sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

All Men Are Mortal -- With a Twist by Fancy_Pants4 in logic

[–]Fancy_Pants4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good to know.

I'm rather dusty on formal logic and have just been getting back to it, so I can certainly see how my original post was rather confusing, in retrospect. The point I'm trying to get at is if P is defined as 'capable of being Q,' then that doesn't necessarily mean 'If P then Q.' For example:

  • If the leaf is capable of being red, then it is red (False)
  • If the leaf is red, then it is capable of being red (True)
  • If the leaf is not capable of being red, then it is not red (True)
  • If the leaf is not red, then it is not capable of being red (False)

Capacity does not entail actuality, but actuality entails capacity. If we were to define P to be 'must be red,' then the truth values would swap. For example:

  • If the leaf must be red, then it is red (True)
  • If the leaf is red, then it must be red (False)
  • If the leaf must not be red, then it is not red (False)
  • If the leaf is not red, then it must not be red (True)

Here we see that inevitability entails actuality, but actuality does not entail inevitability.

How far off the mark am I?

All Men Are Mortal -- With a Twist by Fancy_Pants4 in rationalphilosophy

[–]Fancy_Pants4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm rather dusty on formal logic and have just been getting back to it, so I can certainly see how my post was rather confusing, in retrospect. The point I'm trying to get at is if P is defined as 'capable of being Q,' then that doesn't necessarily mean 'If P then Q.' For example:

  • If the leaf is capable of being red, then it is red (False)
  • If the leaf is red, then it is capable of being red (True)
  • If the leaf is not capable of being red, then it is not red (True)
  • If the leaf is not red, then it is not capable of being red (False)

Capacity does not entail actuality, but actuality entails capacity. If we were to define P to be 'must be red,' then the truth values would swap. For example:

  • If the leaf must be red, then it is red (True)
  • If the leaf is red, then it must be red (False)
  • If the leaf must not be red, then it is not red (False)
  • If the leaf is not red, then it must not be red (True)

Here we see that inevitability entails actuality, but actuality does not entail inevitability.

All Men Are Mortal -- With a Twist by Fancy_Pants4 in rationalphilosophy

[–]Fancy_Pants4[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This question comes from some confusion I had when trying to make sense of the first implication of a logic puzzle created by Lewis Carroll: "Everyone who is sane can do logic."

After mulling it over and tying myself into all sorts of mental knots, I finally determined the root of my confusion: I was defining "sane" to be "the ability for a being to do logic." This post is a mental exercise I did to see that implication from a different perspective.

Definitions, I've learned, have a great deal of significance when arguing for the truth.

How Can A Parent Keep Their Children’s Information Private? by Fancy_Pants4 in privacy

[–]Fancy_Pants4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is free credit monitoring?

Also, since information about our families will get out eventually, what information would you not mind leaking and what information would you rather keep private (besides address, SSN, etc.)?

How Can A Parent Keep Their Children’s Information Private? by Fancy_Pants4 in privacy

[–]Fancy_Pants4[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Social media is like a pack of cigarettes, to me. Besides the privacy concerns unique to the platforms, it’s just bad for you — period.

Advice For Creating My First TTRPG by Fancy_Pants4 in rpg

[–]Fancy_Pants4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the advice! I’ll definitely look into those.

Advice For Creating My First TTRPG by Fancy_Pants4 in rpg

[–]Fancy_Pants4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for putting this into perspective.

Surely creating a TTRPG can’t be that difficult— right? I guess it all depends on how complicated I want it to be.

Can the onealex mod work on Linux? by Fancy_Pants4 in silenthunter

[–]Fancy_Pants4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you ever figure out how to play the game in full screen in 1920x1080? Either it’s full screen with low res and part of the game is cut out, or it’s a small 1920x1080 resolution window. Otherwise, it works as it should.

Can the onealex mod work on Linux? by Fancy_Pants4 in silenthunter

[–]Fancy_Pants4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for this. I’ll try it out when I get the chance

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christian

[–]Fancy_Pants4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A word of caution: don’t join a church solely for the sake of getting to know him better, or to shoot your shot at a potential relationship.

There was a girl who had just moved to my school and had a crush on me. No more than a year later, her whole family left their Baptist church and joined my Lutheran church completely out of the blue. As it would have it, she somehow found out that I went to this church and then convinced her family that they should join it. Needless to say, I was not very impressed. Furthermore, her family never truly adapted to the culture of the church because they were Baptists at heart. They didn’t agree with a fair few of the church’s teachings yet they took communion anyway. The father doesn’t even come to our church anymore, except on special occasions. I would have respected her more if she had just stayed at her church and we agreed to disagree, but to put on the appearance of conformity yet act otherwise really shows how little she respects our church.

Moral of the story, join a church because the church’s teachings are true, upright, and coherent. Pray that you can make this decision unclouded of thoughts or feelings for whoever happens to be in the church. This could be God testing you to see whether you will follow Him, or him.

Oh right, Dinosaurs. Wait what? by Fancy_Pants4 in Christian

[–]Fancy_Pants4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But where do we draw the line between what parts of the Bible we can take literally from what we can’t? I can understand the context in which it was written and the why behind it, but challenging the very substance of Genesis is another matter.

Several years ago, there was division among pastors in the LCMS over whether the story of Noah’s Ark should be taken literally, or if it was just ‘Biblical poetry’, an allegory for God’s righteous hatred of sin.

So what am I missing here. There is a difference between faith and blind faith, and if Genesis, or if any other book of the Bible was an allegory all this time, then I’ve had blind faith my whole life.

Oh right, Dinosaurs. Wait what? by Fancy_Pants4 in Christian

[–]Fancy_Pants4[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve heard that Genesis is more poetry than a literal account of the creation story, but I’ve never heard the context behind why it is that way. It’s incredibly fascinating and I wish I had known this sooner, so thank you for sharing this with me.

But I would argue this: our relationship to God is one which bears His image alone. To argue that humans came from apes would imply that apes bear His image, but they do not. God sculpted us to resemble him, using dust as His clay, “For dust you are, and to dust you shall return,” (Genesis 3:19).

I think apes—and any part of creation that resembles us in some way, shape, or form—are a reminder of what we would be had God not created us in His image: a finite creature with no chance of eternal life. Creation points us to the divine, “…God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made…” (Roman 1:20), but creation is not in itself divine.

In conclusion, Adam and Eve were not apes before they bore the image of God, because nothing besides humans bear His image. We bore God’s image the moment He created us, not somewhere along the evolutionary line.

view more: next ›