People with zero videos... weird.
So I've noted that three people have all posed insane things about formal logic as of late.
And one person who has videos but none of them are anything to do with logic (a few video games and some home video family-type vids).
In every case I am bewildered at both how they SEEM to know a lot about formal logic, and yet - they don't.
Its odd to me that if they did have the understanding they suggest that they would not also make content - why limit yourself to text?
Speculation about the motives of people of course, is just that. There is nothing special about this. Plenty of people do not have content. It just "feels weird" - ah - emotion! See there is the first step towards pattern seeking that would be all to easy to go down the rabbit hole with.
These people posting are - I think, using chatgpt or something like it, and/or taking from random webpages ideas about formal logic to make there own. Why? Well - no idea why. I had to call one out for being trollish at this point because they keep digging in deeper with things that are less sensical.
Formal logic is most useful for the abstract world. It works great in maths and on paper but doesn't (always) work with real world objects.
For whatever reason these keyboard warriors have come "at me" for my video on the atheist experience's broken argument to defend that broken argument. Its not REALLY broken you see.... yea well no it is. BUT... no still broken.
BUT. Nope.
However, one person that I'm including in my odd people that talk logic was not about that argument at all, rather he mentioned something I've never heard of or read about!
"S5 logic"
https://philarchive.org/archive/ANDMLT#:~:text=The%20modal%20logic%20system%20S5,logic%20goes%2C%20system%20of%20logic.
https://mally.stanford.edu/S5.html#:~:text=The%20axioms%20of%20S5%20are,p%2C%20then%20p%20is%20true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S5_(modal_logic)
Example of how it gets "abused"
https://joshualrasmussen.com/s5/
(Former skeptic Joshua Rasmussen left Christianity to pursue truth through reason and philosophy. Over time, his intellectual pursuit led him back to a strong belief in God.)
With abstract objects (X) and (Z) we can do a lot of fun things, and then one can get to strange formulas that then when non-abstract should (one would think) still work... but... it doesn't always work. Oh sometimes it does. But other times - nope.
Why? Well because the real world is not one of the abstract. (mostly) we are dealing with real day objects here.
However, the person(s) that want an abstract world ie: "Spiritual" could abuse formal logic.
Does not matter if it is for or against God - I do not care. I only care that the argument is SOUND. (to be sound it must be valid as well) the SOUND part is really what matters most because that means you have found no logical errors.
Well - how does one look for logical errors? By looking at the real world! Ah - so see, informal (and formal) logic has it limits. Its great to have A=B, B=C, C=D, therefor A=D Sure that works! But... if you turn that to "God is a lobster, lobster can be eaten, eating them can be done by atheists therefor God can be eaten by atheists!" well... that doesn't work anymore! But!?! It worked as abstract...!!! Sure. But not in the real world once we pulled it from the abstract letters to become real objects - or assume they are real objects - then it clearly no longer works.
Logic, has its limits. So with the abstract one can very much play with the notions of "possible" to get to "actual" to say that god is possible therefor is actual and you can indeed put all sorts of logical formulas around that to """prove""" that is true. (Not enough quotes in the universe)
So... people are - I am deeply afraid - abusing formal logic because well - it CAN be abused. They have not bothered with informal logic or simply do not care and/or are trolls and/or .... bleep if I know - all I know is that - they are not using it in ways they should.
However, no where does it say how one "should" use logic of course. Anyone can use it for - well anything. Even to make things appear to be real when they are not.
Pseudoscience is a thing people use! And well... so is pseudologic!
It shouldn't surprise me - I've been telling theists this for years! I guess it comes at a strange angle to see people who might be atheists (I assume they are, no idea) would use pseudologic to make an argument that a broken argument is not broken.
Why? Just use a better argument?!
Well bleep who knows.
People are weird.
Kinda like this theist who I have been typing at who insists that everyone worships something even though I've told him I do not, he insists that I do. He can "see" that I do. So he must be right. Even though he isn't right because I know I do not worship anything.
Its a wacky world we live in.
Learn real logic so you can spot pseudologic.
