The “missing” foundations of logic
One thought that may be bothering Sye (though who can tell?) is: what makes the laws of logic hold? What explains and accounts for their necessity? What prevents it from ever being the case that a proposition P is both true and false? What makes the law of non-contradiction true?
Ages ago I suggested one possible answer to this type of question: these questions may themselves be confused.
Suppose someone asks “What makes all stallions male? What is this strange force – a super force – that forces the world to be such that nothing is both a stallion and not male?
Clearly, this person is confused. Nothing is required to make it the case that all the stallions are male. rather, “stallion” just means male horse. Understand what “stallion” means and you are immediately in a position to know they will all be male. Indeed, there is nothing to make the case because “non-male stallion” does not describe some state of affairs that the world some conspires to prevent from obtaining. Rather, that combination of words makes no sense, given how “stallion” and “male” are used. So there is nothing to “prevent”.
Now consider this. “and” and “not” are defined in logic by truth tables (which is why I asked if Sye knew about truth tables).
“P and Q” is true if, and only if both P is true and Q is true, and false otherwise. “Not P” is false if P is true, and vice verse.
Given these definitions of “and” and “not”: “Not [P and not-P]” is guaranteed to be true. The law of non-contradiction obtains because of what “and” and “not” mean. To ask, “But what makes it the case that both P and not-P can’t both be true is to misunderstand how “and” and “not” are used in logic.
In short, the question: “What makes it the case that P can’t be both true and false?” is confused, and makes no sense. There’s nothing to “make the case”, because there is nothing to prevent. “P and not-P” does not describe some state of affairs that the world somehow conspires to prevent from occurring. It does not describe anything at all. That combination of words is just ruled out by the rules governing “and” and “not”.
So here, Sye, is another, different, atheist-friendly treatment of your request to “explain” or account for” the laws of logic. There’s actually nothing to account for or explain.
By the way, I am not endorsing this atheist-friendly answer either. Just putting it up for Sye to shoot down. Can he?