Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I still disagree. Whether the statement is true or false is dependent upon whether A or B is true or false.

Actually, it is completely dependent only on whether or not A is false, when A is false.

If A is false, the conditional statement is always true, no matter the truth value of B.

 

[ding]

If dolphins build skyscrapers then 12 inches is not an equivalent length of 1 foot...

... is a false statement because even if dolphins did build a skyscraper, 12 inches is still an equivalent length of 1 foot.

 

[ding]

Which is exactly the kind of logic fortfun uses and believes is true just because he used a conditional statement.

 

[diver52]

I still disagree. Whether the statement is true or false is dependent upon whether A or B is true or false.

Actually, it is completely dependent only on whether or not A is false, when A is false.

If A is false, the conditional statement is always true, no matter the truth value of B.

Actually, it is dependent upon A and B but I am willing to accept your B statement as false. Your A statement, however, could be true or false. I could think of several ways to make it true because you have not defined your terms or made your case for it.

Stephon Ross is a developer of large commercial projects. Among other things, he builds skyscrapers. He also happens to be the owner, and therefore a member, of the Miami Dolphins. He is a dolphin who builds skyscrapers.

The statement "If 1+2=C, then 2+C=5" is true. This is because if C = 3 then A and B are true and if C = Not 3, then A and B are false. So the statement is true regardless of what the value of C might be. However, the statement "If 1+2=C, then 2+3=5" is neither true nor false because it is entirely dependent upon the value of C and we don't know what that value is. That is the situation of your logical statement. We cannot determine the true/false status of A because the terms "dolphins", "build" and "skyscraper" are ambiguous and open to interpretation. I suppose you could go with Schrodinger and say it is true and false at the same time, but I'm not much of a cat person.

Admittedly, this problem is easily fixable. You just haven't done it.

 

[G.T.]

In case anyone cares:

"If dolphins build skyscrapers, then a milliliter is equal to a cubic kilometer."


.... Is a TRUE statement.

It's a material conditional...Im not sure that "true and false" even apply....>?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

"If dolphins build skyscrapers, then a milliliter is equal to a cubic kilometer."

both are false ... put together - is a positive.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your A statement, however, could be true or false.

But, when A is false, the conditional statement is always true, regardless of the truth value of expression B. In these cases, the truth value of the conditiinal statement is dependent only the truth value of expression A.

This isn't my opinion, or a problem to be solved. This a definition that is one of the rules of logic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

both are false ... put together - is a positive.

Not necessarily, as B could be true or false, when A is false, and the statement will be true.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's a material conditional...Im not sure that "true and false" even apply....>?

They do. A conditional statement is still a statement. And it has a truth value of either true or false.

 

[G.T.]

It's a material conditional...Im not sure that "true and false" even apply....>?

They do. A conditional statement is still a statement. And it has a truth value of eother true or false.

Its formal logic I get that...but something about it strikes me as an odd way to frame things. Almost like logicians using math ambiguously.

Maybe the best objection I would posit is that putting two truth or false bearing statements together doesn't infer that one of their truth values is conditional to the others,' its merely being asserted and so assigning truth value to a proposition based on assertion seems.....lacking.

The false + false = true thing in particular...it might be a semantical objection and in Mathematics two negatives do make a positive...but when the material conditional is mere assertion in the 1st place...nothing of value can be extrapolated from the proposition.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

nothing of value can be extrapolated from the proposition.

Nothing is being "extracted", save for the truth value of the conditional statement. So yes, youvare right that it may give no real insight. And it has nothing to do with two negatives making a positive, as the following conditional statement is also true:

"If dolphins build skyscrapers, then 2+2=4.

 

[G.T.]

nothing of value can be extrapolated from the proposition.

Nothing is being "extracted", save for the truh value of the conditional statement. And it has nothing to do with two negatives making a positive, as the following conditional statement is also true:

"If dolphins build skyscrapers, then 2+2=4.

I think you may have missed what Im saying.

Its a semantic objection.

When I say "If dolphins build skyscrapers, then 2+2=4,"..is FALSE

Im referring to the conditional, and only the conditional...when assigning T or F value to the statement.

So when you post a chart showing the statement'sT or F value as determined by the T or F value of the 2 propositions...I find that objectionable in the sense that the "if/then" component of the overall statement is also something that we can evaluate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Its a semantic objection.

Which is irrelevant. You can object to this definition all you like, but you will end up accepting it, if you want your mathematics (and logic) to be consistent.

For instance, consider another rule of logic: the contrapositive of a true conditional statement is always true.

The definiton we are discussing must be so, else the above rule does not hold.

You can also object, semantically or otherwise, to the definition that "i = the square root of negative one". But you will accept this definition, or you will fail all your math tests!

 

[G.T.]

Its a semantic objection.

Which is irrelvant. You can object to this definition all you like, but you will end up accepting it, if you want your mathematics to be consistent.

For instance, consider another rule of logic: the contrapositive of a true conditional statement is always true.

The definiton we are discussing must be so, else the above rule does not hold.

You can also object, semantically or otherwise, to the definition that "i = the square root of negative one". But you will accept this definition, or you will fail all your math tests!

You're speaking to form and I'm speaking to translation.

Formal logic is going to break down when you merely assert conditionals to invent a conclusion. It loses functionality at that point...and therefore has no utility.

If the sky is made of poop then my teeth are 5 feet long..

is a "true" statement according to the chart...but in translation it indeed shows why the chart itself is futile.

The conditional isnt true, either...

The if/then was a mere assertion, so the conditional would always be false in spite of the truth or false value of what it connected.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

but in translation it indeed shows why the chart itself is futile.

The chart is a rule of logic.

The conditinal statement is always true, when the hypothesis is false. That is a rule, and you have to accept it. Else, you will make errors.

 

[G.T.]

but in translation it indeed shows why the chart itself is futile.

The chart is a rule of logic.

The conditinal statement is always true, when the hypothesis is false. That is a rule, and you have to accept it. Else, you will make errors.

The conditional statement is always true when scripting a hypothetical to articulate the way the language of logic works.

But merely inventing a conditional...doesn't make it magically "true," ontologically.

That would be a really weird way to think...pretty much every and anything could be phrased in such a way as to make it "true," but then we'd learn quickly we need a new definition of true.

"If Im typing then Im high" is a conditonal that I invented, not one that has any semblance of truth whatsoever. The two dispositions are not related, so the 3rd factor of the proposition...the conditional itself that connects the two dispositions...is itself false.

True in the linguistic youre using.
False in the actualized world.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You may want to promote your theory that science is one grand conspiracy, but you appear rather foolish doing so.

Not as foolish as you claiming I promote such a thing.
But I admit it's easier to argue against someone if you are able to provide fake positions for your opposite to hold, if you don't care about the dishonesty of it all.

Great move.

If you’re comfortable with “the gods did it” as the answer to every question, that’s your issue to deal with.

I am only comfortable stating "God did it" when that is the case.

Just don’t make the mistake assuming that others accept fear and superstition as humanity’s existence.

I don't fear God though it seems you do. That explains a lot. And when you claim superstition on behalf of others I have to admit I have none so you don't speak for me, at all.

 

[Hollie]

You may want to promote your theory that science is one grand conspiracy, but you appear rather foolish doing so.

Not as foolish as you claiming I promote such a thing.
But I admit it's easier to argue against someone if you are able to provide fake positions for your opposite to hold, if you don't care about the dishonesty of it all.

Great move.

If you’re comfortable with “the gods did it” as the answer to every question, that’s your issue to deal with.

I am only comfortable stating "God did it" when that is the case.

Just don’t make the mistake assuming that others accept fear and superstition as humanity’s existence.

I don't fear God though it seems you do. That explains a lot. And when you claim superstition on behalf of others I have to admit I have none so you don't speak for me, at all.

You may have forgotten what you wrote earlier. That was; "The Big Bang singularity is a great magic trick, ...".

I can understand that you want to dismiss the science perspective in favor of "the gods did it", but we still have no data to support your contention of your versions of gods. Therefore, we have no reason to accept claims to "the gods did it".

If you are comfortable saying "the gods did it", it would be helpful if you first provided some support for your gods. How do we know "your gods did it" when we have no evidence of your gods?

Why would I fear your gods? I don't spend my life in trembling fear of characters appearing in a book of tales and fables.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You may have forgotten what you wrote earlier. That was; "The Big Bang singularity is a great magic trick, ...".

No. Actually I haven't forgotten what I posted.
If you believe that God is all about superstition and magic then you must consider the instantaneous creation of our universe a wonderful trick. You certainly couldn't do it.
God does the work. Scientists reveal to us what he has done and how he manages the cosmos.

With your head firmly planted between your butt cheeks you have everything in your perspective all backwards.
The boys and girls with the lab coats and chalk boards certainly help us find out what's going on but have you tried asking one of them to produce the universe and time and space and everything else that goes along with it?
Good luck with that.

I can understand that you want to dismiss the science perspective in favor of "the gods did it", but we still have no data to support your contention of your versions of gods. Therefore, we have no reason to accept claims to "the gods did it".

This illustrates my point perfectly. Plenty of brilliant minds have concluded that indeed, God did do it.
If not God then who? If not Got then how? If not God then what?

If you are comfortable saying "the gods did it", it would be helpful if you first provided some support for your gods. How do we "your gods did it" when we have no evidence of your gods?

Just like the watch is proof of the watchmaker so the universe is proof of God. Nothing else can account for it.

Why would I fear your gods? I don't spend my life in trembling fear of characters appearing in a book of tales and fables.

You fear the concept and that's why you have to appear the fool in order to deny it.
You will say any ridiculous thing to account for the universe's existence when you have no way to account for it. You don't even have the humility to admit you don't know there is no God.

 

[Hollie]

You may have forgotten what you wrote earlier. That was; "The Big Bang singularity is a great magic trick, ...".

No. Actually I haven't forgotten what I posted.
If you believe that God is all about superstition and magic then you must consider the instantaneous creation of our universe a wonderful trick. You certainly couldn't do it.
God does the work. Scientists reveal to us what he has done and how he manages the cosmos.

With your head firmly planted between your butt cheeks you have everything in your perspective all backwards.
The boys and girls with the lab coats and chalk boards certainly help us find out what's going on but have you tried asking one of them to produce the universe and time and space and everything else that goes along with it?
Good luck with that.

I can understand that you want to dismiss the science perspective in favor of "the gods did it", but we still have no data to support your contention of your versions of gods. Therefore, we have no reason to accept claims to "the gods did it".

This illustrates my point perfectly. Plenty of brilliant minds have concluded that indeed, God did do it.
If not God then who? If not Got then how? If not God then what?

If you are comfortable saying "the gods did it", it would be helpful if you first provided some support for your gods. How do we "your gods did it" when we have no evidence of your gods?

Just like the watch is proof of the watchmaker so the universe is proof of God. Nothing else can account for it.

Why would I fear your gods? I don't spend my life in trembling fear of characters appearing in a book of tales and fables.

You fear the concept and that's why you have to appear the fool in order to deny it.

I don't find it convincing that you promote your gods with 100% certainty of their existence while supplying 0% facts.

Also, I wasn't aware your gods manage the cosmos. That sounds a lot like the Greek versions of gods where various gods managed various elements of our existence. With floods, tornadoes, fires and other acts of the gods killing humanity, I might suggest your gods are rather incompetent managers.