Saturday, October 30, 2010

Series: The First Principles, An Introduction and the First Principle of Logic

This past Thursday night concluded our lecture material on naturalism, atheism, and humanism.  Part of that material was a reminder of what constitutes a solid worldview by sharing with them what is known as The First Principles.
As I was working through them with the class, I was prompted into thinking that a subject like this might provide a short blog series.  So with that in mind, I would like to share with you these First Principles with biblical references following.  You might ask what are the First Principles?  What a great question to get this started!

The ancient philosopher Aristotle showed how every science begins with certain obvious metaphysical truths that he referred to as first principles. Aristotle explained how these first principles form the very foundations upon which all knowledge rests. These First Principles are the fundamental truths from which inferences are made and conclusions are based. They are considered to be self-evident truths which can be thought of as the underlying and the governing principles that shape a solidly cohesive worldview.

Tonight let me "kick off" this series with the First Principle of Logic


The first principle of all knowledge is the law of noncontradiction.

This foundational first principle of logic states that opposite claims cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.

Biblical References Showing the Law of Non Contradiction:

Matthew 21:25, "The baptism of John was from what source, from heaven or from men?" – Some questions only have a yes or no answer (either from heaven or from men).

2 Corinthians 1:18, "But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no" – In order for a statement or message to be valid, it must be either “yes” or “no” and not “yes” and “no.”

Next: The First Principle of Truth

1 comment:

Rob Lundberg said...

Kraxpelax has left a new comment on your post "Series: The First Principles, An Introduction and ...":

CHALLENGE and a Windor Mirrow; what do you say? I say: generally, e = mc^(n-1) for the n-dimensional room. I say this is close to self-evident. You think not? Then prove the contrary!
Kraxpelax, I deleted your comment because of the additional stuff that you had on your comment. I do not mind comments, but let's keep your comments, just comments. Though I am Swedish myself, "Lundberg", I do not know the language, so I am glad that you found my blog and wanted to post a comment.

Is e = mc^(n-1) close to being self-evident? If you think that you are using the theory of relativity or a derivative of the theory of relativity as a possible refutation of the law of non contradiction, this will not work.

E=mc^(n-1) is a FORMULA which imposes the usage of absolute symbols which in hold a numerical value. Numerical values are absolute, my friend!

E= represents a value measurement of Energy. The m= represents a numerical value for mass and the c represents a numerical value for the speed of light. The exponent whether or not you want to go with c^2 or c^(n-1), your exponent is a numerical value as well. Again, numbers are absolute. The only relative elements if there are any, are the numbers in the formula changing, But still you come out with an absolute number for the value of measurement for E in a value number of joules. So is your question about really about using the theory of relativity to disprove the law of non contradiction or are you using an absolute to try and disprove an absolute. Self-evident "things" are self-evident.