Is logic valid?

There is no way to be certain that logic is valid. We can divide any possible argument into the two categories of logical and illogical. Since anything that is not logical is by definition illogical, and vice versa, these are the only two possible categories. My argument follows inevitably from these simple and indisputable premises.

P1: Every argument is either logical or illogical.

P2: Any attempt to use logic to prove that logic is valid is circular, because the use of logic presumes that logic is valid.

C1: It is impossible to use logic to prove that logic is valid.

P3: Any attempt to use illogic to prove that logic is valid is inherently contradictory.

C2: It is impossible to use illogic to prove the validity of logic.

C3: Because of P1, C1, and C2, there is no possible argument that can prove that logic is valid.

As a result, no matter how self-evident logic seems or how well it is supported by the evidence, we cannot prove that logic is valid because such arguments are logical and therefore circular. Since it is impossible to be certain that logic is valid, and since all knowledge is dependent on the validity of logic, it is impossible to be absolutely certain that knowledge is true. Consequently, knowledge cannot exist, since any knowledge would be based on the uncertain assumption that logic is valid.

In other words, can we prove logic is valid, or do we just have to assume that it's valid out of necessity?

(hidden P1) There is no way to be certain that logic is valid.

(hidden P2) We can divide any possible argument into the two categories of logical and illogical.

(hidden P3) Since anything that is not logical is by definition illogical, and vice versa, these are the only two possible categories.

(hidden P4) My argument follows inevitably from these simple and indisputable premises.

P1: Every argument is either logical or illogical.

....

There is no way to be certain that logic is valid.

We can divide any possible argument into the two categories of logical and illogical.

Since anything that is not logical is by definition illogical, and vice versa, these are the only two possible categories.

My argument follows inevitably from these simple and indisputable premises.

P1: Every argument is either logical or illogical.

P =/= P

P = (-)P and/or (+)P

P = *P

this imposes an unnecessary boundary condition.

How is this an unnecessary boundary?

In the arena of logic, "valid" means that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set premises, combined with logical inferences such that, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true.

So the question becomes whether all forms of logical inferences are necessarily true in all cases.

But this is a trap.

The key is to realize that "logic" is just a framework in which we decide and define what the "valid" logical inferences are. Something is valid within that logical framework (of which there are many, there isn't just a single "logic") if it adheres to the rules define for that framework.

Not all logical frameworks use the same set of logical inferences, so something that may be valid in one framework is not valid in another.

Are you ebuc?

Don't understand. Can you make it simpler?

Don't say retard. You are using a someones non-changeable problem as your insult.

No.

A = logic is valid

B = logic is invalid

C = logic is valid up-to degree x but invalid at/beyond degree y

State 'C' allows both to be simultaneously true when variability is allowed for: degrees.

P =/=P

P = *P

Retardation is not necessarily:

i. personal

ii. unchangeable

Have you heard of him? I think you both would get along.

So basically you are saying a third option?

Is this correct way of seeing what you said:

A= Yes

B= No

C= Yes until x but No until y

Even if that is the case when you call people retards you are attributing them to having a slow process of growth. This would be comparing them to people who have a slow process of growth.

BUT HOW CAN YOU PROVE THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS VALID!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Checkmate

Basically, yes. Less basically: x/y is invariably/variably,

therefor A and B can be XA / YA or XB / YB

thus an intrinsic variability re: variability-in-and-of-itself,

But for the purpose of his arguments there was only 2 choices. 

I think having a third option would still have him reach the same conclusion. I don't think it is a good enough defense to discredit what he did.

All the person has to do is add in a thing can be either logical or illogical or on a spectrum. This would be for P1.

After this he would need to add another premise and conclusion in between Conclusion 2 and 3

As follows:

P1: Any attempt to use something more valid than in valid or vice verse is inherently contradictory.

C2: It is impossible to use illogic to prove the validity of logic.

I am probably missing your much better argument because I don't understand it which is why I didn't answer it. Hopefully someone else decides to talk about it. 

What is the purpose of the argument if, in reality, there is more than "only" two choices?

The conclusion has to follow from the premises, and the first one can be undermined.

Will you share what you do not understand? I won't clarify anything unless asked, just am curious where the lack of understanding enters.

What is the purpose of the argument if, in reality, there is more than "only" two choices?

This isn't about choices, it is reflecting on the metrics we use for what we consider good or bad. In this instance valid or invalid. Please keep talking like this. No more maths and small words.

Given your reasoning I don't really agree with this. You can bring it up when you have told me the problem with what I said before.

I am guessing you are emphasizing neither but this isn't relevant given you gave more important in a more easier to understand way. No point in speaking about this until it becomes the most relevant in the discussion. 

It is about unnecessarily imposed boundary conditions that do not capture the scope of what is possible.

Any metrics used are limited to their own terms.

"Good" and "bad" are subjective in nature.

Your agreeing to it or not does not alter its state in any way: any deduction has to follow from the premises, even before trying the premises for their "validity".

If elaborated it will lead to something very interesting.

The reason why I changed the way I gave my arguments as in instead of suing your framework I made my own, I chose to not to speak about that entirely given the new information you gave which was this:

What is the purpose of the argument if, in reality, there is more than "only" two choices?

P1: Any attempt to use something more valid than in valid or vice verse is inherently contradictory.

C2: It is impossible to use illogic to prove the validity of logic.

Okay tell me in the specific case of finding what is good or bad, what would the third option?

If not tell me why it is unfair to limit it to 2 options. 

GENESIS 2:17 (KJV)

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Yes it is a given but not a reason why there is a 3rd option for a closed well metric I guess. Basically the equivalent to a closed question.

Doesn't mean there is a 3rd option.

It's a question that lends itself to the absurdity of there being only two options: either/or.

And mapping:

-P = logical

+P = illogical

*P = variable

I know I am neither good nor evil in relation to anything

Closed-minded, if anything.

Define absurdity and demonstrate it to be the case.

Explain with a real world example.

The first thing I asked is more important so I want to see what you say there before I say something here.

Even if that is the case it isn't an argument against there being 2 options. 

any proposition rooted in some egregious oversight(s) which, if/when factored, render the original proposition as having practically no meaningful imlpication(s)

any egregious conflation of any one particular of any conjugate relationship invariably leading to confusion (eg."All knowing is belief")

See amended prior response from "In other words..." for real world example as it applies to: "believers" in/of any god.

A I believe I am (good/evil) in relation to others /

B I believe others are (good/evil) in relation to me

C I know I am neither good nor evil in relation to anyone or anything

...it highlights the absurdity in/of any/all possible Abrahamic context(s).

I don't consider this valid as in a counter to what original thread starter said. His premises and conclusions are practical apart from conclusion 3.

I don't think this is valid either. Mainly due to that is how we do pretty much assign anything using any standard. It starts off as neutral but we as rational agents (even if we are not rational all the time) state whether something is good or bad (whatever the variation of the two words). I think you are bogged down way too much that the thread starter didn't include what occurs before we assign things in a certain light instead of what occurs during and after the standard is used.

C is the absurdist approach.

It has no practical meaning like what the first part of how you defined absurdity to mean. I say this because not in any kind of thing we do we don't just state that thing has no weight to my standard.

Now you might be saying well I would like to refrain from judgement until I assign it to be good or bad but by you saying that you are eventually accepting that you will answer whether that thing is good or bad. Example:

Another mass shooting has occurred. You don't have enough information on the day of the event to know what happened. You wait and find out more information then realize an self-proclaimed incel killing 10 people. You find that wrong/bad because you consider non-defensive killings bad. 

Basically what I ask of you when has the C option been used practically.

Care to elaborate?

from whence any/all human suffering?

BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER

It attempts to deny that there are possible circumstances/contexts wherein either/neither can apply in lieu of.

One can not derive an ought from an is.

P1: Every argument is either logical and/or illogical.

fixes the first premise, because it removes the boundary and allows a third (n)either option.

It's actually the only knowledgeable one.

Take Israelis and Palestinians as A and B, where C is any/all not locked in the conflict of A and B due to having no weight towards/against one-or-the-other. 

"I believe not, knowing I am willing not to merely mistakenly believe to know..."

C is anything/everything outside of any A/B conflict. It is the A/B conflict that is the problem.

It relates to the theorem: Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance (Inference) Theorem (CKIIT) designed to attempt to address the problem:

In effect: it finds a/the fixed properties of the two Mythical Edenic trees such to designate an orientation towards/away from either. Once this orientation system is established, the absurdity of belief in any "all-knowing" god is made explicitly clear.

Philosophically. More down-to-earth things like science and law presuppose logic is valid, or else they can't function.