Hinduism cannot be falsified/debunked.

[prime isle]

I'm not saying all theological systems that are logically coherent and do not entail a contradiction are part of Hinduism

[prime isle]

hm saying that

there exists at least one school that is not logically incoherent

there exists multiple schools in hinduism, at least one of them is logically coherent (whichever one you justify, defend and establish to be coherent).

[prime isle]

I'm not saying if there are multiple schools then one must be true

I'm saying out of the multiple schools one is true (the one which you would establish to be coherent)

||(read both of these statements again and again, there is a BIG difference.)||

for example, adavita, dvaita, vishisthadvaita, nyaya, wtv. because they are potentially logically coherent schools so once you establish then now you do actually have at least 1 school that is logically coherent. hence the argument then.

that is NOT necessitation 💀😭

it is quite literally what I'm saying in my previous msgs too

once you establish a school to be logically coherent then that premise holds

all or one doesn't really matter here, as long as at least one is the argument works that's the whole point, the argument is open to use for every school

ye that's not a proof, that whole premise is not, my point is I'm treating hinduism as a conjunct set

of all schools

H = {a, b, c}

yeah a is accurate within premises of a, b is accurate within premises of b and c is accurate within premises of c that's the whole point, as long as one of them is able to successfully defend their premises it works

no, when I say unfalsifiable I mean the line of reasoning by which it was established is unfalsifiable

@lament cloud @grand sky check out

[lament cloud]

This looks like a complex math equation 😭😭😭

Btw can you recommend me ¢ good logic dictionary?

*a

[prime isle]

what even is a logic dictionary ?

[prime isle]

just read shi that's written in english language ignore the symbolic shi

[lament cloud]

Oh i meant more as in which elaborates more on the logical terms
Well a philosophy dictionary is more accurate
But i did hear formal logic has its own terms

[lament cloud]

Wait

P4 marks a good distinction

[prime isle]

to understand formal logic terms id only suggest you to read book on formal logic man

[lament cloud]

@prime isle
I think to greatly understand logic you gotta know set theory isn't it?

Well I have memorized or how to make truth tables from what I read in my logic book and did in exams

[prime isle]

maybe read sum articles/papers on logic on SEP (stanford encyclopedia of philosophy) on google

[lament cloud]

Is there any sasta book
Coz most are like in thousands 😭

[prime isle]

nah tbh I don't know set theory yet, i don't think set theory is necessary, it's just necessary for mathematical logic I guess

[prime isle]

just read the PDFs I've sent you

[lament cloud]

Stanford must be more complex i think
Or atleast I think some shitlike britannia is more basic?

[lament cloud]

Fair
My exams were going on
So I couldn't focus
Now I am free

[lament cloud]

Well sole here learned alot of set theory and he said it's required for logic or whatever

[prime isle]

it is required for mathematical logic

but we aren't doing math logic

we are doing philosophy logic

[prime isle]

hope ya aced ur exams

[prime isle]

i mean it's kinda intermediate level

[lament cloud]

That's fair
But we see it being used in formal logic atleast a lot so I asked

[lament cloud]

Yeha I did well
Atleast my logic exams went super good
Truth table construction 🤓

[lament cloud]

Oh i see
Generally the Stanford ones are advanced for other subs

[prime isle]

well set theory is only used in formal logic when you're dealing with some set typa structure in metaphysics or sum

[prime isle]

P Q P → Q
T F ?

[prime isle]

I'm not

my academic discipline is not philosophy

I'm a commerce student

i do philosophy for hobby

[prime isle]

central to mathematical logic right ?

i don't think set theory is central to classical logic

[lament cloud]

Well that's maybe necessary

[lament cloud]

Yeah something like
Actually procedure is a bit diff have to also find matrix number

This is a math text book with set theory?

[lament cloud]

Yeah I've seen in their syllabus

Classes I think

[modest onyx]

I disagree with A2

I think contradictions are possible

[north patio]

never ever make a argument again

i can make a perfectly coherent system that function perfectlinternally without any contradiction

but that doesnt prove the My system to be real and by that i mean ifyk

[north patio]

in non classical systems

also these premises are jsut assertions

specially p4

as for A2 you can be logically coherent and still be false

[north patio]

i could explain all this more

[prime isle]

ye ik

logical coherency does not entail truth

I'm aware

[modest onyx]

Yeah like paraconsistent logic

[modest onyx]

Is this the real tanuvring

How would u extrapolate the extension of, “Hinduism.” Obviously all of those theological systems have to be connected by something to be put into one categorical scheme I.e. authority in the Vedas.

Like the other person pointed out, why should anyone believe A2?

Even if we go one step further and grant A2, could this argument not be applied to another religion like Christianity? Obviously every single theological system that is denoted when we say, “Christianity” doesn’t entail a logical contradiction. I don’t get what the symmetry breaker is gonna be between the 2.

So, if all of them are connected through authority of Vedas, if someone were to hypothetically give reason to not treat Vedas as authoritative, have they not effectively falsified every theological system denoted by hinduism?

Also things can be logically possible but epistemically impossible😭

Yeah I’m trying to say egen if things don’t entail a contradiction maybe in light of some new knowledge we can determine they’re an epistemic impossibility

[north patio]

nope

[bitter tangle]

thought-terminating-neutrality is a hell of a drug. if you’re saying you’re not the real one, then who's the one actually making sense right now?

[modest onyx]

is this u perchance

[north patio]

no

my acc is probanbly older then his

[modest onyx]

his acc has existed since 2016

[north patio]

daymn

[grand sky]

Not gonna lie but you just strawmanned the positions of the people who try to falsify Hinduism

Hinduism is indeed a set of multiple philosophies but when people are talking about refuting Hinduism they mean what the majority follows.

Secondly, you need to prove that atleast one of the philosophy are not logically inconsistent or contradictory as that is what the opponent will contest.

[prime isle]

who cares what they mean, they wanna debunk hinduism, they will go by the definitions, not what they mean. just define hinduism as the tradition and synthesis of all the various schools and philosophies.

[prime isle]

establishing logical coherency and internal consistency is easy.

1. The system does not violate any laws of classical logic - it is logically coherent ✅

2. all the definitions, ideas, concepts and their structure and meaning and entailment is same and consistent throughout - it is logically consistent ✅

you can just hold onto the default position of your system being coherent and consistent and let them refute it and you defend it, pretty simple

[bitter tangle]

fair enough, but that’s just the baseline for any system to even be worth discussing. the real challenge is whether the axioms themselves hold up under pramana or if they're just a perfectly consistent house of cards.

[grand sky]

Yeah that I agree with but it is not really the main fruit we are planting the trees of logic for.