When you've been balancing your checkbook incorrectly your entire life and someone sits you down to show you how to do it correctly, do you consider it "converting" or learning a new skill?
A question for Athiests.
by new hope and happiness 101 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Viviane
"If God exists , he does not interfere in our life". It is a good example of P=>Q in Logic, where P is called "hypothesis". That's all.
That's wrong. You are trying to shoehorn a logical implication truth table mapping into your original statement and say "Hypothesis!". Even in your orginal statement there is no implication, you aren't even using the right type of logic! You keep switching between -> and => (if and then), neither of which were part of your original statement, you used "but" which isn't a logical conjunction at all, you should have used ^ (and). You've variously switched between the layman, scienctific and logical uses of the word.
Also, your example that initially gave is NOT, not even CLOSE either logically or scientifically to what you just wrote. It's absolutely clear you are learning on the fly. Your orginal statement was NOT and IF-THEN as you now write, it was "God DOES exist AND he doesn't interfere".
There was NEVER, in any sense whatsoever in your orginal statement a hypothesis. The example you NOW use CLEARLY is a hypothesis. Your original statement was never any such thing.
Did you really think no one would notice?
-
Viviane
If Dawkins said that, it means that he regards the existence of God as a hypothesis. yes or no?
It means you got caught trying to change semantics twice now. Shame on you.
So, in formal logic hypothesis denotes the antecedent, yes or no?
It means you got caught three time now trying to suggest you wrote anything of the sort when you clearly did not. Shame on you.
As I've clearly shown you many times, whether you choose P->Q or P=>Q, there must be an antecedent and a consequent. You simply wrote the logical evquivalent of P^A, a conjoined statement. There is no consequent, no "then", no "if".
I've no idea why you keep going on about a scientific definition (which you said you weren't talking about) anda form of logical argument you didn't make. I'm not surprised at all you were getting this from Wikipedia.
-
opusdei1972
That's wrong. You are trying to shoehorn a logical implication truth table mapping into your original statement and say "Hypothesis!". Even in your orginal statement there is no implication, you aren't even using the right type of logic! You keep switching between -> and => (if and then), neither of which were part of your original statement, you used "but" which isn't a logical conjunction at all, you should have used ^ (and). You've variously switched between the layman, scienctific and logical uses of the word.
Also, your example that initially gave is NOT, not even CLOSE either logically or scientifically to what you just wrote. It's absolutely clear you are learning on the fly. Your orginal statement was NOT and IF-THEN as you now write, it was "God DOES exist AND he doesn't interfere".
There was NEVER, in any sense whatsoever in your orginal statement a hypothesis. The example you NOW use CLEARLY is a hypothesis. Your original statement was never any such thing.
Did you really think no one would notice?
Ok, what I meant was this, if you prefere:
If God exists, then, he does not interfere in our life.
"God exists" is not now the hypothesis?, yes or no?
-
Viviane
Ok, what I meant was this, if you prefere:
If God exists, then, he does not interfere in our life.
"God exists" is not now the hypothesis?, yes or no?
It's not if I prefer, it's simply that, when written that way, it's now what you claim it to have been. Of course "If God exists" is now the hypothesis.
That's basic logic. Also, it takes quite a bit to admit when you are wrong. There was a great article on that in Forbes today: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alastairdryburgh/2014/08/31/how-to-be-wrong/
-
opusdei1972
Viviane I meant that , though I did not write it formaly.
-
Viviane
It's not whether it was written "formally" or not, opus. It's that it was an entirely different type of statement. I apologize if I came across too strongly, in my field of work and, informally, here, I often come across people who claim to say one thing but wrote or said something else. I work in a field where logic and precision (as well as the occasional bout of accuracy) and clearness of communication is paramount so I tend to notice those things at a much higher rate than others might.
-
opusdei1972
Viviane when I wrote "but", I meant an implication "then" in my mind , which of course is not the same. It is not easy to think in spanish and to write in English at once.
-
-
opusdei1972
Viviane I am even living in a country in which I have to speak neither in Spanish nor in English. I can't say which country, because JW Apologists will know who I am .