Is religion dying?

[viole]

You are doing it again.

Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Just read the entry and you can understand the problem. Truth is a set of different abstract concepts for different assumptions.

Ok, show me then please the segment in the text that says “vacuous truths are not true” or something equivalent. because that is what I am asking. Where is it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, show me then please the segment in the text that says “vacuous truths are not true” or something equivalent. because that is what I am asking. Where is it?

Ciao

- viole

"In mathematics and logic, a vacuous truth is a conditional or universal statement that is true because the antecedent cannot be satisfied."

Now you ask the following question, is math and logic all of the world? The answer is no! So the long answer is this: Vacuous truth is true for a part of the world but not all of the world.

 

[viole]

"In mathematics and logic, a vacuous truth is a conditional or universal statement that is true because the antecedent cannot be satisfied."

Now you ask the following question, is math and logic all of the world? The answer is no! So the long answer is this: Vacuous truth is true for a part of the world but not all of the world.

Yes, it says it is true. the rest is irrelevant, since I made it explicit that my claim has, as a premise, classical logic. I actually changed the claim to make it clear, also to avoid useless philosophical and semantical considerations. And also in the hope to avoid losing further time on something that cannot be more obvious.

--> According to classical logic, it is the case that all the Jews I know are Atheists

So, you are doing again. You are not reading what I said. And by doing that, you joined your partner in practicing shooting your foot, by actually making my case. As the first line of your post shows.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, it says it is true. the rest is irrelevant, since I made it explicit that my claim has, as a premise, classical logic. I actually changed the claim to make it clear, also to avoid useless philosophical and semantical considerations. And also in the hope to avoid losing further time on something that cannot be more obvious.

--> According to classical logic, it is the case that all the Jews I know are Atheists

So, you are doing again. You are not reading what I said. And by doing that, you joined your partner in practicing shooting your foot, by actually making my case. As the first line of your post shows.

Ciao

- viole

Yes, I know. You want to control thinking, but the falsification of that is that other people can think differently that you.
You are right in that if we all think like you, then it is true. But some of us are not thinking like you and thus we get a different result.

So your thinking is only true of the world as such, if you can show that it is the only way to think and that is where you fail.
Your truth is true on the condition that you think a certain way and it is not universally true for all forms of thinking, because there are other ways of thinking.

 

[viole]

Yes, I know. You want to control thinking, but the falsification of that is that other people can think differently that you.
You are right in that if we all think like you, then it is true. But some of us are not thinking like you and thus we get a different result.

So your thinking is only true of the world as such, if you can show that it is the only way to think and that is where you fail.
Your truth is true on the condition that you think a certain way and it is not universally true for all forms of thinking, because there are other ways of thinking.

I am not controlling, anything. I just assumed as premise, the laws of classical logic. And as I told you about chess, or any variant thereof of your choice, there is not such a thing as "different ways of thinking", because the rules are fixed, and if you don't follow them, then you are playing a different game.

It is, in fact, absurd to say: people can think differently about the rules of standard chess. They cannot. And tautologically so. In the same way people cannot think differently about the marital status of bachelors.

Therefore, any argument that goes out of those boundaries, no matter how true, false, or whatever, is irrelevant.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not controlling, anything. I just assumed as premise, the laws of classical logic. And as I told you about chess, or any variant thereof of your choice, there is not such a thing as "different ways of thinking", because the rules are fixed, and if you don't follow them, then you are playing a different game.

It is, in fact, absurd to say: people can think differently about the rules of standard chess. They cannot. And tautologically so. In the same way people cannot think differently about the marital status of bachelors.

Therefore, any argument that goes out of those boundaries, no matter how true, false, or whatever, is irrelevant.

Ciao

- viole

Yeah, but it is false for all of reality, that there is more than one game and more that more one set of rules for reality. In fact for the bold one, you are wrong, because there is only one reality with one correct sets of laws. So in effect you are not even thinking differently than me, because that is ontological not possible and thus you are really a concrete case of actually non-existence and that is true for reality, right?!!!

 

[viole]

Yeah, but it is false for all of reality, that there is more than one game and more that more one set of rules for reality. In fact for the bold one, you are wrong, because there is only one reality with one correct sets of laws. So in effect you are not even thinking differently than me, because that is ontological not possible and thus you are really a concrete case of actually non-existence and that is true for reality, right?!!!

Who cares? As I said from the beginning, I am not claiming ontology, semantics, or anything of the sort. I am claiming, as premise, to operate uniquely within the borders of classical logic. In the same way, set theorists do, when they deduce that things like the empty set is a subset of every set.

So, I don't have to think about semantics and such, in the same way that I do not have to think about the rules of chess when I play, since they are well defined and very precise. What I need to think about is how to go to a certain proposition, or chess position, by strictly following the rules, and starting from a certain given position. And if I did not apply any violation of the rules, then my conclusion is valid according to classical logic. And there is nothing anybody can say.

So, according to classical logic things like:

if 2+2= 5 then Denmark is on the moon.

are true. Whether that causes you cognitive dissonances, it is repulsive to your intuition, or whatever problem you might have with it, is totally irrelevant. For the simple reason that in classical logic, from a falsehood, anything follows. If the antecedent is false, then any proposition on the right, will make the entire statement true.

Nothing more than simple, and straightforward application of the rules.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Who cares? As I said from the beginning, I am not claiming ontology, semantics, or anything of the sort. I am claiming, as premise, to operate uniquely within the borders of classical logic. In the same way, set theorists do, when they deduce that things like the empty set is a subset of every set.

So, I don't have to think about semantics and such, in the same way that I do not have to think about the rules of chess when I play, since they are well defined and very precise. What I need to think about is how to go to a certain proposition, or chess position, by strictly following the rules, and starting from a certain given position. And if I did not apply any violation of the rules, then my conclusion is valid according to classical logic. And there is nothing anybody can say.

So, according to classical logic things like:

if 2+2= 5 then Denmark is on the moon.

are true. Whether that causes you cognitive dissonances, it is repulsive to your intuition, or whatever problem you might have with it, is totally irrelevant. For the simple reason that in classical logic, from a falsehood, anything follows. If the antecedent is false, then any proposition on the right, is true.

Nothing more than simple, and straightforward application of the rules.

Ciao

- viole

I reject your thinking as relevant just as you reject my thinking as relevant for the subjective framing of what is relevant. That is the game.

 

[viole]

I reject your thinking as relevant just as you reject my thinking as relevant for the subjective framing of what is relevant. That is the game.

I am not rejecting your thinking as irrelevant.

But you must agree with me that it does not make any sense to, say, thinking differently about the rules of chess, while still calling it chess. If I assume the rules of standard chess in order to go from a position to another, then nobody sane could say that my final position could be invalid because there are different ways to apply the rules of standard chess.

You seem to claim exactly that. And in that case, your thinking is just absurd. And you really need to completely overhaul your philosophical position.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not rejecting your thinking as irrelevant.

But you must agree with me that it does not make any sense to, say, thinking differently about the rules of chess, while still calling it chess. If I assume the rules of standard chess in order to go from a position to another, then nobody sane could say that my final position could be invalid because there are different ways to apply the rules of chess.

You seem to claim exactly that. And in that case, your thinking is just absurd. And you really need to completely overhaul your philosophical position.

Ciao

- viole

Do you understand the concept of framing a debate and the answer of: I don't accept your framing for the world as such.

The problem is that you in effect frame the word know in a certain way but that is not logic, that is epistemology and I just use another framing of know.
So to win for the everyday world you have to show that your framing of know is the objective, universal and absolute correct way of doing it for knowing only one kind of truth.
Where as I just explain that depending on the framing, what you do is true or not true. And the same is the case for me.
I just do limited cognitive relativism and that applies here in the following framing for what truth is. You and I think differently.

I do understand what you are doing. I also understand the other point of view as per the correspondence version of truth. And I personally have a 3rd version of truth.

 

[viole]

Do you understand the concept of framing a debate and the answer of: I don't accept your framing for the world as such.

The problem is that you in effect frame the word know in a certain way but that is not logic, that is epistemology and I just use another framing of know.
So to win for the everyday world you have to show that your framing of know is the objective, universal and absolute correct way of doing it for knowing only one kind of truth.
Where as I just explain that depending on the framing, what you do is true or not true. And the same is the case for me.
I just do limited cognitive relativism and that applies here in the following framing for what truth is. You and I think differently.

I do understand what you are doing. I also understand the other point of view as per the correspondence version of truth. And I personally have a 3rd version of truth.

What is there to understand? I set the laws of classical logic as premise, and deduced A from B, by systematically applying them. And then I claimed that "according to those rules, B follows from A". Nothing more, nothing less. If you do not like the conclusion, again within the borders of classical logic, then you have to show me where I broke them. Failing to do that, will lead you nowhere.

What is so dishonest about that? In fact, it is you guys who desperately try to exit from the set boundaries, and start confusing things with useless philosophy and stuff like that. Which would be OK, if we had a philoopsphically discussion about what truth is. But we don't, because I, from the beginning, assumed the laws of classical logic for the deduction. so, again, this is as philosophically significant as playing chess. Or any other game with clear-cut rules. If you do not accept the rules as representative of whatever philosophical position you have, fine. But irrelevant.

It should not be so difficult to see, actually.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is there to understand? I set the laws of classical logic as premise, and deduced A from B, by systematically applying them. And then I claimed that "according to those rules, B follows from A". Nothing more, nothing less. If you do not like the conclusion, again within the borders of classical logic, then you have to show me where I broke them. Failing to do that, will lead you nowhere.

What is so dishonest about that? In fact, it is you guys who desperately try to exit from the set boundaries, and start confusing things with philosophy and stuff like that. Which would be OK, if we had a philoopsphically discussion about what truth is. But we don't, because I, from the beginning, assumed the laws of classical logic for the deduction. If you do not accept the rules as representative of whatever philosophical position you have, fine. But irrelevant.

It should not be so difficult to see, actually.

Ciao

- viole

You in effect cheat for the word know. in that you haven't with logic alone established what know is.

 

[viole]

You in effect cheat for the word know. in that you haven't with logic alone established what know is.

I didn't. For the simple reason, again, that I claimed from the beginning that I am operating within the fixed, clear-cut. well defined laws and rules of classical logic. I did not claim any philosophical, ontological, epistemological, nor semantic significance for my claim.

So, it is you guys trying to score a point by changing the rules that I assumed for my claim. By introducing useless and irrelevant semantics, and philosophy in the discussion. ,

And calling that dishonest would be a compliment, since it is clearly irrational.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All the Jews I know are atheists.

Ciao

- viole

I didn't. For the simple reason, again, that I claimed from the beginning that I am operating within the fixed, clear-cut. well defined laws and rules of classical logic. I did not claim any philosophical, ontological, epistemological, nor semantic significance to my claim.

So, it is you guys trying to score a point by changing the rules that I assumed for my claim. By introducing useless and irrelevant semantics, and philosophy in the discussion. ,

And calling that dishonest would be a compliment, since it is clearly irrational.

Ciao

- viole

That is your first post. For a general reading of know, that is epistemology and not logic.

So how do you know, if you know something? That is not logic, that is epistemology for the word know.

 

[viole]

That is your first post. For a general reading of know, that is epistemology and not logic.

So how do you know, if you know something? That is not logic, that is epistemology for the word know.

I don't claim knowledge. Apart from the fact that I do not know any Jew. But I doubt that knowing Jews is something that needs to be guided by epistemology. Maybe I could to a party and see if I can epistemologically be introduced to one, .

The rest is just trivial applications of the laws of logic. There is no need to use our brains to interpret, or to do any useless philosophy about that. Just simple, straightforward, and easy moves that lead us to an inescapable conclusion, under the premise of applicability of those rules.

Your knowledge, and how we know things, and the rest of your philosophy, is totally irrelevant, since we are operating within the framework of classical logic and its very well defined rules, which completely abstract from the semantics of things.

Your problem is that your skepticism cannot be applied universally, without being absurd, self defeating, or both. And if general skepticism cannot be used everywhere, then it is useless. And that is why you should really rethink your entire philosophical position.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't claim knowledge. Apart from the fact that I do not know any Jew. But I doubt that knowing Jews is something that needs to be guided by epistemology. Maybe I could to a party and see if I can epistemologically be introduced to one, .

The rest is just trivial applications of the laws of logic. There is no need to use our brains to interpret, or to do any useless philosophy about that. Just simple, straightforward, and easy moves that lead us to an inescapable conclusion, under the premise of applicability of those rules.

Your knowledge, and how we know things, and the rest of your philosophy, is totally irrelevant, since we are operating within the framework and rules of very well defined rules.

Your problem is that your skepticism cannot be applied universally, without being absurd, self defeating, or both.

Ciao

- viole

And you could live your whole life in your mind, because you don't need to know anything about anything else than your mind and your rules in your mind. You don't even have to know a we according to your rules as long as the we is logical in your mind.

 

[viole]

And you could live your whole life in your mind, because you don't need to know anything about anything else than your mind and your rules in your mind. You don't even have to know a we according to your rules as long as the we is logical in your mind.

Maybe so. But that is totally irrelevant to address the point here. Because the point here is, basically, mindless. And you do not need to think to see it is true.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe so. But that is totally irrelevant to address the point here. Because the point here is, basically, mindless. And you do not need to think to see it is true.

Ciao

- viole

How do you know that there is a world outside your mind and thus a we or even a them as I am a part of those would don't understand logic like you? Could you try some epistemology for once?

 

[viole]

How do you know that there is a world outside your mind and thus a we or even a them as I am a part of those would don't understand logic like you? Could you try some epistemology for once?

As I said, irrelevant for the subject at hand. Open a separate thread for it, if you want. And be sure to put it on a forum that is not uniquely in your mind, lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I said, irrelevant for the subject at hand. Open a separate thread for it, if you want. And be sure to put it on a forum that is not uniquely in your mind, lol.

Ciao

- viole

For all the other humans I know, I know them and none of them are real.
Can that be true for all of the claims?