# Looking forward to this thread

I am looking forward to this thread because frankly, my philosophy is weak. And I have a hard time debating on philosophical grounds.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.

- Login to post comments

#1I know of nobody posting as frequently in the atheist community who is as philosophically well versed as Chaoslord. He is extremely kick ass. I too am looking forward to seeing this forum developing, with the teachings and philosophies of Chaoslord.

Please become a Patron of Brian SapientSupport our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.

#2I've taken PHI 2010 (intro) and 2600 (ethics) but I really want to take logic, I only know the basic fallacies and I have no knowledge of mathematical logic.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

#3LeftofLarry wrote:Feel free to ask all the questions you want. I am here to teach...if thats what you desire.

Sapient wrote:This may be going over board. I am good, but im not the best in the philosophical community.

LeftofLarry wrote:Mathematical logic is the one area of logic I fucking hate! LOL!

I love logic, in fact, its one of my main interests in Philosophy. However, Mathematical logic is horrible. The mathematical proofs in mathematical logic are horrible. It takes like 12 steps to prove 2 + 2 = 4.

However, Symbolic Logic, Modal Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Many-Valued Logics are great.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions

#4Chaoslord2004 wrote:Notice I also said "posting as frequently in the atheist community." I'll allow you to be modest for now, however once you start posting often here, you wont be able to escape your greatness as people will be bowing at your feet.

Please become a Patron of Brian SapientSupport our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.

#5Sapient wrote:LOL! I will be the Motley Crue of Philosophy

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions

#6Chaoslord2004 wrote:Well someone's gotta do it :shock:

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

#7Equilibrium wrote:True.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions

#8Chaoslord2004 wrote::shock:

12 steps to prove 2 + 2 = 4!?

i can prove it in two steps.

1. get two apples.

2. get two more apples

how many do you have now?

4. this proves 2 + 2 = 4

www.hillbillyatheist.com

#9hillbillyatheist wrote:I am talking about a formal proof, using the axioms of number theory. From the 7 axioms of number theory, there is a formal proof that 2 + 2 = 4.

It seems ridiculus to prove such a thing, but, if number theory can't prove such an intuitivly obvious idea, then there is something wrong with it's axioms.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions

#10Chaoslord2004 wrote:www.hillbillyatheist.com

#11hillbillyatheist wrote:Do you have any experience with proofs of ether logic or mathematics?

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions

#12can't say i have, though it sounds interesting.

#13hillbillyatheist wrote:If your into logic, then yes. However, they are very difficult.

A sample proof:

assumptions:

1. A ---> B

2. B ---> C

Therefore, I propose that based on 1 and 2, that: A ---> C. Can I offer a proof using only what is called natural deduction? of course!

Proof:

1. A ---> B [assumption]

2. B ---> C [assumption]

3. A [assumption for conditional proof]

4. B [Modus Ponen's on 1 and 3]

5. C [Modus Ponen's on 2 and 4]

Therefore,

6. A ---> C [Conditional proof, 3 and 5]

this is a very simple proof. Most proofs that are worth doing take many steps. Ever heard of Ferments Last Theorem? There is a whole book JUST devoted to the proof of it. Its well over a thousand steps.

However, thats mathematical logic. I am more interested in Philosophical Logic.

Are you familiar with natural deduction? Natural Deduction is pretty much what Symbolic Logic is based off of. It consists of several rules of inference and one axioms. The axiom, is simply: If A is true...then A is true. What an illuminating axiom eh? LOL!

Other systems of logic, use more axioms. Propositional logic uses three axioms:

P ---> (Q ---> P)

(p ---> (S ---> Q)) ---> ((P ---> S) ^ (P ---> Q))

(P --->Q) ---> (~Q ---> ~P)

a formal proof then, would be ether an instance of one of these axioms or would follow from two previous axioms by means of modus ponens.

questions?

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions

#14Chaoslord2004 wrote:what's Modus Ponen's? i forgot.

wow. i don't know who in their right mind would want to do this. just looking at that stuff is painful. i would like to see the proofs for 2+2=4, just so i can see what it looks like.

www.hillbillyatheist.com

#15hillbillyatheist wrote:hahaha..I told you Chaoslord is scary..hahahahahah

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.

#16hillbillyatheist wrote:If you have the conditional if P then Q and you also have P, then you can infer Q.

For instance:

P1: If its raining outside, then the ground is wet

P2: Its raining outside

therefore,

C1: the ground is wet

hillbillyatheist wrote:Its good stuff. logic is the shit. I have my own slogan that I am going to turn into a shirt.

Ever seen those shirts that say something to the effect of "cowboys do it with their boots on"? Implying of course, sexual intercourse. For those who are familiar with logic, this one will strike them as hillarious:

"Logicians do it on a Truth Table"

hillbillyatheist wrote:I don't know it off the top of my head. Nor can I find it on the internet. And no, I am not going to go threw the work of proving it all over again...im a lazy bastard.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions

#17can't blame you for laziness, as i am guilty of this my self.

#18hillbillyatheist wrote:yeah, laziness is a worldwide phenomena.

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions