In need of some logic help!!!

@engineer,

so MHL = XYZ as long as
If X, then Y
if not X (~X,) then Z
if not Y (~Y,) then not Z (~Z)?

0 Replies

This thread has developed into an Alan Aykborn comedy in which participants are talking past each other bent on their agendas . The religious troll Susmariosep, who has thankfully been dormant for a few months, saw an opportunity to to 'get involved' with the pseudo religious item 3,( whose logical proof is technically trivial). And Jerlands, like on several current threads appears to be here mainly 'for the ride'.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

This thread has developed into an Alan Aykborn comedy in which participants are talking past each other bent on their agendas . The religious troll Susmariosep, who has thankfully been dormant for a few months, saw an opportunity to to 'get involved' with the pseudo religious item 3,( whose logical proof is technically trivial). And Jerlands, like on several current threads appears to be here mainly 'for the ride'.

This thread, like all threads are linked inextricably to the body of the cloth.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

This thread has developed into an Alan Aykborn comedy in which participants are talking past each other bent on their agendas .

Whatever.

The real question is:
how can we build up this site to a proper Q&A site?

Got anything to say to that, or are you just going throw more nothing burgers at us?

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

so no matter whether M is true or false, you get to Heaven.

In order to draw this conclusion you must presuppose the validity of the "law of the excluded middle," i.e. that the perv MUST be EITHER M or ~M.

As a practical matter a guy could be amoral, I suppose, i.e., neither morally virtuous nor "not morally virtuous." He just wouldn't fit either category, because morality aint got nuthin to do with anything he does, ya know?

1 Reply

@layman,

Like all propositional logic, the premise contains the conclusion, and the logic can be valid, but unsound.

What this example is saying it that he is guaranteed to get into heaven if he is NOT morally virtuous.

Why? Because then his longings will be satisfied.

Quote:

if he is not morally virtuous, then his longings are satisfied

What is his "longing?" To get into heaven (and possibly other things), that's what.

Quote:

if Bob doesn't achieve heaven, then his longings are not satisfied.

This is tantamount to saying "you are guaranteed to get into heaven if you are not morally virtuous."

1 Reply

@layman,

It doesn't say exactly that. When you apply some logic rules to the given statements, it does say that if he is not morally virtuous, he will take some other action to get into heaven, slay a demon or something.

Looking in more detail at the statements...

1) If you are morally virtuous, you get to heaven, great. This does not mean that you can't get to heaven in another manner. If DOG then ANIMAL, doesn't mean that you can't have an animal unless it is a dog.

2) If you are not virtuous, your longings are satisfied. Same as above, this does not mean that your longings can't be satisfied another way, but the third statement says that your longings won't be satisfied if you don't go to heaven, so if you are not virtuous, he must find another way into heaven or the statement given (not virtuous -> longings satisfied) will become invalid. Since that statement is given as valid, he's going to heaven.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

It doesn't say exactly that. When you apply some logic rules to the given statements, it does say that if he is not morally virtuous, he will take some other action to get into heaven, slay a demon or something.

Naw, not really. Of course that's a possibility, but it doesn't "say" that. In these kinds of exercises it is taken for granted that the references are to what's being set forth, not speculative "facts" which are unstated.

Put another way, it implying that if you are not morally virtuous then (for that reason, and that reason alone) you will satisfy your longings.

But, as I said in a prior post, and as I take you to be saying now, "If" is a different proposition than "if, and ONLY if."

If you are virtuous, then you WILL get to heaven, guaranteed. But that does not say it's the ONLY way you can get to heaven--I've already pointed that out.

1 Reply

@layman,

When you boil it all down, it's saying, don't worry, you will get to heaven, guaranteed (no matter what you do---again assuming that any middle ground is excluded).

1. If you are morally virtuous, you will get to heaven.
2. If you are NOT morally virtuous, you will get to heaven.
3. You must, of necessity, be either 1 or 2.
4. Therefore, you will get to heaven, by hook or crook.

1 Reply

@Kolyo,

It may be my imagination but the quality of A2K threads seems to have deteriorated over the last ten years. There's no point in me going over the fact that this was a homework request (involving Logic 101) and such requests used to be 'turned round' in a couple of posts. What we seem to have now, can too often involve rambling concoctions of tangential elaboration, interspersed with random side comments from those just looking for somebody to talk to.

You asked for suggestion for Q&A. I say ....
1. Always stick to the context in which a question is framed.
2. Be as brief as possible (nobody likes long posts)
3. Give references to any technicalities which you summarise.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

When you boil it all down, it's saying, don't worry, you will get to heaven, guaranteed (no matter what you do---again assuming that any middle ground is excluded).

1. If you are morally virtuous, you will get to heaven.
2. If you are NOT morally virtuous, you will get to heaven.
3. You must, of necessity, be either 1 or 2.
4. Therefore, you will get to heaven, by hook or crook.

#3 is a tacit (unstated) premise in the solution to the problem given, but I have made it explicit. It is taken to be a fundamental law of logic, i.e., the "law of the excluded middle" which dictates that a thing is either M or ~M.

Without this assumption you cannot draw the conclusion (that you will get to heaven).

Now, you can argue that, as a practical matter, this assumption is unwarranted. And you might be right. But, like math (which is just applied logic, really) and geometry, logic has nothing to do with empirical reality. It is a form of strictly a priori reasoning.

1 Reply

@layman,

Layman, you say:
"But, like math (which is just applied logic, really) and geometry, logic has nothing to do with empirical reality. It is a form of strictly a priori reasoning. "

Where did you last read the term 'empirical reality'?

See my thread:
Atheists are averse to the world of empirical reality.
https://able2know.org/topic/439360-1

I see that I can learn something from you.

First, what is the use of logic if it is all a prior, and has nothing to do with empirical reality?

Some quantum physicist says that mathematics (that's also logic for you) is so unreasonably effective in science, in particular in his speality, quantum physics.

Now, a prior means it is all inside our mind - in anatomy and physiology, inside our brain.

As I said in effect what then is the sense with people investing so much time and trouble and money to master logic, which is as you put it, all a priori; and I understand a priori as purely in our mind/brain only.

That is why atheists can't know God exists because they are always into logic but of the nonsense kind i.e. outside empirical reality.

If they think with their feet planted on terra firma, they cannot otherwise than come to know God exists, starting with the nose on their face.

Let me sit back and await to witness when someone is going to delete my post here.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

He's bizzy.

The empirical reality of 3.10 am on Layman's watch means he's downtown at the warehouses getting his shopping done which in all aprioricity ya shooda figgered, yanno wotise sayin?

1 Reply

@ekename,

John Lee, he ROCKS, eh!?

0 Replies

Dear posters here, it seems that you guys are always into flippancies instead of some genuine thinking on the issue at hand.

Then I have noticed that there is now some kind of a grim reaper in this here a2k forums, or is it some hackers who delete posts they feel are intimidating to their ideas, which ideas I think are all nonsensical, for being purely inside their mind/brain, and nothing in the objective world of empirical reality.

And I seem to notice the same flippant posters here whom I had met already in my earlier sojourn here; so it seems that when the issue is God exists or not, you guys are like, excuse me, flies: but the way I see it, you don't have any empirically constructed argument against God existing, it is all flippancies with you, all your reasons against God are all insults against God, starting with your iconic Bertrand Russell who started this bad mind-set of resorting to nonsense analogies, instead of genuine reasoning on the issue God exists or not.

Now, back to logic.

Dear Layman, you appear to be a serious thinker, but when the thinking gets a bit difficult, you run away leaving a trail of camouflage smoke which is nothing but flippancies.

So, are you going to share some useful insight from your very own thinking instead of reciting the cliches and slogans of your fellow atheist mentors, like as I mentioned already, one Bertrand Russell?

Tell me, how then are there people who are investing time, trouble, and money to master logic, when it is all a priori, i.e. all inside their mind/brain: so that they can't do anything with logic except play silly logic games, and also using silly symbols - and then, what, feeling themselves to be so smart?

2 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Logic is merely a tool. It is a very useful too, sure, but it still does nothing on it's own. Logic tells you nothing about what is "true." You have to figure that out by using something other than logic. A hammer is very useful when building a house, but a hammer can't build a house.

1. All dogs have 8 legs.
2. This animal is a dog.
3 Therefore, this animal has 8 legs.

This is logically valid ("true," in a certain, a priori, sense), it's just not empirically true.

Albert Einstein wrote:

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

1 Reply

@layman,

From layman:
1. All dogs have 8 legs.
2. This animal is a dog.
3 Therefore, this animal has 8 legs.

You seem to not be conversant with what is truth, because logic is only useful if the criterion statement is a truth.

In you three steps of what appears to be a logical statement in three parts, part 1 is the criterion premise, and it must be a truth, otherwise, your presentation is an exercise in nonsense, compared to the truth of dogs having in empirical reality, not eight legs but four.

Now, when you just want to amuse yourself with nonsense, then you can go around telling people that your logical statement in three steps is an example of logical speech with dogs having eight legs, and they will tell you, your logic is insanity, not logic as intelligent people understand logic everywhere.

So, we must go into the empirical reality of speech among intelligent folks, and ask them what is their concept of logic, instead of contriving silly concepts of logic which then makes logic ridiculous altogether.

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Quote:

instead of reciting the cliches and slogans of your fellow atheist mentors, like as I mentioned already, one Bertrand

This works for me.

Note, if you will, how the lyrics reflect your logic.

Quote:

The evidence is everywhere, starting with the nose in our face.

We ask ourselves, where does the nose come from?

Answer:
1. The nose comes with the baby.
2. Baby comes from their papa and mama.
3. Papa and mama come from their in turn papas and mamas.
4. In this way we come to the first agent to have started the chain of baby coming from papa and mama.
5. That is the evidence, the nose in our face, or if you prefer the balls in your lower middle groin.
6. You ask, how come we can't see God, the first agent to have caused the existence of baby and papas and mamas?
7. Simple, because God is everywhere, and man cannot see something that is everywhere.
8. But man can reason from the nose on man's face or the balls in his lower middle groin,
9. As to come to the conclusion that there exists God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything wsith a beginning.

There, that is the exposition of how the nose or the balls in guys' lower middle groin is evidence: leading man to conclude to the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

1 Reply

@ekename,

0 Replies

@Fresco

I challenge you solemnly to tell mankind what is your knowledge of the crucial difference between solving mental puzzles inside your brain, and the fact that dogs have four legs instead of eight, in the objective world of empirical reality, that is outside and independent of your brain.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to read: whether Fresco can tell mankind what is his knowledge of the difference between his solving mental puzzles all within his inside brain, and the fact that dogs in the objective world of empirical reality have four legs instead of eight, that world which is outside and independent of the inside brain of Fresco.

I myself await to witness what gobbledygook Fresco will go into, instead of sensible discourse in civil language.
____________________
gobbledygook
noun

language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense.
synonyms: gibberish, claptrap, nonsense, rubbish, balderdash, blather, garbage; informalmumbo jumbo, drivel, tripe, hogwash, baloney, bilge, bull, bunk, guff, eyewash, piffle, twaddle, poppycock, phooey, hooey
"a letter full of legal gobbledygook"

Courtesy of google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gobb...bAFbL48Ae_joEo

https://www.google.com/search?q=gobb...Gqv48AfOi4HQAw

0 Replies

In need of some logic help!!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know