Value to who we are - A premise of Seeing argument.

[dybmh]

The argument in this thread for V:

Not V -> Not A
A
Therefore V (Modus tollens)

If I understand and recall correctly, and I'd need to double check.

If (Not V --> Not A) then ( A --> V ).

Or.

(Not V --> Not A) --> ( A --> V ).

If so, then (Not V --> Not A) is irrelevant to the truth value of the propostion. It is only false if ( A --> V ) is false. In all other cases it is assumed to be true per "implication".

Considering ( A --> V ), the same rules apply. If A is true or false is irrelevant. ( A --> V ) is only false if V is false, "A" doesn't matter.

So, it's not so much circular, but nothing is proven about V from the proposition Not V -> Not A. And this makes sense. A negative implication doesn't produce a positive assertion. All you've done is Not V --> V. This says nothing about V.

 

[Link]

If I understand and recall correctly, and I'd need to double check.

If (Not V --> Not A) then ( A --> V ).

Or.

(Not V --> Not A) --> ( A --> V ).

If so, then (Not V --> Not A) is irrelevant to the truth value of the propostion. It is only false if ( A --> V ) is false. In all other cases it is assumed to be true per "implication".

Considering ( A --> V ), the same rules apply. If A is true or false is irrelevant. ( A --> V ) is only false if V is false, "A" doesn't matter.

So, it's not so much circular, but nothing is proven about V from the proposition Not V -> Not A. And this makes sense. A negative implication doesn't produce a positive assertion. All you've done is Not V --> V. This says nothing about V.

A-> V says if A is true, then V is true.

 

[dybmh]

A-> V says if A is true, then V is true.

A -> V, also means: "If A is false, then V could be true or false."

So, IF "Not-V" is true and "Not A" is true THEN A is false because Not-A is true. Therefore V could be true or false. Nothing is being said ABOUT V.

 

[Link]

A -> V, also means: "If A is false, then V could be true or false."

So, IF "Not-V" is true and "Not A" is true THEN A is false because Not-A is true. Therefore V could be true or false. Nothing is being said ABOUT V.

Yes, it's not a double implication by the form I argued. However, A is definitely true. But on a second thought, it happens to be also true that V -> A but that's a different argument. It would mean if we have value, we have assessment to it which is a trivial fact.

So V <-> A is an actuality if you think about it.

A -> V would not mean V is false, if A is false. But if A is true, it would mean that V is true.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, it's not a double implication by the form I argued. However, A is definitely true.

Therefore the first line is false. If A is defintely true, then "Not-A" is false.

Not V -> Not A ​

A​

Therefore V (Modus tollens)​

But on a second thought, it happens to be also true that V -> A but that's a different argument. It would mean if we have value, we have assessment to it which is a trivial fact.

So V <-> A is an actuality if you think about it.

I don't think it's trivial at all. I think that's the strongest argument. But still, a person can attack V.

 

[Link]

Therefore the first line is false. If A is defintely true, then "Not-A" is false.

Not V -> Not A ​

A​

Therefore V (Modus tollens)​

I don't think it's trivial at all. I think that's the strongest argument. But still, a person can attack V.

Sorry, on clarification.

Not V ->Not A
A = Not (Not A)

A -> B
Not B
would mean Not A.

Not V -> Not A doesn't state if Not A is true or false. It's states if Not V, then Not A would true. But then I say A, which means Not (Not V) which means V.

 

[dybmh]

wait, I think I just got it...

if someone claims there is NO value, then they have just admitted there MUST be an objective judge. That objective judge is REQUIRED to assert Not-V.

If "Not-V -> Not-A" IS false then A -> V.

That's what I got wrong in my previous post.

Not-V -> Not A DOES NOT IMPLY A -> V. I was wrong.

Not ( Not-V -> Not-A ) -> ( A -> V ).

I think... now I don't trust myself.

 

[Link]

wait, I think I just got it...

if someone claims there is NO value, then they have just admitted there MUST be an objective judge. That objective judge is REQUIRED to assert Not-V.

Ah, that's a different argument.

I'm arguing that we make an assessment only because we know it's not made up. For example, if I was lucid dreaming, I would not program on a computer seriously expecting results (since I would know it was made up imagination).

We assess people because we know we have value is what I'm arguing. I'm saying if it was doubtful, we would not take it seriously as we do either. If we have no value, I'm saying we would make no assessment just like lucid dreaming and programming.

 

[dybmh]

Ah, that's a different argument.

I'm arguing that we make an assessment only because we know it's not made up. For example, if I was lucid dreaming, I would not program on a computer seriously expecting results (since I would know it was made up imagination).

Then to me, the argument begins: "If A..."

We assess people because we know we have value is what I'm arguing. I'm saying if it was doubtful, we would not take it seriously as we do either. If we have no value, I'm saying we would make no assessment just like lucid dreaming and programming.

Then the next step is: defining V.

 

[Link]

Then to me, the argument begins: "If A..."



Then the next step is: defining V.

A -> V = Not V -> Not A (they are equivalent statements)

 

[Link]

Then the next step is: defining V.

Fully it can't be since it's unseen in God's knowledge and he alone knows the details of it fully. But we can know it's real without knowing it's exact details. Just as we know lifeforms are real before we had any knowledge of DNA.

 

[dybmh]

A -> V = Not V -> Not A (they are equivalent statements)

I'm not sure.... Are you sure?

Fully it can't be since it's unseen in God's knowledge and he alone knows the details of it fully. But we can know it's real without knowing it's exact details. Just as we know lifeforms are real before we had any knowledge of DNA.

V = value, something can be said about it. Some sort of defintion is needed, or else it's just Aardvarks and Vixens.

 

[Link]

I'm not sure.... Are you sure?

Yes I am.

V = value, something can be said about it. Some sort of defintion is needed, or else it's just Aardvarks and Vixens.

I suppose that's true. You making me do work.

 

[bobhikes]

Same with the self and value. You make some sort of assessment on belief that hidden behind your vision, is a reality that there is true value. A true assessment of you is contained. The only way you should believe there is no true value, if you cease all assessment entirely related to personhood and value to people. You can't, because it's that ingrained in you to know you have value.

I would disagree, I do not believe in value of myself or others. We are just the next living things until our extinction. I cannot define myself or define others, I cannot define what it is to be human, I cannot define life. As such I cannot determine value of anything, or if anything has value. Take gold for example or bit coin, many people give it a false value and even that value fluctuates hourly. I believe humans use their beliefs to project value but even then, it fluctuates rapidly. Human beliefs create value; thereby, value can only be transitory.

 

[Aupmanyav]

...which makes unbroken dharma transmission essential. what is one to do if/when it is broken?

Peace and progress of family and society. One should follow 'dharma' him/herself and then do whatever is possible to re-establish 'dharma'.
Is not that obvious? -: )

 

[Link]

I would disagree, I do not believe in value of myself or others. We are just the next living things until our extinction. I cannot define myself or define others, I cannot define what it is to be human, I cannot define life. As such I cannot determine value of anything, or if anything has value. Take gold for example or bit coin, many people give it a false value and even that value fluctuates hourly. I believe humans use their beliefs to project value but even then, it fluctuates rapidly. Human beliefs create value; thereby, value can only be transitory.

In your case, I don't think I can prove to you God except through other than this argument. I would have to do more of non-metaphysical approach, such as cause and effect, and show there is a first cause and work from there.

 

[bobhikes]

In your case, I don't think I can prove to you God except through other than this argument. I would have to do more of non-metaphysical approach, such as cause and effect, and show there is a first cause and work from there.

I don't believe you can prove or disprove the existence of God. I also don't believe in First cause but that everything has always existed with change the constant. From nothing you get nothing.

 

[Link]

I don't believe you can prove or disprove the existence of God. I also don't believe in First cause but that everything has always existed with change the constant. From nothing you get nothing.

I can link you to threads that I've made about this.

Here is a thread about if infinite chains of cause and effects are possible:

Is infinite chain of effects in the universe possible?

This is just one of the components usually debated with the cosmological argument hence I have it in the religious debate section. Although it's part of cosmological argument, the topic is just this component of it. I put this analogy before: Infinite commanders all different rank to one...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Dimi95]

p1 If God does not exist, there doesn't exist a perception to who we exactly are (since he alone can judge perfectly to value).
p2 If there doesn't exist a perception to exactly who we are, there doesn't exist exact value to who we are.
p3 There exists exact value to who we are (assertion)
Therefore God exists. (modus tollens with transitional rule to p2 and p1)

p1: Not G -> Not S
p2: Not S -> Not V
p3: V
c: G (modus tollens with transitional rule to p2 and p1)

Perfect , counting order in 3 positions so it's a pattern.

So , as i was explaining to another member in another topic , when you are presenting an argument in math , the least you should consider as answer is also by MATH.

In every example like this the answer is:
You don't need the third position , because to solve a pattern - you need only two.

Value that you bolded is irrelevant in math.

3>2 and 2<3 that's correct to say , but you know that by 2>1 and 1<2.
So what you claimed is dependable in math on the first and the second position by counting order.

To solve it , you don't need assumption , you need to follow position one and two.

I don't have to go to the meaning of your idea , as long as i can answer correct with math.

 

[ChristineM]

p1 If God does not exist, there doesn't exist a perception to who we exactly are (since he alone can judge perfectly to value).

Plenty of assumption, no hard evidence