Is religion dying?

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think this answers the question I asked. I asked "How are we doing logic differenly?"

If a person does not accept true and false, then they cannot do logic at all.

Are you maybe saying "I don't do logic." ??

No, I don't logic as if it is in objective reality and that I can know truth, I like know that I have a hand.

 

[dybmh]

Here you go @dybmh

OH! Hee-hee. I misread your post. Sorry. *blush*

 

[dybmh]

No, I don't logic as if it is in objective reality and that I can know truth, I like know that I have a hand.

How do you define true and false without objective reality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How do you define true and false without objective reality?

As what makes sense or doesn't make sense. Or as what works or doesn't work. I am a pragmatist. Truth is what woks according to a human standard.
Now we then have to do objective reality, but that is not the same. That is faith.

 

[dybmh]

No, I don't logic as if it is in objective reality and that I can know truth, I like know that I have a hand.

As what makes sense or doesn't make sense. Or as what works or doesn't work. I am a pragmatist. Truth is what woks according to a human standard.
Now we then have to do objective reality, but that is not the same. That is faith.

If you know that you have a hand, and I agree that you have a hand. This is practical and it works. You and I can do logic about your hand as long as we both agree on this shared experience. This is why I can make a real-world example about Chicken soup in order to show that a person is making a logical fault. If however the person doesn't think Chicken soup needs any chicken in it, then I can either walk away saying to myself "this person is looney", or I can try to find another real-world example where we both agree.

Does that make sense?

Even if you and I are neuro-divergent, that doesn't mean we disagree on everything right? It just means we can only discuss/debate things that we both experience in the same way. Some people like the words "shared reality" as opposed to "objective reality". It removes a bit of the stigma attached to objective/subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you know that you have a hand, and I agree that you have a hand. This is practical and it works. You and I can do logic about your hand as long as we both agree on this shared experience. This is why I can make a real-world example about Chicken soup in order to show that a person is making a logical fault. If however the person doesn't think Chicken soup needs any chicken in it, then I can either walk away saying to myself "this person is looney", or I can try to find another real-world example where we both agree.

Does that make sense?

Even if you and I are neuro-divergent, that doesn't mean we disagree on everything right? It just means we can only discuss/debate things that we both experience in the same way. Some people like the words "shared reality" as opposed to "objective reality". It removes a bit of the stigma attached to objective/subjective.

Yeah, but that it works is that it works for me, even to believe that I am in objective reality and so are you. Or rather the universe is real, orderly and knowable, but I believe that as an act of faith.
That it makes sense to me, is truth. Not that it corresponds to objective reality or is logically coherent.
Now for logic, that is just a way some people think and some people don't.

 

[viole]

Nope. If no guys who speak German are in the room, there are no hands to raise.

Correct. So?

You are claiming that non-existent guys are raising their hands. This is the opposite of reality. If you think it's true, then that is delusional.

Nope. I am claiming that all German speaking guys are raising their hands. the fact that there no such guys, does not make the claim false. In fact, it can be easily proved that the claim cannot be false, and it is therefore true. The laws of logic gives so alternative.

You are, again conflating logic with philosophy. And most particular with ontology, and the nature of what exists. And that is a category error. As I said, philosophy is irrelevant.

just follow logic, and its few basic principles, and the conclusion follows. Necessarily so.

And if your claim is "But that's the way it's defined." Then the definition does not match reality and the definition needs to be changed or discarded in favor of something that produces true conclusions.

According to your reasoning, things like 254 dimensional spaces, and their geometry, are necessarily incoherent because they do not match reality. They are not. This is, again, confusing logic at its vey basic, and the reality, or nomology of a contingent world. And tha latter, is totally irrelevant when it comes to decide the truth value of statements in general.

So, you are simply using the wrong tool for the job. Which explains why you disagree with basically everybody else.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Wrong., I am afraid. The cardinality of the empty set is zero. It is the number of elements it has which is, by definition, zero.

Ciao

- viole

The definition is ignoring "empty" which is an idea that is being included in the set. The definition is self-contradictory.

 

[dybmh]

the set containing square roots of -1 is not necessarily empty

Oh? Can you explain? I think once you do, that will be another win for me. If the set containing square roots of -1 is not necessarily empty, then none of the empty sets are necessarily empty.

Please go ahead.

 

[dybmh]

Correct. So?

Hee. If there are no hands, then making claims about them is a lie.

Nope. I am claiming that all German speaking guys are raising their hands. the fact that there no such guys, does not make the claim false. In fact, it can be easily proved that the claim cannot be false, and it is therefore true. The laws of logic gives so alternative.

Nope. It cannot be proven false. Saying it is proven true, when in fact it simply hasn't been proven false??? That is also a lie.

You are, again conflating logic with philosophy. And most particular with ontology, and the nature of what exists. And that is a category error. As I said, philosophy is irrelevant.

The catagory error is claiming that not proven to be false = must be true.
And there's probably a case to be made that set theory is being conflated with measure theory. But, anyways.

just follow logic, and its few basic principles, and the conclusion follows. Necessarily so.

Nope. There is no conclusion. Making a conclusion when there isn't one available is a lie.

According to your reasoning, things like 254 dimensional spaces, and their geometry, are necessarily incoherent because they do not match reality. They are not. This is, again, confusing logic at its vey basic, and the reality, or nomology of a contingent world. And tha latter, is totally irrelevant when it comes to decide the truth value of statements in general.

Simple question, super simple.

Is "all the Jews" = "none of the Jews"

So, you are simply using the wrong tool for the job. Which explains why you disagree with basically everybody else.

Is something true solely because it can't be proven false?

It all comes down to that.

 

[viole]

Married bachelors don't have any hair. It certainly isn't blue.

Correct, and?

Do you see what happened?

1) This is illogic of the highest order. Something is not assumed to be true unless it can be proven false.
2) You attempted to prove it is false, but since there is nothing to compare, nothing to observe, no hair at all, you didn't prove anything false. And then you attempted to claim that you did. You proved nothing.

Certainly not. The laws of logic are based on some very basic principles. One of the, is that every proposition is either true or false. No middle one. And for all propositions.
are you telling me that you do not accept standard logic?

The entire claim is a contradiction if you KNOW that there are no married-bachelors.

Not at all. on the contrary, it would be contradictory if it showed there is at least one married bachelor. But since there none, by definition, everything is logically correct.

Now you're stuck. You just claimed that a married-bachelor is not an idea of a married-bachelor. Prove it.
It is obvious and true that married-bachelor IS an idea of a married-bachelor.

Nope. I claimed that a married bachelor is different from an idea of a married bachelor. Are you telling me that X is the same as an idea of X?

Nope. X is an idea. It can be a set of ideas, or just an individual idea. It could be a sound, a number, a bird, anything you want, or nothing at all.

Ok, you are not a Jew. You are an idea of a Jew.

you are producing nonsense at an alarming rate.

It is defined as the opposite of a set. Just like A-theism.

Show me your source, that says that the empty set is the opposite of a set, whatever you mean.

No, the definition from Drexel, does not. Any defintion you find, IF you do not crop out the qualifier, defines it as not having elements. It is defined by negation. It is defined by what it isn't.

Yes, Dresler calls the empty set the opposition of a set. can you show us where?

Sure I can conceive of it. It's properly conceived in opposition. As soon as it is not in opposition, it's gained an element.

This is complete nonsense. If it acquires an element, it is not the empty set, anymore. Which is another way of saying that the empty set is a the empty set only when it is not empty.

It does if the type is opposite from inclusion.

Incomprehensible statement, what do you mean?

Yes, there is an correct assumption that it must contain at least one element. Otherwise it is not a collection of elements.

Empty collections of elements are still collections of elements. In fact, sets can have cardinality zero, which is the same thing as saying that they have no elements.

This assumption of yours is what leads to all non sequiturs you are producing.

Flat-earth thinking. Ad-pop fallacy.

It is not ad_pop fallacy. It is what people defined. not what people believed.

When the set is defined as a collection of elements, that means it has elements in it or else it's not a set. If you order chicken soup at a restaurant, and it is missing chicken, are you saying you have no right to complain? Is it chicken soup if it has ZERO chicken in it?

Except that collections, can be empty. They do not stop being collections. And this is obvious, since the empty set is defined as a set that has zero elements. Not like a non set that needs to have an element to be called a set. Obviously.

all definitions of empty set are: the empty set is A SET that blah, blah. Not a horse, not a pig, not a pseudo set, not spaghetti, no all the rest. It is a set and defined as such. Unless the laws of English semantics cease to exist in your country.

All the Jews I know are Atheist" is false if I don't know any Jews. "I know" is a positive claim.
"All the Jews I know aren't Atheist" is false if I don't know any Jews. "I know" is a positive claim.

So, if that is false, then it would be true that it is not the case that all Jews I know are atheists. This is very simple to show as absurd, and that therefore my claim is necessarily true.

Of course I know is a a positive claim. and? I positively claim to know no Jew. And that none of them believes in God. Or does not believe
in God. both true.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Correct, and?


Certainly not. The laws of logic are based on some very basic principles. One of the, is that every proposition is either true or false. No middle one. And for all propositions.
are you telling me that you do not accept standard logic?


Not at all. on the contrary, it would be contradictory if it showed there is at least one married bachelor. But since there none, by definition, everything is logically correct.


Nope. I claimed that a married bachelor is different from an idea of a married bachelor. Are you telling me that X is the same as an idea of X?


Ok, you are not a Jew. You are an idea of a Jew.

you are producing nonsense at an alarming rate.


Show me your source, that says that the empty set is the opposite of a set, whatever you mean.


Yes, Dresler calls the empty set the opposition of a set. can you show us where?


This is complete nonsense. If it acquires an element, it is not the empty set, anymore. Which is another way of saying that the empty set is a the empty set only when it is not empty.


Incomprehensible statement, what do you mean?


Empty collections of elements are still collections of elements. In fact, sets can have cardinality zero, which is the same thing as saying that they have no elements.

This assumption of yours is what leads to all non sequiturs you are producing.



It is not ad_pop fallacy. It is what people defined. not what people believed.


Except that collections, can be empty. They do not stop being collections. And this is obvious, since the empty set is defined as a set that has zero elements. Not like a non set that needs to have an element to be called a set. Obviously.

all definitions of empty set are: the empty set is A SET that blah, blah. Not a horse, not a pig, not a pseudo set, not spaghetti, no all the rest. It is a set and defined as such. Unless the laws of English semantics cease to exist in your country.


So, if that is false, then it would be true that it is not the case that all Jews I know are atheists. This is very simple to show as absurd, and that therefore my claim is necessarily true.

Of course I know is a a positive claim. and? I positively claim to know no Jew. And that none of them believes in God. Or does not believe
in God. both true.

ciao

- viole

All of this is ignored.

Is something true simply because it cannot be proven false?

 

[dybmh]

Yeah, but that it works is that it works for me, even to believe that I am in objective reality and so are you. Or rather the universe is real, orderly and knowable, but I believe that as an act of faith.
That it makes sense to me, is truth. Not that it corresponds to objective reality or is logically coherent.
Now for logic, that is just a way some people think and some people don't.

OK! let's say 2 people want to become friends. Each one has their own faith about what this "friendship" will mean. Do you think that these two people can share their ideas about friendship and in doing so both find points of agreement and also influence each other's subjective ideas about "friendship" to the point where they approximately share the same idea?

In other words, do you have faith in communication?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK! let's say 2 people want to become friends. Each one has their own faith about what this "friendship" will mean. Do you think that these two people can share their ideas about friendship and in doing so both find points of agreement and also influence each other's subjective ideas about "friendship" to the point where they approximately share the same idea?

In other words, do you have faith in communication?

Well, yes and no. Yes, we could agree, but that is not a given. We are in effect doing limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism. And an example of this is how we can't agree on what logic is.
In effect we use our brains differently. But we can try to compromise, but the compromise is we could end up accept that we think and feel differently.
And yes, there is still an objective reality, but that is not all to everyday world. Neither is logic.

 

[dybmh]

Well, yes and no. Yes, we could agree, but that is not a given. We are in effect doing limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism. And an example of this is how we can't agree on what logic is.
In effect we use our brains differently. But we can try to compromise, but the compromise is we could end up accept that we think and feel differently.
And yes, there is still an objective reality, but that is not all to everyday world. Neither is logic.

Heard and understood. But in saying that, I just realized, that you probably won't believe me. Which in turn should prove that I did hear you and understand you. But did I?

And around and around we go. LOL!

 

[dybmh]

@mikkel_the_dane ,

I editted my post at the last minute. LOL. Your thoughts? Did I get it? Or not? Or impossible to tell?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Is religion dying i.e. waning in popularity?

Well, you guys are all old, so maybe I'm asking the wrong crowd...

Haha jk

You guys have a certain perspective.

As the youngins take the places of you lot, do you think religion will be as popular or influential?

Atheism seems to be on the rise. Institutionalized religion has traumatized much of millennials and I'm betting gen z too. I get mixed signals when I try to gauge the populace's ever changing opinion on religion. Will the millennials and gen z let religion be a dominating cultural force, as it has always been?

I think Christianity is dying but spirituality is rising. I don't think religion is dying. But I think it is possible. I think atheism and agnosticism will keep rising, and as a result organized religion will lose its influence.

Even amongst atheists true religion never dies and never ever will. Religion which the essence of it is to love one’s neighbor be truthful, wise, humble and of upright character is something which will never die. Outward religion such as traditions and ceremonies, going to church etc are being replaced with things like mindfulness & meditation which are really true religion also. What is dying or being questioned and challenged are the nonsensical superstitious beliefs which the mind and reason cannot accept such as belief in bodies rising from graves, bodily resurrection, the turning of water and wine into a body that’s edible, walking on water and a host of childish emotional attachments which no sound mind can possibly accept. Superstitious beliefs like these are being daily questioned and discarded by thinking, rational people everywhere. But things like love and unity which is what religion is really supposed to be all about, are always accepted by both believer and non believer alike.

 

[viole]

Is something true simply because it cannot be proven false?

Of course not. But that is not what I said. probably, again, a problem with my English.

what I said is that something is true, if that it can be proved to not being false. If it being false is absurd. Or leading to a contradiction. not the same thing at all.

Which is basically one of the principles dictated by logic. As you probably know. It is a principle of logic. Namely, the principle of the excluded middle.

in other words, a (not circularly defined) proposition P is always either true or false. There is no alternative. And it is always either of them. If I cannot prove either of the cases, nor their negation, then I cannot make any conclusion about whether it is true or false. But for sure, if I can prove that it is not false, then it follows that it is true. Like i did.

And, therefore, unless you admit of operating outside the constraints of logic, and its principles, your conclusions will not be logical. By definition of what “being logical” means.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Nope. If no guys who speak German are in the room, there are no hands to raise. This proof by contradiction fails everytime when speaking about something that doesn't exist in reality.

You are claiming that non-existent guys are raising their hands. This is the opposite of reality. If you think it's true, then that is delusional.

And if your claim is "But that's the way it's defined." Then the definition does not match reality and the definition needs to be changed or discarded in favor of something that produces true conclusions.

Hello!

You know what?
There was a guy in the room who spoke German, but both his hands had been amputated. And he had blue hair. He sat apart {in a set} all by himself.

It was really sad.

 

[viole]

Oh? Can you explain? I think once you do, that will be another win for me. If the set containing square roots of -1 is not necessarily empty, then none of the empty sets are necessarily empty.

are you aware of the existence of a coherent set of things called “complex numbers”? Well, in that field, there is a thing which is, de facto, the square root of -1. Actually, there are two of them.

Ciao

- viole