Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 24, 2019.
sure they do when a proposition regards color
Well, you can make propositional statements about colors, like @Swensson and I have done. That would make them topical. That is, of course, what Koko refuses to do, instead pretending that "red is true" makes any kind of logical sense.
youve done no such thing, hell you didnt even attempt it! LMAO
Yardmeat answered the proposition "God Exists" with yardmeat logic:
"I dont know"
And a proposition about color has nothing to do with theism or atheism.
God exists would be a conclusion. It is not an axiom that you can assign a truth value to without other information.
Yeh I know that was yardmeats strawman, then swensson decided to hop on that bandwagon, but its ok because it proves another important point I was making which is why neither of them have valid explanations.
Other info is your personal problem, its a valid proposition and all valid propositions are either true or false.
You have all sorts of logical avenues to pursue, "I dont know" is not a valid logical avenue! He answered with a bullshit response. LMAO
How would you assign a truth value to the proposition “God exists”?
by 'answering' the proposition with either true or false.
How would you do it?
He refuses to assign a truth value to it himself after being asked for many, many pages, all while demanding that everyone else assign a truth value to it. Everyone on the forum except him realizes that you can know that a proposition HAS a truth value without knowing WHICH of those truth values hold. He's been given dozens of examples. The number of the starts in the Milky Way is either even or odd, but we don't know which, for example. He runs away and hides from such basic observations. He demands that everyone else know whether or not God exists while admitting that he doesn't know himself. It's pure lunacy. He can't tell the difference between a proposition HAVING a value and KNOWING which value holds. He's the only human I've encountered who can't figure out this elementary concept, assuming he's being truthful about not understand it.
you refused to assign a truth value to it while demanding everyone else do so.
worse you answeed with "I dont know" and tried to prove that was a valid answer and when that didnt work you claimed you are a logic teacher, meanwhile everyone is laughing their asses off except of course the bird who desperately tried to unsink your battleship.
No again thats YOU!
You assigned "I DONT KNOW" to a true/false proposition!
The proposition "God Exists" does NOT ASK and does not care about WTF you KNOW! DUH!
It requires an exclusive true or false.
Not an explicit expression of ignorance.
no truth value exists! LOL
a 'proposition' must have a truth value.
FALSE that is not my claim,
welcome to the yardmeats fallacy, the false dilemma
I claim "I neither believe nor disbelieve", a '3rd' option. LOL
A true or false value isn’t determined just bums answering a question.
What if, for a given proposition you say true and I say false, what is the truth value then?
RIght now it is you that I am laughing at.
When A is true and B is true A^B is true!
Right now everyone is laughing at you.
The whole light analogy is pointless. You don't need this to understand basic logic. Adding it to the conversation adds absolutely nothing.
I now understand why everyone else is frustrated with your inability to understand basic concepts.
Thats all you got?
Your vacuous attempt at rebuttal is pointless, well closer to hilarious.
It’s all I got but, more importantly, it’s all I need.
you need more than vacuous, nothing better (more laughable) than proving you have nothing to contribute!
Plus it appears from what I see in Swensson's post that Koko is trying to pretend his argument with Swensson was different than what it was, trying again to make Swensson take a position he didn't take, trying to make it about what colour is and not conjunction elimination. We've seen this pattern many times from him.
Quite dull at this point. I would still like to see somebody take up Koko's initial claim and speak with us on it in good faith.
Says you, the guy who doesn't even understand basic logic.
Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, everyone is ignorant about something.
But, as in your case, WILLFUL ignorance is really sad.
Yes good demonstration, not sure why you like to embarrass yourself though.
vacuous, feel free to make a case if you even know what that is.
maybe if you put a little effort in connecting the dots and following along that wouldnt be such an issue for you.
Another very helpful way to comprehend whats going on is to quote people instead of posting nonsense.
Separate names with a comma.