Posted by madeline on March 24, 2007, at 13:57:02
In reply to Lou's reply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou- » Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on March 21, 2007, at 8:04:43
Lou,
You wrote
"If I feel put down when I read the statement in question, because it could be IMO be interpreted to contrast a foundation of my faith, the law of Moses, with a foundation of a Christian belief with {but} and the use of {came by}."I understand where you are coming from and I am just going to simply ask you to consider another intepretation of the world "but" as not indicating a contrast rather see it as exactly the same as the word "and", when linking two logical elements together.
In his book "Logic with added reasoning" Michael Gabbay makes the case neither "but" nor "and" changes the truth of either element.
Please look at the two examples:
Molly went to the store and Molly cleaned her house.
In this sentence "Molly cleaned her house" and "Molly went to the store" are both true. The fact that she did one did not make the other false.
Now consider this sentence:
Molly went to the store but molly cleaned her house.
In this sentence, "molly still went to the store" AND "molly still cleaned her house" Both are still true, the use of the word "but" didn't change the "truth" of either statement.
This is because, "but" and "and" are logical equivalents to each other - neither changes the veracity of the the elements they connect, they simply connect them.
I hope you will consider this aspect of logic when thinking about the post in question. I think neither its intent, nor its grammatical structure impinge on the fundamental beliefs of which you speak.
Again, I do understand what you say, and hope that you will consider the thoughts above when further considering this manner.
I have said all I wanted to say.
Best
Maddie
poster:madeline
thread:737093
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070304/msgs/743709.html