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
JoinedPosts by opusdei1972
-
101
A question for Athiests.
by new hope and happiness ini am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
-
-
-
101
A question for Athiests.
by new hope and happiness ini am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
-
-
opusdei1972
Viviane I meant that , though I did not write it formaly.
-
101
A question for Athiests.
by new hope and happiness ini am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
-
-
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?
-
101
A question for Athiests.
by new hope and happiness ini am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
-
-
opusdei1972
Viviane you said :
"God exists" is the premise, the antecedent of the proposition.
Now read the following taken from Wikipedia:
A different meaning of the term hypothesis is used in formal logic, to denote the antecedent of a proposition; thus in the proposition "If P, then Q", P denotes the hypothesis (or antecedent); Q can be called a consequent. P is the assumption in a (possibly counterfactual) What If question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
So, in formal logic hypothesis denotes the antecedent, yes or no?
-
101
A question for Athiests.
by new hope and happiness ini am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
-
-
opusdei1972
Is it false that Dawkins wrote the following ?:
"the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other" ( Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. p. 50. )
If Dawkins said that, it means that he regards the existence of God as a hypothesis. yes or no?
-
101
A question for Athiests.
by new hope and happiness ini am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
-
-
opusdei1972
Coded Logic "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.
-
101
A question for Athiests.
by new hope and happiness ini am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
-
-
opusdei1972
May be my English is not good, because it is not my native language, but it is clear that if I say "If God exists, then....", "God exists" is the hypothesis.
-
101
A question for Athiests.
by new hope and happiness ini am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
-
-
opusdei1972
Viviane What I see is you are unable to understand the definition of a hypothesis as simple premise in Logic. Did you take lectures of Logic?
-
101
A question for Athiests.
by new hope and happiness ini am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
-
-
opusdei1972
I said nothing about the truth of your speculation, simple that you don't have a hypothesis.
According to the definition I have given above, in Logic, a hypothesis is the antecedent of a proposition. The antecedent is a premise. It can be false or true. It is what we may assume. If I assume that "God exists", it is a valid hypothesis in Logic, though it could not be scientific. Read examples of hypotheses in a book of Logic.
"the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other" ( Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. p. 50. )
-
101
A question for Athiests.
by new hope and happiness ini am now an athiest myself, but i think being an athiest its a bit like having a faith.
some get very hooked on it and "preash" others (like me) simply get with with there lifes.
i am sure that some athiests like to have discussions about the non existence of " god" in a similar way that "thisists" do about the existence of god.
-
-
opusdei1972
Viviane I want to show you that the hypothesis "God exists" needs not to be TRUE so as to get a True implication, if the consequent were TRUE. We know that God does not interfere in our life, this can be proven by observation. So it does not matter if God exists in order to get my implication true, because we know that the consequent is true. See the table bellow:
