'god' logic

Conditionals are "If, then" logical statements.

A => B means "If A, then necessarily B".

Here, B is necessary if A occurs, but A is merely sufficient for B to occur. (There may be other reasons B comes about other than A.

If there's an A, then there's a B does not mean that if there is a B, then there will be an A.

But what *IS* true is...

[(P => Q) = (~Q => ~P)]

(If it's true that if it's raining, then the streets are wet, then it's also true that if the streets are not wet, then it's not raining. Likewise, if one is false because Bob could have covered the streets with plastic sheets, then so would the other be false. Both expressions of the equation are therefore logically equivelent).


(A => B) = (~B => ~A)

A = you are unrighteous (don't do what 'god' wants you to do)
B = 'god' shits on you

A => B

(If you are unrighteous, then 'god' will necessarily shit on you.)

However...

~B => ~A

If 'god' doesn't shit on you, then it's necessarily because you were righteous.

But you being righteous is only SUFFICIENT, but not NECESSARY for 'god' to not shit on you. (See the Book of Job).

So, 'god' has a propensity to shit on people.

Therefore, 'god' is a prick.


LOL