Proof of God

Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Proof of God

(1) g = dftx. ~(∃y)(Gyx) (Df)

(2) (x)(y) ((Rx & Ry)=>Gxy) (p)

(3) (∃y)(Ry) (p)

(4) ~Rg (AP)

(5) (x)((Rx & ~Rg)=>(Gxg)) (2; UI)

(6) Ry (3; EI)

(7) Ry & ~Rg (4,6; Conj)

(8 ) Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (5,7; UI, MP, ID)

(9) ( ∃y)Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (8; EG)

(10) ~~( ∃y)Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (9; B, T)

:. Rg (4-10; IP, DN)

 


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
 That emote with the

 That emote with the sunglasses is so stupid.  Did the Muslim God design this website?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote: That

Tom_the_Who wrote:

 That emote with the sunglasses is so stupid.  Did the Muslim God design this website?

Did he design you to use an 8 with a right parenthesis?

Did the site you took this from define its terms? If so, why didn't you use them? Or give them credit for what you took?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Why do you need me to define

Why do you need me to define the terms?  Aren't you trained in logic?

Oh wait... that's right!  You're an atheist!  I almost forgot.

Go and get educated, and then respond to me.  

While you are at it, feel free to scour the internet in order to prove that I plagiarized this.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2388
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:(1) g =

Tom_the_Who wrote:

(1) g = dftx. ~(∃y)(Gyx) (Df)

(2) (x)(y) ((Rx & Ry)=>Gxy) (p)

(3) (∃y)(Ry) (p)

(4) ~Rg (AP)

(5) (x)((Rx & ~Rg)=>(Gxg)) (2; UI)

(6) Ry (3; EI)

(7) Ry & ~Rg (4,6; Conj)

(Cool Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (5,7; UI, MP, ID)

(9) (∃y)Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (8; EG)

(10) ~~(∃y)Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (9; B, T)

:. Rg (4-10; IP, DN)

 

 

 

 

                                  You wrote it;  now explain it.    It is only logical.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote: That

Tom_the_Who wrote:

 That emote with the sunglasses is so stupid.  Did the Muslim God design this website?

 

Yes and you just proved it.

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10612
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:(1) g =

Tom_the_Who wrote:

(1) g = dftx. ~(∃y)(Gyx) (Df)

(2) (x)(y) ((Rx & Ry)=>Gxy) (p)

(3) (∃y)(Ry) (p)

(4) ~Rg (AP)

(5) (x)((Rx & ~Rg)=>(Gxg)) (2; UI)

(6) Ry (3; EI)

(7) Ry & ~Rg (4,6; Conj)

( Cool Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (5,7; UI, MP, ID)

(9) (∃y)Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (8; EG)

(10) ~~(∃y)Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (9; B, T)

:. Rg (4-10; IP, DN)

 

Fail.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A bunch of logic statements

A bunch of logic statements can only 'prove' that some conclusion is consistent with the initial assumptions.

Since you don't specify those initial assumptions, or identify what any other symbols refer to, you have not presented a proof of anything, except your own stupidity.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:A bunch of

BobSpence1 wrote:

A bunch of logic statements can only 'prove' that some conclusion is consistent with the initial assumptions.

Since you don't specify those initial assumptions, or identify what any other symbols refer to, you have not presented a proof of anything, except your own stupidity.

Actually, the post proves that atheists are stupid.  The whole point of the post was to confuse the atheists whom I know, or at least can plausible presume, have not had any training in formal logic.  It's interesting how atheists champion their positions (or lack thereof) as being the most logical and yet cannot even comprehend the basics of formal logic.

You are a paradigm example of this; in the other post, you presented yourself as the bearer of epistemic authority with regard to rational thinking.  Would you be able to tell me anything about quantification theory?

That's why I did not define the terms.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10612
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
All you've actually proven

All you've actually proven is that you are stupid, or at least exceptionally skilled at faking it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:All you've

Vastet wrote:
All you've actually proven is that you are stupid, or at least exceptionally skilled at faking it.

True or false:

If 2 + 2 = 5, then God exists.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:BobSpence1

Tom_the_Who wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

A bunch of logic statements can only 'prove' that some conclusion is consistent with the initial assumptions.

Since you don't specify those initial assumptions, or identify what any other symbols refer to, you have not presented a proof of anything, except your own stupidity.

Actually, the post proves that atheists are stupid.  The whole point of the post was to confuse the atheists whom I know, or at least can plausible presume, have not had any training in formal logic.  It's interesting how atheists champion their positions (or lack thereof) as being the most logical and yet cannot even comprehend the basics of formal logic.

You are a paradigm example of this; in the other post, you presented yourself as the bearer of epistemic authority with regard to rational thinking.  Would you be able to tell me anything about quantification theory?

That's why I did not define the terms.

Which proves you are deeply ignorant and arrogant. Are you another incarnation of Mr_M or one of the other posters who have thrown this same crap at us before?

Unlabeled starting assumptions are useless.

Rational thinking is not dependent on familiarity with the symbols of symbolic logic. Which ultimately just encode the basics of rational thinking, and rapidly become unworkable in real world issues where not everything can be unambiguously or usefully represented by binary (true/false) logic.

Mathematics is far more relevant, as is the specific area of Bayesian analysis, which allow us to rigorously handle real-world, uncertain data, defined in terms of probability, confidence, likelihood, etc. then there are differential and integral calculus, vector analysis, matrix manipulation, complex numbers, etc, are the sort of training needed to understand complex empirical reality.

The propositions of quantification theory are incorporated in the basics of mathematics, we need to go way beyond that stuff.

My capabilities in such disciplines are evidenced by my possession of an Honors degree in Electrical/Electronic Engineering.

My capabilities and understanding of actual logic are demonstrated by practical success in software programming, which is quintessentiallly applied logic. I don't use those symbols in Javascript/C/C++/PHP/Python/CSS/MySQL, so I would ask you in turn what are your qualifications in programming languages?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10612
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:Vastet

Tom_the_Who wrote:

Vastet wrote:
All you've actually proven is that you are stupid, or at least exceptionally skilled at faking it.

True or false:

If 2 + 2 = 5, then God exists.

 

The equation is false, the answer to it is irrelevent. Though I'll admit I've never seen that particular "test" before, so I'll give you a bonus point for originality.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:Vastet

Tom_the_Who wrote:

Vastet wrote:
All you've actually proven is that you are stupid, or at least exceptionally skilled at faking it.

True or false:

If 2 + 2 = 5, then God exists.

 

Neither.

Statements may be True, False, Undecideable, or Incoherent. I think the last applies here.

Any proposition incorporating a contradiction, is neither True nor False, it is not a properly constructed argument, ie Incoherent.

"2 + 2 = 5" is a contradiction by definition of the terms, since it is mathematically reducible to "0 = 1".

Or perhaps restated as "IF A = ~A then anything goes".

So informally, it is true, since it states that the existence of God entails a contradiction.

====

You really do sound like Mr_Metaphysics...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I think R is a set of reals,

I think R is a set of reals, g is the god hence Rg would be god in the set of real i.e exists.

 

I think he's doing a lame attempt at proving that ~Rg is a contradiction because of....something.

 

Gxy seems to be the union of Rx and Ry hence both x and y exist as denoted by Gxy.

 

So it seems to be assuming ~Rg is true, then "showing" that if god doesn't exist, then nothing exists.

 

Which is wrong, because something exists and god doesn't.

 

 

 

 


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Tom_the_Who

BobSpence1 wrote:

Tom_the_Who wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

A bunch of logic statements can only 'prove' that some conclusion is consistent with the initial assumptions.

Since you don't specify those initial assumptions, or identify what any other symbols refer to, you have not presented a proof of anything, except your own stupidity.

Actually, the post proves that atheists are stupid.  The whole point of the post was to confuse the atheists whom I know, or at least can plausible presume, have not had any training in formal logic.  It's interesting how atheists champion their positions (or lack thereof) as being the most logical and yet cannot even comprehend the basics of formal logic.

You are a paradigm example of this; in the other post, you presented yourself as the bearer of epistemic authority with regard to rational thinking.  Would you be able to tell me anything about quantification theory?

That's why I did not define the terms.

Which proves you are deeply ignorant and arrogant. Are you another incarnation of Mr_M or one of the other posters who have thrown this same crap at us before?

Unlabeled starting assumptions are useless.

Rational thinking is not dependent on familiarity with the symbols of symbolic logic. Which ultimately just encode the basics of rational thinking, and rapidly become unworkable in real world issues where not everything can be unambiguously or usefully represented by binary (true/false) logic.

Mathematics is far more relevant, as is the specific area of Bayesian analysis, which allow us to rigorously handle real-world, uncertain data, defined in terms of probability, confidence, likelihood, etc. then there are differential and integral calculus, vector analysis, matrix manipulation, complex numbers, etc, are the sort of training needed to understand complex empirical reality.

The propositions of quantification theory are incorporated in the basics of mathematics, we need to go way beyond that stuff.

My capabilities in such disciplines are evidenced by my possession of an Honors degree in Electrical/Electronic Engineering.

My capabilities and understanding of actual logic are demonstrated by practical success in software programming, which is quintessentiallly applied logic. I don't use those symbols in Javascript/C/C++/PHP/Python/CSS/MySQL, so I would ask you in turn what are your qualifications in programming languages?

Logic is mathematics; in fact, the formalization of axiom systems in mathematics works in the same way.  All you need to do is look to NBG set theory and notice that it would be entirely otiose without the implementation of quantification theory.  So I really don't know the sense in which you mean that quantification theory is "incorporated" into the basics of mathematics.  If we were to go "beyond that stuff," then we would probably be without most of the axioms of mathematics.  

Computer programming has nothing to do with philosophy, theology, or anything pertinent to the discussions that go on here.  Your discipline may be good for creating little games so as to further propagate the large numbers of children wasting their lives in front of the computer, but it doesn't affect the large spheres of life with which our existence here is ultimately concerned.  What you do is for a living is for convenience, but it is by no means a necessity for humankind.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Neither.

Statements may be True, False, Undecideable, or Incoherent. I think the last applies here.

Wrong.  The statement is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

Further, it is a basic notion of sentential logic that a conditional statement the antecedent of which is false will always be true.

Your honors degree in computer programming hasn't seemed to help you in logic, has it?

Quote:
So informally, it is true, since it states that the existence of God entails a contradiction.

No.  Formally, it's true.  It doesn't say the existence of God entails a contradiction; it says that a contradiction entails the existence of God.

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Tom_the_Who

Vastet wrote:
Tom_the_Who wrote:

(1) g = dftx. ~(∃y)(Gyx) (Df)

(2) (x)(y) ((Rx & Ry)=>Gxy) (p)

(3) (∃y)(Ry) (p)

(4) ~Rg (AP)

(5) (x)((Rx & ~Rg)=>(Gxg)) (2; UI)

(6) Ry (3; EI)

(7) Ry & ~Rg (4,6; Conj)

( Cool Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (5,7; UI, MP, ID)

(9) (∃y)Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (8; EG)

(10) ~~(∃y)Gy(tx. ~(∃y)(Gyx)) (9; B, T)

:. Rg (4-10; IP, DN)

 

Fail.

No kidding, eh? Fuck, I just realized it! This must be the modal logic version of typing in tongues! You just randomly scrabble at the keyboard, et voila!, proof that god exists!

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I think

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I think R is a set of reals, g is the god hence Rg would be god in the set of real i.e exists.

No, it's not a set.  It's a monadic predicate.  

Quote:
I think he's doing a lame attempt at proving that ~Rg is a contradiction because of....something.

It's a reductio ad absurdum, meaning that from the assumption of "~Rg," a contradiction is derived.

Quote:
Gxy seems to be the union of Rx and Ry hence both x and y exist as denoted by Gxy.

No, it's a dyadic predicate.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:BobSpence1

Tom_the_Who wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Neither.

Statements may be True, False, Undecideable, or Incoherent. I think the last applies here.

Wrong.  The statement is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

Further, it is a basic notion of sentential logic that a conditional statement the antecedent of which is false will always be true.

Your honors degree in computer programming hasn't seemed to help you in logic, has it?

Quote:
So informally, it is true, since it states that the existence of God entails a contradiction.

No.  Formally, it's true.  It doesn't say the existence of God entails a contradiction; it says that a contradiction entails the existence of God.

It is not TRUE. It entails a contradiction, therefore you cannot derive anything from it - the logic has failed , therefore you cannot derive any conclusion within the scope of the system of logic from such a statement.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10612
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"No.  Formally, it's true.

"No.  Formally, it's true.  It doesn't say the existence of God entails a contradiction; it says that a contradiction entails the existence of God."

And therin lies your problem. A contradiction does not mean god. A contradiction means a contradiction, that's it. You are presupposing god and ignoring any other reason why 2+2=5. The most likely answer to the contradiction is that 5 is actually defined as 4. But even that isn't necessarily the only answer.

For someone who claims to be good at logic, you are failing horribly.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:It is not

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is not TRUE. It entails a contradiction, therefore you cannot derive anything from it - the logic has failed , therefore you cannot derive any conclusion within the scope of the system of logic from such a statement.

One more time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

The principle of explosionex contradictione sequitur quodlibet (Latin, “from a contradiction, anything follows&rdquoEye-wink or the Principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic and intuitionistic and similar systems of logic, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (or its negation) can be inferred from it. 

http://www.explainxkcd.com/2010/02/19/principle-of-explosion/

The principle of explosion means that if you assume that something is both true and untrue at the same time, then you can prove any conclusion.

http://jorendorff.blogspot.com/2007/09/principle-of-explosion.html

The principle of explosion is built into the fundamental rules of logic, rules that both mathematicians and ordinary people use to reason with. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet: from a contradiction, anything follows. Or as an old friend of mine used to say, after you swallow the first pill, the rest go down real easy.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Logic IS NOT Mathematics.

Logic IS NOT Mathematics. Mathematics is founded on logic, and is an extension of it.

FWIW, I do not not do games programming, I program for businesses, but the subject is not relevant to my point. Programming is another massive extension and application of Logic - invalid logic expressions will lead to programs with bugs, so I need to be very strict with my logic, which is being tested every time I run the program. The fact that I am not particularly familiar with the expressions and nomenclature of symbolic logic is due to my having concentrated on higher-level applications of logic, as in Math and Computer languages, that was my point.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"No.

Vastet wrote:
"No.  Formally, it's true.  It doesn't say the existence of God entails a contradiction; it says that a contradiction entails the existence of God." And therin lies your problem. A contradiction does not mean god. A contradiction means a contradiction, that's it. You are presupposing god and ignoring any other reason why 2+2=5. The most likely answer to the contradiction is that 5 is actually defined as 4. But even that isn't necessarily the only answer. For someone who claims to be good at logic, you are failing horribly.

No, famed logician C.I. Lewis posited that anything follows from a necessarily false proposition.  Today, it's known as the "principle of explosion."  If a contradiction is true, then it follows that God exists; it also follows that God does not exist.  I noticed that you didn't answer until Bob did; did you need some coaching?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
In practice, from a

In practice, from a contradiction, NOTHING follows.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Logic IS

BobSpence1 wrote:

Logic IS NOT Mathematics. Mathematics is founded on logic, and is an extension of it.

FWIW, I do not not do games programming, I program for businesses, but the subject is not relevant to my point. Programming is another massive extension and application of Logic - invalid logic expressions will lead to programs with bugs, so I need to be very strict with my logic, which is being tested every time I run the program. The fact that I am not particularly familiar with the expressions and nomenclature of symbolic logic is due to my having concentrated on higher-level applications of logic, as in Math and Computer languages, that was my point.

Yes, logic is mathematics.  That's why it's often called "mathematical logic."  I have an academic textbook on Finite Mathematics and there's a whole section on logic.

So what logical expressions do you use when programming luxury items for businesses?  And how does it pertain to what is taught in math classes?


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:In

BobSpence1 wrote:

In practice, from a contradiction, NOTHING follows.

What do you mean "in practice?"  You are just extrapolating from your own experience, or the collective experiences of others, to make "practice" mean whatever you want it to mean so as to vitiate an entire academic discipline that you know little about.  Maybe these things mean nothing to you in your experience, but that's not really an interesting point, let alone one germane to this discussion.  

I suspect that what you're doing is attempting to relegate the disciplines on which theological claims can be made tenable so as to further your anti-God agenda.  Now had you any integrity, you would actually study these things, but instead you'd rather find excuses to remain ignorant.  Typical atheist.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10612
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
1: Then his fame likely

1: Then his fame likely stemmed from his stupidity. Philosophy will only get you so far, it doesn't have a practical use here in reality.

2: If a contradiction is true, then it is a contradiction. It is fallacious to assume that a contradiction proves god, disproves god, or both. god is irrelevant to the contradiction, unless the contradiction IS god. Which, ironically, is almost always true. I'd say always, but I am not god, at least not the god you think of, so I can't claim absolute knowledge of everything. I'm way ahead of you though, so I'm doing alright.

3: Funny. Do you get all your burns from the 14th century? If you must know, I'm texting, not typing, so my wpm is much lower than Bobs' wpm.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Waiter: "And would you like

Waiter: "And would you like your logic inconsistent or incomplete?"

Tom: "Can't I have both?"

Waiter: "I'm sorry, we used to advertise that possibility when we had Chef Hilbert, but we're stuck with Chef Goedel now. Most logicians prefer their logic incomplete."

Tom: "Well, I'm not having any of that! To hell with what most logicians prefer. I would like my logic inconsistent, please."

Waiter: "Very well, sir."

<Waiter leaves, returns almost at once, placing the cheque down in front of Tom.>

Waiter: "Will there be anything else, sir?"

Tom: "You haven't even served me yet!"

Waiter: "Oh, yes, I have indeed, sir. By your own logic, I have served you by elimination. You see, A ^ ~A => Served. Which of course you must recognize is just ~A v A v Served. But A, by your own logic, and so A v Served by elimination. But also ~A, again by your own logic, and so Served, by elimination."

Tom: "Well, I can't argue with that!"

<Tom pays, gets up, and leaves, sated by his delicious feast of inconsistent logic, once again.>

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:1: Then his

Vastet wrote:
1: Then his fame likely stemmed from his stupidity. Philosophy will only get you so far, it doesn't have a practical use here in reality.

LOL!

Oh yeah, C.I. Lewis is such an idiot!  I mean, come on, he's only the main guy responsible for the revivification of modal logic in the 20th century, planting the seeds which would end up getting cultivated by other "idiots" such as Saul Kripke, Rudolf Carnap, Ruth Barcan, and so forth.  Yeah, what a maroon!  And those axiom systems that are still in use today, forget it!  And look at all these other morons who wrote about him:

http://www.google.com/search?q=C.I.+Lewis&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 

Quote:
2: If a contradiction is true, then it is a contradiction. It is fallacious to assume that a contradiction proves god, disproves god, or both. god is irrelevant to the contradiction, unless the contradiction IS god. Which, ironically, is almost always true. I'd say always, but I am not god, at least not the god you think of, so I can't claim absolute knowledge of everything. I'm way ahead of you though, so I'm doing alright.  

Translation:  I've just been owned, so I'm going to continue defending my error and claiming that everybody else is wrong except for me!  

Quote:
3: Funny. Do you get all your burns from the 14th century? If you must know, I'm texting, not typing, so my wpm is much lower than Bobs' wpm.

Are you making excuses for your idiocy?  If so, I can wait until you find a keyboard before I continue making an ass out of you.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:BobSpence1

Tom_the_Who wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Logic IS NOT Mathematics. Mathematics is founded on logic, and is an extension of it.

FWIW, I do not not do games programming, I program for businesses, but the subject is not relevant to my point. Programming is another massive extension and application of Logic - invalid logic expressions will lead to programs with bugs, so I need to be very strict with my logic, which is being tested every time I run the program. The fact that I am not particularly familiar with the expressions and nomenclature of symbolic logic is due to my having concentrated on higher-level applications of logic, as in Math and Computer languages, that was my point.

Yes, logic is mathematics.  That's why it's often called "mathematical logic."  I have an academic textbook on Finite Mathematics and there's a whole section on logic.

So what logical expressions do you use when programming luxury items for businesses?  And how does it pertain to what is taught in math classes?

If logic were mathematics, the term "mathematical logic" would not make sense. It refers to the expression of logic in symbolic terms as used in mathematics.

Logic can indeed be expressed mathematically, but calculus, geometry, etc, cannot be expressed in any practical way using the expressions of logic, because math is an extension of logic, with many additional axioms.

Every line of a software program is assigning one entity to another, or a logical or mathematical combination of entities to another entity, or a call to another set of expressions.

eg,

A = b + c * 2; not to be confused with an math use of "=", that is an assignment statement, some languages use symbols like" := " for assignment, others distinguish them by using "==" for equality expressions;

if ( A > 2.0) then .... else .....;

A = B and (C or not D); or in a common syntax: A = B && (C || !D);

or a statement of the form "IF A or B THEN ...", or similar.

other elaborations are "For each x in A do ...", where A is a list or array, ie some composite combination of elements.

and so on.

Do those not look like expressions of logic or math??

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Waiter: "And

natural wrote:

Waiter: "And would you like your logic inconsistent or incomplete?"

Tom: "Can't I have both?"

Waiter: "I'm sorry, we used to advertise that possibility when we had Chef Hilbert, but we're stuck with Chef Goedel now. Most logicians prefer their logic incomplete."

Tom: "Well, I'm not having any of that! To hell with what most logicians prefer. I would like my logic inconsistent, please."

Waiter: "Very well, sir."

<Waiter leaves, returns almost at once, placing the cheque down in front of Tom.>

Waiter: "Will there be anything else, sir?"

Tom: "You haven't even served me yet!"

Waiter: "Oh, yes, I have indeed, sir. By your own logic, I have served you by elimination. You see, A ^ ~A => Served. Which of course you must recognize is just ~A v A v Served. But A, by your own logic, and so A v Served by elimination. But also ~A, again by your own logic, and so Served, by elimination."

Tom: "Well, I can't argue with that!"

<Tom pays, gets up, and leaves, sated by his delicious feast of inconsistent logic, once again.>

Judging by your appearance in your Youtube videos (to be fair, the one I watched seems to be several years old), the waiter served you everything on the menu.

Seriously, did you grow a beard solely in order to hide your double chin?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10612
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
1: Yes, he is. And so are

1: Yes, he is. And so are you by extension. Don't take it too hard, you can always learn how to properly apply logic instead of attempting to prove and disprove everything simultaneously without any empirical evidence.

2: Thank you for admitting you've been owned. It makes me smile. Smiling

3: Aww, poor kid just doesn't get it. But then, they almost never do. Fortunately at least one theist somewhere, someday, will read how badly you got owned and dump their false religion instantly.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:1: Yes, he is.

Vastet wrote:
1: Yes, he is. And so are you by extension. Don't take it too hard, you can always learn how to properly apply logic instead of attempting to prove and disprove everything simultaneously without any empirical evidence.

Okay.  Since you know how to properly apply logic--your ignorance of the principle of explosion notwithstanding--maybe you could answer these two questions:

(1) Is it logically permissible to apply universal generalization to an unbounded free-variabled proposition whose variable was made free in the proof via existential instantiation?  Why or why not?

(2) If the variable "x" was made free in the proof via existential instantiation, then why is it not logically permissible to use EI to free the same variable from another quantified premise?

Quote:
2: Thank you for admitting you've been owned. It makes me smile. Smiling  

Translation:  I'm not smart enough to make my own jokes, so I'll take what the other guy said about me and pretend he said it about himself!

Quote:
3: Aww, poor kid just doesn't get it. But then, they almost never do. Fortunately at least one theist somewhere, someday, will read how badly you got owned and dump their false religion instantly.

**tumbleweeds roll by**


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:Actually,

Tom_the_Who wrote:
Actually, the post proves that atheists are stupid.


Tom_the_Who wrote:
Your honors degree in computer programming hasn't seemed to help you in logic, has it?


Tom_the_Who wrote:
Now had you any integrity, you would actually study these things, but instead you'd rather find excuses to remain ignorant.  Typical atheist.


Tom_the_Who wrote:
Judging by your appearance in your Youtube videos (to be fair, the one I watched seems to be several years old), the waiter served you everything on the menu.
Seriously, did you grow a beard solely in order to hide your double chin?


Tom, read the rules that you agreed to earlier when you opened an account.  There is a link in the top right corner of every forum page.  The above quoted behavior is not acceptable for this web site.

For now, this is an informal warning but if you keep it up, we will take matters further.  Do it too many times, and your little party will end.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:Yes, logic

Tom_the_Who wrote:
Yes, logic is mathematics.  That's why it's often called "mathematical logic."  I have an academic textbook on Finite Mathematics and there's a whole section on logic.

I took finite math in high-school years ago. Have you bothered to read the section on logic in your text yet?

Quote:
So what logical expressions do you use when programming luxury items for businesses?  And how does it pertain to what is taught in math classes?

Programmers typically use Boolean logic expressions. The symbols are generally only a matter of the idiosyncratic syntax of the particular programming language.

For example, depending on the language, the Boolean conjunction operator may appear as: AND, and, &, &&, etc. Also, it may be provided as a built-in function such as And(X, Y), or more commonly it is provided as a proper syntactical operator as in X && Y.

Furthermore, there's often a distinction between bit-wise operators which work with individual bits in memory, vs. more typical Boolean operations which work on 'logical' Boolean values of 'false' and 'true'. Sometimes these are represented internally as 0 vs. non-0, but this is not required. Henceforth, I'll limit discussion to the typical Boolean logical operations and the values 'true' and 'false'.

In JavaScript, which is easily accessible to anyone with a web-browser, the basic Boolean operators are:

&&Conjunction (And)
||Disjunction (Or)
!Negation (Not)

Logical implication, which I write here as => does not usually have a special symbol in programming, because it is generally more useful in practice to use if(...) then (...) statements which perform conditional execution of program statements based on the value of the Boolean expression supplied to the if(...). If logical implication is needed, it is either written as !A || B, which in standard logic-text looks more like ~A v B, or else a small function can be written to make the meaning more clear.

Basically, anything you can do in formal logic, you can do also in a computer program using Boolean logic.

For example, try putting this JavaScript code in your browser's address bar (where you would normally see the address of the web-page you're viewing):

javascript: G = false; A = false; alert(!(A && !A) || G); alert(G);

Make sure to include the whole thing, including the "javascript:" part.

Translated into English, this code reads:

javascript:

"Execute some JavaScript, as follows:"

G = false; A = false;

"Prepare two Boolean variables, G for 'god', and A for 'any proposition', both initially set to the value 'false'."

alert(

"Display the text value--"true" for the Boolean value 'true', and "false" for the Boolean value 'false'--of the following Boolean logical expression:"

!(A && !A) || G

"NOT( A AND (NOT A) ) OR G, alternatively ~(A ^ ~A) v G, which is logically equivalent to (A ^ ~A) => G, which states that a contradiction implies God."

);

"Complete the alert(... statement." This is followed immediately by:

alert(G);

"Display the text value of the Boolean logical variable G, for 'god'."

The first alert(...) statement will output the text "true", and the second alert(G) will output the text "false", because while it is 'true' that a contradiction implies God (implies anything, actually), this in no way has any influence on the truth-value of the God proposition, G, which remains 'false'. The first "true" output reflects the truth-value of the logical implication (~A ^ A)=>G, not the truth-value of the variable G itself.

Note that you can change the initial value of A to 'false' or 'true', and the results will be the same. It doesn't matter, since A ^ ~A is 'false' (a contradiction) regardless of the value of A.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10612
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
1: You come here making

1: You come here making fallacy after fallacy, then expect me to answer questions to prove myself based on your fallacious understanding of logic? Please. You MUST be able to do better.

2+3 = You can't handle it eh? I gave a perfectly valid argument and you can't even respond to it, so you just jump into the pool of ad hominem with the rest of your kind. Typical theist who just got owned, owns himself immediately thereafter and runs away with his fingers in his ears yelling, "nanananananana". Rofl, so predictable.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Tom_the_Who wrote:
Actually, the post proves that atheists are stupid.


Tom_the_Who wrote:
Your honors degree in computer programming hasn't seemed to help you in logic, has it?


Tom_the_Who wrote:
Now had you any integrity, you would actually study these things, but instead you'd rather find excuses to remain ignorant.  Typical atheist.


Tom_the_Who wrote:
Judging by your appearance in your Youtube videos (to be fair, the one I watched seems to be several years old), the waiter served you everything on the menu.
Seriously, did you grow a beard solely in order to hide your double chin?


Tom, read the rules that you agreed to earlier when you opened an account.  There is a link in the top right corner of every forum page.  The above quoted behavior is not acceptable for this web site.

For now, this is an informal warning but if you keep it up, we will take matters further.  Do it too many times, and your little party will end.

How about applying your rules consistently to every member?

These are quotes from Vastet:

"I know you're stupid and are having trouble keeping up, mostly because you're stuck on irrelevant philosophy instead of relevant reality, but this is almost hysterically funny."

"You should have been taught this by grade 3, so I'll safely assume you were home schooled by a dropout."

"All you've actually proven is that you are stupid, or at least exceptionally skilled at faking it."

This is a quote from Bob Spence: "you have not presented a proof of anything, except your own stupidity."

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Simple - Bob and Vaster

Simple - Bob and Vastet attacked your argument. You attached natural's physical appearance and accused people of not studying because they understood what you posted for what it was - gibberish.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10612
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You started it. I'm not

You started it. I'm not above responding in kind. You want to start being civilised, then I'll return the favour. Until then you can fuck yourself. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:Judging by

Tom_the_Who wrote:

Judging by your appearance in your Youtube videos (to be fair, the one I watched seems to be several years old), the waiter served you everything on the menu.

Seriously, did you grow a beard solely in order to hide your double chin?

Ah, the elusive ad nominom fallacy.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote: Now had

Tom_the_Who wrote:

 Now had you any integrity, you would actually study these things, but instead you'd rather find excuses to remain ignorant.  Typical atheist.

If you studied other disciplines, you'd have learned that Modal Logic is not a substitute for hindsight and scientific methodology.

You couldn't even derive the 'truth' of whether a puppy that went missing, simply 'ran away', or was 'doggyknapped', with Modal Logic.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:1: You come

Vastet wrote:
1: You come here making fallacy after fallacy, then expect me to answer questions to prove myself based on your fallacious understanding of logic? Please.

**crickets**

For onlookers, just keep this in mind:

Some atheists--for example, Vastet--have nothing to offer in terms of rational discussion, and it is easy to make them look foolish.  The problem, however, is that they have so much time on their hands; hence, they just don't stop responding, no matter how foolish their posts are.  For example, Vastet made several errors, including but not limited to the idea that a necessarily false proposition does not entail anything, the insignificance of C.I. Lewis (one of the most famous logicians of the 20th century), the idea that he could prove the nonexistence of whatever God I believe in--even before I define "God," the idea that atheists have no disbelief in God, and so forth.  But despite my perpetual highlighting of his mistakes, he continues on ad nauseum, to the point where I am just getting bored.  

So I'm going to stop responding.  Now here's where it becomes problematic, for atheists tend to assume that because you stop responding that you've thrown in the towel.  Vastet is going to think that he won; he is going to purport this as a personal triumph and a vindication of atheism, so as to believe that he has done a service to humankind.  If this is the kind of personal validation that he needs to keep going in life, we can allow him to have it.  But let's keep everything in perspective, please.


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Tom_the_Who

natural wrote:

Tom_the_Who wrote:

Judging by your appearance in your Youtube videos (to be fair, the one I watched seems to be several years old), the waiter served you everything on the menu.

Seriously, did you grow a beard solely in order to hide your double chin?

Ah, the elusive ad nominom fallacy.

It's not a fallacy.  I think it's reasonable to assume based on your appearance that you eat a lot.  Am I wrong?  Do you have some thyroid condition that makes you gain weight?

 


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Simple - Bob

jcgadfly wrote:

Simple - Bob and Vastet attacked your argument. You attached natural's physical appearance and accused people of not studying because they understood what you posted for what it was - gibberish.

So it's okay to call people stupid so long as you do it on account of an argument that they made?  

Okay.

Bob Spence is an idiot, because his arguments are stupid.

Is that better?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10612
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Think? No, I DID win. I won

Think? No, I DID win. I won before you ever posted. Any errors I made were as an atom to a star compared to your endless repetition of errors. Bye bye now.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:Bob Spence

Tom_the_Who wrote:
Bob Spence is an idiot, because his arguments are stupid.

Is that better?

 

No, that is what I call strike one.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Tom_the_Who wrote:
Bob Spence is an idiot, because his arguments are stupid.

Is that better?

No, that is what I call strike one.

Again, why am I getting warnings and not the others?  If you wouldn't mind, I'd like an answer from you--not your cronies.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Because you appear to have

Because you appear to have created an account this evening for no purpose other than to fling poo like a monkey at the zoo.

 

If you tone it down and concentrate on trying to actually make your point, then this need go no farther.  The choice is up to you.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tom_the_Who wrote:BobSpence1

Tom_the_Who wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

In practice, from a contradiction, NOTHING follows.

What do you mean "in practice?"  You are just extrapolating from your own experience, or the collective experiences of others, to make "practice" mean whatever you want it to mean so as to vitiate an entire academic discipline that you know little about.  Maybe these things mean nothing to you in your experience, but that's not really an interesting point, let alone one germane to this discussion.  

I suspect that what you're doing is attempting to relegate the disciplines on which theological claims can be made tenable so as to further your anti-God agenda.  Now had you any integrity, you would actually study these things, but instead you'd rather find excuses to remain ignorant.  Typical atheist.

I simply mean outside the context of a formal system, which Goedel showed can get stuck on undecidable propositions, or IOW cannot be 'complete'.

In the REAL world of imperfect knowledge, of estimates of probabilities, of the need for correlation and testing to assess the reliability of theories, of ideas, of propositions of all kinds, where 'God' is nothing but an instinct-driven fantasy, with no place in consistent models of the universe.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Tom_the_Who
TheistTroll
Tom_the_Who's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2011-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Because you appear to have created an account this evening for no purpose other than to fling poo like a monkey at the zoo.

 

If you tone it down and concentrate on trying to actually make your point, then this need go no farther.  The choice is up to you.

So the rule is that if you become a regular on the forum--and, I would assume, you're an atheist--then you could say whatever you damn well please?