Is religion dying?

[dybmh]

And again, unless you are blind, it uses two different forms of the proposition of the claim “all the Jews you know are Atheists is TRUE if and only if…..”.

One with “not”, the other without.

i start thinking you need new glasses.

you really are like your ex president

ciao

- viole

It's the same form applying the the law of the excluded middle.

Claim: All the Jews you know are Atheists? Answer: unknown. All the Jews I know are Atheists XOR NOT? Answer: True.

"all the Jews you know are Atheists is TRUE if and only if…. you DO know at least one Jew"

"all the Jews you know are Atheists is FALSE if and only if .... you DO NOT know at least one Jew."

The form is exactly the same. The only difference is "TRUE" = "DO" and "FALSE = "DO NOT".

If you don't know any Jews, then the test looking at the number of Jews that you know evaluates to both true and false. The test is invalid. The answer is still UNKNOWN.

A better test is looking at the word "know". "You Know" is the opposite of "You don't know". It is an obvious contradiction, and all contradictions are FALSE. They do not describe reality.

You claimed to KNOW, but in truth you DON'T KNOW. And since you KNEW that you DIDN'T KNOW, but said you KNEW in opposition to the truth, that would make the statement a lie.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"I've never had a bad meal at McDonalds."
"Then you recommend eating there?"
"No."
"It sounds like a recommendation."
"That's understandable, but it is not. You're assuming. I've also never had a good meal there."
"What?"
"I've never been to a McDonalds."
"Then you lied to me. You made a false statement."
"No, I didn't. I might be a deceiver, but I am not a liar. The statement is correct. In fact, I'm not even a deceiver. You walked in on a conversation that included, 'Everybody has had a bad meal at McDonalds at some time.' "

 

[dybmh]

"I've never had a bad meal at McDonalds."
"Then you recommend eating there?"
"No."
"It sounds like a recommendation."
"That's understandable, but it is not. You're assuming. I've also never had a good meal there."
"What?"
"I've never been to a McDonalds."
"Then you lied to me. You made a false statement."
"No, I didn't. I might be a deceiver, but I am not a liar. The statement is correct. In fact, I'm not even a deceiver. You walked in on a conversation that included, 'Everybody has had a bad meal at McDonalds at some time.' "

Equivocation.

"I've never had a bad meal at..." =/= "All the meals I've had at ..."

"I've never had" =/= "All the meals I've had"

"never had" =/= "had"

If you KNOW you haven't eaten a meal at McDonalds, claiming you have eaten a meal at McDonalds, is a lie.

 

[dybmh]

... You're assuming... You walked in on a conversation...

Nope.

The conversation was very simple:

Person A: "Is religion dying?"
Person B: "Religious Jews are having lots of babies"
Person C: "All the Jews I know are Atheists"

Person C walked into a conversation between A and B. The implication that Person C ACTUALLY knows Jews is not an assumption, it is literally what they said. Person C walked into a conversation and claimed to KNOW. But in fact they DO NOT KNOW. They KNEW that they DID NOT KNOW. They lied about "KNOWING".

Person B DID NOT walk into a conversation and assume.
Person C DID walk into a conversation and claimed to know in spite of knowing it wasn't true.

 

[dybmh]

@It Aint Necessarily So ,

Many times in previous conversations, you have said that a lack of a rebuttal means the most recent valid argument wins.

"hadn't eaten" =/= "had eaten"

"know" =/= "don't know"

If a person says "I had eaten" when they know that they "hadn't eaten", "had eaten" is a lie.
If a person says "I know" when they know that they "don't know", "know" is a lie.

Is there any rebuttal to this?

 

[dybmh]

No, I didn't. I might be a deceiver, but I am not a liar.

Might as well correct this too.

Lie - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions. For example, when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly, but does not mention that a fault was reported during the last service, the seller lies by omission. It may be compared to dissimulation. An omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore, completely obscures the truth.​

“All the Jews I know are atheists”

Is omitting...

”I don’t know any Jew”

Which completely obscures the truth. "All the Jews I know are Atheists" is lying by omission.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you KNOW you haven't eaten a meal at McDonalds, claiming you have eaten a meal at McDonalds, is a lie.

Agreed. But that claim was not made. Read the dialog again.

The conversation was very simple:

Person A: "Is religion dying?"
Person B: "Religious Jews are having lots of babies"
Person C: "All the Jews I know are Atheists"

Maybe I was unclear. I was referring to the hypothetical conversation I invented, not the ones preceding it on this thread. It's what makes the opening comment in the series not a deception, without which it appears to be deliberately misleading even if technically correct.

Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions. For example, when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly, but does not mention that a fault was reported during the last service, the seller lies by omission. It may be compared to dissimulation. An omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore, completely obscures the truth.

I agree with this as well. A person who deliberately misleads you without telling an untruth or who allows you to believe something he knows is wrong is the moral equivalent of somebody who explicitly lies by telling a known untruth, but not the legal or semantic equivalent.

If a person says "I had eaten" when they know that they "hadn't eaten", "had eaten" is a lie.
If a person says "I know" when the know that they "don't know", "know" is a lie.

Is there any rebuttal to this?

No rebuttal. I agree with that.

 

[dybmh]

I was referring to the hypothetical conversation I invented, not the ones preceding it on this thread.

OK!

Agreed. But that claim was not made. Read the dialog again.

I also agree. And I know that's not what was in the dialog. That's why what you wrote is equivocation IF you were responding to the issue at hand. Making a negative assertion about something that doesn't exist, or hasn't happened is not a lie. Making a positive assertion about something that doesn't exist or didn't happen is different.

If a person says "I know" when they know that they "don't know", "know" is a lie.

I agree with that

And that's what happened here.

 

[viole]

The form is here. What is the difference?

View attachment 76935

I am really surprised that you don’t see the error here. It is as big as a house.

In the second part you use, in order to prove the conclusion:

“All the Jews you know are Atheists” is TRUE if and only if there is at least one Jew you know who IS an Atheist.

But this is blatantly false. Nobody sane would make such a claim. It is like saying: in case I know one Jew who is Atheist, then it is a fact that they all are. Which is obviously a non sequitur.

Therefore, any conclusion after that is unreliable, and you cannot possibly state that the initial claim is false and true at the same time, by using these two parallel derivations, since one is tainted by a falsehood. Logic 101, really.

In other words, you use true and false intermediate statements to arrive at the desired outcome that the conclusions are true and false at the same time. But that is not surprising at all. It is in fact very easy to obtain the same contradiction for all claims, by just writing falsehoods in the middle of one of the two derivations.

And that is exactly why your entire case collapses. And it is indeed not the case that “all the Jews I know are Atheists” is both true and false. even if I know no Jews.

it is, as we have seen, in fact, true. Like in the case of all cell phones being on and off, when there is no cell phone in the room.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

I am really surprised that you don’t see the error here. It is as big as a house.

In the second part you use, in order to prove the conclusion:

“All the Jews you know are Atheists” is TRUE if and only if there is at least one Jew you know who IS an Atheist.

But this is blatantly false. Nobody sane would make such a claim. It is like saying: in case I know one Jew who is Atheist, then it is a fact that they all are. Which is obviously a non sequitur.

Therefore, any conclusion after that is unreliable, and you cannot possibly state that the initial claim is false and true at the same time, by using these two parallel derivations, since one is tainted by a falsehood. Logic 101, really.

In other words, you use true and false intermediate statements to arrive at the desired outcome that the conclusions are true and false at the same time. But that is not surprising at all. It is in fact very easy to obtain the same contradiction for all claims, by just writing falsehoods in the middle of one of the two derivations.

And that is exactly why your entire case collapses. And it is indeed not the case that “all the Jews I know are Atheists” is both true and false. even if I know no Jews.

it is, as we have seen, in fact, true. Like in the case of all cell phones being on and off, when there is no cell phone in the room.

Ciao

- viole

LOL!

“All the Jews you know are Atheists” is TRUE if and only if there is at least one Jew you know and that one Jew IS an Atheist.

If you don't know any... it's false. If you know that you don't know any... it's a lie.

Now what?

 

[dybmh]

@viole,

Here's the complete method you are attempting to employ to claim the lie as true. I updated it to include the silly qualifier about knowing at least 1 Jew AND that 1 Jew being an Atheist. Where is the fault in this logic 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 one Jew 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 TRUE if and only if there is at least one Jew you know and that one Jew 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."​

The method you are using produces both it is therefore TRUE and it is therefore FALSE.

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

 

[viole]

LOL!

“All the Jews you know are Atheists” is TRUE if and only if there is at least one Jew you know and that one Jew IS an Atheist.

If you don't know any... it's false. If you know that you don't know any... it's a lie.

Now what?

LOL, but that is blatantly false. This is really basic logic. C’mon. Just think about the sentence. It is not difficult to see that it is false.

Because if I know at least one Jew, and that one is an atheist, that surely does not make it necessarily true that all atheists I know are atheists. could be, but it is not necessarily so. It depends.

suppose I tell you that all the girls you know are gay if and only if it is true that you know at least one girl, and that girl is gay.

you would probably laugh at that, in the same way we can laugh at your sentence, since they are equivalent.

therefore, that sentence is trivially false, and as such it invalidates your conclusion, and your case is, not surprisingly a non sequitur.

as we have already seen.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

LOL, but that is blatantly false. This is really basic logic. C’mon. Just think about the sentence. It is not difficult to see that it is false.

Only if one ignores that you don't know any at all.

Because if I know at least one Jew, and that one is an atheist, that surely does not make it necessarily true that all Jews I know are atheists. could be, but it is not necessarily so. It depends.

Lying by omission. This is what you said:

"if I know at least one Jew, and that one is an atheist..."

the part you omitted is in red.

"if I know at least one Jew, and no others, and that one is an atheist..."

If that detail is recovered then what you have stated is false.

"if I know at least one Jew, and no others, and that one is an atheist, that surely does not make it necessarily true that all Jews I know are atheists"

suppose I tell you that all the girls you know are gay if and only if it is true that you know at least one girl, and that girl is gay.

Apples and oranges.

"you know at least one girl" =/= "you know at least one girl and no others"

you would probably laugh at that, in the same way we can laugh at your sentence, since they are equivalent.

I'm laughing at how much effort you're going through here.

Why not just admit the truth?

At the beginning of the thread, I made a statement you considered to be a vacuous, so you made your own vacuous statement, chuckling to yourself. People make vacuous statements as satire. "I'll believe that when pigs fly / hell freezes over / etc..." Of course, you didn't make it clear what you meant, and phrased it as an affirmative claim, when it should have been phrased in the negative, and that probably increased your pleasure.

But, what I said wasn't vacuous. It was demonstrably true, and you were simply ignorant and being arrogant about something which is easily validated with a few little clicky-clicks on a keyboard or tippy-taps on a touchscreen.

So far, everyone can see that you claimed to "know something" eventhough you have admitted you "didn't know anything". Why not just admit it?

therefore, that sentence is trivially false, and as such it invalidates your conclusion, and your case is, not surprisingly a non sequitur.

Nope. You omitted details, which is lying by omission.

as we have already seen.

Correct. You have been omitting details from the very beginning of this tread. You omitted details from the wiki article you brought. You literally had to crop out the words "vacuous truth" from one citation. You have not been able to show any logical faults in what I'm saying ( excluding a hasty copy-paste error ) without cropping out details. Your so-called logical method for establishing a true-lie where "I know" = "I don't know" is omitting the obvious counter-example.

So, yeah, as we have already seen, you are and have been the entire thread, lying by omission. It is a sign of the morally bankrupt.

 

[viole]

if I know at least one Jew, and no others, and that one is an atheist..."

You are climbing on mirrors, like they would say in Italy. You keep on patching things until your entire case become ridiculous. Like claiming that all the Jews I know are atheists if and only if it is true that I Know at least one Jew, and no others, and that one is an atheist.

which is false, too, lol. Because if someone knows all his Jewish friends to be atheists, for sure that does not necessitate that he knows only one Jew, and that Jew is atheist. So, you are basically patching things with a fallacy after the other.

You deserve knighhood for your courage despite the overwhelming challenges

Now, i give you another chance. can you try and actually put that sentence in a form that is true, so that you can actually use it? Until now, you failed completely. If you want, I can help. It is actually very easy.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

You are climbing on mirrors, like they would say in Italy. You keep on patching things until your entire case become ridiculous. Like claiming that all the Jews I know are atheists if and only if it is true that I Know at least one Jew, and no others, and that one is an atheist.

which is false, too, lol. Because if someone knows all his Jewish friends to be atheists, for sure that does not necessitate that he knows only one Jew, and that Jew is atheist. So, you are basically patching things with a fallacy after the other.

Equivocation fallacy. Again. "only one" =/= "at least one". I said "at least one" and you have changed that to "only one".

I have color coded the faults in blue and red.

Correcting YOUR error results in this:

"if someone knows all his Jewish friends to be atheists, for sure that does not necessitate that he knows At LEAST ONE Jew, and that Jew is atheist." ----> TRUE.

And we can see that using "at least one" is the form and wording you used to falsely claim that what you said was true.

You deserve knighhood for your courage despite the overwhelming challenges

It's not overwhelming. Logic is easy and universal. That's why it is an excellent method for developing true conclusions. As long as it isn't abused, of course.

Now, i give you another chance. can you try and actually put that sentence in a form that is true, so that you can actually use it? Until now, you failed completely. If you want, I can help. It is actually very easy.

Already done. You erroneously changed "at least one" to "only one".

"if someone knows all his Jewish friends to be atheists, for sure that DOES necessitate that he knows At LEAST ONE Jew, and that Jew is atheist." ----> TRUE.

If someone does not know AT LEAST ONE Jew, then it is false to say "All the Jews I KNOW are { insert any property here }"

"does not know" =/= "know"

 

[dybmh]

@viole,

 

[viole]

Equivocation fallacy. Again. "only one" =/= "at least one". I said "at least one" and you have changed that to "only one".

Well, your problem is that is false with both.

it is false if it is only one, if it is at least one, or if it is at least one and only that one. Your pick. It is false no matter what, and provably so. And why its is false in all your cases, should be obvious.

so, last chance. Formulate please the sentence once and for all, so that we all know what you mean. Because you wrote 10 versions of it. And we will submit it immediately to rational scrutiny.

and please take a lot of care, and do not do hasty cut and paste errors, like you did, or correct, patch or anything. Ot change things afterwards and all that.

so, how does it look like?

if you need help, let me know. It is actually very easy.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Well, your problem is that is false with both.

Nope. It is only false when you replace "at least one" with "only one".

it is false if it is only one, if it is at least one, or if it is at least one and only that one. Your pick. It is false no matter what, and provably so. And why its is false in all your cases, should be obvious.

You keep making these empty promises. There's "tons of evidence" but can't produce any. It's provably false, but can't make any progress in doing so.

Here's the claim. Prove it's false.

"if someone knows all his Jewish friends to be atheists, for sure that DOES necessitate that he knows At LEAST ONE Jew, and that Jew is atheist." ----> TRUE.

so, last chance. Formulate please the sentence once and for all, so that we all know what you mean. Because you wrote 10 versions of it. And we will submit it immediately to rational scrutiny.

Hurray! Really?

"if someone knows all his Jewish friends to be atheists, for sure that DOES necessitate that he knows At LEAST ONE Jew, and that Jew is atheist. ----> TRUE."

and please take a lot of care, and do not do hasty cut and paste errors, like you did, or correct, patch or anything. Ot change things afterwards and all that.

OK. I'm looking, and I'm straining.... I'm pondering....

Yup. I'm good. I'm ready. Final answer:

"if someone knows all his Jewish friends to be atheists, for sure that DOES necessitate that he knows At LEAST ONE Jew, and that Jew is atheist. ----> TRUE."

so, how does it look like?

It looks good. Looks real good.

if you need help, let me know. It is actually very easy.

I'm not sure I can trust you for help. But let's see if you follow through on what you said. That would be good.

Please be sure NOT TO CHANGE THE CLAIM IN ANYWAY. That means no words can be switched out, no words can be omitted, no words can be added.

Formulate please the sentence once and for all, so that we all know what you mean. Because you wrote 10 versions of it. And we will submit it immediately to rational scrutiny.

"if someone knows all his Jewish friends to be atheists, for sure that DOES necessitate that he knows At LEAST ONE Jew, and that Jew is atheist. ----> TRUE."

Go for it!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

“All the Jews you know are Atheists” is TRUE if and only if there is at least one Jew you know and that one Jew IS an Atheist. If you don't know any... it's false. If you know that you don't know any... it's a lie. Now what?

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.

 

[dybmh]

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.

First, thank you for helping to make this a productive debate.

Here is the claim:

"All the Jews you know are Atheists” is TRUE if and only if there is at least one Jew you know and that one Jew IS an Atheist."

The claim has several elements. It is a logical chain. All I need to do to falsify it is show that the chain is broken.

The chain is: "I know Jews AND Those Jews are Atheists". In order to evaluate as TRUE both conditions linked by AND must be true.

De Morgan's laws - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If the claimant does not know any Jews, then "I know Jews" is false. That renders "All the Jews I know are Atheists" as false because the logical chain joined by AND is broken.