Atheist please an extension of my previous question.?

Question

For people that claim they are pushing for logic and reason on my last question you showed a lack of an understanding of logic. Take a logics course in college when you get there or just buy a logic textbook in a local bookstore or just take a look at one. The argument against an assertion is the assertion of the opposite argument. Let me break it down. Let's say 1 = theology. Then your argument set at negating they only would = -1 when these two come together in 1 - 1 = 0 which is what you are setting out to do with your arguments, which is all good and well but you need to realize that 1 - 1 is the equivalent of 1 + (-1) therefore it is still a positive argument and an assertion.

IF you are going to ask where equations come into play in an argument once against study logic. And before you ask how is this a question the question is why say it is an argument against when is also an argument for the opposite.

Jim Darwin NO you were way wrong this was an extension of a previous question read an you would understand. I am saying there argument for not having the burden of proof just as I believe theist do is flawed.

Taranto to negate an argument you are causing it to cease to exist there by taking thing back to zero. 3 doesn't take 1 back to zero does it? And you got your masters in math?

Taranto you are not even understanding what I am saying I am sayin that people arguing for atheism are arguing for it not saying how to argue for something.

Answer 1

I hate to discuss the topic of religion because it is neverending. We can go on forever. SN had a funny post too.

Answer 2

I have studied mathematics and philosophy in graduate school. I have taken five logic classes in Philosophy departments and several in Math Departments. I have probably taken more mathematics & mathematics related classes than you have taken college classes.

I am one of the people who pointed out the logic flaw in your previous "argument." I stand by my statements.

You were incorrect before and you are incorrect here. According to your argument, you can only negate the possibility that X=1 is false by showing that x=-1. But there are a lot of other values that can be taken on. For example, if X=3, then X is not equal to one.

Bertrand Russell had a famous example of it. He said that many people think that the opposite of "The present king of France is bald" is "The present king of France is not bald." What he points out, though, is that what we are really saying in the first statement is:

1. There is a King of France at present
2. He is Unique
3. He is bald.

By showing that any one of these statements is False, we show that the original statement is false.

What is the lesson of this? The lesson is that you should not talk about logic until YOU learn it. I suspect that you never shall.

Answer 3

You may only know 1 for theology, but I don't sure the the argument negating is only (-1) they could be (-2),(-3), and (-4). Like on the old church claim earth's shape is plate not round like ball and earth is the center of universe.

On the old time, no body could claim that earth is like a ball execpt galileo and and church hate him that is 1-1=0. But now (in 20th century) just try to claim that earth is like a plate and sun rotate around earth so?
1. The Niel Amstrong and friends will say "u are stupid" (-1)
2. Discovery and national geography chanell will prove you wrong (-1)
3. The NASA will think you haven't go to school before (-1)
4. Your friends will ask you to read book (-1)
so it's not 1-1 or 1+(-1) but
it's 1-4 or 1+(-4)
And the right one will not get the (-) so it migh be 4+(-)1 as you say

Answer 4

Two observations:

1) Not all atheism is the "strong atheism" kind. That is to say, your asseveration is not of general application.

2) If you claim to understand logic, they you must be familiar with what is called "Negative proof" or "Appealing to lack of proof of the negative". It simple isn't logical to argue that something exists simply because there is no proof to the contrary. And if your understanding in logics is good, you'd know that to use the sum of a negative in math as an equal concept to the asseveration that something exists because the lack of proof to the contrary is what is known as "false analogy". That's like saying that, because 1 + (-1) then we can't say that square circles do not exist until we provide full evidence that such thing doesn't exist. In other words, I can say square circles do not exist and I do not need to provide further evidence for the "non existence" of square circles. People can deny god by the mere definition provided by believers. We don't need mathematical logic to understand syllogistic logic.

This left me wondering, did you do bad in logic or are you simply lying?

Answer 5

Again, you are only referring to strong atheism. Weak atheists do not argue against theology, we only lack belief in theology. Theology = 1, lack of belief in theology = 0. When these two come together 1 - 0 = 1 which does not make it a positive argument.

Answer 6

This is incorrectly applied symbolic logic. Applying algebra to your argument does not make it any more believable.

Anyway, 1 + (-1) still ends up being zero. Zero is not positive. So either way, you're wrong.

Answer 7

If you want to go with a strictly mathematical argument, then showing that a + b cannot = c will suffice.

A proof that a + d = e does NOT have to be demonstrated to show that a + b cannot = c.

Look like you failed whatever logic class you were referring to.

Answer 8

Atheists be conscious of there is not any such ingredient as any god!! people who in hassle-free terms have faith there are no gods at the instant are not proper atheists yet no longer genuine agnostics the two! yet the two question the christian claims that the christians themselves are too scared to ascertain for themselves!! acceptance of a supernatural declare has a tendency to sell cooperative social relationships. This verbal replace demonstrates a willingness to settle for, without skepticism, the impression of the speaker in a fashion similar to a new child's acceptance of the impression of a discern. by utilising encouraging this sort of habit the place the main extreme social relationships happen it helps the lack of ability of skepticism and deters greater open minded thinking. they're christian, Muslim or the different religions based the place they have been born because of the fact they have been indoctrinated by utilising their parents as very youthful babies. they're going to circulate directly to indoctrinate their very own babies and those will circulate directly to indoctrinate their grandchildren!! Atheists have the mind to work out for the duration of the conditioning and escape into the genuine international!! Agnostics have the mind to work out for the duration of the conditioning yet lack the braveness to throw of the conditioning completely. regrettably Christians are nonetheless held firmly prisoner by utilising the self perpetuating brainwashing!!

Answer 9

Mumbo Jumbo

Answer 10

I don't consider myself an atheist, but that's beside the point. The real issue is that you (in the plural sense, Christians in general) have to prove god does exist. Atheists don't have to prove that he doesn't exist. Your rather futile attempt to quantisize the argument doesn't prove anything, either.