Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

Yep strawman, you need to read the title of the thread for comprehension, what it means not your injected strawman interpretation wants to make it mean.

@yardmeat totally failed in proving the strict 'absolutist' necessity/use of LNC and LEM. A,!A.
swensson needs to respond to the same. If he cannot, then my responding to the remainder of his post is moot.

 

Are you telling us that you can have both A and !A without a contradiction?

If A is clearly and precisely defined, if we know exactly what A means, then LEM applies, and it's either A or !A.

If A is not clearly and precisely defined, but only loosely defined, then LEM needn't apply.

For example you could say "I am rich" but if you don't define exactly what you mean by rich (is it $1000 or $1000000) then it can be comparative (rich compared to Bob but not compared to Mike) or matters of degrees (not everything is a dichotomy). But if you do define precisely what you mean, then it's either true or not. You either have over $1000000 or you don't.

 

Im telling you that your absolutist approach failed, as proven on the previous page. we already covered that.

 

You are being evasive and vague again.

 

I proved the point on the last page do you expect me to respond to your strawman seriously?

 

Look.
It might have been a typo but your original statement did not include the final "not". You are now changing what you wrote originally.
And yes you can have A and not A at the same time. It is called "not being sure".

 

I don't follow. Which not was I missing? Or are you referring to another place I said it? It is indeed possible I made a typo somewhere.

If A is saying Yes, then !A is not saying yes, which isn't the same as saying No, because you can be unsure. Agreed?

You can't both say yes and not say yes at the same time. You can't A and !A at the same time.

Something also can't be and not be at the same time, and our knowledge of which it is is irrelevant to it's actually being or not being (which I am sure you understand (anyone would) but Swensson was trying to get Koko to understand)).

 

It most certainly is the same as saying no in a bivalent logic system.

 

You used to claim you didn't deny the LNC. Now you are telling us you actually DO reject it. Make up your ****ing mind.

 

It is two yes/no questions.

First, Do you believe God exists? Yes means theist. No means not theist (or what many other than you call atheist).

And if no to the first question, then the second question is asked. Do you believe God does not exist? Yes means strong atheist (or what you just call atheist) and no means agnostic. The agnostic doesn't believe or disbelieve, as you yourself said. The strong atheist disbelieves.

 

I think you know that won't happen.

 

He keeps assuming that "bivalence" means that by not expressly affirming A, you must be affirming !A. That's not at all how bivalence works, and it in fact forces a violation of the LNC. Bivalence means that the TRUTH of the matter is true or false, not that you know which. He's been given dozens of counterexamples showing his mistake here. He's not capable of addressing those.

The number of stars in our galaxy is their odd or it is not. A or !A. Any thinking person can agree that "A or !A" is true, even if they don't know which option is true. But just because you haven't yet said/affirmed A does not mean that you are obligated to claim !A. Otherwise, by not yet saying/affirming !A . . .you are affirming A. Kokoism is vapid nonsense.

 

Yes. And he says this while also claiming himself to affirm neither.

 

One time he claimed to reject both. I'm not sure if he's corrected that mistake yet.

 

this is false of course, I never rejected A,!A

 

Cool, so now you agree with it. Glad to see you've changed course. So now that you have agreed with "A or !A" which is it? Is it A or is it !A?

 

never said otherwise LOL

If you do not check true its false!
You seem to think I dont know is part of the bivalent system, we know thats bull **** dont we

Principle of bivalence

In logic, the semantic principle (or law) of bivalence states that every declarative sentence expressing a proposition (of a theory under inspection) has exactly one truth value, either true or false.

 

Good. First you finally understand the LNC (after previously denying it) and now you FINALLY understand (or purport to understand) bivalence. Now that you finally comprehend it, what do you need explained dto you? Oh, let me guess, you still can't comprehend the difference between a proposition HAVING a truth value and KNOWING what that truth value is. Cute. How many more topics do we have to devote to that misunderstanding of yours before you finally comprehend it?

I'll try to dumb it down again:

"The number of stars in the Milky Way is an odd number". Bivalence means that you know that this sentence has one truth value. It is either true or it is false. It doesn't mean that you know WHICH truth value holds. You've claimed many times to understand this concept while also contradicting yourself with almost every breath. As of today, does the Koko I'm speaking with understand this concept?

 

I never denied it

its you that now at least appears to understand bivalence, (at least for the moment), since I had to post a citation to prove that your: "I dont know", and your: "I need more info" is BS and NOT in a bivalent system!

Therefore if not A then !A, your only 2 choices, do you understand that now?

 

See now you contradict yourself again, its true or false when the question is asked, there is no rule that allows you to defer or delay the answer, sorry. If there was you would have already posted it

 

You literally have. Even in this thread. But if you have finally come around, then congrats on joining the rest of us.

You still can't comprehend. Bivalence that means that ONE OF THE THE TWO TRUTH VALUES IS TRUE. "I don't know" and "I need more info before deciding WHICH truth value is true" doesn't change that. Many helpful tutors have tried to help you comprehend this concept. The number of stars in the galaxy is either odd or it isn't. That's bivalence. You may not know if it is odd or not, and you may not have enough information, but you still know it is either one or the other. The truth value is bivalent. This remains true whether or not you know the answer. You are the only person on the forums who can't comprehend this.

A or !A are the ONLY TRUTH VALUES possible. That doesn't mean you know which.

I'm not sure which Koko I'm talking with today, since you seem to change your mind every other day, so let me try to communicate.

"The number of the stars in the galaxy is an odd number"

Do you understand that the above quotation is either false or it is true? I know you are going to "respond" with a few paragraphs of excuses, but let me know when you can answer this simple question.

 

"The number of the stars in the galaxy is an odd number"

Do you understand that the above quotation is either false or it is true? I know you are going to "respond" with a few paragraphs of excuses, but let me know when you can answer this simple question.

To repeat the tutoring lesson: you can know what the above is either true or false (that's called bivalence) without knowing which it is. You are the only person on the forums who can't understand this.

 

nope

Too bad it does not change the FACT that you dodged the question with "I dont know."

Well unless you post this secret yardmeat rule that allows dodging?

Its true or false, not true,false,I dont know

 

"The number of the stars in the galaxy is an odd number"

Do you understand that the above quotation is either false or it is true? You dodge again. you'd understand this entire "conversation" if you were just to grasp this simple concept.

 

If you say so.


your "I dont know dodge" is not part of the bivalent logic system

you have true and false thats it.