That emote with the sunglasses is so stupid.  Did the Muslim God design this website?

Why do you need me to define the terms?  Aren't you trained in logic?

Oh wait... that's right!  You're an atheist!  I almost forgot.

Go and get educated, and then respond to me.  

While you are at it, feel free to scour the internet in order to prove that I plagiarized this.

Yes and you just proved it.

A bunch of logic statements can only 'prove' that some conclusion is consistent with the initial assumptions.

Since you don't specify those initial assumptions, or identify what any other symbols refer to, you have not presented a proof of anything, except your own stupidity.

All you've actually proven is that you are stupid, or at least exceptionally skilled at faking it.

Which proves you are deeply ignorant and arrogant. Are you another incarnation of Mr_M or one of the other posters who have thrown this same crap at us before?

Unlabeled starting assumptions are useless.

Rational thinking is not dependent on familiarity with the symbols of symbolic logic. Which ultimately just encode the basics of rational thinking, and rapidly become unworkable in real world issues where not everything can be unambiguously or usefully represented by binary (true/false) logic.

Mathematics is far more relevant, as is the specific area of Bayesian analysis, which allow us to rigorously handle real-world, uncertain data, defined in terms of probability, confidence, likelihood, etc. then there are differential and integral calculus, vector analysis, matrix manipulation, complex numbers, etc, are the sort of training needed to understand complex empirical reality.

The propositions of quantification theory are incorporated in the basics of mathematics, we need to go way beyond that stuff.

My capabilities in such disciplines are evidenced by my possession of an Honors degree in Electrical/Electronic Engineering.

My capabilities and understanding of actual logic are demonstrated by practical success in software programming, which is quintessentiallly applied logic. I don't use those symbols in Javascript/C/C++/PHP/Python/CSS/MySQL, so I would ask you in turn what are your qualifications in programming languages?

Neither.

Statements may be True, False, Undecideable, or Incoherent. I think the last applies here.

Any proposition incorporating a contradiction, is neither True nor False, it is not a properly constructed argument, ie Incoherent.

"2 + 2 = 5" is a contradiction by definition of the terms, since it is mathematically reducible to "0 = 1".

Or perhaps restated as "IF A = ~A then anything goes".

So informally, it is true, since it states that the existence of God entails a contradiction.

====

You really do sound like Mr_Metaphysics...

Logic is mathematics; in fact, the formalization of axiom systems in mathematics works in the same way.  All you need to do is look to NBG set theory and notice that it would be entirely otiose without the implementation of quantification theory.  So I really don't know the sense in which you mean that quantification theory is "incorporated" into the basics of mathematics.  If we were to go "beyond that stuff," then we would probably be without most of the axioms of mathematics.  

Computer programming has nothing to do with philosophy, theology, or anything pertinent to the discussions that go on here.  Your discipline may be good for creating little games so as to further propagate the large numbers of children wasting their lives in front of the computer, but it doesn't affect the large spheres of life with which our existence here is ultimately concerned.  What you do is for a living is for convenience, but it is by no means a necessity for humankind.

No kidding, eh? Fuck, I just realized it! This must be the modal logic version of typing in tongues! You just randomly scrabble at the keyboard, et voila!, proof that god exists!

It is not TRUE. It entails a contradiction, therefore you cannot derive anything from it - the logic has failed , therefore you cannot derive any conclusion within the scope of the system of logic from such a statement.

One more time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

The principle of explosion, ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet (Latin, “from a contradiction, anything follows&rdquo or the Principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic and intuitionistic and similar systems of logic, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.^[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (or its negation) can be inferred from it. 

http://www.explainxkcd.com/2010/02/19/principle-of-explosion/

The principle of explosion means that if you assume that something is both true and untrue at the same time, then you can prove any conclusion.

http://jorendorff.blogspot.com/2007/09/principle-of-explosion.html

The principle of explosion is built into the fundamental rules of logic, rules that both mathematicians and ordinary people use to reason with. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet: from a contradiction, anything follows. Or as an old friend of mine used to say, after you swallow the first pill, the rest go down real easy.

No, famed logician C.I. Lewis posited that anything follows from a necessarily false proposition.  Today, it's known as the "principle of explosion."  If a contradiction is true, then it follows that God exists; it also follows that God does not exist.  I noticed that you didn't answer until Bob did; did you need some coaching?

Yes, logic is mathematics.  That's why it's often called "mathematical logic."  I have an academic textbook on Finite Mathematics and there's a whole section on logic.

So what logical expressions do you use when programming luxury items for businesses?  And how does it pertain to what is taught in math classes?

1: Then his fame likely stemmed from his stupidity. Philosophy will only get you so far, it doesn't have a practical use here in reality.

2: If a contradiction is true, then it is a contradiction. It is fallacious to assume that a contradiction proves god, disproves god, or both. god is irrelevant to the contradiction, unless the contradiction IS god. Which, ironically, is almost always true. I'd say always, but I am not god, at least not the god you think of, so I can't claim absolute knowledge of everything. I'm way ahead of you though, so I'm doing alright.

3: Funny. Do you get all your burns from the 14th century? If you must know, I'm texting, not typing, so my wpm is much lower than Bobs' wpm.

LOL!

Oh yeah, C.I. Lewis is such an idiot!  I mean, come on, he's only the main guy responsible for the revivification of modal logic in the 20th century, planting the seeds which would end up getting cultivated by other "idiots" such as Saul Kripke, Rudolf Carnap, Ruth Barcan, and so forth.  Yeah, what a maroon!  And those axiom systems that are still in use today, forget it!  And look at all these other morons who wrote about him:

http://www.google.com/search?q=C.I.+Lewis&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 

Translation:  I've just been owned, so I'm going to continue defending my error and claiming that everybody else is wrong except for me!  

Are you making excuses for your idiocy?  If so, I can wait until you find a keyboard before I continue making an ass out of you.

Judging by your appearance in your Youtube videos (to be fair, the one I watched seems to be several years old), the waiter served you everything on the menu.

Seriously, did you grow a beard solely in order to hide your double chin?

Okay.  Since you know how to properly apply logic--your ignorance of the principle of explosion notwithstanding--maybe you could answer these two questions:

(1) Is it logically permissible to apply universal generalization to an unbounded free-variabled proposition whose variable was made free in the proof via existential instantiation?  Why or why not?

(2) If the variable "x" was made free in the proof via existential instantiation, then why is it not logically permissible to use EI to free the same variable from another quantified premise?

Translation:  I'm not smart enough to make my own jokes, so I'll take what the other guy said about me and pretend he said it about himself!

**tumbleweeds roll by**

I took finite math in high-school years ago. Have you bothered to read the section on logic in your text yet?

Programmers typically use Boolean logic expressions. The symbols are generally only a matter of the idiosyncratic syntax of the particular programming language.

For example, depending on the language, the Boolean conjunction operator may appear as: AND, and, &, &&, etc. Also, it may be provided as a built-in function such as And(X, Y), or more commonly it is provided as a proper syntactical operator as in X && Y.

Furthermore, there's often a distinction between bit-wise operators which work with individual bits in memory, vs. more typical Boolean operations which work on 'logical' Boolean values of 'false' and 'true'. Sometimes these are represented internally as 0 vs. non-0, but this is not required. Henceforth, I'll limit discussion to the typical Boolean logical operations and the values 'true' and 'false'.

In JavaScript, which is easily accessible to anyone with a web-browser, the basic Boolean operators are:

Logical implication, which I write here as => does not usually have a special symbol in programming, because it is generally more useful in practice to use if(...) then (...) statements which perform conditional execution of program statements based on the value of the Boolean expression supplied to the if(...). If logical implication is needed, it is either written as !A || B, which in standard logic-text looks more like ~A v B, or else a small function can be written to make the meaning more clear.

Basically, anything you can do in formal logic, you can do also in a computer program using Boolean logic.

For example, try putting this JavaScript code in your browser's address bar (where you would normally see the address of the web-page you're viewing):

javascript: G = false; A = false; alert(!(A && !A) || G); alert(G);

Make sure to include the whole thing, including the "javascript:" part.

Translated into English, this code reads:

javascript:

"Execute some JavaScript, as follows:"

G = false; A = false;

"Prepare two Boolean variables, G for 'god', and A for 'any proposition', both initially set to the value 'false'."

alert(

"Display the text value--"true" for the Boolean value 'true', and "false" for the Boolean value 'false'--of the following Boolean logical expression:"

!(A && !A) || G

"NOT( A AND (NOT A) ) OR G, alternatively ~(A ^ ~A) v G, which is logically equivalent to (A ^ ~A) => G, which states that a contradiction implies God."

);

"Complete the alert(... statement." This is followed immediately by:

alert(G);

"Display the text value of the Boolean logical variable G, for 'god'."

The first alert(...) statement will output the text "true", and the second alert(G) will output the text "false", because while it is 'true' that a contradiction implies God (implies anything, actually), this in no way has any influence on the truth-value of the God proposition, G, which remains 'false'. The first "true" output reflects the truth-value of the logical implication (~A ^ A)=>G, not the truth-value of the variable G itself.

Note that you can change the initial value of A to 'false' or 'true', and the results will be the same. It doesn't matter, since A ^ ~A is 'false' (a contradiction) regardless of the value of A.

How about applying your rules consistently to every member?

These are quotes from Vastet:

"I know you're stupid and are having trouble keeping up, mostly because you're stuck on irrelevant philosophy instead of relevant reality, but this is almost hysterically funny."

"You should have been taught this by grade 3, so I'll safely assume you were home schooled by a dropout."

"All you've actually proven is that you are stupid, or at least exceptionally skilled at faking it."

You started it. I'm not above responding in kind. You want to start being civilised, then I'll return the favour. Until then you can fuck yourself.

If you studied other disciplines, you'd have learned that Modal Logic is not a substitute for hindsight and scientific methodology.

You couldn't even derive the 'truth' of whether a puppy that went missing, simply 'ran away', or was 'doggyknapped', with Modal Logic.

It's not a fallacy.  I think it's reasonable to assume based on your appearance that you eat a lot.  Am I wrong?  Do you have some thyroid condition that makes you gain weight?

Think? No, I DID win. I won before you ever posted. Any errors I made were as an atom to a star compared to your endless repetition of errors. Bye bye now.

Again, why am I getting warnings and not the others?  If you wouldn't mind, I'd like an answer from you--not your cronies.

I simply mean outside the context of a formal system, which Goedel showed can get stuck on undecidable propositions, or IOW cannot be 'complete'.

In the REAL world of imperfect knowledge, of estimates of probabilities, of the need for correlation and testing to assess the reliability of theories, of ideas, of propositions of all kinds, where 'God' is nothing but an instinct-driven fantasy, with no place in consistent models of the universe.