An introduction to formal logic

[whitefork]

Sounds like Pospesel's "Arguments", a fine book.

A favorite, from the comic Freddy (two brothers talking, about ages 4 and 5):

"If I had a nickel I'd be rich".
"No, if you had a nickel, you'd be poor".
"Yay! I AM rich."

 

[Attrayant]

Here's my favorite. Not too dry, with some good examples.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

 

[Franko]

Huntsman,

Sorry I must have missed this …

From your own statements, Franko:

1. Atoms obey TLOP (or, A is less than T)

Agreed, no one argues this.

Good up to here … check!

2. You are made of atoms (or, Y=A)

Here, we have a problem. While the statement is correct, the mathematical representation does not reflect the statement, and this is why it becomes a fallacy of composition.

Wait a minute there … BUT THIS IS WERE THE ATHEISTS ARE WRONG. Because the Atheists are mixing up Atoms with TLOP. This Syllogism is ultimately about YOU, TLOP, and CONTROL, not about atoms. While it is TRUE that you are made up of more than ONE atom (and the syllogism is worded “Atoms” – plural) that fact does not alter the conclusion that one atom, or a group of atoms obeys the laws of physics. The syllogism is not saying YOU = 1 ATOM. It is saying that YOU = THINGS CONTROLLED BY TLOP.

If you have evidence that multiple atoms can disobey the laws of physics, then this premise in the syllogism would be invalid (and you Atheists would have a point), but as it stands there is NO EVIDENCE that more than one atom can disobey the laws of Physics. In fact, the exact opposite is TRUE, and it seems that individual atoms are if anything less predictable then groups of atoms.

Y=A would mean you ARE an atom, not you are made of atoms. The correct mathematical representation, then, is Y>A.

Only if you are going out of your way to NOT understand the terms involved. And ONLY if you have already decided that the syllogism is FALSE in advance.

3. You obey TLOP (or, Y is less than T)

Now, this conclusion is true, but not for the reasons your syllogism states.

No it is for exactly those reasons. BOTH premises are correct; and the conclusion is ALSO correct. Ergo, a valid (TRUE) syllogism. The only reason the A-theists are putting up a fight, is because this directly refutes there “NO Evidence For GOD” nonsense.

Yeah … No evidence for God – If you are deliberately not looking or blind!

No one is claiming we do not obey the laws of physics (or, more correctly, that we are not constrained by the laws of physics). What people are trying to tell you is that your logic does not support this:

1. A is less than T
2. Y>A
3. Y is less than T

Statements 1 and 2 do not lead to 3.

If you say so. Defy the Laws of Physics and prove it.

A more correct syllogy would be:

1. You obey the laws of physics
2. The laws of physics are determinisitic.
3. You are deterministic.

Other than your is more confusing, and less people will understand it less clearly then mine. How does this prove the existence of “free will”, or support the assertion that your Car is more conscious then you are?

Now, that would correct the logical fallacy; however, now you have the burden of proving that the laws of physics are indeed determinisitic, a matter that has not been settled in a long time, and which centers on certain debates about the various uncertainty principles.

Really? Perhaps you can start by explaining where and how B.F. Skinner and 50+ years of empirical Behavioral research are all wrong???

Franko, your logic was flawed, even if the conclusion was valid. One should be willing to examine one's own arguments for logical error and fallacy.

Take your own advice A-Theist. Either that, or imagine in your head that you have actually refuted me on this point, or better still just imagine that you actually HAVE disobeyed the Laws of Physics!!!

Now, it's a rather simple and straightforward matter to prove that free will doesn't exist (if this is really what you want to do).

Sure … how about you demonstrate how easy it is to prove “God” doesn’t exist first … A-Theist?

You must first disprove dualism (because a spiritual or mental existence seperate or undetectable from the world we experience allows for the concept of a soul that allows free will) and to prove that TLOP is purely deterministic.

… Then you can disprove the existence of the “afterlife” for us …

Several pages of several threads threads have been wasted arguing over that flawed syllogism, when it could have simply been corrected. Instead, several weeks or more have been wasted in a non-argument, and neither side has shared any views or provided any worthwhile information.

Like I said … just keep telling yourself that A-Theism can’t be wrong! … it just CAN’T!!! Maybe if you keep wishing it will come TRUE, and you really will get to cease to exist just like you have always dreamed!

Hopefully you will take my corrections in the spirit in which they were posted (to move the argument along and, perhaps, make it productive).

Yes, I noticed your condescending “I’m a Superior A-Theists – we are never wrong” attitude a mile away.

Another tactic might be to ask everyone to simply accept, for the sake of your argument, that free will is an illusion and does not exist, then work from there to present your case. If you are interested in sharing your knowledge, this would be a far more productive path.

Why is it that A-Theists Illusions such as “free will” are acceptable, but Theist “illusions” such as “God” and “afterlife” are unacceptable? Why don’t you just say it – Your Religion is the One True Faith; Ergo it is BETTER than all of the Other Religions.

Don’t all religions claim that?

If you believe in “free will” then you define it – NOT ME! IF you are asserting the existence of “free will”, then you PROVE IT – NOT ME! The Burden of Proof falls on the claimant. You are claiming “free will” NOT ME! I don't even know what you mean when you use that term? To me it sounds like you are claiming you can make a 4-sided triangle, and none of you A-Theists can or will explain yourself. You always say "You (Franko) define "free will" for us!"

Absurd!

But If you really understood the first thing about Logic you would already KNOW this. Instead you make yourself look like an insolent little Nitwit, trying to lecture Me, on something you obviously don’t comprehend.

Taking an immediate adversarial attitude to anyone who points out percieved errors or asks for clarification will not lead to any sharing of knowledge, and is, I suspect, the main reason for your treatment here. This last paragraph is, of course, simply my opinion, but it is offered in good faith. I do hope you consider it.

Ahhh yes … you and your fellow A-Theists have showed such a willingness and openness to sharing. Next to your “open-mindedness”, kindness and respect I’d say it is your greatest virtue …

 

[Hellbound]

Franko,

Your comments are noted.

However, if you had read my post, I was trying to give you a supportable argument. I was arguing FOR your case.

I also tried to be civil and respectful.

I asserted nothing, I simply stated a way to correct the logic of the syllogism and to present your argument.
You appear to not be interested in logic.

You are already on my ignore list, as I predicted you would respond in this manner. I thought I would give you a chance at calm, rational discourse.

Look carefully at my post. I pointed out logical errors, but where did I assert anything?

I made no assertion that God doesn't exist, or that there is no afterlife.

I also made no assertion that I could "disobey TLOP"; in fact, I specifically and repeatably agreed that I could not.

I specifically listed free will as an illusion (you know, something that is NOT real). If you want to add God and afterlife to the list of illusions, I would wholeheartedly agree. Congratulations, Franko, you are now an atheist.

Your argument about your syllogism shows a complete lack of understanding of formal logic. I will not attempt to explain it again, as all you will do is rant and rave and spout your ignorance (in the technical sense).

My superior attitude was not because of my atheism or your lack thereof, but because of my greater understanding of logic, and your predictably childish and mundane response.

Goodbye, Franko. You will not recieve another reply from me. I attempted to help you, to give you a valid argument that might actually lead to an exchange of ideas and information, and would provide some support for your point of view.

I was met with your strawman arguments (falsly claiming I made arguments which I did not, and attacking those), your unbacked assertions (that your obviously flawed logic, shown to be flawed many times over, is somehow accurate and true), and your unwillingness to engage in conversation (preferring only insults, even when someone replies to you respectfully). These have marked you as beneath my interest.

Have fun with your Goddess. I'm too busy living a life to worry about your fantasy.

 

[Franko]

I programmer's parlance, here is a clearer way to express My Syllogism:

Where fn = a function of

1) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics. (Atoms = fnTLOP)
2) You are made of atoms. (YOU = fnAtoms)
3) You OBEY the Laws of Physics. (YOU = fnTLOP[fnAtoms])

or in common English:

1) Atoms a function of TLOP.
2) YOU a function of Atoms.
3) YOU a function of Atoms [which are] a function of TLOP.

okay … so technically I could have said YOU obey the Laws of Atoms[Which obey TLOP] , but who talks like that? Besides, its just splitting hairs?

 

[Franko]

Huntsman,

Have fun with your Goddess. I'm too busy living a life to worry about your fantasy.

Thanks! … and You have fun with that whole “free willy”, meaningless, ultimately consequence free, existence until it ceases – okay?

I attempted to help you, to give you a valid argument that might actually lead to an exchange of ideas and information, and would provide some support for your point of view.

You have tried to help me? How, by convincing me, that myself, and everyone I care about will cease to exist?

… Thanks?

Goodbye, Franko. You will not recieve another reply from me.

Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Don’t let me “receive” one either … Please Great Goddess …

 

[evildave]

Oh, I see!

A clock has to be built of tiny CLOCK-shaped atoms that tick, and a computer has to be built of tiny COMPUTER-shaped atoms that compute.

That's why you think people are less than the sum of their parts; it's because they're made of PEOPLE atoms!

Perfectly sensible. Now it all 'makes sense'.

How could we have missed it?

 

[a_unique_person]

Franko,


I also tried to be civil and respectful.

Your first mistake.

 

[Franko]

So evildave ... are you claiming you can violate the Laws of Physics or what?

You are almost completely incoherent now ...

 

[Franko]

C_u_p

Your first mistake.

I notice you’re not rushing up to the front of the line to explain it.

I wonder why? Fate got your tongue?

Hehehehe …

 

[evildave]

So evildave ... are you claiming you can violate the Laws of Physics or what?

You are almost completely incoherent now ...

Well, if I'm made of "people" atoms, why I'm behaving like "people" atoms do. Isn't that what your silly-gism says?

 

[Hellbound]

Your first mistake.

I prefer not to think of it as a mistake. I will attempt a civil and respectuful discord, almost always, as my first attempt.

When that fails, there's no real reason to continue with that person, is there?

I have yet to find a situation where insults and arguments around a point, rather than discussions of a point, have been fruitful.

Don't take that the wrong way, mind you, I know some find it fun, and I'm not trying to take a superior attitude or anything. It's like poking the big mangy dog next door through the fence Just not my thing.

It's sad, when you try to strengthen one's argument and the one you're trying to assist attempts to shoot you down for it.

Oh well, they say drowing people will often pull their would-be rescuers under with them. I have not the "swimming" skill to avoid that, so I bow out

Btw, what ya think of my new avatar? I'm proud of it. Wasted a good 30 minutes of company time for that

 

[Franko]

Where fn = a function of

1) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics. (Atoms = fnTLOP)
2) You are made of atoms. (YOU = fnAtoms)
3) You OBEY the Laws of Physics. (YOU = fnTLOP[fnAtoms])


What?!?!

... None of the bigmouths are going to show me the error?

 

[a_unique_person]

I programmer's parlance, here is a clearer way to express My Syllogism:

Where fn = a function of

1) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics. (Atoms = fnTLOP)
2) You are made of atoms. (YOU = fnAtoms)
3) You OBEY the Laws of Physics. (YOU = fnTLOP[fnAtoms])

or in common English:

1) Atoms a function of TLOP.
2) YOU a function of Atoms.
3) YOU a function of Atoms [which are] a function of TLOP.

okay … so technically I could have said YOU obey the Laws of Atoms[Which obey TLOP] , but who talks like that? Besides, its just splitting hairs?

I think that this is part of the problem.

The fallacy is based on composition, which as I understand it, says that atoms < TLOP, you = Atoms, you < TLOP. However, the problem with this is that we are not saying where in the 'less than' range we are talking about.

E.g.     U < A < P.
Also possible is A < U < P.

That is, we can manipulate atoms according to the laws of physics.

We are also not considering other laws that exist.

Me=f(atoms*g(laws of physics)) has been pointed out to be a fallacy also.

That is, we are also subject to the economic situation, which also depends on the physical world existing. However, this world of economics also has its own laws and random acts.

The laws of physics also include the laws of thermodynamics. These laws state that everything goes from order to disorder.

However, we are adept at working around these laws, by creating a lot of order, such as jets and skyscrapers. We do use up a lot of energy in the process, creating a lot more disorder than order, but the price is seen as worth it.

 

[evildave]

Where fn = a function of

1) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics. (Atoms = fnTLOP)
2) You are made of atoms. (YOU = fnAtoms)
3) You OBEY the Laws of Physics. (YOU = fnTLOP[fnAtoms])


What?!?!

... None of the bigmouths are going to show me the error?

Oh, for cryin' out loud.

It's bull-pucky because YOU said it.

Wasn't that easy?

 

[a_unique_person]

Btw, what ya think of my new avatar? I'm proud of it. Wasted a good 30 minutes of company time for that

The smiley. George Orwell would have put it in 1984 if he knew about it.

 

[Fade]

Re: Discriminate between the orders of abstractions!

TO FADE



Soderqvist1: My way of arguing is not holistic, nor reductionistic, but something between these extremes! Cat, or act, t a c , are only undefined letters in our premise number1.

You misunderstand.

C is a letter.
A is a letter
T is a letter.

Here I have defined all these things as letters. They are letters. K?

Cat is, therefore, a letter.

Cat is a word, not a letter. It is composed of letters, but is not in and of itself a letter.

If you want to argue semantic ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, please spare us all.

But, my cat example, and my SALT example are examples of illogic, mainly Fallacy of Composition.

Cats are animals.
Kittens are animals.
A litter of kittens are animals

While the conclusion is true, this syllogism is false. As I have plainly demonstrated in my CAT and SALT example, this line of thinking doesn't hold water. Sure, you can come to a conclusion that is objectively true, but to do so in this manner is NOT LOGICAL.

Cats are obviously animals by your definition inside your premise number 2.

Cats and Kittens are animals. Maybe my syllogism wasn't the best example, which is why I chose to put a better example later.

How about:

Cats are animals.
Kittens are animals.
A soup of made of cats and kittens is an animal

Better?

Premise number 1 is not premise number 2, they are therefore only consistent on their own levels, but they are illogical as you have said, if we intermix, or confuses them, so don't do that!

Mind repeating this in english?

 

[Franko]

A_U_P,

That is, we can manipulate atoms according to the laws of physics.

We are also not considering other laws that exist.

ATOMS are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of ATOMS.
YOU are a function of ATOMS [which are] a function of TLOP. (same as You are a function of TLOP)

So hows does the discovery of “new laws” of physics (???) change anything in the above syllogism?

Is this the A-Theism of the Gaps argument again? One day “Science” will prove that our religion is TRUE? In the mean time – take our word for it!!! HAVE FAITH IN THE DOGMA OF A-THEISM!

Me=f(atoms*g(laws of physics)) has been pointed out to be a fallacy also.

That is, we are also subject to the economic situation, which also depends on the physical world existing. However, this world of economics also has its own laws and random acts.

So you are claiming that economics defies the Laws of Physics?

When is your peer-reviewed paper on this being published?

The laws of physics also include the laws of thermodynamics. These laws state that everything goes from order to disorder.

However, we are adept at working around these laws, by creating a lot of order, such as jets and skyscrapers. We do use up a lot of energy in the process, creating a lot more disorder than order, but the price is seen as worth it.

You A-Theists don’t understand the first thing about the Laws of Thermodynamics. But that point aside … what is your evidence for “free will”? What makes you believe that you have more “free will” then the Moon does?

 

[evildave]

ATOMS are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of ATOMS.
YOU are a function of ATOMS [which are] a function of TLOP. (same as You are a function of TLOP)

The 'The Laws Of Physics' only describes atoms and their interactions with each other. It does not CAUSE it. I am not a part of 'The Laws Of Physics', because I do not exist in a pile of paper and theories.

Why don't you just 'fix' your silly-jism to say what you mean:

YOU ARE A FUNCTION OF ATOMS!
YOU ARE A FUNCTION OF ATOMS!
YOU ARE A FUNCTION OF ATOMS!

or perhaps

YOU OBEY TLOP!
YOU OBEY TLOP!
YOU OBEY TLOP!

You're already halfway there, anyway.

 

[Martin]

BOTH premises are correct; and the conclusion is ALSO correct. Ergo, a valid (TRUE) syllogism

All men are mortal
Socrates was a man
Therefore Franko's syllogism is invalid