If we made up laws of logic when we made up language and communication, how does one explain the fact that they are universal, applicable everywhere, and unchanging.
Because that's how language and communication works. Two people can point at a dog and call it two different things in two different languages, but both words are still referring to the exact same thing. We made up the multiple different languages that still communicate the exact same words and meanings that we assigned to things. The "laws of logic" are merely conditions of our own understanding of how we communicate the world around us.
I can even explain individually (using true/false for simplicity):
1) The law of identity would posit that something that is true, must be true. This is merely because of the purpose of what "true" is. Something that is "true" is true because that is what "true" means...we made the word "true" to specifically describe things that are correct. Nothing needed to be "true" before we came along to say that "being true" was a thing. No god was necessary here, just people assigning meaning to things.
2) The law of non-contradiction would posit that something cannot be both true AND false. This is again merely because of the purpose of what "true" and "false" is. Something that is correct is "true" and something that is not correct is "false", because we assigned those words specifically to communicate the concept of something being correct or not. Again, no god was necessary here, just our own definitions of the concepts that "true" and "false" were created to explain.
3) The law of excluded middle would posit that something can only be either true OR false. Similarly, again, this is merely because of the purpose of what "true" and "false" is. BECAUSE something that is correct is "true" and something that is not correct is "false", we have created a… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
If man made up the laws of logic as he made up language, they would not be universally-applicable laws at all, but rather fickle and changing as the majority decides.
@VulcanMan6 4mos4MO
I literally addressed this exact claim of yours in my last paragraph; did you just not read my response or are you choosing to be willfully ignorant? Here's how I explained why your statement is incorrect:
No, because the "laws of logic" are not like legal laws; the laws of logic are dependent on our own definitions of words and meanings. We did not "decide" on what the laws of logic are, the laws of logic are merely properties of language and communication. Think of it like math: we did not "make up" mathematics in the sense that we "decided that 1+1=2", we simply made up numbers Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
So, to clarify, the laws of logic are tools that we use because they work?
@VulcanMan6 4mos4MO
No, the other way around. They work BECAUSE we made up what words mean and how communication functions. The laws of logic were not some kind of objective force that we discovered and decided to utilize, like the laws of gravity or the laws of physics, nor are the laws of logic something that we decided on, like legal laws...they are simply functions derived from the made-up meanings that we created as a means of communicating. There would be no "laws of logic" if we did not make up meanings for things; there were no "laws of logic" until we created meanings and applied the… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution4mos4MO
If the laws of logic are conditional upon what we all accept, we have the never changed in human history as the language changes? Language is constantly evolving! They would not be laws if they mere things made up to sort information and understand one another like language. They wouldn't be laws at all, but conventions.