Skip to main content
34 votes

Is it defensible to claim that religion is a personal relationship with God and therefore contains no claims?

This is a striking example of a question that boils down to the ambiguous meaning of a word. Yes, if you mean religion in the sense intended by your aunt, you can say it need not involve any other ...
Marco Ocram's user avatar
18 votes
Accepted

Why are there so many different opinions of categorical propositions?

It is not uncommon when reading authors who wrote long ago, to find that they were unaware of distinctions that we now consider important. It is pretty much inevitable that as a subject advances it ...
Bumble's user avatar
  • 26k
12 votes
Accepted

Are contradictory propositions in the propositional logic still contradictory in the predicate logic?

Something that is a contradiction in the propositional logic remains a contradiction in predicate logic. The problem with your examples is that they are not particularly clear as to whether you are ...
Bumble's user avatar
  • 26k
11 votes

Is it defensible to claim that religion is a personal relationship with God and therefore contains no claims?

"God exists" "God loves you" "God sent an invitation to all people to enter a personal relationship with Him" "God sent Jesus to die on the cross" "People ...
NotThatGuy's user avatar
  • 10.5k
10 votes
Accepted

Existential import: in logic, do propositions default to true or false when objects in them do not exist?

"Every politician in this circle will have a firefighter to their immediate right" is typically coded into predicate calculus as ∀x∃y(P(x) → F(y)∧IR(x,y)). If there are no politicians in the circle P(...
Conifold's user avatar
  • 43.4k
9 votes

Is it defensible to claim that religion is a personal relationship with God and therefore contains no claims?

No, it is not defensible Religion, according to her, is the personal relationship between God and a believer. If so, then according to her... Hinduism it not a religion Buddhism is not a religion ...
MichaelK's user avatar
  • 5,144
7 votes

Is it defensible to claim that religion is a personal relationship with God and therefore contains no claims?

When the meaning of a word like "religion" is ambiguous, I like to make up new words to distinguish each of the ways someone may use the term. :P Personally, I do think the term "...
jecado's user avatar
  • 171
6 votes
Accepted

Implication Introduction formulated as a theorem?

The two different symbols on the page you link to are indeed different. The first is the turnstile symbol Ⱶ which may be read as 'proves', while the arrow → is material implication. These are very ...
Bumble's user avatar
  • 26k
6 votes
Accepted

Definition of proposition

Some comments. Propositions are (usually) not linguistic entities: thus they differ from statements and sentences. This is the meaning of: "The term proposition is used to refer to ... the ...
Mauro ALLEGRANZA's user avatar
5 votes

Making 'sense' of Wittgenstein's senselessness / nonsense distinction in the Tractatus

See : 5.4733 Frege says: Every legitimately constructed proposition must have a sense. Thus, we may equate nonsense [unsinn] with an illegitimate grammatical combinations of words, something ...
Mauro ALLEGRANZA's user avatar
5 votes

Is there a logical system that accounts for cause and effect relationship?

Assuming for the sake of discussion the fact that clouds are the cause of rain, this does not mean that "if there are clouds, then there is rain" is correct. From the fact that clouds are the cause ...
Mauro ALLEGRANZA's user avatar
5 votes

Is it defensible to claim that religion is a personal relationship with God and therefore contains no claims?

Religion is on one hand an attempt to understand the world. Religion provides a series of answers to important question about the real world. Giving explanations is always connected with the claim or ...
Jo Wehler's user avatar
  • 33.1k
4 votes

Why is the statement false: If (A⊃B)∨(A⊃C) is true, then A implies either B or C

As the OP and the comments note, both of the results are tautologies. Here is the truth table for the first one: Here is the truth table for the second one: As the OP notes the two sides of the ...
Frank Hubeny's user avatar
  • 19.5k
4 votes
Accepted

Intuitively, why are Universal Statements true in the Empty Universe?

Think of ∀xP(x) as an implicit conditional: ∀x(xϵU → P(x)), where U is the universe. In an empty universe the antecedent is always false, hence the conditional is vacuously true. In contrast, ∃xP(x) ...
Conifold's user avatar
  • 43.4k
4 votes

The nature of elementary propositions in the Tractatus

4.22 An elementary proposition consists of names. It is a nexus, a concatenation, of names. 4.221 It is obvious that the analysis of propositions must bring us to elementary propositions which ...
Mauro ALLEGRANZA's user avatar
3 votes

Problem with propositions about future

Well semantically propositions have a definition that may be different in maths and science. So this means varying answers depending on which department did the teaching. In philosophy I was taught ...
Logikal's user avatar
  • 414
3 votes
Accepted

Why isn't "I am Bill" a proposition?

Simply put, the speaker begs the question. Their argument seems to be structured like this: The propositional content of the two characters' knowledge can be exhaustively expressed by "Bill has ...
commando's user avatar
  • 7,399
3 votes

can we know whether the self-referential statement: "It's not possible to deduce whether P1 is true or false" is undecidable?

I'm not an expert in this area, so someone may wish to correct me. Since you appear to be wishing to look at this formally, let's start with a formal view of the problem. In a formal setting, a ...
nwr's user avatar
  • 3,525
3 votes
Accepted

Is the principle of non-contradiction self-evident?

"A is B" and "A is not B"…. Are both of the above statements mutually exclusive? If so, then would that not mean that the principle of non-contradiction is self-evidently true? Assume the truth ...
Mark Andrews's user avatar
  • 6,304
3 votes

Confused about the answers to two logic problems

There are two questions. True or False? If monkeys can fly, then 1 + 1 = 3. The antecedent of the conditional, "monkeys can fly" is false. So is the consequent, "1 + 1 = 3". In classical truth-...
Frank Hubeny's user avatar
  • 19.5k
3 votes

Are contradictory propositions in the propositional logic still contradictory in the predicate logic?

The english sentence snow is white doesn't translate to the FOL sentence \forall . x S(x) -> W(x). There are two reasons for this: The sentence snow is white is a generic, and generics don't ...
user236343's user avatar
3 votes
Accepted

What's the difference between analytic and synthetic AND implicit/explicit?

The short version is that thinking of analyticity in terms of what is contained or implicit is too narrow. There are at least four different accounts of analyticity. The term was coined by Kant, and ...
Bumble's user avatar
  • 26k
3 votes

Confused On The Definition Of A Proposition

Philosophers use the term 'proposition' to mean several different things. The difference is so great, it is doubtful that it can mean all of them, so you would need to understand from the context ...
Bumble's user avatar
  • 26k
3 votes

Is it defensible to claim that religion is a personal relationship with God and therefore contains no claims?

The answer by @JoWehler was excellent. This answer should be viewed as expanding on that. Religion, first and foremost, is an attempt to answer a set of fundamental questions that plague mankind. ...
David Gudeman's user avatar
3 votes

Is it defensible to claim that religion is a personal relationship with God and therefore contains no claims?

My aunt, who is a deeply religious person, rejects the above vehemently. She upholds that this is a very fundamental misunderstanding of religion. She says that religion cannot be considered as a way ...
Mark's user avatar
  • 5,399
3 votes

Is there a recognized topic in philosophy regarding the fallaciousness of debating what the ‘correct’ definition of a word is?

On traditional analysis accounts rooted in the essentialism originating with Socrates and Plato, definitions are indeed neither held to be assertions nor have truth values. They are mere descriptive ...
J D's user avatar
  • 27.7k
2 votes

What are factual propositions?

The entry cited does not claim that a factual proposition cannot be formulated using logical terms. Rather, it makes a distinction between logical propositions which express logical truths, and ...
E...'s user avatar
  • 6,556
2 votes

Shouldn't statements be considered equivalent based on their meaning rather than truth tables?

Actually the two symbols in question, ≡ and ⇔, have very different behaviors in propositional logic. For 99% of situations, you can interchange them and get away with it. However, in the last 1% the ...
Cort Ammon's user avatar

Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible