Richard Dawkins Rap - Beware the Believers

i think u misunderstood me. im not actively doubting the laws of logic here, im simply saying theres grounds for doubt, nothing is 100% certain. thats the misunderstanding we had.

of course i believe the laws of logic are valid. im not doubting that. im simply saying everything is questionable.

Except my arguments were valid, as you yourself have agreed to. Your only cause for doubt is "we might find something out later!" That's not skepticism, that's an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
This is the second time I've had to point that out.

Ah... after weeks of searching... I've finally found it.

@UnluckyGambler
Logic, however, doesn't rely on our understanding, it's objectively true by definition. There's no room for doubt.

who are we to say what the objective nature of the universe is?

there is always room for doubt.

No, see, you're not getting it. The laws of logic, through their very definition, necessitate that they be true.

For example: the law of non-contradiction.
Let's hypothesize that object A does not exist.
If object A does not exist, according to the law of contradiction, it's impossible for object A to exist. This must be true because the definition of non-existence is that the object does NOT exist.

what im saying is we can never be 100% certain. our understanding of logic is learned through interactions with the world, it is not innate. and when something is learned, theres room for error.

No, our logic does NOT come from interactions with the world. Regardless of where we learned it, the laws of logic are self-necessitating.

The law of contradiction can be reduced to the following:
If A, not B
A
Therefore, not B.

This law holds true independent of our perception of the world. If your next post doesn't explain how this is invalid, I will take that as a concession.

dude im not saying the laws of logic are invalid, im saying its POSSIBLE that theyre invalid.

we know that the universe is far weirder than we imagine, even weirder than we CAN imagine, so the laws of logic being invalid is certainly not outside of the question.

ive said this before, we cant know everything, we cant know what we dont know either, so theres always the possibility that theres some unknown knowledge out there that could prove our current understanding false.

And yet you haven't explained how the laws of logic MIGHT be invalid. At the very best, you're invoking an appeal to ignorance fallacy. What you're saying would be true of scientific theory, but the laws of logic literally CAN'T be broken.