Is religion dying?

[viole]

Atheists.
"It is either true or false that all the Jews you know are Atheists. Let's prove it is not false, and it is therefore true. The claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" is false if and only if there is at least one Jew you know that is not an atheist. But this is clearly impossible, because you don't know any Jews at all, not to speak of the ones who beleive in God. Ergo, the claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" cannot be false, and it is therefore true."

yes, it is clearly impossible. Because there is no Jew I know that is, whatever. Ergo false. And therefore it is true that all Jews I know are whatever.

exactly my point. What is the problem?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

You are dodging and avoiding the issue. If you claim that both P1 and P2 are true, PROVE IT! You can't. And you know it.

I just did in the post above this one. You proved it, actually.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

P1) and P2) can be both true,

AND They can both be false!

 

[dybmh]

yes, it is clearly impossible. Because there is no Jew I know that is, whatever. Ergo false. And therefore it is true that all Jews I know are whatever.

exactly my point. What is the problem?

ciao

- viole

The problem is confirmation bias, you are ignoring the obvious counter point. That is a cognitive fault. It is illogical.

And this has been your debate style this entire thread. You are cropping out the parts that disagree with you, and shrugging your shoulders, saying "what? I'm so innocent, I don't see the problem." While at the same time shutting your eyes with your fingers in your ears.

You CROPPED OUT the part that disagrees with you. If you cannot make an argument without changing what I'm saying you lose.

 

[viole]

You are dodging and avoiding the issue. If you claim that both P1 and P2 are true, PROVE IT! You can't. And you know it.

You are ASSUMING they are true, and pretending otherwise.

I proved P1. Do you want me to prove P2, too? It is very easy. Same proof.

simple. Let us suppose that P2 is false. That would mean that I know a Jew who does not believe in God. But that is absurd, because I do not know any Jews at all. Therefore, since the negation leads to absurdum, the original claim must be true. Standard ad absurdum proof.

easy. What is the Problem?

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

I just did in the post above this one. You proved it, actually.

ciao

- viole

You are lying. Again. Point out the fault in this logic which shows your method is deeply flawed WITHOUT REMOVING ANYTHING.

Now let's look to see again if you proved that all the Jews you know are Atheists.

​

"It is either true or false that all the Jews you know are Atheists. Let's prove it is not false, and it is therefore true. The claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" is false if and only if there is at least one Jew you know that is not an atheist. But this is clearly impossible, because you don't know any Jews at all, not to speak of the ones who beleive in God. Ergo, the claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" cannot be false, and it is therefore true."​

You very obviously did not prove that this is NOT FALSE. You proved it was impossible to evaluate. There is not one Jew that you know found, there are no beliefs. The same exact logic can be used in reverse.

​

"It is either true or false that all the Jews you know are Atheists. Let's prove it is not TRUE, and it is therefore FALSE. The claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" is false if and only if there is at least one Jew you know that IS an atheist. But this is clearly impossible, because you don't know any Jews at all, not to speak of the ones who beleive in God. Ergo, the claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" cannot be TRUE, and it is therefore FALSE."​

See? The entire test is invalid. It proves nothing! Proof by contradiction cannot be used with an empty-set. It fails every time.

 

[dybmh]

I proved P1. Do you want me to prove P2, too? It is very easy. Same proof.

simple. Let us suppose that P2 is false. That would mean that I know a Jew who does not believe in God. But that is absurd, because I do not know any Jews at all. Therefore, since the negation leads to absurdum, the original claim must be true. Standard ad absurdum proof.

easy. What is the Problem?

ciao

- viole

The problem is you keep removing / ignoring the problem in your method.

 

[viole]

The problem is confirmation bias, you are ignoring the obvious counter point. That is a cognitive fault. It is illogical.

And this has been your debate style this entire thread. You are cropping out the parts that disagree with you, and shrugging your shoulders, saying "what? I'm so innocent, I don't see the problem." While at the same time shutting your eyes with your fingers in your ears.

You CROPPED OUT the part that disagrees with you. If you cannot make an argument without changing what I'm saying you lose.

I just proved both assertions as asked. And shown that they are not contradicting themselves. Actually, you proved the firet.
so, I am not really know what your point is.

all that I said is perfectly true. And provably so.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

What is the Problem?

It seems to be a psychological defect. You are in denial.

Denial - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[dybmh]

I just proved both assertions as asked. And shown that they are not contradicting themselves. Actually, you proved the firet.
so, I am not really know what your point is.

all that I said is perfectly true. And provably so.

ciao

- viole

FALSE.

Now let's look to see again if you proved that all the Jews you know are Atheists.

​

"It is either true or false that all the Jews you know are Atheists. Let's prove it is not false, and it is therefore true. The claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" is false if and only if there is at least one Jew you know that is not an atheist. But this is clearly impossible, because you don't know any Jews at all, not to speak of the ones who beleive in God. Ergo, the claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" cannot be false, and it is therefore true."​

You very obviously did not prove that this is NOT FALSE. You proved it was impossible to evaluate. There is not one Jew that you know, there are no beliefs. The same exact logic can be used in reverse.

​

"It is either true or false that all the Jews you know are Atheists. Let's prove it is not TRUE, and it is therefore FALSE. The claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" is false if and only if there is at least one Jew you know that IS an atheist. But this is clearly impossible, because you don't know any Jews at all, not to speak of the ones who beleive in God. Ergo, the claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" cannot be TRUE, and it is therefore FALSE."​

See? The entire test is invalid. It proves nothing! Proof by contradiction cannot be used with an empty-set. It fails every time.

 

[viole]

Now let's look to see again if you proved that all the Jews you know are Atheists.
"It is either true or false that all the Jews you know are Atheists. Let's prove it is not false, and it is therefore true. The claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" is false if and only if there is at least one Jew you know that is not an atheist. But this is clearly impossible, because you don't know any Jews at all, not to speak of the ones who beleive in God. Ergo, the claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" cannot be false, and it is therefore true."
You very obviously did not prove that this is NOT FALSE. You proved it was impossible to evaluate. There is not one Jew that you know found, there are no beliefs. The same exact logic can be used in reverse.

of course I proved that P1 is not false. Actually, you did. Which is sort of funny. Do you know how reductio ad absurdum works?

c’mon, this pretty basic stuff.

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. It did not produce any contradicting conclusions.

take for example my derived conclusions, from the fact that I know no Jew:

P1) All the Jews I know are atheists
P2} All the Jews I know believe in God

and they are both trivially true.

and definetely not contradicting themselves, at all. i wonder where you infer that from. In fact, they even allow me to infer how many Jews I know.

and of course it is the exclusive “or” intended, when we say that a proposition is either true or false.

Ciao

- violw

"I know" for the examples you stated is not just logic as such. It is also epistemology and there truth is different than logic. You are conflating 2 versions of true. Correspondence and coherence.

 

[dybmh]

simple. Let us suppose that P2 is false. That would mean that I know a Jew who does not believe in God. But that is absurd, because I do not know any Jews at all. Therefore, since the negation leads to absurdum, the original claim must be true. Standard ad absurdum proof.

It fails because the same logic proves the claim is false. You are assuming the claim is true, being extremely optimistic about your own claims, and then since it's impossible to prove false, it MUST be true. Let's see if I can go back and see where you denied doing this...

 

[dybmh]

of course I proved that P1 is not false. Actually, you did. Which is sort of funny. Do you know how reductio ad absurdum works?

c’mon, this pretty basic stuff.

ciao

- viole

Nope, you ASSUMED it was true if you could not prove it was false. That's stupid.

 

[dybmh]

of course I proved that P1 is not false. Actually, you did. Which is sort of funny. Do you know how reductio ad absurdum works?

c’mon, this pretty basic stuff.

ciao

- viole

You are lying. Again. Point out the fault in this logic which shows your method is deeply flawed WITHOUT REMOVING ANYTHING.

Now let's look to see again if you proved that all the Jews you know are Atheists.

"It is either true or false that all the Jews you know are Atheists. Let's prove it is not false, and it is therefore true. The claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" is false if and only if there is at least one Jew you know that is not an atheist. But this is clearly impossible, because you don't know any Jews at all, not to speak of the ones who beleive in God. Ergo, the claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" cannot be false, and it is therefore true."​

You very obviously did not prove that this is NOT FALSE. You proved it was impossible to evaluate. There is not one Jew that you know found, there are no beliefs. The same exact logic can be used in reverse.

"It is either true or false that all the Jews you know are Atheists. Let's prove it is not TRUE, and it is therefore FALSE. The claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" is false if and only if there is at least one Jew you know that IS an atheist. But this is clearly impossible, because you don't know any Jews at all, not to speak of the ones who beleive in God. Ergo, the claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" cannot be TRUE, and it is therefore FALSE."​

See? The entire test is invalid. It proves nothing! Proof by contradiction cannot be used with an empty-set. It fails every time.

 

[dybmh]

Vacuous truth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

For example, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" will be true when no cell phones are in the room. In this case, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned on" would also be vacuously true, as would the conjunction of the two: "all cell phones in the room are turned on and turned off", which would otherwise be incoherent and false.

When making a "vacuous truth" BOTH TRUE AND FALSE are True.

That is exactly what happens with @viole's liar's logic.

 

[dybmh]

@viole ,

Here's some easy questions. Are you removing parts of my posts? If so why?

 

[dybmh]

And I think that's the end of the debate. @viole is completely backed into a corner. It's obvious there is no rebuttal. The only thing that can be done is cropping out the parts of the opposing argument.

Check-mate. Liar Logic loses.

 

[dybmh]

@viole,

Confirmed. You ARE assuming that your own claims are true if they cannot be proven false. And for the ones that ARE proven false, you are in denial.

It's been a lovely debate. Everyone can see it. You lose.

 

[viole]

@viole,

View attachment 76633

Confirmed. You ARE assuming that your own claims are true if they cannot be proven false. And for the ones that ARE proven false, you are in denial.

It's been a lovely debate. Everyone can see it. You lose.

Let’s go veeeery slow.

premise: I know no Jews
claim: all the Jews I know are atheists
strategy: prove that the negation must be false
negation: i know at least one Jew who is not atheist
concequence: I cannot know a Jew and not know any Jew, contradiction with premise! Violation with excluded middle!
conclusion; the negation of the claim must be false
conclusion: the original claim is true

obvious application of reductio ad absurdum, which is nothing more than the consequent, almost mechanical, application of the principle of excluded middle.

simple, linear, inescapable, and perfectly in line with all similar proofs you can find on the internet, or by asking anyone proficient about thsese things. Your teacher, or whomever. Actually, if I were you, I would contact some teacher that may help you better, given my English deficiencies. Probably, a primary school teacher would suffice.

and since it can be similarly proven that all the Jews I know believe in God, under the same premises. And there is no contradiction whatsoever with the two conclusion, I have to ask

what is your point, exactly?

ciao

- viole