It is because people disagree on premises, like other users have answered. however, why should they disagree on premises (like whether we saw GOD or a monkey when we open our human eyes for the first time)?

Are all premises equal? You don't find mathematicians disagreeing on premises that much. This suggests that they are not. In theory, logic and math could start on perhaps an infinitude of premises, but most of it would not resemble what we call math and logic now.

Most of our math and logic is centered around two main predicate declarators: "IS" and equals. These are used to declare (not merely conclude) what truth is. These create the premises.

What surrounds these declarators are predicate subjects and objects, like "A = A" (The identity axiom of math), but these are contestable. Does the "A" on the left really equal the "A" on the right? Are they not displaced in space and therefore different? Yes, but that premise is not used (for us human, anyway).

In the end, some argue that premises, since they can't be "proven" are merely an aesthetic of the believer. Yet this is way to weak to explain 5000yrs of history of power or how engineering is holding up buildings for millennia.

The answer to this postmodern ennui is our shared history. Something began, perhaps at multiple points in Time, if you want, but, nonetheless, there is history and that biases our logic and math. Yet, because the rest of the Universe shares this history, it works.

Except when it doesn't, like various conflicts which dominate our world right now and tear us apart. For this, you must do what your Creator commanded: Get on top of this world and hold dominion. Or find me. I already did it and am waiting, with the plan of Earth.

It is because people disagree on premises, like other users have answered. however, why should they disagree on premises (like whether we saw GOD or a monkey when we open our human eyes for the first time)?

Are all premises equal? You don't find mathematicians disagreeing on premises that much. This suggests that they are not. In theory, logic and math could start on perhaps an infinitude of premises, but most of it would not resemble what we call math and logic now.

Most of our math and logic is centered around two main predicate declarators: "IS" and equals. These are used to declare (not merely conclude) what truth is. These create premises.

What surrounds these declarators are nouns: objects or ideas that have some kind of existence, like "A = A" (the identity axiom of math), but these are contestable. Does the "A" on the left really equal the "A" on the right? Are they not displaced in space and therefore different? Yes, but that premise is not used (for us human, anyway).

In the end, some argue that premises, since they can't be "proven", are merely an aesthetic of the believer. Yet, this is way to weak to explain 5000yrs of history of power or how engineering is holding up buildings for millennia.

The answer to this postmodern ennui is our shared history. Something began, perhaps at multiple points in Time, if you want, but, nonetheless, there is history and that biases our logic and math. Because the rest of the Universe shares this history, it works.

Except when it doesn't, like various conflicts which dominate our world right now and tear us apart. For this, you must do what your Creator commanded: Get on top of this world and hold dominion. Power is tearing our soul down and parasitizing all of our ideals/history. Or find me. I already did it and am waiting, with the plan of Earth.