Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Argument from design

2010-02-12T14:12:31Z

Murphy:

I'm planning on expanding the "rock" section to cover natural rock formations vs. art created with rocks to demonstrate a bit more about complexity and the perception of design.
[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:58, 26 June 2006 (MST)

== Multiple creators ==

Matt, what about something in relation to the possibilty of multiple creators/designers?

:: I'm really not familiar with any claims like that and I can't really see how the rebuttal would be very different, but if there's a real argument there and it needs a response, feel free. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 13:06, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

==Copy paste violations==

Whilst additions are always welcome, the last addition to this page just looks like a massive copy paste from another website or pdf ebook. It even still has reference page numbers in there... whats going on?--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 08:12, 12 February 2010 (CST)

Talk:Argument from design

2010-02-12T14:12:20Z

Murphy: copy paste violations?

Main Page

2010-02-12T14:07:14Z

Murphy: Fallen47's changes removed due to spam and vandalism

{{Main Page Banner}}

'''[[Iron Chariots Wiki:Introduction|Iron Chariots]]''' is intended to provide information on [[apologetics]] and [[counter-apologetics]]. We'll be collecting common [[argument]]s and providing responses, information and resources to help counter the glut of misinformation and poor arguments which masquerade as "[[evidence]]" for [[religious]] claims.

The complexity of issues surrounding religion ensures that any proper assessment requires us to delve into a number of philosophical, historical and sociological topics. Our ultimate goal is to provide a robust and definitive resource for:

<table align="center" width="85%" border="0">
<tr>
<td>
* [[atheist]]s seeking responses to common apologetic arguments
* [[theist]]s who are questioning the efficacy of their beliefs
</td>
<td>
* [[apologist]]s who feel that their "pet" argument is above reproach
* individuals of any philosophical ideal who have an interest in religious studies
</td>
</tr>
</table>

{{Main Page navigation links2}}
----


<table align="center" width="100%" border="0">
<tr>
<td style="vertical-align: top;" width="%50">

<table style="vertical-align: bottom;" align="center" width="80%" border="0">
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; font-size: 24pt;">Starting points</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>

----

Feel free to make use of the [[Special:Search|Search]] feature if you're looking for a particular article.

{{Main Page starting points}}
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
<td style="vertical-align: top;" width="%50">

<table style="vertical-align: bottom;" align="center" width="80%" border="0">
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; font-size: 24pt;">Feature Articles</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>

----

previously addressed arguments. The following articles feature detailed rebuttals to common apologetics in various media:
* Recently, there was a group project to respond to the email titled "[[50 reasons to believe in god]]." The point of the exercise was to revise and expand any relevant articles so that each one provides a coherent rebuttal to a clearly stated theistic argument.
* ''[[The Way of the Master]]'' — apologist TV series featuring [[Ray Comfort]] and [[Kirk Cameron]].
** "[[The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master)|The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism]]" — a ''Way of the Master'' episode on atheism.
** "[[Evolution (Way of the Master)|Evolution]]" — a ''Way of the Master'' episode on evolution.
* [[Chick tract]]s — comic-book style series of evangelical pamphlets by Jack Chick.
** "[[Big Daddy? (Chick tract)|Big Daddy?]]" — a Chick tract focusing on evolution.
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

----

'''Get involved — edit this site!''' If you're interested in contributing to the site (in the non-monetary sense), you must [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup register] first to get a username. You might also want to register at our [http://forum.IronChariots.org IronChariots.org Forums] so you can post over there.

If you want to contribute in the ''monetary'' sense, please see [[Project:Site support|Site support]].

For more information, please take a look at these pages:
* [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Introduction|Introduction]]
* [[Project:Editing guidelines|Editing guidelines]]
* [[Project:Layout and styleguide|Layout and styleguide]]
* [[Project:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]]

Here are some some
If you're looking for some new or incomplete articles that need writing, please consider taking some suggestions from [[Project:Requested pages|Requested pages]].

----
<div align="center">'''Other languages:''' [[Página principal|Português]]</div>

__NOTOC__
__NOEDITSECTION__

Talk:You are a communist

2009-12-30T05:29:39Z

Murphy:

I vote to delete this page. It seems like a special case of [[Argumentum ad hominem]]. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 20:46, 29 December 2009 (CST)
:I dunno. I agree that it is an ad hominem, but the supposed "link between atheism and communism", or that "communism is atheism in practice", comes up so often that I think it does justify its own page. I will say that I think it should be worded and laid out allot better than it currently is.--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 23:29, 29 December 2009 (CST)

Argumentum ad baculum

2009-12-24T23:37:41Z

Murphy: navbox added

{{argument-stub}}

'''Argumentum ad baculum''' ("argument from force") is the [[fallacy]] committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a claim.

==Examples==
* "Give me all your money or I'll kill you."
* "If you don't believe in [[God]], you'll go to [[hell]] when you die."
* "If you [[apostasy|stop believing]] in [[Islam]], [[Sharia]] law says you must be killed."
* Chile's national motto "Por la razón o la fuerza" translates as "By right or might"

==Counterarguments==
This is an [[emotional]] argument, not a [[logical]] one. The person making the threat is making no argument for the truth of their claim. This fallacy is related to the [[argument from adverse consequences]] (the adverse consequence in question being punishment).

Since this technique is an attempt to intimidate or frighten the target of the argument, it is a variety of the [[appeal to emotion]].

Today, many people feel uncomfortable making such direct threats as the ones listed in the examples. However, believers still often make veiled threats, such as "don't you ever worry about what'll happen to you when you die?" Others, such as [[Ray Comfort]], have no such problems with it, and explicitly use the argument-in fact, it may be their foremost one. Comfort directly compares it with capital punishment, God having the power to commute the sentence if you will believe and beg forgiveness. This reminds people uncomfortably of Mafia dons or courts in totalitarian states, for instance the Soviet Union or People's Republic of China, which had the mechanism written into their system.

==See also==
* [[Pascal's wager]]

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Template:False relevance

2009-12-24T23:36:58Z

Murphy:

{{Navbox|name = False relevance
|borderstyle={{{borderstyle|border:1px solid grey;" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"}}}
|titlestyle = background:#DCFFCF;
|title=[[Logical fallacies#False relevance|False relevance]]
|groupstyle = background:#E9FFDA;

|group1=Appeals
|list1=''[[Appeal to authority]]'' · ''[[Appeal to consequences]]'' · ''[[Appeal to emotion]]'' · ''[[Appeal to motive]]'' · ''[[Appeal to novelty]]'' · ''[[Appeal to tradition]]'' · ''[[Appeal to poverty]]'' · ''[[Appeal to wealth]]'' · ''[[Sentimental fallacy]]'' · ''[[Argumentum ad baculum]]''

|group2=Ad hominem
|list2=''[[Ad hominem abusive]]'' · ''[[Reductio ad Hitlerum]]'' · ''[[Judgmental language]]'' · ''[[Straw man]]'' · ''[[Tu quoque]]''

|group3=Genetic Fallacies
|list3=''[[Genetic fallacy]]'' · ''[[Chronological snobbery]]'' · ''[[Association fallacy]]'' · ''[[Appeal to tradition]]'' · ''[[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]]''

}}

Template:False relevance

2009-12-24T23:36:38Z

Murphy:

{{Navbox|name = False relevance
|borderstyle={{{borderstyle|border:1px solid grey;" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"}}}
|titlestyle = background:#DCFFCF;
|title=[[Logical fallacies#False relevance|False relevance]]
|groupstyle = background:#E9FFDA;

|group1=Appeals
|list1=''[[Appeal to authority]]'' · ''[[Appeal to consequences]]'' · ''[[Appeal to emotion]]'' · ''[[Appeal to motive]]'' · ''[[Appeal to novelty]]'' · ''[[Appeal to tradition]]'' · ''[[Appeal to poverty]]'' · ''[[Appeal to wealth]]'' · ''[[Sentimental fallacy]]'' · ''Argumentum ad baculum''

|group2=Ad hominem
|list2=''[[Ad hominem abusive]]'' · ''[[Reductio ad Hitlerum]]'' · ''[[Judgmental language]]'' · ''[[Straw man]]'' · ''[[Tu quoque]]''

|group3=Genetic Fallacies
|list3=''[[Genetic fallacy]]'' · ''[[Chronological snobbery]]'' · ''[[Association fallacy]]'' · ''[[Appeal to tradition]]'' · ''[[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]]''

}}

User talk:Dcljr

2009-12-24T23:27:57Z

Murphy:

Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:47, 26 August 2006 (MST)

==Welcome==
Welcome! I'll be busy with the NP show today, but I wanted to get a quick response in. I looked over the issues in your sandbox and it's nice to have someone who knows about wikis, I've been learning as we go along. With regard to the redlinks issues: some of them I wasn't aware of, and some I intentionally avoided editing (like help) until I knew exactly what I wanted to include. Feel free to edit those pages as you like and, as time permits, I'll focus on them too.

Some answers to questions in your "Other Issues" section:
* Is there an [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map interwiki map] here?
** <s>No. I had actually just started reading about this the other day. It's definitely on the "to do" list, though there are only a handful of wikis that I'd bother including here.</s>
** Evidently, it's always been enabled and there were 174 links in the default list. I've added them to the discussion page and will find a way to modify those pages to have a "most used" list, "full list" and "suggested" list. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 18:15, 6 September 2006 (CDT)
* <s>Why are sig timestamps in MST when server time is UTC according to [[Special:Preferences|Preferences]]?</s>
** <s>I have no clue. I'll dig around a bit.</s>
** This should be corrected now. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 17:22, 6 September 2006 (CDT)
* Why using <nowiki>[[internal links]]</nowiki> to bolden title words in first sentences of articles (see, e.g., [[Counter-apologetics]]) instead of <nowiki>'''triple-apostrophes'''</nowiki>?
** Because we saw it done that way...and didn't check the manual of style. :) This should be probably be changed, though I'm curious whether or not it's a better solution.
* [[Special:Search/fubar|Search for "fubar"]] results in following statement (provided by [[MediaWiki:Nogomatch]]): ''There is no page titled ":fubar".'' (note placement of colon)
** I'll look into this one too, I'm pretty sure that it's due to changes we attempted to make when setting up the wiki. Essentially, I wanted the URL to display as '''wiki.ironchariots.org/pagename'''. Shawn ran into some problems with, I think, the Apache rewrite...I just haven't focused on changing it.
** Still investigating this, it's an odd one. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 17:22, 6 September 2006 (CDT)
As for the other items, feel free to change them, and anything else you find wrong. If the reason for the change is unclear or if you feel there's a gross conceptual error that should be avoided, perhaps you could add them to a list in the Help section, or something. In any case, I'm off to get things ready for the show, thanks for contributing! - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:06, 26 August 2006 (MST)

== Wow ==

Dcljr, I'm blown away by all that you're doing to bring this wiki up to speed with a professional look. Thank you thank you thank you for all the work that you've done this weekend. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 04:20, 28 August 2006 (MST)

Hey, I just remembered something that we wanted to put in a while ago. We were going to have a template that linked Bible verses. I was just messing with it again and it currently looks like this: <nowiki>{{Bible|John|3:16}}</nowiki> -> {{Bible|John|3:16}}

The problem is that when you use a book with spaces in it, such as <nowiki>{{Bible|1 Kings|1:1}}</nowiki> it looks like this: {{Bible|1 Kings|1:1}}. The extra space messes up the intended link. Is there a way to replace spaces in the second field with "%20"?

--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 08:19, 28 August 2006 (MST)

: Hmm. I don't know, I'd have to just look around Wikipedia to find out (which, unfortunately, I'm not going to do right now — I need to get to sleep at some point). I know it'd be a lot easier if you were linking to a wiki (with interwiki linking enabled — Matt's apparently looking into that), since then you wouldn't be constructing the URL "from scratch" but just using a wiki-link, where spaces don't matter. (Even "blind searches" can be done this way, using <nowiki>[[Special:Search/</nowiki>''Search term(s)'']]. BTW, this would fix the problem you've had with {{[[Template talk:WP-name|WP-name]]}}.) Might have more to say about this in a few days... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:11, 29 August 2006 (MST)

:: Well it turns out that there is another wiki called "[http://www.wikibible.com/ wikibible]" -- which appears to just provide a search function for Bible Gateway, but it might work. I've heard you talk about interwiki links but I have no knowledge of how to set them up.

::: I've been researching this and it's going to take some work. There is no easy, automated process, you have to actually jump into the database and modify tables in order to setup the links. The nice thing is that it doesn't matter whether the link is a wiki or not, you could setup an interwiki link to Bible Gateway or Dictionary.com. I'll probably do this, but let's put together a list of what we want/need first. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:20, 29 August 2006 (MST)

:::: I've set up a page at [[Project:Interwiki map]] to start hammering out the details. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:28, 29 August 2006 (MST)

== Admin page ==
The entries there are fine. Indefual hasn't been around, but I think his primary interest was in getting this up and running for us. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:05, 28 August 2006 (MST)

Speaking of the admin page, you'll need to update it again - I've added you as a sysop. I have a new project at work which is keeping me busy and preventing me from doing much work on the wiki, at least for the next week or so. Considering your knowledge and contributions, it just made sense that you shouldn't have to wait around for me if something needs to be done. Hopefully this status change, is acceptable, I probably should have asked first - but it's easy to change. -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 08:42, 30 August 2006 (MST)
:No, that's fine. Thanks. On larger wikis (especially the large Wikimedia ones) I tend to resist becoming an admin (in fact, I'm only an admin on one other, low-traffic, non-Wikimedia wiki) because I don't really want the additional responsibility that comes with the additional power(s). But this wiki is still pretty low-key (i.e., no disputes, vandalism, etc., to speak of), so it should be okay.... - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:31, 30 August 2006 (MST)

==Interwiki comments==
You wrote, on my [[User_talk:Sans_Deity|talk]] page (sorry for the cross-page discussion, this was just the quickest way to get a response out before I head to work):
{{quote|Please compare these links to the default links listed on the talk page and modify/remove from this list." I'd like to respectfully object for the following reasons: Each wiki is free to use their own list of interwiki links and I've never liked some of the choices made by other sites (/ MediaWiki maintainers), especially metawikipedia — a perfectly horrible choice, if you ask me. In the list I started I was trying to use "logical", "obvious" prefixes. Maybe I misunderstood your note, but it sounds like you're preferring to stick to the default choices listed on the talk page.}}
For clarification (and I'll try to get some work done on this later today), the list that appears there is the default list which exists in the database when the wiki is installed. As it turns out, the interwiki function has always been enabled for each of the sites in that list. I'll probably delete some of the ones on that list, but here's what I think needs to be done, at a minimum:
<div style="text-decoration:line-through">
* The main [[Project:Interwiki map]] page should:
** Describe the interwiki function and include a table of available/most common/recommended shortcuts
** Include a link to the "full map" [[Project:Interwiki map (full)]] (which may be smaller than the current list, as some defaults should be removed)
* A new page, perhaps [[Project:Interwiki map (requests)]] should be created and, essentially, take the purpose and content of the current [[Project:Interwiki map]] page (a place to request new links - and a place to note those that should be removed)
* For each of the current recommended/suggested sites:
** If it already exists on the default table, that needs to be noted and:
*** We need to decide whether or not it's "ok as is" or whether it needs to have a different shortcut
** If it doesn't exist, it should live on the [[Project:Interwiki map (requests)]] page until added
</div>
::: All of this has been set up, though changes may need to be made - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 11:24, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
That's what I was thinking, in a nutshell. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 09:30, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

== Latin or English nomenclature ==

A while back, there was [[Talk:Argumentum ad baculum]] a bit of a discussion, and it was decided that logical fallacies should be kept under their formal (usually Latin) name, and that English synonyms should be redirects to the Latin page.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to changing the rule, but I'd like for there to be consistency.
--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 14:08, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

:Consistency was the goal. In some cases, it may be argued that the formal name is the more popular version. In some sense, it doesn't make any difference where the article lives as the redirects essentially make them equivalent. The only place where this becomes truly problematic is when we're looking at a page on logical fallacies that links to all of them, or the appropriate category page. On an article page, I think I'd actually prefer a list that links to the formal name and includes the common name in parentheses, for clarity. The category page seems to be the only sticking point. I'm wondering if a redirect page could also have the category link - so that the category page has a link to both articles, even though one simply redirects to the other? -- [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 16:22, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

:: Putting redirects in categories seems like the best solution, IMHO, if it works. Kind of like an index that lists synonyms of a concept. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 16:29, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

:: Yup, it works. I guess I should start categorizing redirects, unless someone can whip up a bot to do that. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 16:32, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

::: I think we can go with manual categorizing, since there should only be a small number of cases where it's necessary. Follow-ups on this topic should perhaps be dealt with on [[Project talk:Categorization]]? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 20:36, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

:::: I'm a big fan of automation. Perhaps in an ideal world there'd be a magic template for redirects, call it <nowiki>{{Synonym}}</nowiki>, that means, "fix the categories for this redirect to be the same as whatever it points to". But you're correct that at least for now, there are few enough cases that they can be maintained manually.
:::: This is slightly nontrivial in that we don't want all redirects to appear in the category listings: as discussed above, it'd be good for both "[[Petitio principii]]" and "[[Begging the question]]" to appear in a category listing, but we don't want to do that with, say, "[[God]]", "[[Deity]]", and "[[Deities]]". (I guess this is a lot of words to say that we're basically in agreement.) --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:44, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

== Question about categories ==

I noticed that you put [[Religion]] in <nowiki>[[Category:Religion|*]]</nowiki>.
As I understand it,adding a pipe and a sort string tells MediaWiki to alphabetize according to the sort string. So adding <tt>|*</tt> tells it to put [[Religion]] in the "*" tab of the index.
Is that what you intended to do? If so, why put it under "*" instead of leaving it under "R"?
--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 15:40, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

== Hares Chew Cud ==

Should i just manualy format the referances? or just wait for a <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag to be implimented? {{unsigned|Narmical}}
: Replied on [[User talk:Narmical|your talk page]]. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 12:11, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
::Well i have a version saved on my computer that doesnt use the template, so no biggie [[User:Narmical|Narmical]] 08:20, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

== Denis's introduction ==

Thanks for adding the latest [[The Non-Prophets]] introduction. Ironically enough, though, this was the first one that Denis mailed me. I was going to copy and paste it in, when I saw that you'd already transcribed it. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 22:08, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

== Failed template ==

Yeah, it was a pretty lame attempt. I was trying to get a template merge, finally I just grabbed the template for wikify from this wiki and called it a day. No real need to be fancy, just wanted something to say that [[Jesus fulfilled prophecy]] is pretty much a dupe of [[Messianic prophecy]], and was feeling adventurous in the realm of cargo cult programming. If you notice when I trashed the template for ambox I used 'fail' as the summary. Although, actually the wikify and merge templates probably share like 95% of the same info and could be rereferenced to an box template (which would help if those templates needed a change). [[User:Tatarize|Tatarize]] 04:19, 20 November 2007 (CST)

== Section header. ==

Okay, I'll work on that. Just seems a shame to have a big fancy header to quickly not something of interests to apologetics or the like. I'll stick with the format better. [[User:Tatarize|Tatarize]] 15:38, 28 November 2007 (CST)

== Oops Sorry ==

Thanks Dcljr, in my rush to contribute I didn't read all the help guides (sorry). --[[User:TheRedFerret|TheRedFerret]] 12:28, 4 September 2008 (CDT)

== Signing Comments ==

I'll try to remember, thanks! [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 13:13, 2 December 2008 (CST)

== Translating to portuguese ==

Hi. I don't know the correct way to ask it. I would like to start the translation of this wiki to my mother tongue: portuguese. I noticed that there's no translations to any languages here. What should I do to start? Can you help me with this?

[[User:BrightMan|BrightMan]] 09:45, 21 April 2009 (CDT)

==Layout Standardisation==

Hey dude, no one's commented one way or the other on the template i devised in my sandbox to standardise layout across multiple similar pages. I've basically got nothing planned this weekend so i thought it would be a good time to start, but i thought i'd better check with an admin before i went making large changes to multiple pages.--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 03:51, 11 December 2009 (CST)

:You're probably getting sick of my questions by now, but i figure since you've had allot of wiki editing experience you'd be the best person to ask. What would be the legalities of us copying and pasting the code from Template:Navbar on Wikipedia to use on Iron Chariots? --[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 06:38, 14 December 2009 (CST)

::Yet another stupid question. It seems that as the mediawiki documentation is kept as a wiki itself, the documentation is updated in parallel with the mediawiki software. As a result i'm finding it almost impossible to find documentation on versions as old as the one used by Iron Chariots.
::In particular, i'm wondering about custom links on images rather than having them default to the image file in the wiki commons area. On the wiki documentation it says to use the tag <nowiki>[[Image:Pic.jpg|link=Main_Page]]</nowiki> but on the mediawiki 1.6.3 testbed i'm running on my laptop, the "link=" ends up being the caption and it still defults to the wiki commons area. I was wondering if you knew the code to get this working properly on older versions.
::Oh, i've also got another question about copyright. As i understand, Iron Chariots is pretty strict about referencing the KJV bible for copyright reasons. How far would fair use allow for if we were to have a page comparing passages from different versions including the NIV and NLT?--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 00:47, 20 December 2009 (CST)

==Implication, biconditional==
Yeah, in hindsight, I probably should have redirected implication to the [[Material implication (if then)]] redlink. When i was looking in the double redirects, the (if and only if) was actually going through [[if and only if]] > [[biconditional]] > [[implication]] so i kindof went from there without thinking as much as i prbably should have. That being said the article appears to cover both implication and biconditional so its seem to me a moot point which its labelled at the moment. Basically I'm planning on cutting the implication stuff out and pasting it back into the [[Material implication (if then)]] so that all of the formal logical operators have their own separate sections as defined in the [[Template:Formal logic|Formal logic]] Navbox, just haven't had time yet. I've been on planes trains and automobiles for the last 2 days and I'll probably be doing family stuff for the next 2 or 3. I promise I will get around to fixing this tinsie snafu though.--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 17:17, 23 December 2009 (CST)
:Thats fair enough. I was actually using wikipedia as a source for terminology, and they use the term material implication so i just copied that. You're right though, it probably should just be implication.
:As for the parentheses titles; I think they may still be useful. I understand what you're saying about keeping the simplest titles for the pages, or more aptly, not unnecessarily complicating things, but i suspect that most laymen (myself included) think of the logical operators in terms of their usage (if then) (And) (Xor) etc. I think the logic section would be more easily navigable to our average reader if the functional operators were included in the title rather than just the name of the operator that many many not be familiar with. That's my argument anyways. If you still think it needs to be changed though that's fine too--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 17:27, 24 December 2009 (CST)

User talk:Dcljr

2009-12-23T23:17:10Z

Murphy:

Santa Claus argument

2009-12-21T11:45:51Z

Murphy:

The santa clause argument is a counter-apologetic that equates God to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or any other number of traditional superstitions commonly accepted as fiction.
==Background information==
[[Atheist|Atheists]] sometimes equate [[belief]] in [[God]] with belief in Santa Claus — both, they say, are childish beliefs that should be abandoned in adulthood, if not earlier. [[Theist|Theists]] usually reply that their God is far more subtle and sophisticated than a jolly red-dressed man flying around on a sled, so the beliefs aren't comparable. But aren't they?

==Argument==
===Lack of evidence===
Why do we reject the Santa Hypothesis? There are two key possible reasons. One might be that we caught our father filling the Christmas stockings, not Santa. A little reflection reveals that '''all''' of Santa's miracles — every stocking ever filled, every sled tracking by [[Wikipedia:NORAD|NORAD]], every old man in a red suit inviting a child to sit on his lap — all are lies and deceit.

It is this reasoning that the theists usually object to — their "Santa" is more subtle. He doesn't actually put money and candy in people's socks, you know. No, he only did that once, a long time ago — and you can't prove that he didn't, now can you?

Well no, but that does not make it true, or even plausible. The theists' stealthy, hidden Santa has been reduced to intervening only when no one is looking and can only be seen if you squint and look sideways (or perhaps just close your eyes and wish). This is absurd. The only kind of God left here with any intellectual honesty is that of the [[Deism|Deist]]; positing a "hidden" god still lurking [[God of the gaps|in the cracks of our knowledge]] is just too embarrassing. This God then, at least is left unharmed by the Santa argument. Right? Wrong.

===Evidence to the contrary===
There is a second reason why we reject the Santa Hypothesis. Long before we conduct [[Wikipedia:double-blind experiment|double-blind experiments]] to monitor the filling of stockings, we would reject the hypothesis out of hand because it ''doesn't fit into how we know the universe works''. In the real-world, jolly old men don't run hidden industrial toy-making complexes at the North Pole, they can't deliver presents to hundreds of millions of homes across the globe in one night, and reindeer don't fly.

The same can be said about God. We know something about intelligent agents: they require minds; and minds require brains — physical brains in physical heads, on physical bodies, forged by [[evolution]] through the ages. A non-physical mind that hasn't been subject to evolution and yet possesses superhuman intelligence and incontrovertible will — a personal, loving God that can hear silent prayers, understand our suffering, and know our every action and intent — all of this ignores everything we know about actual minds in the real world. The universe is simply not personal; it follows the laws of physics in a strictly impersonal manner. The universe doesn't revolve around us, nor does it care about our fate. Things just don't work that way. It's childish to believe otherwise.

==Conclusion==
Is it possible that Santa exists? Sure, it's ''possible''. Perhaps one day intrepid reporting and careful scientific observation will demonstrate that something approximating the popular conception of Santa actually exists. Until that day, believing in Santa — even one hidden from our current understanding — is absurd. Similarly, believing that there is a God — even one hidden from our current understanding — is just as absurd. Adults should believe that existence works like science says it does: things that exist manifest in the physical world and can be discovered by scientific investigation. Flights of fancy that do not obey known laws of physics and biology should be left to children.

==Links==
==External links==
*[http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/27-why-do-atheists-equate-god-with-santa-claus-the-tooth-fairy-elves Why do atheists equate God with Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, elves] - Question and answer at www.asktheatheists.com <small>Adapted from an original article [http://atheism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Santa_Claus_Argument&oldid=3727 at the Atheism Wiki].</small>

{{Arguments against god}}

[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Template:Arguments against god

2009-12-21T11:39:23Z

Murphy: Santa claus argument added

{{Navbox|name = Arguments against god
|titlestyle = background:#C6D3FF;
|title=[[Arguments against the existence of god]]
|groupstyle = background:#DAE3FF;

|group1=Existential arguments
|list1=''[[Argument from non-belief]]'' · ''[[Turtles all the way down]]'' · ''[[Who created God?]]'' · ''[[The three O paradox]]'' · ''[[No-reason argument]]'' · ''[[Santa Claus argument]]''

|group2=Moral arguments
|list2=''[[Euthyphro dilemma]]'' · ''[[Problem of evil]]'' · ''[[Moral argument]]'' · ''[[Moral implications]]''

|group3=Dogma and tennants
|list3=''[[The big book of multiple choice]]'' · ''[[Outsider text]]'' · ''[[Biblical contradictions]]'' · ''[[Biblical realiability]]''

|group4=Scientific arguments
|list4=''[[Biblical value of pi]]'' · ''[[Scientific statements in the bible]]'' · ''[[Argument from locality]]'' · ''[[Occam's Razor]]'' · ''[[Testing biblical claims]]'' · ''[[Inconsistent revelations]]

}}

Santa Claus argument

2009-12-21T11:37:38Z

Murphy: formating, fixed some wikilinks, navbox added

The santa clause argument is a counter-apologetic that equates God to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or any other number of traditional superstitions commonly accepted as fiction.
==Background information==
[[Atheist|Atheists]] sometimes equate [[belief]] in [[God]] with belief in Santa Claus — both, they say, are childish beliefs that should be abandoned in adulthood, if not earlier. [[Theist|Theists]] usually reply that their God is far more subtle and sophisticated than a jolly red-dressed man flying around on a sled, so the beliefs aren't comparable. But aren't they?

==Argument==
===Lack of evidence===
Why do we reject the Santa Hypothesis? There are two key possible reasons. One might be that we caught our father filling the Christmas stockings, not Santa. A little reflection reveals that '''all''' of Santa's miracles — every stocking ever filled, every sled tracking by [[Wikipedia:NORAD|NORAD]], every old man in a red suit inviting a child to sit on his lap — all are lies and deceit.

It is this reasoning that the theists usually object to — their "Santa" is more subtle. He doesn't actually put money and candy in people's socks, you know. No, he only did that once, a long time ago — and you can't prove that he didn't, now can you?

Well no, but that does not make it true, or even plausible. The theists' stealthy, hidden Santa has been reduced to intervening only when no one is looking and can only be seen if you squint and look sideways (or perhaps just close your eyes and wish). This is absurd. The only kind of God left here with any intellectual honesty is that of the [[Deism|Deist]]; positing a "hidden" god still lurking [[God of the gaps|in the cracks of our knowledge]] is just too embarrassing. This God then, at least is left unharmed by the Santa argument. Right? Wrong.

===Evidence to the contrary===
There is a second reason why we reject the Santa Hypothesis. Long before we conduct [[Wikipedia:double-blind experiment|double-blind experiments]] to monitor the filling of stockings, we would reject the hypothesis out of hand because it ''doesn't fit into how we know the universe works''. In the real-world, jolly old men don't run hidden industrial toy-making complexes at the North Pole, they can't deliver presents to hundreds of millions of homes across the globe in one night, and reindeer don't fly.

The same can be said about God. We know something about intelligent agents: they require minds; and minds require brains — physical brains in physical heads, on physical bodies, forged by [[evolution]] through the ages. A non-physical mind that hasn't been subject to evolution and yet possesses superhuman intelligence and incontrovertible will — a personal, loving God that can hear silent prayers, understand our suffering, and know our every action and intent — all of this ignores everything we know about actual minds in the real world. The universe is simply not personal; it follows the laws of physics in a strictly impersonal manner. The universe doesn't revolve around us, nor does it care about our fate. Things just don't work that way. It's childish to believe otherwise.

==Conclusion==
Is it possible that Santa exists? Sure, it's ''possible''. Perhaps one day intrepid reporting and careful scientific observation will demonstrate that something approximating the popular conception of Santa actually exists. Until that day, believing in Santa — even one hidden from our current understanding — is absurd. Similarly, believing that there is a God — even one hidden from our current understanding — is just as absurd. Adults should believe that existence works like science says it does: things that exist manifest in the physical world and can be discovered by scientific investigation. Flights of fancy that do not obey known laws of physics and biology should be left to children.

==Links==
==External links==
*[http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/27-why-do-atheists-equate-god-with-santa-claus-the-tooth-fairy-elves Why do atheists equate God with Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, elves |why to atheists equate god with santa claus] - Question and answer at www.asktheatheists.com <small>Adapted from an original article [http://atheism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Santa_Claus_Argument&oldid=3727 at the Atheism Wiki].</small>

{{Arguments against god}}

[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Atheism]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Operations of logic

2009-12-20T14:11:06Z

Murphy:

{{wikipedia|Logical connective|color=#F7FFC8;}}
The three simplest '''operations of logic''' are:
* '''negation''' — "not"
* '''conjunction''' — "and"
* '''disjunction''' — "or"
Other operations that can be expressed in terms of the first three include:
* '''[[implication]]''' — "implies" or "if... then"
* '''[[Implication|equivalence]]''' — "if and only if"
* '''exclusive disjunction''' — "either... or... but not both"
There are several others; see [[Wikipedia:Logical connective]] for more information.

{{Formal logic}}
[[Category:Logic]]

Operations of logic

2009-12-20T14:10:54Z

Murphy:

Converse

2009-12-20T14:08:49Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

Inverse

2009-12-20T14:08:26Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

Contrapositive

2009-12-20T14:08:15Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

Biconditional

2009-12-20T14:08:01Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]] [[Category:Logic]]

Conditional

2009-12-20T14:07:45Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]] [[Category:Logic]]

Imply

2009-12-20T14:07:29Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

Necessary condition

2009-12-20T14:07:15Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

Sufficient condition

2009-12-20T14:06:59Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

Necessary and sufficient condition

2009-12-20T14:06:35Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

Necessary and sufficient

2009-12-20T14:06:22Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

Logically equivalent

2009-12-20T14:06:09Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]] [[Category:Logic]]

Only if

2009-12-20T14:05:57Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]] [[Category:Logic]]

Unless

2009-12-20T14:05:34Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]] [[Category:Logic]]

Necessary

2009-12-20T14:05:05Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]] [[Category:Logic]]

Sufficient

2009-12-20T14:04:39Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]] [[Category:Logic]]

Then

2009-12-20T14:04:06Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

If

2009-12-20T14:03:51Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

Implies

2009-12-20T14:03:34Z

Murphy:

#redirect [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

If and only if

2009-12-20T14:03:18Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

Bicondtional

2009-12-20T14:02:52Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

Iff

2009-12-20T14:02:33Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

If, and only if

2009-12-20T14:02:06Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Biconditional (if and only if)]]

Implication

2009-12-20T14:01:43Z

Murphy:

{{wikipedia|Entailment}}
'''Implication''' is a [[logic]]al operation on two statements, typically represented by the variables P and Q. "P '''implies''' Q" is written symbolically as "P → Q". Equivalent statements include "'''if''' P '''then''' Q", "P is '''sufficient''' for Q", and "Q is '''necessary''' for P".

The statement "if P then Q" is called a '''conditional''' statement; P is known as the '''antecedent''' and Q the '''consequent'''.

The statement "P '''if and only if''' Q", a '''biconditional''' statement, means the same thing as "P implies Q, and Q implies P". Other equivalent meanings include "P is '''logically equivalent''' to Q", and "P is a necessary and sufficient condition for Q". The phrase "if and only if" is often abbreviated '''iff''', especially in mathematics.

==Definition==
Implication, the result of "P → Q" is defined by the following table:
{| class="wikitable"
| '''P'''
| '''Q'''
| '''P→Q'''
|-
| True
| True
| True
|-
| True
| False
| False
|-
| False
| True
| True
|-
| False
| False
| True
|}

Note that if P is true, then Q must also be true for the implication to hold (be true). However, if P is false, Q ''may or may not'' be true and the implication still holds.

To illustrate the latter fact, consider a teacher who tells her class that any student who gets 100% on the final exam will pass the class. In other words:
: '''P''': A student gets 100% on the final.
: '''Q''': That student passes the class.
: '''P → Q''': If a student gets 100% on the final, then that student passes the class.
Now consider the case in which two students do poorly on the final exam; one of them did well enough on the other exams to pass the course, but the other did not. Did the teacher lie?

No. She said nothing about students who do ''not'' get 100% on the final (i.e., the case where P is false). Unless there is a student who both got 100% on the final and did not pass the course, the teacher told the truth.

For this reason, "P → Q" can be restated as "¬(P &and; ¬ Q)" or "not (P and not Q)", or "it is not the case that P is true and Q is false".

In summary, the following statements are equivalent:
{| class="wikitable"
! In symbols !! In English
|-
| P → Q || P implies Q; if P then Q; P sufficient for Q; Q necessary for P
|-
| ¬(P &and; ¬Q) || not(P and not Q)
|-
| ¬P &or; Q || (not P) or Q   [equivalent by [[De Morgan's laws]]]
|-
| ¬Q → ¬P || not Q implies not P
|}

==Unless and only if==
The statement "P '''unless''' Q" can be translated using implication as "if not Q, then P". It might be more familiar when stated with a negated antecedent: "not P unless Q" means "if not Q then not P".

The statement "P '''only if''' Q" is equivalent to "if not Q, then not P", or just "if P then Q". Note that it is ''not'' equivalent to "P if Q", which means "if Q then P".

To illustrate how "only if" and "unless" statements work, consider the statement:
: I will pass the class only if I study hard.
What this means is:
: If I don't study hard, I won't pass the class.
Or, equivalently (as explained [[#Definition|above]]):
: I can't both not study hard ''and'' pass the class.
If the last statement were not equivalent to the original, then I might be able to not study and still pass the class — but this contradicts my original assertion that it was ''only'' by studying hard that I would pass.

Using an "unless" statement to say the same thing:
: I won't pass the class unless I study hard.
This means I'll want to study hard to give myself a ''chance'' to pass, but it doesn't ''guarantee'' that I will pass; on the other hand, ''not'' studying will guarantee that I don't pass.

Symbolically, both the "only if" and "unless" versions of the statement can be written as:
: '''¬ S → ¬ P''': If I don't study hard, I won't pass the class.
where
: S = I study hard.
: P = I will pass the course.

Note that this is equivalent to:
: '''P → S''': If I will pass the class then I study hard.
Or, rephrased to make more sense grammatically:
: If I end up passing the class then I must have studied hard.

==Transformations of conditionals==
Given a conditional statement "if P then Q", there are many ways of transforming the statement to other conditionals that may or may not be logically equivalent.
: '''Original''': P → Q   ("P implies Q")
: '''Contrapositive''': ¬Q → ¬P   ("not Q implies not P") — this is logically equivalent
: '''Inverse''': ¬P → ¬Q   ("not P implies not Q") — ''not'' equivalent
: '''Converse''': Q → P   ("Q implies P") — ''not'' equivalent

For more information, see [[Wikipedia:Contraposition]].

==Quantifiers==
In [[predicate logic]], statements containing "all" or "for all" can be re-expressed as conditional statements in [[propositional logic]] in the following way:
: ''Statement in predicate logic'': All squares are rectangles.
: ''Statement in propositional logic'': If a figure is a square, then it is a rectangle.
Note how the statement in propositional logic refers to a larger context (figures) that is not explicitly stated in the predicate-logic version.

An interesting effect of "all" statements being equivalent to "if" statements is that the following "nonsensical" statement is actually true:
* All positive numbers that are both even and odd are divisible by 17.
How can this be? Clearly there are no positive numbers that are both even and odd, so how can they be divisible by 17? Well, the above statement is equivalent to the following:
* If there is any positive number that is both even and odd, then it will be divisible by 17.
The antecedent here (the "if" part) is false, but we have seen that a conditional statement is true when its antecedent is false, no matter what the consequent is; so the statement is true.

{{Formal logic}}

[[Category:Logic]]

Talk:Implication

2009-12-20T14:00:39Z

Murphy: Talk:Implication moved to Talk:Biconditional (if and only if)

==Certainty of outcomes Vs possibility of outcomes?==
I'm sill a little new to this whole wiki editing thing so i thought i'd better make it a discussion rather than put my foot in it by changing the page willy-nilly.
Where you've written "if P is false, then P → Q is true." would it not be more accurate to say "if P is false, then P → Q may still be true."? after all, if (P), or (P and Q) are both false as per the last two rows in the table, we don't necessarily know that P → Q is true, just that it might be true and that we have insufficient data to rule it out. --[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 20:04, 7 November 2009 (CST)

:I think I know where you're going with this...

:'''Material implication''' explores the possibility of Q and ¬Q in the presence of P and ¬P.

:'''Logical implication''' explores the causative effect of P and ¬P on Q and ¬Q.

:The information and example is attempting to explain both material and logical implication in the context of material implication alone. Thus, the article as a whole could seem to be saying ¬P ⇒ (P ⇒ Q), which is false.

:{| class="wikitable"
| colspan="2" |
| colspan="2" | '''Material Implication'''
| colspan="2" | '''Logical Implication'''
|-
! colspan="2" |
! P → Q
!
! P ⇒ Q
!
|-
| P
| Q
| '''Valid'''
| P demands Q
| '''Valid'''
| P causes Q
|-
| P
| ¬Q
| '''Invalid'''
| P prevents ¬Q
| '''Invalid'''
| P cannot cause ¬Q
|-
| ¬P
| Q
| '''Valid'''
| ¬P allows Q
| '''Invalid'''
| ¬P is not the cause of Q
|-
| ¬P
| ¬Q
| '''Valid'''
| ¬P allows ¬Q
| '''Invalid'''
| ¬P is not the cause of ¬Q
|-
| colspan="6" style="text-align: center; font-size: 80%" | ¬P allows either Q or ¬Q, but does not cause either.
|}

:In either case, we've shown logically that ¬P cannot be used to establish either Q or ¬Q. Only P can.

:You could explain the difference between the two, and perhaps even include the chart/info I just wrote. Another level of confusion for the already confused creationists :) --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 15:52, 8 November 2009 (CST)

::I think i kind of get it, but even by that definition of material implication (as in not a causal link), isn't the truth of the statement (¬P allowes ¬Q) a completely separate issue to the truth of the original statement that (P → Q).

::As far as i can see, (¬P allows ¬Q) would be similar to (¬fruitbowl allows ¬apple) which isn't necessarily false, but it doesn't really tell us anything about the truth of the statement (fruit bowl → apple). I just don't see how based on (particularly in row four) insufficient data, you can't make a definitive claim about the truth of statement (P → Q) one way or the other.

::Likewise in the logical implication side of your table, the last two rows don't necessarily invalidate the statement that (P ⇒ Q). In row three, perhaps in this case Q was in this case caused by X, but that doesn't necessarily mean Q can't also caused by P (when p occurs). And in row four we have the same problem. Insufficient data to say one way or the other. You could could make the same statement as in the material implication. (¬P allows ¬Q), but that doesn't necessarily tell us whether (P ⇒ Q) is actually true or false.

::I guess what I'm getting at is that if we've shown logically that (¬P cannot be used to establish either Q or ¬Q. Only P can), then how can we make any True, false, valid, or invalid claims about the statements (P → Q) or (P ⇒ Q) based on the last two rows of the table. Shouldn't they read "insufficient data" or "unknown" or something (@_@?) Sorry, i don't mean to be an ass or anything, I'm just not quite seeing it.--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 17:12, 8 November 2009 (CST)

:::If I can summarize what you're thinking:

:::'''If '¬P ⇒ Q' is false, that doesn't speak about 'P ⇒ Q'. So if ¬P don't we automatically lose the ability to speak about 'P ⇒ Q'?'''

:::My answer is that we ARE asking what you think we should be. You could rewrite the table like this:

:::{| class="wikitable"
! colspan="4" | Logical Implication
|-
!P
!Q
!Question
!Answer
|-
| true
| true
| Does +P ⇒ +Q?
| yes
|-
| true
| false
| Does +P ⇒ ¬Q?
| no
|-
| false
| true
| Does ¬P ⇒ +Q?
| no
|-
| false
| false
| Does ¬P ⇒ ¬Q?
| no
|}

:::But that's not necessary. P and Q are containers for values, not values themselves. "Does P ⇒ Q?" means "Does the value of P in this case imply the value of Q in this case?" It does not dictate the values as positive.

:::I totally mistook what you were getting at there, but I think that point (logical versus material) needs to be addressed.--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 21:40, 12 November 2009 (CST)

Implication

2009-12-20T14:00:39Z

Murphy: Implication moved to Biconditional (if and only if)

Propositional logic

2009-12-20T13:59:38Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Formal logic]]

Logical system

2009-12-20T13:59:20Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Formal logic]]

Classical logic

2009-12-20T13:58:57Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Formal logic]]

Predicate logic

2009-12-20T13:58:41Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Formal logic]]

Rules of logic

2009-12-20T13:58:30Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Formal logic]]

Laws of logic

2009-12-20T13:58:13Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Formal logic]]

Inductive logic

2009-12-20T13:57:56Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Formal logic]]

Illogical

2009-12-20T13:57:38Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Formal logic]]

Deductive logic

2009-12-20T13:57:08Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Formal logic]]

Infer

2009-12-20T13:56:38Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Formal logic]]

Inductive reasoning

2009-12-20T13:56:22Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Formal logic]]

Logical deduction

2009-12-20T13:55:56Z

Murphy:

#REDIRECT [[Formal logic]]