Yeah, but I was talking about the stigma, not it's definition. There are all kinds of words that carry more meaning than just their definition. Take for example 'religion' itself.
Who is arguing about theories and ideas about logic? You need to join the discussion at hand. It is not about the theories and ideas about logic, it is about logic itself.
You've missed my point, as it is basically the same thing.
There are things in our reality that become laws or rules because we agreed upon how things work within a system. Red is red because we agreed upon it.. it could have been named blue.
In math, as it's perhaps the easiest thing to explain a certain kind of logic with, 2 and 2 added together makes 4 basically because we agreed upon it.
It also makes sense from the perspective of logic though because it fits perfectly within one of the commonly used frames of logic where two times the same amount makes double the initial amount.
The core frame of thought we usually refer to when it comes to our everyday math and everyday logical problems.
Don't forget logic is mainly about argumentative thoughts and principles. In other words, 2 times 2 is double the initial amount because we can measure an increase that is exactly double. It sounds more self verifying that it really is, as in the end it is a simple choice of framework.
The only reason why choosing a different frame work for (at least our everyday) math would become 'illogical', is because of the physical nature of measurements and methods that all depend on how math fits within our bigger framework of thoughts. It seems self verifying because we are used to using this kind of logic and this framework in our everyday lives. But in reality it's a quite relative matter actually.
That's why the whole field of logic ranges from the study of validity, fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and to arguments involving causality. Whether or not something 'makes sense' within the context of logic in the broadest possible way, is definitely not up to the Bible to decide anyways, so I do not understand why you think the Bible could even 'account for' logic when it clearly can not,
It just so happens that infidel's are ignorant because they ignore their creator, which can be clearly seen in nature, so that they are without excuse.
Knowing what I know I beg to differ and if there's one thing that is not at all obvious then it's "God" being visible through nature or in all things around us. Again, even the most overwhelming complexity of things is still no indication for a divine origin,
Cheers
