Author Topic: Statement Analysis & Variables  (Read 456 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline euroclydon

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Statement Analysis & Variables
« on: June 08, 2012, 08:07:03 PM »
Contrary to what was suggested by a member of this forum, the term "variable" is not confined strictly to computer language.

Simply stated, a variable is a quantity or function that may assume any given value or set of values.

E.g. What were the sums of Israel and Judah in 2Sa 24:9 & 1Ch 21:5?

For Israel:

P: “the sum” Israel “valiant men”. 2Sa 24:9.

Q: “the sum” Israel “800,000” 2Sa 24:9.

~Q: “the sum” Israel “1,100,000”. 1Ch 21:5.

IF the sum of Israel were "valiant men" (P), THEN their sum was 800,000 (Q). 2Sa 24:9.

The sum of Israel was 1,100,000 (~Q). 1Ch 21:5.

THEREFORE, NOT the sum of Israel were "valiant men" (~P).

P -> Q
~Q
Therefore ~P

VALID REASONING.


Through the process known as "Statement Analysis", we see that there is no variable for "valiant" with regard to Israel in 1Ch 21:5.

For Judah:

P: “the sum” Judah “drew sword”. 1Ch 21:5.

Q:
“the sum” Judah “470, 000”. 1Ch 21:5.

~Q:
“the sum” Judah “500,000”. 2Sa 24:9.

IF  the sum of Judah drew sword (P), THEN their sum was 470,000 (Q).  1Ch 21:5.

The sum of Judah was 500,000 (~Q).

THEREFORE, NOT
the sum of Judah "drew sword"  (~P).

P -> Q
~Q
Therefore ~P

VALID REASONING.


Through the process known as "Statement Analysis", we see that there is no variable for "drew sword" with regards to Judah in 1Ch 21:5.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2012, 08:18:53 PM by euroclydon »

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6462
  • Darwins +768/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Statement Analysis & Variables
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2012, 08:30:45 PM »
Lets see. Some that originated logic believed in Zeus, others in Shiva and and still others were Confucianists. Apparently the same processes can be used to reach vastly different results. Tell me why I should be impressed.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline euroclydon

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 91
  • Darwins +1/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Statement Analysis & Variables
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2012, 09:12:01 PM »
If you are not impressed, that is unimportant.

But if you did not think for just a little bit, or appreciate a logical approach, then anything I say with regards to you has been made manifest by your response.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6462
  • Darwins +768/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Statement Analysis & Variables
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2012, 12:09:32 PM »
And your unwillingness to explain why it is important isn't too impressive either.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Statement Analysis & Variables
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2012, 12:55:32 PM »
You are getting really annoying. It's the same old shit post after post. Do you have anything new to say, or are you just going to keep on repeating the same thing over and over again in different posts. You have yet to make a single point. Either have a discussion or shut the hell up.

You can throw around all the variables you wish but the bottom line is this: the bible is complete bullshit and you've proven nothing.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 12:59:52 PM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Online Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5670
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Statement Analysis & Variables
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2012, 01:11:09 PM »
If you are not impressed, that is unimportant.

But if you did not think for just a little bit, or appreciate a logical approach, then anything I say with regards to you has been made manifest by your response.

No, dude. It's just everything you say can be changed around to include all the other religious believes out there. Why do you think your's is so special. You're crappy religion and deity is no more real than the hundreds of other religions and deities to have ever been thought to exist.  And each religion that has it's own holy book can use the same 'logical approach' you are using and come up with the same results as you.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Statement Analysis & Variables
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2012, 01:36:50 PM »
The old wildebeest sadly surveyed another smoking ruin of a thread, shook his head slowly in despair, and started to amble away across the scorching savanah of the Kruger National Park. In the distance he could faintly hear the powerful rhythms of tribal dunning drumming...

Offline Seppuku

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3855
  • Darwins +125/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I am gay for Fred Phelps
    • Seppuku Arts
Re: Statement Analysis & Variables
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2012, 02:16:59 PM »
People try to come up with logical proofs for all kinds of things, AFadly used to do it for Islam and his God Allah. But you can't use logic to prove things, you need the meat. Programming is logic and try to write a piece of code when your variables haven't been declared.


If (P == true) Q = true;

Q = false;
If (Q == false) P = false;

Would return a syntax error. And like in programming, people trying to use logic will often create their own logical conditions to handle the variables. If I removed the line 'if (Q == false) P = false;' then P isn't being changed to false. We may use logic to communicate or to understand something. We can't create new information through it. All statements in programming are logical, but it doesn't mean they're factual. I will come to that point.

For Q to make P false, P would have to be defined in such a way that it relies on Q to be true. This only means P is just making a false premise.

This was my point behind my attempt of using the logic to show that the bible is false. The Christian claims is that the bible is inerrant word of God. There are many Qs in the bible and if a single one can be falsified it means P is false, simply because of how P is defined.

Now to come back to that previous point. I will bring up Logical Positivism. Our man here is Ludwig Wittgenstein. I will pick out some quotes:

Quote from: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, by Wittgenstein
The world is all that is the case.
The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts.
For the totality of facts determines what is the case and also whatever is not the case.
The facts in logical space are the world.
The world divides into facts.
~
Logical pictures can depict the world.
A picture depicts reality by representing a possibility of existence and non-existence of states of affairs.
A picture represents a possible situation in logical space.
A picture contains the possibility of the situation that it represents.
A picture agree with reality of fails to agree; it is correct or incorrect, true of false.
It is impossible to tell from the picture alone whether it is true or false.
There are no pictures that are true a priori.
~
A logical picture of facts is a thought.
The totality of true thoughts is a picture of the world.
A thought contains the possibility of the situation of which it is thought. What is thinkable is possible too.
Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically.
If a thought were correct a priori, it would be a thought whose possibility ensured its truth.

Lets break this down. All in the world is made up of facts and it relies on those facts being fact. Facts determine what is true and what isn't.
Logical pictures can be used to depict the world, it depicts reality through the possibility of existence. A picture represents a possible situation. Now, these pictures may agree with reality or disagree and it is impossible to tell from looking at the picture whether or not it's true or false. I think this is one of the main points I want to hit on. What you've been presenting to us is a logical picture. Anyway, I'll carry on. For each of these thoughts, for it to depict the world they need to be true. The situations are possible, but they're not confirmed to be true.

Lets put it this way, you've given us some logical pictures, but we can't derive new information from it a priori[1]. This means there needs to be facts, but through logic new facts aren't made, through logical pictures & thought we're getting possiblities, which can either be true or false.
So for

P therefore Q
Q is false
P is therefore false

To be always be true, it'd have to be true a priori and no such thing exists. Lets take one of your examples.


Quote
P: “the sum” Judah “drew sword”. 1Ch 21:5.

Q: “the sum” Judah “470, 000”. 1Ch 21:5.

~Q: “the sum” Judah “500,000”. 2Sa 24:9.

IF  the sum of Judah drew sword (P), THEN their sum was 470,000 (Q).  1Ch 21:5.

The sum of Judah was 500,000 (~Q).

THEREFORE, NOT the sum of Judah "drew sword"  (~P).

You're using Q to determine whether or not 'P' happens. But these statements suddenly become moot if evidence turns up to say that actually, Judah drew his sword regardless of what 'Q' says. This is why we deal with evidence and not logic for the facts. It is very possible that Judah didn't 'drew sword', but we can't tell from this logical picture alone whether it is true or false, so yep, that's where a posteriori[2] comes in, the friend of the scientist, evidence.

If you like, the 'variables' may change.

I eat therefore I am hungry.
I am not hungry thefore I do not eat.

Now to go and eat a bag of crisps or something. Maybe somebody can tell me if I'm hungry or not. :P
 1. independent of experience
 2. dependent of experience
“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto Musashi
Warning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.