I devised this survey is response to Part One of GOD'S CHARACTER OF TRUTH EXPRESSED IN CREATION. Feel free to take the survey, and pass along any comments or questions which arise. If you have a post-modern way of thinking, I'd specially be interested in communicating with you. This survey will probably not make any sense to you as it is based upon classical ways of thinking. It is explained in the instructions. I look forward to hearing from you.
Do you think for yourself?
This survey is based upon the three basic laws of logic, which are the Law Of Identity, the Law Of Non-contradiction, and the Law Of Excluded Middle.
The definitions are:
The law of identity states that A is A. An Apple is an Apple. In other words, something is what it is. If something exists, it has a nature, an essence. CARM
The law of non-contradiction tells us that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense. In other words, something (a statement) cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. CARM
The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false. For example, my hair is brown. It is either true or false that my hair is brown.
The survey will make first person statements. Apply them to yourself and verify or negate their validity.
➢ 1. I assume my thoughts are true.
○ True, my thoughts are true. Continue to statement 2.
○ False, my thoughts are not true. I have just contradicted myself. By answering at all, the thoughts analyzing the question were assumed to be truthful thoughts. Review statement 1.
➢ 2. Truth is defined as “knowledge of what is real."
○ True, go to statement 4.
○ False, I define for myself what is true. Continue to statement 3.
➢ 3. I decide for myself what is true.
○ True, the individual decides. No one actually lives that way. If a road I want to cross is busy with traffic, I will either:
■ Wait till traffic clears. Review statement 2. If I wait for to traffic clear, I affirm that truth is objective, and apart from my feelings.
■ I decide for myself that the way is safe, and start walking. Young children will sometimes run into traffic thinking only about a ball. Yet, they still get run-over by traffic, even though they don't think about the traffic. People don't drive to avoid objects they think are there, they avoid crashing into trees that are really there. Review statement 2.
○ False, truth is not dependent upon opinion. Continue to statement 4.
➢ 4. Absolute truths exist.
○ True, absolutely. Agrees with the law of identity. Continue to statement 5.
○ False, there are absolutely no absolute truths.This is contrary to the law of identity. My claim that no truth is absolute, is a across the board claim about truths. I assert that None of them are true all the time. This claim itself is an absolute truth. Re-visit statement 4.
➢ 5. I can be wrong about everything I think I know.
○ True, I may be wrong. This is a Self-contradictory claim. If I could be wrong in all my knowledge, could I then be wrong about that specific claim about my knowledge? Would I then be totally accurate in all I know? For those who still claim this absurdity, from now on, for every true/false claim, include the phrase “but I could be wrong about that.” Continue to statement 6
○ False, I can have certain knowledge about something. Continue to statement 6.
➢ 6. Absolute truths can be known with 100% guaranteed accuracy.
○ True, absolute truths can be absolutely known. continue to statement 7.
○ False, absolute truths cannot be known for certain. (But I could I be wrong about that?) An absolute truth must be able to be known absolutely in order to be absolute. Even in the definition of truth, an absolute is implied. Besides, I again made a self-contradictory statement. I agreed with an a absolute statement claiming an absolute truth cannot be known absolutely. Do I apply this assertion to every bit of knowledge I state, or assume correctness? This is a self-contradictory position. Review statement 6.
➢ 7. I use the three laws of logic when I think. The three laws are:
■ The Law of Identity- A is A
■ The Law of Non-Contradiction- A can’t be both A and not A at the same time
■ The Law of Excluded Middle- a claim is either true or false
○ True, I use Laws of logic to think. Continue to statement 8.
○ False, I do not use the Laws of Logic when I think. I just used logic to determine I did not use logic, which is a Self-contradictory claim. Review statement 7.
➢ 8. The Laws of Logic reside solely in my the electro-chemical processes of
○ True, the laws of Logic exists only in my brain. Continue to 9.
○ False, the Laws of Logic do not exist only in my brain. I agree that logic resides outside of my brain, in the world as a universal truth. Continue to statement 10.
➢ 9. Before my brain existed, the Earth was able to both exist and not exist at
the same time, in the same way. Logic law of non-contradiction.
○ True, the Law of Non-contradiction is dependent upon sentience, or reasoning. This opinion is just that, an assertion. Since logic solely resides as electrochemical processes in the Author’s evolved brain, my rebuttal is this: “Dog ruff blind patch run somoff”. My assertion using subjective logic has just refuted the reader’s claim. Review statement 9..
○ False, the Law of Non-contradiction pre-existed before sentience. I have proven logic resides outside of my brain. Continue to statement 10.
➢ 10. I can touch a law of logic.
○ True, I can touch a law of logic. My opinion is absurd as logic is not material and exists as a universal truth. Continue to statement 11.
○ False, no one can touch a Law of Logic. It is immaterial universal truth. Continue to statement 11.
➢ 11. Laws of logic change over time.
○ True, laws of logic change over time. Since logic changes, how do I know the words I have just read have the same meaning as when the author typed them? If logic changes, how can scientific inquiry be done while expecting consistent results? If results differ, can it then be established that it was logic which changed, or did something change in their experiment? Since logic evolves, my rebuttal is this: “Dog ruff blind patch run somoff”. My assertion using evolved logic has just refuted the reader’s claim. Logic cannot change. It would be illogical for logic to change.
○ False, laws of logic never change. Law of logic are immaterial and immutable. Fancy words which mean not made of matter, and unchanging.
➢ 12. Laws of logic change with the location of their use.
○ True, laws of logic change with location. Since I have been using logic all my life; and have traveled to different places in the world; and since the world has continued to spin and orbit the sun; and furthermore, the solar system continues to orbit within the Milky Way Galaxy: I have proven that logic works everywhere I have been. And it then follows if logic does not change, it neither changes with location. Review question 11.
○ False, continue to question 13.
➢ 13. We have discovered that the Laws of Logic the have following characteristics:
■ Independent of mind. (Question 8)
■ Immaterial, (question 9)
■ Immutable. (Question 10)
■ Omnipresent, (question 11)
➢ 13. The Laws of Logic originated either as properties of matter, or matter
somehow created them.
○True, laws of Logic originated from or by matter. Logic, and information was created by rocks and dust circling a gravitational center, from which everything materially evolved. Logic and information came to us by dust. Is this verifiable? Is this repeatable? Is this true, or just a belief? Continue to question 14.
○ False, something non-material created the laws. Continue to question 14.
➢ 14. It is impossible for the God of the Bible, to have created the Laws of
○ True, it is impossible for God to create the Laws of Logic. To make such a claim, one must have all knowledge. Since I am not omniscient, My opinion is conjecture. Review question 13
○ False, it is not impossible for God to have created logic. Continue to question 14
➢ 15. Logic is not owned by mankind.
○ True, logic does not belong exclusively to mankind. There are many video clips of animals being confused by simple disappearing and slight-of-hand tricks. Continue to statement 16.
○ False, logic is owned or exclusively used by mankind. If that be the case, then why does the animal kingdom use logic to survive? An octopus was videoed while being eaten by a shark. The octopus took two tentacles and cut off the shark's supply of oxygen. The shark eventually let the prey go. The octopus used logic when it used it's suckers to close the shark's Gill slits. This shows logic does not belong exclusively to mankind. Review question 15
Epistemology is the study of how we gain knowledge. Mankind gains knowledge only two ways.
1. Personal experiences
2. Knowledge from another source
➢ 16. I have never received information from another source which
influenced my thinking.
○ True, my thinking is based solely upon my personal experiences. Schools and textbooks are examples of information gained by another's experiences. If I have attended school, or read a book, my thoughts are influenced by the knowledge of others. Review question 16.
○ False, my thoughts are influenced by the knowledge from other sources. Continue to conclusion.
Conclusion: Mankind and other living things use logic to make sense of their existence and the world around them. Logic was not created by mankind. Schools and books influence thought. I now realize thoughts are not original to me. I also realize the logic I use does not belong to me. It is not impossible for the Christian God to have created the logic I use. Therefore, I no longer claim I think for myself.