• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is True? Does A = A?

JRMcC

JRMcC

Active Member
This is the question I had to ask in response to a Protestant guy who was telling people they're not saved over a loudspeaker. He had asked me how I ever know what's true and what's not. He asked me if know for sure that I learned something while I was in College. In the end I was forced to admit that I'm only "pretty sure" that I learned something in college.

I wound up asking him if A=A because I was wondering if he believes that logical axioms like that are true regardless of whether or not God or human is observing or not. He seemed to think you can't know that A=A without God. Whatever. Then his more reasonable friend came up to me and we had a really nice conversation. He said God is the precondition of knowledge, and I think there's something to that in a way.

Another question: "What is True?"
The exact question the guy asked me was actually somewhere between "What is True?" and "How do you ever know what's true?".

What is True? I don't think true/truth is a thing that can be observed or described. I'm not even sure if it could be called a quality. It's almost like a logical building block that we have to take for granted if our thought process is going to work at all.

The bold stuff isn't super well thought out but those are the first thoughts that came into my head.

How would you describe true/truth?
How would you respond to the people asking you those silly questions?
 
lovemuffin

lovemuffin

τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
the law of identity (A=A) is going to be axiomatic (and therefore unproven but assumed) with or without theism. I don't think presuppositionalist arguments (i.e that logic presupposes the existence of some absolute ground of truth which is then identified as "God") are persuasive for the same reason that cosmological arguments aren't persuasive. Even if you agree that knowledge requires some presuppositions, it's perfectly adequate to make them atheistic, and if the assumptions are chosen abductively then the atheistic ones are more parsimonious. In the same way in the cosmological argument you may agree that there can't be an infinite regress of causes of the universe, but it doesn't follow that the first (and uncaused) cause should be identified with the God of the biblical texts.

To put this simpler, the point that knowledge has to start with some set of assumptions is true, but it doesn't follow that the minimal set of assumptions necessary amount to anything like a traditional conception of God.
 
L

Logikal

Member
In deductive logic the law of identity is not an axiom. Axiom is a Math term. Aristotles's logic begins with NO AXIOMS. The law of identity is sense verifiable --That is how we KNOW it to be true. Math people teach AXIOM stuff.
50 years ago you would never really say deductive logic has axioms. 50 years ago terminology was taught pretty much the same in philosophy. Today people favor "Mathematical-Logic" and youngsters now don't know this was NOT how LOGIC began.
Aristotle did not have "Mathematical-Logic". "Mathematical-Logic" did not come about before 1845. There is controversy about the actual date but we can date it back to 1845 to 1850. The terms are different and many things are not the same as pure deductive logic. One should specify which type of logic one refers to because not all logics are deductive. Not all deductive systems are what Aristotle worked on ala Mathematical-Logic. The intents and purposes are different in each.
 
1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Whether A is A or not, we are bound to the idea that A is A. For me this is evidence of something more, such as god, to set up a dualistic, prison-like systems that allows for temporality, fear, love, happiness, and so on. Experience cannot be had by something that is All, and so it broke itself into Many. Anyways, being an axiomatic statement we have no way to test whether A is A or not. Sure, it seems obvious, but just because we perceive something as true certainly does not mean it is true. It is a law we are bound to and forced to observe. Even arguing that A can be non-A you would have to rely on the prison of logic.

As for what is true, are you asking how we can TELL what is true?
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Whatever concept of truth we have isn't truth, truth isn't a concept, its found within each one of us, and only each one of us can find that truth, now if we try to tell others of our truth then again it becomes a concept, its like trying to grab water with your fingers.
 
L

Logikal

Member
1137 said:
Whether A is A or not, we are bound to the idea that A is A. For me this is evidence of something more, such as god, to set up a dualistic, prison-like systems that allows for temporality, fear, love, happiness, and so on. Experience cannot be had by something that is All, and so it broke itself into Many. Anyways, being an axiomatic statement we have no way to test whether A is A or not. Sure, it seems obvious, but just because we perceive something as true certainly does not mean it is true. It is a law we are bound to and forced to observe. Even arguing that A can be non-A you would have to rely on the prison of logic.

As for what is true, are you asking how we can TELL what is true?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by A=A "being an axiomatic statement"? Axiom as I have stated is a math term. Why are you using a math term when the law of identity is a logical term? Do you think Math = Logic?
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
JRMcC said:
This is the question I had to ask in response to a Protestant guy who was telling people they're not saved over a loudspeaker. He had asked me how I ever know what's true and what's not. He asked me if know for sure that I learned something while I was in College. In the end I was forced to admit that I'm only "pretty sure" that I learned something in college.

I wound up asking him if A=A because I was wondering if he believes that logical axioms like that are true regardless of whether or not God or human is observing or not. He seemed to think you can't know that A=A without God. Whatever. Then his more reasonable friend came up to me and we had a really nice conversation. He said God is the precondition of knowledge, and I think there's something to that in a way.

Another question: "What is True?"
The exact question the guy asked me was actually somewhere between "What is True?" and "How do you ever know what's true?".

What is True? I don't think true/truth is a thing that can be observed or described. I'm not even sure if it could be called a quality. It's almost like a logical building block that we have to take for granted if our thought process is going to work at all.

The bold stuff isn't super well thought out but those are the first thoughts that came into my head.

How would you describe true/truth?
How would you respond to the people asking you those silly questions?
Click to expand...
I suppose you would actually need A in order to illustrate A equals A.
 
L

Logikal

Member
1137 said:
You've misunderstood the definition of an axiom.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
Click to expand...

How is it that I am mistaken. Axiom without question is a math term first used by Euclid in Geometry. Is there a use prior to Euclid?

You are confused: you seem like most people today not to know the difference between deductive logic and Mathematical-Logic. Aristotle used the term axiom ONLY when referring to geometry. Aristotle did not use axioms in his system whatsoever. You learned that from a math guy or computer science guy.
 
JRMcC

JRMcC

Active Member
psychoslice said:
Whatever concept of truth we have isn't truth, truth isn't a concept, its found within each one of us, and only each one of us can find that truth, now if we try to tell others of our truth then again it becomes a concept, its like trying to grab water with your fingers.
Click to expand...
I agree but I feel like that's only one category of truth. We don't find whether or not 2+2=4 within ourselves; it's objective.
Right?
 
JRMcC

JRMcC

Active Member
Logikal said:
In deductive logic the law of identity is not an axiom. Axiom is a Math term. Aristotles's logic begins with NO AXIOMS. The law of identity is sense verifiable --That is how we KNOW it to be true. Math people teach AXIOM stuff.
50 years ago you would never really say deductive logic has axioms. 50 years ago terminology was taught pretty much the same in philosophy. Today people favor "Mathematical-Logic" and youngsters now don't know this was NOT how LOGIC began.
Aristotle did not have "Mathematical-Logic". "Mathematical-Logic" did not come about before 1845. There is controversy about the actual date but we can date it back to 1845 to 1850. The terms are different and many things are not the same as pure deductive logic. One should specify which type of logic one refers to because not all logics are deductive. Not all deductive systems are what Aristotle worked on ala Mathematical-Logic. The intents and purposes are different in each.
Click to expand...
Don't math and logic overlap though? Couldn't A=A be both a logical and mathematical truth?
 
L

Logikal

Member
JRMcC said:
Don't math and logic overlap though? Couldn't A=A be both a logical and mathematical truth?
Click to expand...

Becareful of the fallacy of composition!!!! Just because there are truths shared does not mean ALL the truths in one and the other are shared. SOME truths are carried over in math and deductive logic -- not ALL. There are technical distinctions between math and logic. Math guys will say there is no difference as demonstrated by the number of humans who think like you.
 
JRMcC

JRMcC

Active Member
Logikal said:
Becareful of the fallacy of composition!!!! Just because there are truths shared does not mean ALL the truths in one and the other are shared. SOME truths are carried over in math and deductive logic -- not ALL. There are technical distinctions between math and logic. Math guys will say there is no difference as demonstrated by the number of humans who think like you.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that at least in the case of A=A it looks to me like it's both logically and mathematically true. I dare say it would be true regardless of whether or not a God of any kind exists.
 
L

Logikal

Member
JRMcC said:
I'm just saying that at least in the case of A=A it looks to me like it's both logically and mathematically true. I dare say it would be true regardless of whether or not a God of any kind exists.
Click to expand...

well if it is deductively true the claim is true in BOTH as you said, BUT don't think everything in BOTH subjects carry over in this way. You found a particular instance of a claim being true in both subjects.

I think you are really thinking about the Law of Excluded Middle which says either A exists or A does not exist. The variable can be any letter such a G or not G would express the same proposition. Objectively all literally meaningfull statements are either true or false with no other options.
 
Last edited:
S

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
In some ways, A just equals A. In other ways, A does not equal A, that is it equals everything else that is not-A. It depends upon the rest of the alphabet to have any meaningful context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top