about it.
Will you share what you do not understand? I won't clarify anything unless asked, just am curious where the lack of understanding enters.
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
4
8
11
--> @AGnosticAgnostic
What is the purpose of the argument if, in reality, there is more than "only" two choices?
This isn't about choices, it is reflecting on the metrics we use for what we consider good or bad. In this instance valid or invalid. Please keep talking like this. No more maths and more small words. For my sake. Don't have to if you don't want to.
The conclusion has to follow from the premises, and the first one can be undermined.
Given your reasoning I don't really agree with this. You can bring it up when you have told me the problem with what I said before.
Will you share what you do not understand? I won't clarify anything unless asked, just am curious where the lack of understanding enters.
This would be this:
C = (N)either

I am guessing you are emphasizing neither but this isn't relevant given you gave more important in a more easier to understand way. No point in speaking about this until it becomes the most relevant in the discussion.
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
4
8
11
--> @AGnosticAgnostic
The reason why I changed the way I gave my arguments as in instead of suing your framework I made my own, I chose to not to speak about that entirely given the new information you gave which was this:
What is the purpose of the argument if, in reality, there is more than "only" two choices?

Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
0
0
2
--> @TheRealNihilist
This isn't about choices, it is reflecting on the metrics we use for what we consider good or bad. In this instance valid or invalid. Please keep talking like this. No more maths and small words.
It is about unnecessarily imposed boundary conditions that do not capture the scope of what is possible.
Any metrics used are limited to their own terms.
"Good" and "bad" are subjective in nature.

Given your reasoning I don't really agree with this. You can bring it up when you have told me the problem with what I said before.
Your agreeing to it or not does not alter its state in any way: any deduction has to follow from the premises, even before trying the premises for their "validity".

I am guessing you are emphasizing neither but this isn't relevant given you gave more important in a more easier to understand way. No point in speaking about this until it becomes the most relevant in the discussion.
If elaborated it will lead to something very interesting.
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
4
8
11
--> @AGnosticAgnostic
It is about unnecessarily imposed boundary conditions that do not capture the scope of what is possible.
Okay tell me in the specific case of finding what is good or bad, what would the third option?
If not tell me why it is unfair to limit it to 2 options.
Any metrics used are limited to their own terms.
Yes it is a given but not a reason why there is a 3rd option for a closed well metric I guess. Basically the equivalent to a closed question.
"Good" and "bad" are subjective in nature.
Doesn't mean there is a 3rd option.
Your agreeing to it or not does not alter its state in any way: any deduction has to follow from the premises, even before trying the premises for their "validity".
cool
If elaborated it will lead to something very interesting.
Also cool
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
0
0
2
--> @TheRealNihilist
The reason why I changed the way I gave my arguments as in instead of suing your framework I made my own, I chose to not to speak about that entirely given the new information you gave which was this:
What is the purpose of the argument if, in reality, there is more than "only" two choices?
It's a question that lends itself to the absurdity of there being only two options: either/or.

P1: Any attempt to use something more valid than in valid or vice verse is inherently contradictory.
C2: It is impossible to use illogic to prove the validity of logic.

This looks like it was engineered to circumvent an anticipated spectrum between two poles. It is not the problem: there is a third neutral pole that is being neglected by either/or which can not be ignored as a "valid" option.

In synthesis

P =/= P
P = *P
______________
*variable (+)/(-) allows for orientation

And mapping:
-P = logical
+P = illogical
*P = variable

If this is taken/granted as logical, then it defeats any/all premises attempting to posit that any postulate is either/or logical/illogical.

Okay tell me in the specific case of finding what is good or bad, what would the third option?
If not tell me why it is unfair to limit it to 2 options.
It's a fatal catastrophe according to Genesis 2:17 (concerning Jews/Christians/Muslims and/or "believers" in any Abrahamic monotheistic god)

GENESIS 2:17 (KJV)
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
In other words: recalling the ABC's of GOOD and EVIL, both A and B merely believe to know (thus annihilate one another), C knows not to believe.

Thus, it would be unfair to limit to only two options because it would lead to perpetual conflict between "believers" in/of good/evil without ever having knowledge to "know" what not to believe for perpetually having them the wrong-way-around.

Any possible all-knowing god would know:
i. it takes a believer to ever believe evil is good
ii. any/all of: who/what/where/why/when/how not to believe and why

Thus
Knowledge negates Belief
as just as
God negates Satan.

Try:
A I believe I am (good/evil) in relation to others /
B I believe others are (good/evil) in relation to me
C I know I am neither good nor evil in relation to anyone or anything

Yes it is a given but not a reason why there is a 3rd option for a closed well metric I guess. Basically the equivalent to a closed question.
Doesn't mean there is a 3rd option.
Anything less than a third option is immutably subject to perpetual conflict.

Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
4
8
11
--> @AGnosticAgnostic
It's a question that lends itself to the absurdity of there being only two options: either/or.
Define absurdity and demonstrate it to be the case.
And mapping:
-P = logical
+P = illogical
*P = variable
Explain with a real world example.
I know I am neither good nor evil in relation to anything
The first thing I asked is more important so I want to see what you say there before I say something here.
Closed-minded, if anything.
Even if that is the case it isn't an argument against there being 2 options.
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
0
0
2
--> @TheRealNihilist
Define absurdity and demonstrate it to be the case.
Explain with a real world example.
absurd(ity)
i. any proposition rooted in some egregious oversight(s) which, if/when factored, render the original proposition as having practically no meaningful imlpication(s)
ii. any egregious conflation of any one particular of any conjugate relationship invariably leading to confusion (eg."All knowing is belief")

See amended prior response from "In other words..." for real world example as it applies to: "believers" in/of any god.

The first thing I asked is more important so I want to see what you say there before I say something here.
Even if that is the case it isn't an argument against there being 2 options.
...it highlights the absurdity in/of any/all possible Abrahamic context(s).
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
4
8
11
--> @AGnosticAgnostic
any proposition rooted in some egregious oversight(s) which, if/when factored, render the original proposition as having practically no meaningful imlpication(s)
I don't consider this valid as in a counter to what original thread starter said. His premises and conclusions are practical apart from conclusion 3.
any egregious conflation of any one particular of any conjugate relationship invariably leading to confusion (eg."All knowing is belief")
I don't think this is valid either. Mainly due to that is how we do pretty much assign anything using any standard. It starts off as neutral but we as rational agents (even if we are not rational all the time) state whether something is good or bad (whatever the variation of the two words). I think you are bogged down way too much that the thread starter didn't include what occurs before we assign things in a certain light instead of what occurs during and after the standard is used.
See amended prior response from "In other words..." for real world example as it applies to: "believers" in/of any god.
cool
A I believe I am (good/evil) in relation to others /
B I believe others are (good/evil) in relation to me
C I know I am neither good nor evil in relation to anyone or anything
C is the absurdist approach. It has no practical meaning like what the first part of how you defined absurdity to mean. I say this because not in any kind of thing we do we don't just state that thing has no weight to my standard. Now you might be saying well I would like to refrain from judgement until I assign it to be good or bad but by you saying that you are eventually accepting that you will answer whether that thing is good or bad. Example:

Another mass shooting has occurred. You don't have enough information on the day of the event to know what happened. You wait and find out more information then realize an self-proclaimed incel killing 10 people. You find that wrong/bad because you consider non-defensive killings bad.

Basically what I ask of you when has the C option been used practically.
...it highlights the absurdity in/of any/all possible Abrahamic context(s).
Care to elaborate?