Spirituality
24 Jan 08
24 Jan 08
Hmmm...the more I look into this case, the more convincing the evidence becomes. A little research revealed a much clearer photo of bigfoot on Mars. Conclusive proof, I'd say.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/rwingett/bigfoot.jpg
I think we can say that the conclusion P (with P being 'bigfoot lives on Mars'😉 is true. This means that not-P is necessarily false. Isn't that right, Dr.S?
24 Jan 08
Originally posted by rwingettI would concur that the alternate hypothesis (i.e. bigfoot lives on Mars) certainly seems to be supported.
Hmmm...the more I look into this case, the more convincing the evidence becomes. A little research revealed a much clearer photo of bigfoot on Mars. Conclusive proof, I'd say.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/rwingett/bigfoot.jpg
I think we can say that the conclusion P (with P being 'bigfoot lives on Mars'😉 is true. This means that not-P is necessarily false. Isn't that right, Dr.S?
16 Feb 09
5 edits
Originally posted by rwingett"P implies NOT-(NOT-P)" is a tautology. This means that for any proposition P, P being true necessarily entails that the negation of P is false. Accepting this, one should not psychologically endorse P but refuse to deny NOT-P.
I think we can say that the conclusion P (with P being 'bigfoot lives on Mars'😉 is true. This means that not-P is necessarily false. Isn't that right, Dr.S?
In this specific instance, you are correct. "Bigfoot lives" being true does in fact entail that "Bigfoot does not live" is false.
However, as far as I know, you are still for some inexplicable reason woefully confused and fail to endorse the formally equivalent entailment in the case where P is taken to be "God does not exist" rather than "Bigfoot lives." Why you think the actual propositional content is relevant, when a tautology (and a very elementary one at that) is what is governing the crux of the matter, has always perplexed me.
