A logic question for atheists: if Confucius had been born in Texas, would we all be vampires?

Question

Atheists keep claiming they are experts at logic. I thought I'd give them a little test. The point isn't to answer whether the question is historically or scientifically true, but only whether it is logically true. Prove your answer using symbolic logic.

I'll even help. Here's how to start.

Let p = Confucius was born in Texas.

Let q = We are all vampires.

Let r = p --> q

Given that p is false, is r true or false?

kittens: No, its my test whether you are capable of even understanding a proof. So far, you are failing.

ceprn: You have also failed.

afterbirth07: Apparently you are honest.

Unity: You have failed.

old school: I am not responsible for what you have seen or failed to see. In fact, last week, some atheists on YA claim they arrived at their position via logic. I asked how that could be given that the majority of atheists have no idea what logic even is, given that atheists have failed every logical question I have proposed. The atheists whined "That's not fair! You didn't tell us you were asking logic questions so we didn't know." Therefore, today I am labelling it a logic question.

spamandham: I never said all atheists know symbolic logic. In fact, I have been arguing the opposite: that the vocal atheists here on YA are incompetent at logic.

You are incorrect. You failed. The statement r does, in fact, have a truth value given the value of p.

devlsadvoct: You have failed.

If you can't remember how to construct a truth table, feel free to dig out your old Logic textbook.

RuneAmok: You were NOT asked whether or not vampires were "mythical". You were asked about the truth table for the If-Then operator in logic.

creatrix: Incorrect. You have failed.

Caillech W: You were not asked about the method of causation. You were asked about the logic.

devlsadvoct: I can say how you are wrong. However, there is little point to the logic test if I give you the right answer now.

Answer 1

"Atheists keep claiming they are experts at logic".

Well what am I because I'm fully and painfully aware I have no logic?
Semi-Atheist? Or do I need a whole new label?

Answer 2

This syllogism is flawed from the beginning because you would have to assume a provably false statement (that Confucius was born in Texas) to be true. Furthermore, there is no causal relationship established betwenn premises P and Q and Conclusion R, however, if you insist on this exercize, given that p is false, this implies nothing about q, thus r cannot be proven OR disproven.

given: p is false
q can either be true or false because we know if p then q, but you have NOT stated if NOT p then NOT q.
r is true if p then q, but there is no statement establishing the veracity of r in the case of NOT p, therefor we have insufficient evidence to establish r.

Answer 3

Some atheists claim they are experts at logic, therefor all atheists are expected to know symbolic logic?

But in answer to your question, 'r' is a premise, not a conclusion. It has no truth value.

Answer 4

I have never seen on this Q&A any Atheist claim to be an expert in logic. Where did you get that from? z

Answer 5

im not an atheist and no logic expert,

since confucious isnt born in texas, ie p is false, p can not be the cause of q, r would also not be true since itse based on a false premise, it isn't possible that p would cause r since p is as you said, false

Answer 6

No, because vampires are mythological creatures invented during the dark ages when people had nothing better to do, and needed entertainment and something to scare the crap out of themselves with.

I know that doesn't follow your proscribed algebra, but it's still true.

This reminds me of those school exercises where you had to show your work. Those who thought outside the box were screwed.

Answer 7

yawn...

EVERYONE is poor at abstract formal logic.

Atheists tend to have have somewhat more education and higher IQs, and should be expected to therefore be *somewhat* better at abstract formal logic.

r is neither true nor false given the information you provide.

Answer 8

r (the hypothesized connenction between p and q) is false in reality.
but you enter it as a given (something to be assumed correct)

therefore I logically conclude that the exercise is pointless.



OK, to play your game....

r, which is p--> q
cannot be tested by relation that ~p has with q



I've long since forgotten most symbolic logic, but that isn't the point now, is it?

The point is to see if people understand the logic, not if they can express is symbolically.









***************************************

***************************************

***************************************

***************************************

***************************************


I find it enlightening that you conclude that I was wrong, but can't say how. I challenge you to do so.

Also, it's interesting that you are more interested in the symbolic logic than the ACTUAL logic behind it.

it looks to me like you're avoiding the real topic, son.

Answer 9

The whole thing is false, why do you continue to compare yourself to atheists or anyone else.

Believe what you believe, and let others do the same.

Answer 10

It wouldn't matter if Confucius had been born on mars we still wouldn't be vampires.

Logic you call it? What sort? Pretzel?