So for the full list:
A = American
x= people
E= speaks English
R= Robber
∀=all
∃= exists
⊃=implies (that)
∧= and (not and/or)
∴= thus/therefor
Resulting in two expressions:
I)
1. (∀x)[Ax⊃Ex]
2. (∃x)[Rx∧Ax]
3. ∴ (∃x)[Rx∧Ex]
=
1.for all people goes that if they are American that implies they speak English
2. there exists people who are Robbers and are American
3. thus there exist Robbers that speak English

II)
1. (∀x)[Ax⊃Ex]
2. (∃x)[Rx⊃Ax]
3. ∴ (∃x)[Rx⊃Ex]
=
1.for all people goes that if they are American and that implies they speak English
2. there exist people who are Robbers and that implies they are American
3. thus there exist people who are Robbers and that implies they speak English

Assuming I understood correctly the answer is rather obvious. presupposition 2 in case II is different from presupposition 2 in case I. Case I presupposition 2 seems reasonable, but case II presupposition 2 does not since it excludes the existence of Robbers not being American which obviously isn't the case. Hence the conclusion in case II is invalid while the conclusion in case I stands.
So the answer to your question is: No, the formulation II is invalid, assuming I understood correctly.

Though it's rather confusing since the math symbol ⊃ has two uses. If restricting yourself to the meaning of '⊃ = implies' my conclusion stands. However since ⊃ in math can also mean subset (as in A⊃B means every element of B is also element of A while A ≠ B (since A consists of more elements than B), then a different conclusion might be the case.

Hence my personal preference to use => or --> rather than ⊃ to mean imply, and usually I only use ⊃ to mean subset when it comes to math notations.

In short the statement:
" 2. Some robbers are americans"
is not correctly represented by the statement
"2. (∃x)[Rx⊃Ax]"
since the latter statement make a claim about all robbers and not just some robbers.

what about (∀x), ∃x, ⊃, ∧,
I know the latter two to be common math symbols, but I take it most here didn't study math to the extend you seem to have, and even though I tutor math on occasion I will need to look them up to avoid making mistakes.

Perhaps a legend of the symbols used in the two formalizations can be helpful. Can you provide it?

You are refusing to answer any of my questions designed to find common ground to start a conversation from and instead you accuse me of having a war like momentum. Hence by lack of common ground and your refusal to look for it you made a sensible conversation about the topic impossible. Your loss.

I recalled that atheism is far older than Christianity as described above. — VoidDetector

Bald unfounded statements. Ancestor worship is demonstrably far older. Even if there is a case to be made (which there probably is) that the romans eradicated atheism at the time, by no means does that demonstrate that thus atheism was far older. At most it can claim that thus there were at least some atheists around at the time it got eradicated by the romans. To then make the claim that thus atheism is far older is rather jumping the conclusions.

Why didn't humans stop at atheism? What went wrong? — VoidDetector

If people are to live peacefully together, a commonly shared model of the world is required. Atheism doesn't provide a model that is sufficient for that, since atheism is just the rejection of certain models, not the acceptation of any model. Though rejecting useless models or less useful models can be a useful thing to do, rejecting all models without replacing them with more useful models leads to disaster.
Luckily most people claiming to be atheist don't actually do this. Instead they replace an older, for them less useful model (their interpretation on a certain older religion) with a for them more useful model (in most cases science). And though science is limited in it's applications on the human conditions, the part where it does apply is very useful, and in those cases an improvement on older models. However, these people are more believers in science than actual atheists, since they adopted science as their god.

the good you know conditions your mind to make intellectual decisions, or to teach others to make intellectual decisions. — kill jepetto

All I know is that I know nothing, possibly with the exception of 'I think therefor I am' .

Evil is technically minimalized. — kill jepetto

by whom or what? how do you define evil?

You are intelligent if you make more intelligent decisions than unintelligent decisions — kill jepetto

That's a tautology not explaining what intelligence is other than stating that it is intelligence. If you stated "intelligence is just intelligence" that would have been equally useful/useless.

it's your diffusion of good, not mine — kill jepetto

Nope, I didn't make any statement about what I perceive to be good or evil. I asked for yours since you make claims about it without providing the definition you are applying which is required to properly understand what you are talking about. Sure you can claim you understand good, but if you can't elaborate on what you came to understand about what good actually is, I have no means to understand what you are talking about.

again, Any conversation that makes sense requires common ground to start from and refer to. Without sufficient common ground a conversation can't make any sense and will only lead to misunderstandings.

What is the common ground you can refer to so we can have a sensible conversation? Why not start with answering the questions I posed? Please no more tautologies.

people do have misunderstanding of good/people have misunderstanding of intelligence — kill jepetto

No correlation among 'good' and 'intelligent' has ever been demonstrated as far as I know. Why make this assumption?

another inaccurate judgement could be that this person's IQ is intelligent, which there are no grounds for. — kill jepetto

The only way to approximate a person's intelligence is by using an representable IQ test, if you mean anything else by intelligence, please do state the definition you are applying.

genetics can be abused, some do not deserve who they are in person, but maybe in spirit. I don't think a genetical arguement suffices — kill jepetto

Which genetical argument are you referring to? How do you determine which person deserves anything?

it must be based on understanding, or mind of good. — kill jepetto

Any conversation that makes sense requires common ground to start from and refer to. Without sufficient common ground a conversation can't make any sense and will only lead to misunderstandings.

Sounds to me like you traveled about a year into the future, just like we all do. Travel into the future seems effortless. It's not doing it that's the trick. — noAxioms

You misunderstood, the time difference with the traveler and the time passed on earth is only 1 second, though to travel 1 second into the future compared to the rest on earth took a year. When we talk about time travel we usually means creating a difference in experienced passing of time compared to the ones experiencing the regular pace of time on earth.

Assuming time travel is to the past, as is typically assumed, it is impossible, period. A-theory has nothing to do with that. — noAxioms

Maybe a typical assumption, but since there was no indication that this was intended, it could just as well mean time travel to the future. Theoretically we can even travel to the past, our scientific models allow for that, it just requires some practically impossible implementations at the moment.

High speed isn't required to do it. — noAxioms

high speed is just one of the options, being subjected to a different amount of gravity also works, hence strictly spoken your head ages quicker than your feet since your head is subjected to less gravity than your feet on earth when standing up straight.
The higher your speed, the slower time goes for you, if travel at the speed of light, time stands still. The more gravity the slower time goes for you as well.

time travel to the future is already possible and has been done in practice. The only problem is that there is no practical application that can bring you back in time. Also under the current circumstances, it takes alot of time to travel only a little in time. I don't feel like doing the exact calculations right now, but it is in order of a minute timetravel towards the future if you spend a year. In other words, with the current method, you can leave earth for a year to travel in time, and when you come back after a year for you has passed, on earth a year and one minute will have passed.
So yes it is possible, just not very practical yet.

and also recognise that God doesn’t communicate using words but through subjective experience — Possibility

Why would we assume/recognize this? this seems rather opposite to what the bible sais about god.
especially John 1:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Wich seems to suggest that god doesn't only communicate using words, but even that god is the word.
How do you reconcile that? I'd rather conclude that god is to be found in what we tell each other about our subjective experiences.

I´m saying no book and no interpretation can be a communication from God. That we need to give up book idolatry for good. Gods do not write books; — DiegoT

The opposite position is just as sensible, perhaps even more:
All good books in their correct interpretation are a communication from God.
God may not write books, but people do, and if the spark of devinity that each person has gets involved (wich in this case makes the book 'good') when writing the book, then the word of God is in the book.

What you say must be controversial though, otherwise it will simply be commonsense with which no one will dissgree. — Janus

Whether something is controversial is in the eye of the beholder, it's a subjective qualification, not an objective one, unless you are taking an argument from popularity fallacy as objective proof for such a qualification.
Since I don't know you, other than what you posted here, I have no means to tell te difference between whether something I state would by you be considered as controversial or commonsense. To me all my statements seem commonsense or I wouldn't be making them though often they are seen as controversial by others.

Usually what is considered a controversial topic is a topic that is greatly misunderstood. Like statistical proof on demographics for instance, when it's about income differences between plumbers and lumberjacks hardly anyone cares but lumberjacks and plumbers, but when it's about the income difference between races it's controversial, even though the statistics applied are exactly the same, a lot more people who don't understand a thing about statistics are interested.
And since they don't know a thing about statistics they misinterpreted the research statements, thereby making strawman fallacies against said research, making the topic controversial.
In other words, all I can tell about controversial topics, is that there seems to be a correlation between how misunderstood a topic is by the ones discussing it and the lever of the topic to be considered to be controversial.

I seldom have people actually disagreeing with my statements while demonstrating they understood my statement proporly. Usually when someone disagrees with my statement, they do so on basis of a strawman fallacy.

So my question is, why should my statements be controversial? Isn't it more imprortant that what I state at least makes sense to me?
It seems to me you are incorrect in your assesment that if something stated is commonsense, that then no one will disagree. My experiences tell me otherwise. I stated something similar on youtube and I got mobbed by atheists accusing me of being an apologist to stupid to be able to understand science since i didn't agree with their vieuw of the bible being nothing but bullshit. Hence what to you seems commonsense, to many others is greatly controversial.
Hence in order for me to make a controversial statement, I first need to know more about your positions, since I don't, asking for a controversial statement seems abit too much to ask under the circumstances.

If you happen to have a specific topic or text in mind on wich you like to know my position, please do name it.

The only thing I've encountered so far was your reframing of the principle of hermeneutics, and I dont think anyone sensible would disagree with the principle of hermeneutics. — Janus

Within the field of theology it's common knowledge, any decenty educated priest could have told you what they told me, you seem to have understood my statement correctly.

Because your words were so profound, I didn't expect you to be a real person here and now. — Athena

Thanks for the compliment. Though I didn't actually come up with that idea myself, all I can take credit for is the way the statement is formulated, the actual idea I got from talking to my dad and priests who all spend way more time studieng theology and the biblical texts than I have.

So you'd say that either there's no creation of heaven and earth until humans, as a species, develop consciousness, or that there somehow keeps being no heaven and earth for each individual until they're about five years old? — Terrapin Station

Just as time is relative, so is perception. So why not both, from the perspective of the totality of humanity the first goes and from the perspective of the individual the latter goes. Not saying this is the case, just that that seems the most sensible interpretation I've thought of so far.

2. Similarly, the point in time ’now’ cannot have length=0 (if it exists for 0 seconds, it does not exist) — Devans99

From the perspective of the foton, no time has passed, does that mean fotons (and thus light) doesn't exist? time is relative, so sure it can exist for 0 seconds. to light itself there is no time, hence light is timeless, There is no time, there is only spacetime. separating the two is creating a false dichotomy that is what is causing your troubles understanding reality.

I beg your pardon, I thought the line commented was an actual quotation from a scholar I don´t know. That is why I wrote "this Tomseltje", not in a pejorative fashion, but recognizing my ignorance of this supposed author. Unless you have actually published essays, then it would all fall into place! — DiegoT

Thanks you for your compliment, I guess this discussion forum is my debut then, though I may have expresses part of the idea in youtube comments before. So glad I found this place where the ideas I post get more appreciation.

In what sense do you mean the beginning of consciousness? Do you mean once consciousness arose evolutionarily? Or something else? — Terrapin Station

The beginning of human consciousness. One possible interpretation is as you say, evolutionary, but it can also be seen as developmental (as in how an individual becomes concscious somewhere between the point of fertillisation and their 5th year of life). Both ways seem to make sense, so perhaps both were intended.

But... you say "minimum requirements". What more can one do to determine the meaning that a divinity may or may not have expressed? — Bitter Crank

I didn't mean to imply that there must be something else when I said minimum. Though if you can think of something else, I'm open to suggestions.

All those are minimum requirements in order to understand them in an even greater context like the devine. — Tomseltje

'the devine' in this sentence was merely intended as 'the devine context' as in 'the ultimate context' or 'the greatest context that might even exceed our imagination'.

I said that it falls short (after writing that your guidelines was the correct scientific approach) because when you think that a text contains the real literal words and deeds of human beings and God, any approach is insufficient. — DiegoT

Ah yes, but whether a text should be interpret literally, figuratively or metaphorically, or perhaps even all three at once is something that can derrive from studieng the culture the text was written in in my vieuw. Assuming we can find enough leads to study said culture.
If we don't know anything about the culture a text was written in, even the used alfabeth will be unfamilar to us, hence we won't be able to say a sensible thing about the content of the text.

Luckily in case of the bible, we have quite some leads to go by. Though still not enough to be conclusive about the entire content of the bible.
Since even today, after the discovery of the scientific method as we now know it and the importance for it to state claims in a literal sense, most people tend to speak in metaphores and figures of speech daily. Hence to assume the bible should only be interpret literally would be a mistake.
Stricly literal statements in a book can only be found after we started applieng the scientific method as we do now, not before. At least I'm not aware of even a single book over 500 years old that does.

God is understood to be changeless, and therefore timeless, but God is also understood to be the creator of time.

If God creates the physical world along with time, then God experiences a change - from existing alone to existing along with time.

Can anyone explain how God is the creator of time and remains changeless? — Walter Pound

I'm abit lazy, So I didn't read the rest of the comments, hence on the risk of repeating something already said:

Where does it say that god is the creator of time?
If I read genisis 1 it states:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

In the beginning of what?
Time? matter? existence?
I think it's most sensible to interpret it as "in the beginning of consciousness, God created the heaven and earth"
In wich heaven and earth are not nessesarily references to spacial locations, but rather to states of being. where earth references to the current state of being and heaven to the ideal state of being.

Hence to conclude that it must mean that god created the physical world seems rather silly to me, since I don't think that was the main concern of the people who wrote those lines.

Since god is also referred to as the light, I have no problem with god being timeless, since literal photons are timeless too according to einsteins theory of relativity. Since that tells us that the faster something moves, the slower time passes for that moving object, untill one reaches the ultimate speed, the speed of light, where time is so much slowed down that it stands still.

May your posts always find positive response (or at least interesting negative response). — Bitter Crank


We can always hope, and that hope does seem to be fulfilled at least some of the time...otherwise why would we bother? — Janus

I'm still hoping for the moment of someone actually prooving me wrong. This may sound arrogant, but when one has dealt with as many strawmen of my positions as I have, it becomes quite understandable.

Luckily I also have many sensible discussions, but for some reason, when no logical fallacies are being made, most people tend to agree with me.

There are people here who do not like biblical quotes. — Bitter Crank

It's not the quote that matters, it's the interpretation. People who dislike biblical quotes unfortunately are so poor of mind in that regard generally, that they can't imagine someone having a different interpretation than they are already familiar with. And since they dismissed that interpretation as useless, they can't imagine someone bringing up a biblical quote leading to something usefull.

Values are fluid like water: water moves and changes states and occupy different spaces, but it is always water. It has two atoms of Hydrogen and one Oxygen atom. — DiegoT

The water consisting of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom you describe isn't always fluid, it can also be solid or gasious and even viscosious if mixed with other stuff.

However, as far as interpreting religious books, even that approach might fall short — DiegoT

Not saying you are incorrect, but if you claim my approach might fall short, please do state what is missing. I merely mentioned some obvious requirements from the top of my head, since in most discussions I have about the subject, most people who disagree with me tend to not have taken those into consideration.
Ability to read the language and characters used in the book is another obvious criterium, though I consider it to be part of being familiar with the culture the book was written in. Do you have an addition criterium that can't be seen as part of the requirements I mentioned already?

What are we looking to find in the scriptures. If it's the truth, then, amidst the many interpretations, which do you pick as truth? — BrianW

The truth that makes most sense considering it's context. Words by themselves are meaningless, words get their meaning by the context they are placed in.
Hence to understand the word, one must read the sentence.
To understand the sentence one must read the paragraph.
To understand the paragraph one must read the chapter.
To understand the chapter one must read the book.
To understand the book, one must know the society/culture it was written in.
To understand the society/culture one must know it's circumstances like:
existence in time, geographical location and (pre)history.
All those are minimum requirements in order to understand them in an even greater context like the devine.

Sense? Disagreement? — tim wood

Sorry for responding abit late to this part. No disagreement on my part. What you stated makes sense as far as I understood it correctly.

Re the last question, yes, although valuing things is subjective. — Terrapin Station

Perhaps I should have stated it as:

"3 Are ideas about the universe with predictive value more usefull than ideas about the universe without predictive value in order to learn something about the universe?

of course this question does only apply if you already said yes to the former two.

One thing I'd say I believe about the universe is this: it's big. — Terrapin Station

So what about the 3 more specific follow up questions?

1 Is it real?
2 Is it possible to learn something about it?
3 Are ideas about the universe with predictive value are more valuable than ideas about the universe with no predictive value?

Otherwise I'd expect someone to respond to "what do you believe" with a question of their own--"what do I believe about what?" — Terrapin Station

I assume you didn't watch the video, or you would already know the answer to this question, but I'll be more specific:
What do you believe about the universe?

You seem to apply a narrower definition on the word religion than I am. To clarify my position think of the most broadest definition as in the oxford dictionary:
" 1 The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
‘ideas about the relationship between science and religion’

1.1 A particular system of faith and worship.
‘the world's great religions’

1.2 A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
‘consumerism is the new religion’ "

If it qualifies for any of these three the context of the question is a religious one in my vieuw.

1) my non-belief in your god, 2) the non-belief in any god, and 3) the non-acceptance of supernatural/non-natural beings or explanations. — tim wood

I share your observation,I like to discuss with atheists (not debate), and it often bogs down in the atheist unable to clarify wich of the 3 positions they take, or even worse, they uphold position 4.
To clarify my position ill adress all the first 3 (though I think we already agree on all 4):

1 not an answer to the question, the question wasn't about the belief of the one asking the question, the question was about the belief of the one asked

2 the only position I accept as possible defendable, however, in order to do so, one must have studied the religions of over 6000 gods that have been believed in by humans. I never meet a self proclaimed atheist that actually done so.

3 supernatural/non-natural qualities are optional to constitute as a god, not manditory. Hence this argument is not an argument for atheism but for scientific naturalism.

In this sense no scientist worthy of the name is an atheist. — tim wood

I agree, a scientist should at least believe in the science he/she practices. Additional believes are optional as long as they don't undermine the scientific method practiced by the scientist.

If the context is clearly religion, then "I don't have any religious beliefs" would answer the question just fine, just like if someone were to say, "I don't play any sports." — Terrapin Station

I don't play any sports is a valid answer for someone who actually doesn't play sports. But 'not soccer' is not a valid answer to the question when given by a person who plays hockey for sports. Wich in many cases is the equivalent answer self proclaimed atheists give when asked about their beliefs. They seem to conflate the question with another question : "do you believe the same as I believe",
(to be fair, many people might actually have intended to ask that question rather than the first question, so it may not be unwarranted in all cases)

I don't see why a pear list couldn't be an atheist. — Bitter Crank

Since to a pearlist, the scientific method is the god to believe. It's the god of scientific naturalism at least. Supernatural proporties are optional to constitute as a god, not manditory.

Well said, so maybe the best approach is to think in terms of shared potential for subjective (feeling-based) transcendence. — macrosoft

I'd like to add that when I said subjective I didn't mean to reduce the concept to just feeling-based. I intended to make it also include logically deduced possibilities from an inconclusive data set. Feeling-based is one way but I didn't intend to exclude other ways to approach the same phenomenon.

It's conceivable that some varieties of 'personal' transcendence are less shared than others, and that art based on this might be less popular and yet no less effective for the smaller group sensitive to it. — macrosoft

I'd say that in order to recognize anything, one needs to have at least some familiarity with the subject to be recognized. For instance in order to appreciate mathematical differential equasions, one first needs to learn what mathematical differencials are. I'd say the same goes for art, wich could be about any subject; In order to recognize the value of the subject portrayed by the art form, one needs to be familiar enough with the subject to be able to recognize it. Subjects that are not recognized don't get any appreciation. Hence very well perfomed art containing less known subjects don't get as much appreciation as lesser performed art on more commenly known subjects.

This is nor the goal nor the interpretation of iq test results. Yes what you suggest is a stupid idea, but I know of none who actually knows enough about iq tests in order to legally test them to uphold this idea.

It depends wether you plan to monetize what you learned by studieng or not. If it's just to satisfy your curiousity, sure just do philosophy. If you plan to make a living from what you studied as well, take a second major that is more practical to monetize.
Mathematics might be an option, Plato also recommended it for training your mind in logic and hence becoming a better philosopher.

how do you know that it has become something unconscious — jkg20

Because it's the same unconscious mechanism that causes someone to lift ones foot before becoming aware of the pain when that someone steps into something sharp. It's basic neurology; reflexes are unconscious.

Perhaps you should elaborate first on why you think

You are riding rough shod over numerous subtle distinctions and probably also misusing the word "ascertain". — jkg20

Demonstrate where I rode shod over sublte distinctions, being blunt and direct is no evidence of riding roughshot over anything or anyone by itself.

Quote me where you consider i was misusing the word 'ascertain'. Vague accusations of incompetence are not helpfull in a discussion, either be precise in your critique (at the risk of being proven wrong) or leave your feelings of distrust out of the conversation, since without being precise in your critique best you can establish is just rabble rousing.

If you feel something is probably the case, find out by asking for elaboration, don't make vague accusations. The fact that you dodged me asking for elaboration on this vague accusation with

Then I can only advise you to read over the thread more carefully. — jkg20

is indicative for you just having an uncomfortable feeling about it, by no means does it mean I was misusing the word. Though such feelings can be indicative for you not agreeing with what you think I meant by it, don't prematurely exclude the possibility that you just misunderstood me by going in offence mode.

How do you unconsciously find out where your fingers need to press the string? Does it involve looking at the score, does it involve looking at where your fingers are actually placed? If so, looking here is intentional, conscious activity — jkg20

It doesn't involve looking at the score or looking at where my fingers are actually placed, that is only needed when learning to play, once learned there is no more need for looking then I can play blindfolded. Perhaps a more common example would be riding a bike, once learned, you don't have to consciously steer towards the side you are falling off.

I know that I am going to enjoy the cup of coffee steaming beside me. I certainly at some point in my life found out (ascertained) that I like coffee, but that's not what I am doing now: I'm just looking forward to drinking the coffee. — jkg20

No you don't know, you may believe so, but you don't know. If a meteorite falls through your roof and kills you before you can take a sip you don't. You can't prematurely exclude that possibility. Once you had you first sip you might know you are enjoying that sip, but you can't predict the future, nor can I or any of us.

How did you ascertain where your fingers needed to be on the fingerboard?
And consider in what circumstances that question would actually make sense when:
a) Asked of someone who is learning to play the guitar.
b) Asked of someone who has mastered the guitar. — jkg20

a) by following the intstuctions for the musical piece conciously
b) no idea, that part has become unconcious, my fingers know more about how to play it than my head.

i don't see how the distinqtion between knowing and ascertaining is relevant here.

If talking about physical brain damage, then yes. But it's hard to not use the brain to such a level that your IQ drops so low that you almost simulate brain damage. — Christoffer

Not even so drastic, just some sleep deprivation or malnourisment is enough to perform significantly lower on iq score tests.

The optimal function of a person does not equal value of that person — Christoffer

Indeed, hardly any one if any achieves functioning optimal all the time. Actual functioning is all we can measure, and then we only do it for the parts we are interested in, not the total picture.

Glad we can agree on the main issue.

Can intelligence be trained to increase? Or if not trained, fall? Yes, but studies show that only within a a small range around the baseline you exist under. The base IQ range level is pretty much set for each person. — Christoffer

It is hard to raise intelligence, however there are numerous quite easy ways to drasticly lower intelligence. Hence the base IQ range level isn't that much set for each person, the max iq range is, but there are no tests to determine someones maximum iq, we only have tests that can measure someones current iq (wich could be temporarily lowered by sleep deprivation, or permanently lowerd by lack of nutricion in early development).

Is there a lot of stigma around intelligence based on the fact, as the OP posted, that intelligence is talked about in the same way as money? People that do not have a lot of money often despise those who are rich, while those who are rich look down upon those who are poor. — Christoffer

Many people tend to confuse monetary worth (the amount of money someone has) and/or intellectual worth (how intelligent someone is) with intrinsic worth (the actual worth of a person). Some people even go as far as to conflate correlation with causation. Since there is a correlation between intelligence and monetary wealth, some people even go as far as to assume that poor people can't be intelligent, or that rich people always are intelligent. Especially among wealthy less intelligent people.

Most people who do so seem to have forgotten that our intrinsic worth is not determined by our intelligence or monetary wealth, but rather by how we choose to use the intelligence and monetary wealth we posess.