I'm looking forward to going to Christmas service this year at the church near my house. I've no intention of converting or joining the church as a social club or anything like that, I've just not ever seen a Christmas service and I do love Christmas.
Viviane
JoinedPosts by Viviane
-
33
Would you go to church?
by Coded Logic ini have an unspoken rule that if someone ever invites me to a church - that i haven't been to before - i will go.
even though i'm an atheist i'm still interested in the experiance.
just like i'm not into basketball but i would like to go to a game sometime to feel the energy of the crowd.. growing up as a jw i've never set foot in another church.
-
-
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
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/
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
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?
-
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.
-
-
Viviane
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.
It's your understanding that is flawed, not your English. You don't have a hypothesis without the "... then ..." part. "God exists" is the premise, the antecedent of the proposition.
-
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.
-
-
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?
What Coded Logic said. A premise alone, even in logic, cannot and does not formulate a hypothesis and your own cut-n-paste jobs show. It appears you didn't actually understand the stuff you posted attempting to support yourself.
What is a "lectures of Logic" and how does it support your position? If you are asking if I've taken classes on logic and work with it as a part of my daily life, then yes, I do.
-
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.
-
-
Viviane
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.
And you gave no proposition. "God exists" alone, even in logic, isn't a hypothesis. "God exists and doesn't interfere" STILL doesn't have a proposition according to your own definition. It's still just speculation.
I do find it humorous that you've retreated into cut-n-paste jobs from websites that you think may support the that your speculation may in some way be a logical rather than scientific hypothesis (it's not, of course) and, to bolster your claim, quote Dawkins talking about a scientific hypothesis. It makes me wonder, with all the inability to explain, in your own words, any of this logic or science stuff, if you actually understand it or whether you are just google searching for anything that sounds like it may somehow support you.
-
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.
-
-
Viviane
You are correct. Many times, I have seen other ppl on this site, who are atheists, say that education will 'cure' a belief in G*d. Anyone who says that, is being intellectually dishonest (ie, they are LIARS).
Can you cite a specific example?
-
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.
-
-
Viviane
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:
I said nothing about the truth of your speculation, simple that you don't have a hypothesis. I'm not sure what showing a logical implication table. It doesn't help that you don't have a hypothesis.
Also, again, proof is for math, not for speculating on God. It absolutely cannot be proven that God doesn't interfere in our life. Even if you DID have a working hypothesis or had constructed a valid logical implication table, that alone would defy even the possibility of falsifiability.
So, still just speculation.