I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
From what I know of logic(keep in mind I don't know if there are any special rules here) a False implying a True is False
No, "A implies B" writetn as "A -> B" is rewritten as "(Not A) or B". "(Not False or anything" is true, as this is reuced to "True or anything". Therefore "False -> True" is true. Also "False -> False" is true.
@ Darkroot You're assuming that your physics is correct, when it really is just a theory. Physics have no complete proof, Christianity has much more proof
Unbacked assertions...
No, "A implies B" writetn as "A -> B" is rewritten as "(Not A) or B". "(Not False or anything" is true, as this is reuced to "True or anything". Therefore "False -> True" is true. Also "False -> False" is true.
This is because implication only has meaning if the antecedent is true. If the antecedent is false, then nothing is precluded.
No vesper's right. (F-->T) is true. You might be thinking of an if-and-only-if statement.
I'm guessing there are multiple types of logical reasoning then. Because I just had a couple weeks of lectures on, I think boolean logic, where false implying true is the only time an implies is false.
You're assuming that your physics is correct, when it really is just a theory. Physics have no complete proof, Christianity has much more proof
Physics is not a theory, it is observations. The proof of physics is that it works, well mostly anyways. And I have yet to see any proof for any religion.
I'm guessing there are multiple types of logical reasoning then. Because I just had a couple weeks of lectures on, I think boolean logic, where false implying true is the only time an implies is false.
You're probably thinking of this <-> in which case it would be false.
@ Darkroot You're assuming that your physics is correct, when it really is just a theory. Physics have no complete proof, Christianity has much more proof
Yes I am assuming it is correct since it's testable in the real world and has been peer-reviewed and put under great strain to see if it actually is applicable to the real world. Yes, it is just a theory but I'm guessing you don't know what a theory is in science. A theory is as close science gets to being a fact about our world. But physics is more provable that the bible or Christianity will ever be. That's why science isn't concerning itself with the bible because there is no evidence and nothing is testable or able to be repeated with Christianity.
You all are assuming that Christianity is false, so therefore, all of your arguments are going to be the same. I grew up atheist for 16 years. I know the arguments, I've been there, and you're arguments make no sense. All morals came from one form of religion or another. Philosophy is all opinion. I'm coming at you and saying "look, the bible is based off of eyewitness accounts, and is backed up with other historical documents." if you discount the bible, then you're discounting all of the proof for the argument of Christianity, thus making you prejudiced, thus you are arguing just to try and alter my beliefs. Which you almost did, but I am listening to the CD "The Top 10 Proofs Christianity is the only true religion," which has restored my faith.
@ Darkroot. A theory is a puzzle of information that has bits and pieces, but it really doesn't fit together. I can prove the Bible in the real world because it proves itself. The Bible, as I have stated before, is made up of eyewitness accounts, which, in a court of law, is the strongest evidence that someone can give. You're giving me bits and pieces of coincidental evidence filled with assumptions and opinions
Moe, it's "T->F" is false, and this is the main means of implication, if all the base statements are true, then the resultant statement is true, provided that resultant statement is entirely based on base statements.
I wish I was because I'm starting to get confused by this stuff. But what I learned was definitely F->T is F.
T -> F is F - is this what you were thinking?
You all are assuming that Christianity is false, so therefore, all of your arguments are going to be the same. I grew up atheist for 16 years. I know the arguments, I've been there, and you're arguments make no sense
This is a fallacy. I used to think X but now I know better.
Philosophy is all opinion
No - there is all right or wrong - otherwise there is a contradiction.
but I am listening to the CD "The Top 10 Proofs Christianity is the only true religion," which has restored my faith.
That's nice you have to buy your faith.
I'm guessing there are multiple types of logical reasoning then. Because I just had a couple weeks of lectures on, I think boolean logic, where false implying true is the only time an implies is false.
Hmmm that smells like Discrete Mathematics I. But it's probably philosophy, I personal don't like the wordy-ness of philosophical logic and prefer mathematics to express proofs.
All morals came from one form of religion or another.
I would think many morals could be traced back to early humans living in close groups. Where killing other members of the group is bad, where stealing from other is bad, and other such things. All would be harmful to the group, which would require the group to find a way to punish the individual causing problems.
"look, the bible is based off of eyewitness accounts, and is backed up with other historical documents." if you discount the bible, then you're discounting all of the proof for the argument of Christianity
I have yet to see any document that backs up the Bible.
thus making you prejudiced
I may be prejudiced in some areas, but not against any religion.
Moe, it's "T->F" is false,
I guess I shouldn't debate logic late at night. When I saw that it looked more familiar so I checked my notes, you are right.
Einfach, it's weird that you don't oppose ME, while I'm backing up thepyro222's statements. Since if you don't, then his assumptions are unprotested, so can be claimed as true.
Hmmm that smells like Discrete Mathematics I. But it's probably philosophy, I personal don't like the wordy-ness of philosophical logic and prefer mathematics to express proofs.
Its is Discrete Mathematics, but it also goes into programming it.
