Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Does your convoluted logic permit you to take the next step and agree that if “Absolute nothing can not and does not exist”, then something must always have existed?


Nope I have no experience of a god so all I can do is fill it in as vacant in the logic table. Thus it is an invalid question.

There is nothing going wrong here and it doesn't concern me at all because Intuitionistic logic is about justification not about any idea of being able to answer absolutely every question.

In other words Intuitionistic logic is about making sure one does not make a mistake rather than worrying you might get stuck and might not be able to make a decision.

Intuitionistic logic leads to intrinsically safe results but many people who use classic logic complain that it is like doing science with one hand behind your back but any conclusion reached is also valid under classical logic the reverse as we have seen is not true.

So now we have the next thing about logic ... it implies a goal. If there wasn't a goal there would be only one sort of logic and there are hundreds.

So state your goal of your logic you intend to use please Bill S ... I gave you mine which can be technically stated as to make sure that my logic I use preserves justification. I am excluding anything that does not have verifiable and testable justification.

It will be very interesting to get the goal of the logic you wish to use.

Maybe someone in Western science would care to volunteer the goal of classic logic?

TT I am guessing your logic is going to be one of the philosophical ones care to share it?

Last edited by Orac; 02/05/14 06:48 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.