[W:444:664] Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

... None of your premises are factually true they are only being considered as if they were true and can see that the premises do relate to the conclusion.

I think we may be at cross-purposes here because you are taking my major premise as an assertion that God exists. This is incorrect. My major premise is a hypothetical that asserts a logical relationship between an antecedent and a consequent. The truth of this premise lies in that logical relationship, not in the existence or non-existence of anything contained in the hypothetical. See the Lincoln example above.

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

No, my argument is a conditional argument, and the truth table gives the truth values of of the conditional argument (Upper right) given different truth values of its clausal terms.
I don't know what you mean by "factually true" and I doubt you yourself know, but the table sets forth the paradigm of logical truth given the various truth values of the variables.
If you are denying a truth value to a conditional statement simply because it is hypothetical, then you are mistaken.
The truth table tells you that you are mistaken.
Moreover, there's a simple counterexample available: Does "If P, then P" not have a truth value? Of course it does.

Conditional arguments are only sound if the conditions are true... i don't know why you dont understand... we're you dropped on you head?

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

"If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California"​

Still worthless

... None of your premises are factually true they are only being considered as if they were true and can see that the premises do relate to the conclusion.

Conditional arguments are only sound if the conditions are true... i don't know why you dont understand... we're you dropped on you head?

Gentlemen, it seems clear by now that your thinking in this matter has been clouded by the appearance of the word "God" in the major premise of my argument.
Therefore, in a good-faith effort to help you get past your God-fixation and see the soundness issue in a clear light, I offer the following illustration:

If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California.
If I live in California, then I live in the USA.___
Therefore, if I live in Sacramento, I live in the USA.

This argument is valid and sound.

The truth of the premises depends on the logical relation between the antecedent and the consequent in their statements. That logical relation is called implication.

For example, the truth of the major premise -- and this is most important, so please pay attention -- the truth of the major premise, "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California," does not depend at all on whether I in fact live in Sacramento.

I in fact live in New York City. Nevertheless, when I assert "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California," I make a true statement.

Whether or not I live in Sacramento does not affect in any way the truth values of the logical implication expressed in the statement "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California."

Likewise, whether or not God exists and created life does not affect in any way the truth values of the logical implication expressed in the statement "If God created life, then life is providential."

I repeat, in a larger font, just as the truth of the conditional statement "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California" is unaffected by where I actually or in fact live, so too the truth of the conditional statement "If God created life, then life is providential" is unaffected by the question of God's existence or Creationism.

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

"If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California"​

Gentlemen, it seems clear by now that your thinking in this matter has been clouded by the appearance of the word "God" in the major premise of my argument.
Therefore, in a good-faith effort to help you get past your God-fixation and see the soundness issue in a clear light, I offer the following illustration:

If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California.
If I live in California, then I live in the USA.___
Therefore, if I live in Sacramento, I live in the USA.

This argument is valid and sound.

The truth of the premises depends on the logical relation between the antecedent and the consequent in their statements. That logical relation is called implication.

For example, the truth of the major premise -- and this is most important, so please pay attention -- the truth of the major premise, "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California," does not depend at all on whether I in fact live in Sacramento.

I in fact live in New York City. Nevertheless, when I assert "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California," I make a true statement.

Whether or not I live in Sacramento does not affect in any way the truth values of the logical implication expressed in the statement "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California."

Likewise, whether or not God exists and created life does not affect in any way the truth values of the logical implication expressed in the statement "If God created life, then life is providential."

I repeat, in a larger font, just as the truth of the conditional statement "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California" is unaffected by where I actually or in fact live, so too the truth of the conditional statement "If God created life, then life is providential" is unaffected by the question of God's existence or Creationism.

In your second example all those conditional premises were factually correct making the argument both valid and sound... WHY DON'T YOU GET THE DIFFERENCE?????

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

In your second example all those conditional premises were factually correct making the argument both valid and sound... WHY DON'T YOU GET THE DIFFERENCE?????

I do not live in Sacramento. That's the fact.

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I do not live in Sacramento.

You don't have too; the condition is if you did. Sacramento is in California which is in the US

If you want to use geography this example is closer you your GOD PROVIDENTIAL SACRED thing.

If i live in Brussels, the I live in Sicily
If i live in Sicily, then i live in France.
Therefor if i live in Brussels, I live in France.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You don't have too; the condition is if you did....

Precisely. God neither has to exist nor have created life; the condition is "if" He does and did.

Sacramento is in California with is in the US

Likewise, the concepts of Providence and sacredness are in the concept of God.



Namaste

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Precisely. God neither has to exist nor have created life; the condition is "if" He does and did.


Likewise, the concepts of Providence and sacredness are in the concept of God.



Namaste

NOOOOO, you just failed
which GOD? I can't make the inference given the information from premises. You have to prove them for the argument to be sound...

you're such a wanker

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

NOOOOO, you just failed
which GOD? I can't make the inference given the information from premises. You have to prove them for the argument to be sound...

you're such a wanker

Okay, buster, you've called me "wanker" "twit" "twat" "idiot" and "moron" in the course of our exchanges and meanwhile you don't know what you're talking about, both as to the English language and as to logical implication.

Bad manners and bad faith and ignorance. You must have been absent the day God handed out character. Go yank someone else's chain.

 

[KerouacJack]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Okay, buster, you've called me "wanker" "twit" "twat" "idiot" and "moron" in the course of our exchanges and meanwhile you don't know what you're talking about, both as to the English language and as to logical implication.

Bad manners and bad faith and ignorance. You must have been absent the day God handed out character. Go yank someone else's chain.

You don't like my insults yet reading the junk you write you often use them.

therefore you are hypocrite.

how am i doing?

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

For Quag

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Still not a logical term. I recommend a good book on logic and some honest self-examination.

I believe you meant worthless is not a term used in logic.
However it is a logical description of your "argument"
You seem to have learned the form of logic without any comprehension of logic itself.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

"If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California"​

Gentlemen, it seems clear by now that your thinking in this matter has been clouded by the appearance of the word "God" in the major premise of my argument.
Therefore, in a good-faith effort to help you get past your God-fixation and see the soundness issue in a clear light, I offer the following illustration:

If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California.
If I live in California, then I live in the USA.___
Therefore, if I live in Sacramento, I live in the USA.

This argument is valid and sound.

The truth of the premises depends on the logical relation between the antecedent and the consequent in their statements. That logical relation is called implication.

For example, the truth of the major premise -- and this is most important, so please pay attention -- the truth of the major premise, "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California," does not depend at all on whether I in fact live in Sacramento.

I in fact live in New York City. Nevertheless, when I assert "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California," I make a true statement.

Whether or not I live in Sacramento does not affect in any way the truth values of the logical implication expressed in the statement "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California."

Likewise, whether or not God exists and created life does not affect in any way the truth values of the logical implication expressed in the statement "If God created life, then life is providential."

I repeat, in a larger font, just as the truth of the conditional statement "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California" is unaffected by where I actually or in fact live, so too the truth of the conditional statement "If God created life, then life is providential" is unaffected by the question of God's existence or Creationism.

Yes that argument is valid and sound your argument isn't.
If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California is a true statement
If God created life, then life is providential is not a true statement, it is merely your belief.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

For Quag

Again I cant see your videos

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You don't have too; the condition is if you did. Sacramento is in California which is in the US

If you want to use geography this example is closer you your GOD PROVIDENTIAL SACRED thing.

If i live in Brussels, the I live in Sicily
If i live in Sicily, then i live in France.
Therefor if i live in Brussels, I live in France.

I am going to disagree with you here because your examples are demonstrably false whereas Angels are just his unproven beliefs that do not necessarily follow

If i live in Brussels, then oranges
If oranges, then i live in a house.
Therefore if i live in Brussels, I live in a house.
In his "arguments" the "then" does not necessarily follow the if.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You still need arguments, mate. Personal crap is just that, crap.

And that enlightenment of yours should learn how to spell, or at least spell check. Sloppy language usually signals sloppy thinking.

When they attack your spelling they know themselves they lost long ago.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

It is when you reach for the higher ground of establishing whether an argument is sound does truth then must become a point that is factually true.

Your argument is like the toaster argument. None of your premises are factually true they are only being considered as if they were true and can see that the premises do relate to the conclusion.

As I posted to another poster in post #72 (I believe)...

Remember, a "fact" ("factual") does not mean that something is a universal truth. Rather, a "fact" is shorthand predicate (when a given True is accepted by all parties). If this isn't the case, then that "fact" ceases to exist and returns to an argument. That's how I'm using the phrase "factually correct" in my OP...

I also think you're missing the point behind how conditionals work.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

In your second example all those conditional premises were factually correct making the argument both valid and sound... WHY DON'T YOU GET THE DIFFERENCE?????

"factually correct" does NOT mean "universal truth"...

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Again I cant see your videos

That video aimed to give you another way of viewing the conditional argument. In logic material implication is a replacement rule whereby a hypothetical statement may be translated into a disjunctive statement while maintaining validity and soundness. The conditional (P=>Q) translates as (-PvQ). (P=>Q) and (-PvQ) are logically equivalent. They have the same truth table. So, in the disjunctive iteration, as in the hypothetical iteration, the sole instance in which the statement is false is where P is true and Q is false. (T=>F) is false and (-TvF) is false. In our residential example, "If I live in Sacramento, then I live in California" is false only in case I live in Sacramento and don't live in California. In my original argument, "If God created life, then life is providential" is false only in case God created life and life is not providential.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You still need arguments, mate. Personal crap is just that, crap.

And that enlightenment of yours should learn how to spell, or at least spell check. Sloppy language usually signals sloppy thinking.

An even clearer signal of sloppy thinking is when people try and reference words, arguments and theories that they don't understand.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

An even clearer signal of sloppy thinking is when people try and reference words, arguments and theories that they don't understand.

Yes, indeed. Take heed.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I believe you meant worthless is not a term used in logic.
However it is a logical description of your "argument"
You seem to have learned the form of logic without any comprehension of logic itself.

In theology, divine providence, or just providence, is God's intervention in the Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_providence

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Yes, indeed. Take heed.

 

[Angel]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

^^^^
Your philosophical acumen is duly noted, T. Much obliged for your contribution.

 

[Quag]

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

In theology, divine providence, or just providence, is God's intervention in the Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_providence

That's is just a belief held by Judeo-Christian religions, you cannot prove the belief or affirm it is the "correct" belief.