The contradiction is only in your mind. You just made it up to make your case, like you made up that logic statements have three possible truth values. And making up things, and ad-hoc changing the rules, is intellectual dishonesty.
No, I'm not making things up. I brought sources for all I've said. And the longer the debate goes on, the more sources I've brought to support me.
Anyone can see the trend. My position is much much stronger than yours. And it keeps getting stronger.
In fact, it is obvious that the two sentences
1) All the Jews I know are atheists
2) All the Jews I know are non-atheists
Are not contradictory at all.
Sure they are! They absolultely contradict.
~(All the Jews I know are atheists and not-atheists) = I know at least 1 Jew that is neither atheist nor theist.
That's a contradiction. No one can be neither simultaneousy. You lose again.
Splitting them and processing them indendently, and ignoring the defintion of a Jew... Ah-gain.
In fact, it is not the case that one is the negation of the other. And therefore they can both be true, or false, at the same time. And trivially so.
There it is. "Trivially". Employing trivialsm, but also denying it. Another contradiction.
en.m.wikipedia.org
"In classical logic, trivialism is in direct violation of Aristotle's law of noncontradiction."
Another lie. I never claimed that Jews can be simultaneously atheists and non-atheists. In fact, I claim the exact opposite. Namely that the set of all Jews who are simultaneously atheists and non-atheists, is empty.
Sure you claimed it. You just have been programmed / brainwashed / trained to ignore the actual meaning of the words you're using. Or willfully ignorant. Or dishonest. All are possibilities.
You're saying you claimed the opposite. See below.
And yes, all the Jews I know are simultaneously atheists and theists. There is no contradiction whatsoever, if I know no Jews.
You just admitted that you are claiming the opposite of "all the Jews I know are simultaneously atheists and theists". But here, you're denying the contradiction. A contradiction IS saying the opposite of the *actual* meaning.
The true statement is "All the Jews I know CANNOT be atheists and theists." Or "I don't know any Jews that are atheists and theists."
But you said the opposite, and then.... confessed. The confession normally would indicate a moral person. But in this case, not so much.
Therefore, your entire case is based on made up contradictions, arbitrary and dishonest ad-hoc changes of the most basic laws of logic, and lies concerning what I claimed.
Nope. Nothing dishonest. Everything above board. Here's the sources I've been using.
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
And I wrote formal rigorous sound proofs using classical logic showing both the claim about "all the Jews you know" is false, AND that ANY positive assetion in that form is always false, while the negative assertion is ALWAYS true. This behavior is a result of the XOR and ~XOR condition when considering mutually exclusive properties, like atheist and theist.
Let me say that again: I wrote a formal proof showing you're wrong and you cannot defeat it.
And this proof demonstrates the behavior below. It is supported by one of the sources above, namely the one on Contradiction from Stanford:
If Socrates doesn't exist, “Socrates is wise” and its contrary “Socrates is not-wise” are both automatically false (since nothing—positive or negative—can be truly affirmed of a non-existent subject), while their respective contradictories “Socrates is not wise” and “Socrates is not not-wise” are both true.
And you haven't been able to refute any of this. Not a single iota. All you have are short youtubes which don't address any of these things, and forums which are unreliable and also don't address these things. And you've been clinging, deperately, to the first 12 pages of one of my sources, but you refuse to read beyond it. And then there's the cherry picking of the wikipedia page on the empty-set, which you did at th beginnning of the thread.
Here's what it *actually* says:
So, you intentionally removed the words "vacuous truth" AND you intentionally omitted the contradictory TRUE statement:
There is no element of the empty set for which the property holds.
That's proof positive that you intentionally omit necessary information. That's cherry picking.
And that is more than enough to dismiss it altogether.
That's because you cannot admit that you're wrong. Completely hopelessly wrong. And you seem to be willfully ignorant, nd you show signs of moral bankruptcy.
By your own admission, your methods are mindless, brain-dead, and robotic. So, why use them?
They clearly consider contradictions true, they clearly have no awareness of evidence or relevance. What's useful about any of this other than permitting lying my omission?