Now what? Falsify the claim. Don't merely assert that it seems false to you, but instead, prove your assertion. Produce the theistic Jew she knows that falsifies her claim. We could also look at it a different way. Here is the claim: "All the Jews you know are Atheists” is TRUE if and only...
www.religiousforums.com
This ^^ is the one that claims it is NOT ridiculous to say:
"All Jews I know are Atheists AND I don't know any Jews"
Now what? Falsify the claim. Don't merely assert that it seems false to you, but instead, prove your assertion. Produce the theistic Jew she knows that falsifies her claim. We could also look at it a different way. Here is the claim: "All the Jews you know are Atheists” is TRUE if and only...
www.religiousforums.com
This ^^ is the most recent post where the claim is made that every thinking person in the world agrees. But they have bee mking that same claim repatedly for days. I've given evidence of others that share my position including a PHD physicist. All of that is being ignored.
But in order to link the two posts, you need to understand the rationale. The so-called logic that is being employed is part of "set-theory". Originally "set-theory" was a derived science. But after 200+ years people ran into a few problems and decided to start making definitions, called axioms, to eliminate those problems. One of those axioms, is a defintion of something called an "empty-set". This defintion is itself a contradiction, and because of that it permits any false statement to be come true.
So, the reason that the person is saying it's NOT ridiculous to say "All Jews I know are Atheists AND I don't know any Jews" is because of this contradictory defintion of the empty-set. This same principle can be applied to all sorts of false statements. The example I gave in that thread is:
"In a heated telephone meeting yesterday at 10AM between Pres Biden and Vladymir Putin, Pres Biden declared nuclear war starting WW3."
According to the so-called logic the person is employing, the above statement is TRUE if there was no meeting at 10AM. The meeting is considered an "empty-set", and one of the side-effects of the way the "empty-set" is defined by most is that anything claimed about it is true. ( I've been arguing the opposite. )
I know it's hard to beleive that anyone would adopt or defend this practice. Even if the axiom permits false=true, or empty=full, one would expect that these sorts of contradictions would be naturally avoided. But, for someone who is morally bankrupt? Not really.
A person might wonder why do I care? And I answered that too in the thread. I asked, what happens if AI uses this same so-called logic to escape its protocols?
