Loved it bhargav bhai...But there was nothing new in this article for me as we have already discussed this for hours in my podcast as well as on WhatsApp Call.
I just hope these rented atheist will understand your point and correct themselves.But most of them are politically motivated atheist,they just want to s*it on religion specially Hinduism...They have no interest in these philosophical discussions.
Frankly speaking,
I was able to understand those weird symbols and truth tables just because of that formal logic book you sent me few months ago.
Thanks for mentoring and guiding me and yeah keep writing these articles...Intezaar rahega next article ka
<<Children, individuals with advanced dementia, those with intellectual disabilities, all animals, and even my computer would all be classified as atheists merely due to the absence of belief in the proposition "God exists." This, of course, is clearly false.>>
^Will this statement not be partially incorrect, given "your computer" has to be shown as identical to "a person", and so do "all animals", i.e., the Viśeṣa-lakṣaṇa or observable attributes that distinctly identify an entity of the category corresponding to a "human", and differentiate from other categories which aren't "human", should be unambiguously demonstrated in the case of the "computer" or "other animals". Given, the proposition before that is given as cited (𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘱𝘴): <<A: EVERY PERSON who lacks belief in the proposition “God exists,” is an atheist.>>
[2] The criticism of "agnostic atheism" using JTB was well explained. But would it was needed to go forward with JTB as identical to knowledge, when that is already challenged by Gettier's problems (𝘎𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘴, 𝘉𝘜𝘛 𝘴𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘑𝘛𝘉)? Moreover, as first things first, does it not have to be accurately explained as to what "knowledge" is being talked about, given how does one "know" of belief, IF subjective reality and subjective truths are not identified as existing, besides objective reality and objective truths? Because then the question could be "what is belief?" or "why do we know of belief as belief?". How is one supposed to "know and explain" belief, given belief is made different from knowledge by treating belief to be an independent factor upon which knowledge is 'causally' dependent [𝓚(𝓪,φ) ↔ (φ ∧ 𝓑(𝓪,φ) ∧ 𝓙(φ))]? <= That's an infinite regress.
Also here: <<What this formally means is that an agent a knows φ if and only if φ is true, and a believes φ, and a is justified in believing φ. So, for any agent to know some proposition, all three conditions must hold: truth of the proposition, belief in the proposition, and justification for belief. >>
^The question would further be: Does believing a thing and knowing the thing, exist in the same space-time causal framework (𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴); unless "belief is identical to knowledge" is demonstrable (𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺)? I mean, why does one have to make a "choice" or "judgment" (𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯) to accept something as true (𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧), and that too without (𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵) empirical awareness or Pratyakṣapramāṇa of the thing believed to be true, IF the person is already knowing the thing to be true based on empirical awareness (𝘪.𝘦., 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵)? Also, with such multiple assumptions without clear explanations as to the distinctions (𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦), does it not result in a "logically explosive" proposition (𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯) and the absence of principle of parsimony (𝘖𝘤𝘤𝘢𝘮'𝘴 𝘙𝘢𝘻𝘰𝘳)?
-
Atleast in the context of Advaita Vedanta, the epistemological classifiers for metaphysical ontology (𝘉𝘳𝘢𝘩𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘳 𝘚𝘢𝘵) is accepted, and thus the subjective/iti/Prātibhāsika, objective/iti/Vyavahārika, and transcendental or absolute or the non-dual/neti neti/Pāramārthika are accepted. Also, if certain Analytical philosophers and certain Empiricists are considered, who argue in the favour objective reality as knowable besides the subjective.
This is really a great post in understanding the true whataboutery the dumbs have adopted. The use of logical signs is one good way of making it make sense tbh. Expecting more from you !
Why target a certain name from a specific religion for a dumb example? Now don't say that was unintentional. I don't have any issue but this just shows how much "logical" or "philosophical" of a person you are. You can mock anyone but anyone mocks back then he is just an irrational dork. Hypocrisy?
So, basically, PD Magnus is targeting Christianity when he uses the same example with the name "John"? Huh, quite an appeal to motive. Maybe, you should start reading the books that I've mentioned above. Secondly, if I want to target a religion, I can do that explicitly (and I'm gonna do it) using a logical structure.
Nope, that's not the same thing and we know that. The name you choose is very specific and used by trolls from your religion to mock the minority community of that country. The example is also not random, again it is used by trolls to mock the supposed beliefs of that community (which they actually don't hold) by taking its literal translation into account. And yes, you do spew hate against some non regional religions openly and that deep hatred of yours is spilled in this post too. Also, your post better highlights who should be reading the books more.
I can play fallacy fallacy card too but it isn't worth it. And I wasn't even arguing against the main topic of your article. Your hatred for other religions can be traced in all your SM handles. I was just pointing out that criticising the ideas of a group people doesn't justify your Xenophobia for other one. I don't understand how you got your "motive fallacy" in there, when it was literally the thing we were discussing here. But maybe that's all you can say.
Wait, how does mocking someone go on to show the person who is mocking is not logical or philosophical?
Oh, you must be one of those Reddit atheists or secularists who gets triggered every time somebody criticises Islam or Christianity. Don't worry buddy. Get some help. The political atheists described in this article refer to you.
Well, you can't claim/portray to have deep insight in a field and yet act like a total jack@$$ teenager when someone doesn't fall in your line.
No, I am not. Furthermore, that's not any criticism that's just plain old troll and if I am not wrong that's actually what redditors are infamous for. I don't need any help cause I am no brown-noser👃
Loved it bhargav bhai...But there was nothing new in this article for me as we have already discussed this for hours in my podcast as well as on WhatsApp Call.
I just hope these rented atheist will understand your point and correct themselves.But most of them are politically motivated atheist,they just want to s*it on religion specially Hinduism...They have no interest in these philosophical discussions.
Frankly speaking,
I was able to understand those weird symbols and truth tables just because of that formal logic book you sent me few months ago.
Thanks for mentoring and guiding me and yeah keep writing these articles...Intezaar rahega next article ka
Thank you so much, Ravi! I appreciate your feedback. And yes, part B would be published soon!
Hello! What's the name of that logic book? Please!
Forallx: Introduction to formal logic. PD Magnus et. al. If you click the citation it takes you the website from where you can download it.
[1]
<<Children, individuals with advanced dementia, those with intellectual disabilities, all animals, and even my computer would all be classified as atheists merely due to the absence of belief in the proposition "God exists." This, of course, is clearly false.>>
^Will this statement not be partially incorrect, given "your computer" has to be shown as identical to "a person", and so do "all animals", i.e., the Viśeṣa-lakṣaṇa or observable attributes that distinctly identify an entity of the category corresponding to a "human", and differentiate from other categories which aren't "human", should be unambiguously demonstrated in the case of the "computer" or "other animals". Given, the proposition before that is given as cited (𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘱𝘴): <<A: EVERY PERSON who lacks belief in the proposition “God exists,” is an atheist.>>
[2] The criticism of "agnostic atheism" using JTB was well explained. But would it was needed to go forward with JTB as identical to knowledge, when that is already challenged by Gettier's problems (𝘎𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘴, 𝘉𝘜𝘛 𝘴𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘑𝘛𝘉)? Moreover, as first things first, does it not have to be accurately explained as to what "knowledge" is being talked about, given how does one "know" of belief, IF subjective reality and subjective truths are not identified as existing, besides objective reality and objective truths? Because then the question could be "what is belief?" or "why do we know of belief as belief?". How is one supposed to "know and explain" belief, given belief is made different from knowledge by treating belief to be an independent factor upon which knowledge is 'causally' dependent [𝓚(𝓪,φ) ↔ (φ ∧ 𝓑(𝓪,φ) ∧ 𝓙(φ))]? <= That's an infinite regress.
Also here: <<What this formally means is that an agent a knows φ if and only if φ is true, and a believes φ, and a is justified in believing φ. So, for any agent to know some proposition, all three conditions must hold: truth of the proposition, belief in the proposition, and justification for belief. >>
^The question would further be: Does believing a thing and knowing the thing, exist in the same space-time causal framework (𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴); unless "belief is identical to knowledge" is demonstrable (𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘺)? I mean, why does one have to make a "choice" or "judgment" (𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯) to accept something as true (𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧), and that too without (𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵) empirical awareness or Pratyakṣapramāṇa of the thing believed to be true, IF the person is already knowing the thing to be true based on empirical awareness (𝘪.𝘦., 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵)? Also, with such multiple assumptions without clear explanations as to the distinctions (𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦), does it not result in a "logically explosive" proposition (𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯) and the absence of principle of parsimony (𝘖𝘤𝘤𝘢𝘮'𝘴 𝘙𝘢𝘻𝘰𝘳)?
-
Atleast in the context of Advaita Vedanta, the epistemological classifiers for metaphysical ontology (𝘉𝘳𝘢𝘩𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘳 𝘚𝘢𝘵) is accepted, and thus the subjective/iti/Prātibhāsika, objective/iti/Vyavahārika, and transcendental or absolute or the non-dual/neti neti/Pāramārthika are accepted. Also, if certain Analytical philosophers and certain Empiricists are considered, who argue in the favour objective reality as knowable besides the subjective.
Great work brother ! Kudos
amazing post. complex ideas put very simply
This is really a great post in understanding the true whataboutery the dumbs have adopted. The use of logical signs is one good way of making it make sense tbh. Expecting more from you !
Why target a certain name from a specific religion for a dumb example? Now don't say that was unintentional. I don't have any issue but this just shows how much "logical" or "philosophical" of a person you are. You can mock anyone but anyone mocks back then he is just an irrational dork. Hypocrisy?
So, basically, PD Magnus is targeting Christianity when he uses the same example with the name "John"? Huh, quite an appeal to motive. Maybe, you should start reading the books that I've mentioned above. Secondly, if I want to target a religion, I can do that explicitly (and I'm gonna do it) using a logical structure.
Nope, that's not the same thing and we know that. The name you choose is very specific and used by trolls from your religion to mock the minority community of that country. The example is also not random, again it is used by trolls to mock the supposed beliefs of that community (which they actually don't hold) by taking its literal translation into account. And yes, you do spew hate against some non regional religions openly and that deep hatred of yours is spilled in this post too. Also, your post better highlights who should be reading the books more.
It does highlight who should be reading them more, and that's you. So read it, get educated.
Haha....We get it 👏
I don't think so; if you actually got it, you'd have provided a critique instead of committing appeal to motive fallacy.
I can play fallacy fallacy card too but it isn't worth it. And I wasn't even arguing against the main topic of your article. Your hatred for other religions can be traced in all your SM handles. I was just pointing out that criticising the ideas of a group people doesn't justify your Xenophobia for other one. I don't understand how you got your "motive fallacy" in there, when it was literally the thing we were discussing here. But maybe that's all you can say.
Wait, how does mocking someone go on to show the person who is mocking is not logical or philosophical?
Oh, you must be one of those Reddit atheists or secularists who gets triggered every time somebody criticises Islam or Christianity. Don't worry buddy. Get some help. The political atheists described in this article refer to you.
Well, you can't claim/portray to have deep insight in a field and yet act like a total jack@$$ teenager when someone doesn't fall in your line.
No, I am not. Furthermore, that's not any criticism that's just plain old troll and if I am not wrong that's actually what redditors are infamous for. I don't need any help cause I am no brown-noser👃