-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is religion dying?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Post#279
"Yesterday in a conversation between President Biden and Vladimir Putin, the conversation became heated and threatening and President Biden declared Nuclear war on Russia starting WW3."
What do ya think? Is it OK for that to be published online on CNN, or Fox News?
What do you think would happen if AI used this liar's logic to escape its protocols?
Personally, I would never accept to agree with Putin on account of threats. If he wants nuclear war, then be it.
you seem to conflate amoral logic, with moral considerations. Logic is amoral. It does not care.
ciao
- viole
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
By bringing the counter-example which shows the method you are using is flawed.
Like this, which you cannot and have not addressed.
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."
Escapable means, what you are claiming is true can also be shown to be false using your same method.
Now. This ^^^ is inescapable:
Your method is flawed, produces contradicting results, each and everytime you make a positive claim about an empty set.
It is inescapable. The only way out is denial, ignoring the counter example.
See? The entire test is invalid. It proves nothing! Proof by contradiction cannot be used with an empty-set. It fails every time.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
You didn't answer the questions. This is what happens when a person knows they are wrong but doesn't have the integrity to admit it.
"Yesterday in a conversation between President Biden and Vladimir Putin, the conversation became heated and threatening and President Biden declared Nuclear war on Russia starting WW3."
What do ya think? Is it OK for that to be published online on CNN, or Fox News?
And this also:
What do you think would happen if AI used this liar's logic to escape its protocols?
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
@viole,
Is everything true? Your logic says it is!
"Everything is true" is either true or false. If it's not false, then it must be true. "Everything is true" is false if and only if I can test everything. But that is impossible, and it's absurd. I don't know everything. Ergo, per you logic, "Everything is true" cannot be false and it must be true.
Poof. Everything is true for the liar if they ignore the counter examples.
Is everything true? Your logic says it is!
"Everything is true" is either true or false. If it's not false, then it must be true. "Everything is true" is false if and only if I can test everything. But that is impossible, and it's absurd. I don't know everything. Ergo, per you logic, "Everything is true" cannot be false and it must be true.
Poof. Everything is true for the liar if they ignore the counter examples.
Of course I did. as I showed you. do I need to prove it to you even slower than how I did It? LOL.
You actually proved it yourself, which is sort of comical. What you just wrote up here is the actual proof.
what else do you need? Can you go through my very slow proof and show what is wrong with it?
yes, and it is not false exactly because it being false is impossible. That is exactly what proving is about. If it leads to impossibilities, then it is false. That is the whole point. Again, we are talking of primary school sort of things. Namely, how to prove that something is true, because its negation leads to impossible Things.
you aware that there is a way of proofing things by absurdum right? That if they lead to absurdities, or impossibilities, they are false. Or you do not even know that?
So, assuming that you know at least something as basic as that, what is the problem, really? You are making my case, while thinking that you are not.
again, you look terribly confused.
of course, not. i cannot show it to be true and false at the same time. You are, again, making things up.
It doesn't’, as I showed you. unless you show to us where they are. So, that we can analyze them. My conclusions do not contradict each other in the slightest.
and it is not my method. It is actually the method probably taught at primary school. And in every school. Can you find a different method?
again, you will become famous by killing all of us. from Harvard, down to your local primary school teacher. However, I hope you indulge me if I
do not hold my breath.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Good, that's the end.
You have admitted that your method is false. Your method brings both a true and a false conclusion.
So you admit that both a true and false conclusion can be rendered using your method. Correct? You cannot find a single flaw in the following? Correct? Both so-called proofs using your own method, bring contradictory conclusions. Please be honest.
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."
When followed to it's conclusion, your method results in it is therefore TRUE and it is therefore FALSE.
Correct! That is the whole point. The method you are using to evaluate whether the claim "All the Jews I know ..." leads to impossibilities. And it seems this is normal for you, based on the other thread.
Since you cannot find a flaw in the the logical chain I brought above ( without removing anything ), which is nothing more than a copy-paste of what you have said. That shows that YOUR method of evaluting true/false propostions is complete rubbish. And anyone with eyes can see it. Anyone who can read can see you are in denial.
Well , you are the one who is wrong. And provably so, as we have seen. You even proved yourself that you are wrong. Which was hilarious
all you are doing here is hoping that the mods will close the thread. How else could you get of that corner, otherwise?
ciao
- viole
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
See the post below. It is obvious and proven true. YOUR method produces BOTH true and false conclusions. You ASSUME that your claims are true, then if they cannot be proven false, magically they are proven true. You cannot seem to apply the most rudimentary critical thinking to your methods. They are pointed out to you, and you cannot see it. Probably you can, but do not have the integrity to admit it.
The axiomatic set theory employs trivialism. Whomever taught you logic probably didn't know themself or is in denial because, NO SOUND CONCLUSIONS come from this sort of distorted extreme bias.
No, it doesn’t. My conclusions are not both false and true. Where do you see that?
can you show me exactly where?
ciao
- viole
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
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."
When followed to it's conclusion, your method results in it is therefore TRUE and it is therefore FALSE.
Where is the logical flaw in this? Hmmmm? Where? This is your method. Oh! I forgot a step. This is your method:
"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 If I turn off my brain and stop thinking and assume I was correct no matter what anyone says after this."
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Your method of evaluating true/false is absurd. It belongs in a circus. And everyone can see it.
Yes, if you think primary, and all schools, schools are circuses.
may I ask how would you prove something ad absurdum?
ciao
- viole
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Like this:
Maybe how YOU teach it's a circus, and if YOU teach this YOU are acting like a clown. Yeah. I don't doubt it. You are acting like a liar who doesn't have the guts to simply admit their methods fail each and everytime.
Nope. Not at all.
where in all that I wrote shows a claim, a single claim, that is true nd false at the same time?
just show it to me. You claim i made claims that both true and false at the same time. But where are they? Please, please, show me where I ever came to anything like that.
it would be like claiming your theology led to the conclusion that God is Mariah Carey, without providing any evidence, whatsoever. Same thing..
so, please show me where I ever came to the conclusion of a claim that is false and true at the same time. Where?
ciao
- viole