Can logic be used to prove any belief?

>>1481915
Depends on what logic you are using desu.

No.

I mean, you could use the principle of explosion to prove any statement, but as you're presupposing the consistency of two contradictory statements for your proof you've kind of cut the branch of common sense out from under yourself.

>>1481915

No. There is no conceivable way past the problem of induction, logic is only valid if you accept it as valid a-priori.

>>1481915
No, logic always fails once it hits axioms

>>1481915
yes, provided it's complex enough to encompass the universe of knowledge that said belief is a part of.

read up on Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica, and then on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

>>1481961
Some one explain this to me. How is this true?
How is A=A an axiom, and not just simply true? How could it not be true?
Like, if you start without that, basicly the first thing you get is the fact that some things are. Why do you have to assume or postulate the axiom that they are if they just are?

>>1482011
A has noting to do with reality. Does A exist? no, its simply a symbol It is simply defined this way.
Remember A is a symbol, an unknown, like X.

Is logic even real? The goal of philosophy is to convince people you are right. But what makes logic more valid than for example feelings? Emotional arguments are often more effective than logical arguments to convince people you are right. So wouldn't an emotional argument be just as valid as a logical one, if not more? After all, when they are more effective at accomplishing the goals of philosophy?

>>1483825
What are you talking about? Give an example of an emotional argument versus a logical argument.

>>1483834
A logical argument follows logic.
An emotional argument wouldn't have to follow logic, you can play on your opponent's feelings, for example by telling stories, insulting or praising them, making your views seem better than others. You don't have to follow logic to get this.

I'll just use the top line of /r/philosophy as an example. It is about animal rights.
I assume the person in favor of animal rights is using arguments such as ability to think. He's probably explaining why humans have rights, and drawing a logical conclusion that because animals possess the same qualities, they should have rights too.
An emotional argument could instead be arguing that people who support animal rights have better fashion sense, better looks and are more intelligent. You could tell them about how someone who disagreed with animal rights died in a car accident, implying it is dangerous, thus playing on fear. Or you could say that animals should have rights because being mean is bad, even if it's animals. Without bringing up what makes an animal different from a rock, so less logic.