If I desire to be a logician what should I do to become that?

Hi, A logically fallacious argument, as far as I understand should always be invalid - in every possible world. But take a kid's argument : This is true, because my father said so. On one hand it seems obviously invalid. Such an attitude is never smart (of course, I do not imply a case in which the father is known to be an expert in something, and therefore is a valid authority, but a kid's childish attitude). However, there is a possible world in which the father of the kid is omniscient and always telling the truth. It seems a logical possibility. But, if it is a logical possibility, then one cannot argue the argument is _logically_ invalid. Sincerely, Sam

I have been teaching philosophy for a year now, and the Paradox of the Stone has come up again and again, boggling my student and me later on. The standard answer is that God cannot create the stone since it would imply a contradiction, and these philosophers say that even God cannot do that. But if He is God, why can He not create a contradiction? Is there something wrong with accepting the conclusion that God can make 2+ 2 = 5, given that God is all-powerful? Or put it another way, why cannot the concept of omnipotence be the ability to do everything, even if that would imply a contradiction?

The "naturalistic fallacy" states that it is false to appeal to nature or naturalness in order to judge the goodness of something. Yet despite this being a fallacy, we see it crop up all the time in all spheres of life. Saying something isn't "natural" usually carries a negative connotation, and from foodstuffs to building materials to sexual practices, people use appeals to nature in order to condemn things. Since it seems appeals to nature are very popular, I wonder, is there a stream of thought that considers the naturalistic fallacy not to be a fallacy, but to be a proper form of argumentation? Are there philosophers or movements in philosophy which consider goodness to be clearly derivable from naturalness?

Hi, I would like to ask a question about Logic. There is a formal logical fallacy called "Circular Reasoning", are not all argument tho circular? The conclusion is always found in the premises. and then drawn from them into a conclusion.

I was reading a text claiming that people who believe that God is contingent may be uncomfortable with the implications of contingency. The author cited the Barcan formula. Could you please explain what this formula means and why it's controversial? I'm not great at logic. Thanks!

Hi, I'm a German student in physics. something i noticed is that in every theory we start with a few postulates and conclude predictions about the behaviour of uninlevend objects. Even in quantum- mechanics we can make declarations about things our mind can't even imagine (like electrons). We do all this with math or let's say logic. and here is my question. Why does the universe behave in a logical way? is logic something humans have learned from the universe and only exists in this universe or is logic something that would exist even if this universe wouldn 't exist? Greetings Tobias D. and excuse my bad grammar

Do all things exist? Nonexistence is the absence of existence, by definition. So, nonexistence does not exist. Therefore there is no such thing as nonexistence. To say that something does not exist thus seems to be a fallacy, since NOTHING does not exist. Everything, therefore, must exist. Is this right? If not, what is wrong with the argument?

Do false statements imply contradictions? Consider the truth table for logical implication. P...........Q.............P-> Q T...........T.............. T T...........F...............F F...........T...............T F...........F...............T Notice that for a false statement P, the last two rows of the truth table, both Q and ~Q follow. No matter what Q is, it's truth follows from false statement P, as the third row shows. We can therefore take Q to be "P is true." From here it follows that a false statement P implies it's own truth, as the third row shows. Do false statements really imply their own truth? Do they really imply contradictions? Are false statements also true?

Is every statement true? Consider the following argument: If a statement is true, then it is a member of the set of true statements. If a statement is false, then it implies a contradiction. Since anything follows from a contradiction, it follows that the statement is true. Thus the statement is a member of the set of true statements. Since a statement is true or false, all statements therefore belong in the set of true statements. All statements are true, with the set of false statements being a subset of the set of true statements. A statement thus is either true and true only, or both true and false. Does this mean that all statements are true?