Is Neo[Atheism] a Rational Religion?

"I neither deny nor affirm the immortality of man." ~ Huxley-Agnostic

The above firmly establishes the Agnostic position as believe/disbelief conditions not knowledge.

The disrupters argue a conflated strawman context fallacy which propose both unreasonable as well as illogical commingled conditions.

The above is the basis for agnostic that established 'Affirm/Deny' as the foundational logic to determine, theist/atheist as the OFFICIAL inputs used for agnostic.

In the TT I posted, B-Believe / DB-DisBelieve is a semanticly identical therefore a reasonable substitution that carries the same meaning, however if this is seen to be a problem we can play hard-ball philosophical proofs and change it to A-Affirm / D-Deny if you like.

Therefore:

b / db

The condition for agnostic is indisputably 0,0.

The condition for theist is indisputably 1,0.

The condition for atheist is indisputably 0,1.

It can be no other bit combination without creating a fallacy.

This is the 'correct' incontrovertible conditions for agnostic synthesis direct from its creator.

I have demonstrated this logically in the truth table previously posted.

You cannot have 2 different values on and off for instance at the same time on a single output.

The lights in your house cannot be on (1) and off (0) at the same time.

That is the condition adding atheist to agnostic creates, agnostic-atheist.

Thats the logic table for the output of a process controller which can have any number of outputs and the only thing applicable to this ocnversation is the fact that X means invalid.

I used a process controller to automatically provide the inputs on to prove the logic in your falstad program.



Proof Agnostic is logically 0,0.

That puts you light years ahead of the disruptors.

I thought that was obvious from the truth table.

Agnostic requires a 0,0, and cannot be anything else because it does not establish either an atheist or theist position.

Both atheist and theist positions have to have a '1' in somewhere to identify themselves as atheist or theist, 0,1 or 1,0 respectively.

As you agreed nothing can be on and off at the same time either on an input or output.

Truth tables for process controls simply tell you the logic of the device needed to complete a peripheral process, as I already said.

So what do we input for flew? You have a 1 or a 0 to choose from. Lets start there, identify the correct input for us. Probably a 0.

Again that is a controller, I can have thousands of outputs on the device and they are meaningless to this except to show you that your use of 'X' is incorrect and needs to be changed because 'X' or for that matter 'toggle' are the notations use to indicate invalid operations.

The way you are using your not gate is the same as a controller rather than a logical output for the purposes of proofs and that is fine, I properly terminated it for you to yield the identical output with a proper logic I/O configuration.



The truth table for a not gate is simply inversion.
1in = 0out
0in = 1out
so someone who believes would be an atheist and someone who disbelieves would be a theist.

by the way LEM was a typo it should have been LNC.

Its illegal for an agnostic to also disbelieve, or if lack of believe creates an atheist it is illegal, agnostic logic as proven above stands only as 0,0

 

So you keep insisting. But that is NOT the meaning of the word agnostic (or atheist) that is used by the "neoatheists" your thread set out to attack. You can squabble over semantics all you want, but equivocation between the differing definitions is not sound basis for an argument against these "neoatheists".

 

Let's put this in a fancy Truth Table for Kokomojo:

Koko Defs. Neoatheist Defs.

1. 0. Koko coherent
0. 1. Neoatheist coherent
0. 0. Religion not discussed
1. 1. Equivocation fallacy

 

I agree with the bold only

No that does not represent A= not (X) This does:




Of course for this table the input is A and output is C which corresponds to your X input and A output respectively.

You are incorrect, as you can see its makes spotting errors and faulty logic immediately obvious at a glance.

.

 

I don't think we actually disagree on what an agnostic is, what we disagree on is some of the words we use to describe it (or rather, words that you insist on using. I have presented the argument solely in phrasings that I think we agree on, you seem hell-bent on trying to introduce terms that conflate the issue).

I think "deny" will run into the same issue as "disbelieve", I would like you to use the words that I have suggested, i.e. writing it out as "believes that God exists" and "believes that God does not exist". Your other attempts seem to be trying to fly some dodgy logic in under the radar.

I agree that there can be no other bit combination, but I do not agree that the condition for atheist is indisputably [0,1].

Using Flew's definition, all that is required is that the first column is 0. This can be represented in several ways, such as "A=not(X), where A is atheist and X is believing that God exists", or "atheist corresponds to [0,x], where x is any number" (although be aware that X and x are different things in these examples).

This definition of atheist is compatible with the definition of agnostic (i.e., it is not a contradiction to be both at once, [0,0] gets both labels "atheist" and "agnostic", one does not overwrite the other).

I agree with the first two lines here.

However, remember that under Flew's definition, an atheist corresponds to having 0 in the first columns (with no demand on what value the second column takes), so we are not suggesting that the house lights are on. The entire problem comes from you pretending to investigate Flew's definition, but in fact applying some logic that comes from the other definition (you commit the fallacy of equivocation).

It seems to me the truth table shows that it is perfectly allowable to have an X in a truth table. Either X does not mean that it is "invalid", or having an "invalid" input doesn't mean there is any problem with the logic (although, you've been very unclear about what you mean by "invalid", so I can't tell which it is).

For reference, I found another copy of the same table, but with the symbols written out:

(source, page 9)
As you can see, they write out that X corresponds to "Either Low or High Logic Level" (very similar to how I wrote out "any allowed input, i.e. 0 or 1). Nothing about "invalid" or any indication of there being a problem with having the X there.

I already agree that [0,0] corresponds to agnosticism (although the circuit in itself only shows that there is an identifiable configuration [0,0], it doesn't contain any mention of how it corresponds to agnosticism).

Either way, if you say that the above is proof regarding agnostics, then this should be proof that Flew's definition of atheists is logically allowable.

I don't think so, I think you are misinterpreting what they say. You are consistently very unclear on which things you compare to what, and what rules you invoke when you compare them. At the same time, you tend to make assumptions about what other people mean, often both hastily and incorrectly.

The entire point of the argument is around the definition of atheism. Flew's definition of atheism is that you have a 0 in the first column. If in addition, you demand that atheists have exactly [0,1], or that they "have to have a '1' in somewhere", then what you're addressing isn't Flew's logic.

This is also the reason I keep asking you to be clear and consistent with what you call that column, and not change the words willy nilly (like to "disbelieve" or "deny").

I'm not sure either what this means, or what it has to do with my statement. It seems to me https://microcontrollerslab.com/74ls76-pinout-working-examples-applications-datasheet/ and I use the the X in the same way, so it seems to me the electronics experts are on my side.

As I said, Flew's logic corresponds to [0,X], where X is any allowed input (i.e. 0 or 1). So, the conclusion "atheist" is true for the input [0,0] as well as [0,1].

There is nothing problematic about either X or toggle. Are you arguing that all these electronics pages/specifications made errors in all the cases where they printed X?

So? A process controller is just some circuitry executing some logic. The circuits inside the JK Flip Flop (for which you provided a truth table) can be seen here: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/jk-flip-flop-and-sr-flip-flop/

Again, having more than one output works just fine.

 

You'll find that they agree perfectly with mine, in mine, X is always the opposite of A, corresponding to in yours that C is always the opposite of A.

 

If its just a matter of throwing **** at the wall logic regardless if its applicable, hell here is some code:

if( x = 0 && y = 0 ) {z=0;} else {
if( x = 0 && y = 1 ) {z=0;} else {
if( x = 1 && y = 0 ) {z=0;} else {
if( x = 1 && y = 1 ) {z=0;}}}}

Now you can argue that 'ALL' conditions are 'logically' atheist!

I can write 'process' code to make it anything you want and we can call it 'logic'.

What I wrote is process code, so now even 1,1 is atheist. lmao

If you cant stay within the parameters of arguable context this is a waste of time.

For this case, if a condition flips from one state to another with no change in output its invalid, so if you want to stick with that premise you just invalidated the results on those grounds alone.

I really dont spend much time reading your posts anymore, missed that you deleted the y input from the device but not from the table. Speaking of being clear


So to simplify all that gish you posted,

We agree agnostic is understood to be 0,0
We also agree atheist is understood to be 0,1

What we do not agree on is that atheist can have a condition that overwrites agnostic.



If you have an 0 and a 1 in the same column at the same time that would have the notation 'X', or toggle, both are invalid because it is 'illogical'.

Your mission mr phelps if you with to accept it is to create logic that does not conflict with existing definitions.

 

Another typo, this is what happens when you turn **** into a quagmire.
That should have read...."You have atheists -'NOT believing G/god does not exist' and -'believing G/god does not exist' at the same time"

if that is the case then someone who claims G/god does not exist is not an atheist.
a complete contradiction to the definition

I used the authors unequivocal words.

Yep the above post, I used your definitions, and presto no difference.

Here is lack of belief:




Presto no difference, except of course we had to use a reverse gate due to the negation.

Once you have 0,0, you are agnostic, not atheist.
Regardless how you want to play with the logic, atheist has to be a 0,1 while agnostic has to remain 0,0 because agnostic shares 'nothing' in common with atheist.

You can call it weak atheist if you like that is still a 0,1, but using 0,0 for atheist is strictly off limits if you do not want a LNC violation

 

Yeah, this is one of the reasons I think the circuitry is a waste of time. You can make circuits or code that display anything, including things that are literally illogical (for instance, nothing stopped us from displaying the person who believed both that there was a god and that there was no god). The fundamental issue we disagree on is how to assign words to concepts, and that doesn't get resolved by your flights of fancy into circuitry or coding.

Consider the following truth table of a nand gate:

(source)
In particular, note that B flips from 0 to 1 without change in the output. You seem to have made up the idea that this makes the logic invalid. I don't think it makes anything invalid, I think it makes B irrelevant in that case, and that's not really a problem for logic.

In the truth table I have presented, there is of course the distinction that not only is there a case in which the output doesn't change when the inputs change, but the outputs never change when a specific input changes. This too is logically allowed (although it is often omitted for being obvious). As an example, this is the truth table for the "logical true" operator:

(source)
The logical true operator has the output 1 regardless of what the input is. There is nothing illogical about it, although it is often omitted since it's not particularly informative. As you can see, there is nothing problematic about the truth table that has the same output regardless of the input. Again, you seem to have made up the statement that it is invalid.

I've made another illustrative example here:

I think this illustrates that we can have a truth table that well describes a situation, in which the output depends only on one input, even though other pieces of information are available. Again, the fact that the umbrella does not govern whether my clothes are wet does not make the logic invalid, just that there are parts of it that are irrelevant.

It is not deleted, it just doesn't feed into the output. It is present (so every possible value of it must be represented in the truth table), but it is not what impacts the output.

I would like to point you to this quote:

"I agree that there can be no other bit combination, but I do not agree that the condition for atheist is indisputably [0,1]"
(source, 3rd paragraph)​

Clearly, you not reading my posts leads to you being wrong a lot. The point of this entire discussion is that in Flew's definition, atheist is understood to be someone who has a 0 in the first spot, regardless of what is in the second spot. It seems after years of discussing this, you still haven't come close to even addressing what is being said.

Nope, you could have done with reading my post instead of making stuff up. I have atheists either "believing God does not exist" or "not believing God does not exist", not simultaneously doing both. For instance, consider this truth table:

There is nothing illogical about the table, the outputs follow directly from the inputs, in a way I think we can agree with.

If we follow your logic, we get: "You have a dark room corresponding to having a red light bulb and a white light bulb in the socket at the same time". In reality, of course, I have a dark room corresponding to either a white bulb or a red bulb (as long as the lights are off), not having both simultaneously.

Another example is the truth table for the "logical truth" operator shown further up, where one input is simply irrelevant, and the output is completely determined without it.

Seems to me that the person you described fits in the second row of the truth table. The output is a 1, so the person would qualify as an atheist. I don't see where you get the idea that that they wouldn't be an atheist.

You used an author's words. The issue here is how atheist is defined, and Huxley didn't coin that word (not that a person who coins a word has the final say, someone coined the word "orange" to mean a fruit, that doesn't keep us from using it as a colour).

Nope, those are not the definitions I requested. I think I have been pretty clear that there are several conflicting definitions of disbelief, so I don't know where you get the idea that there is any definition of disbelief that is "my" definition of it. I have requested that you put it in terms of "believe God exists" and "believe God does not exist", but you keep trying to wriggle out of it.

In Flew's definition, atheist is understood as having a 0 in the first slot, regardless of what is in the second slot. If you do not adhere to that, then what you are discussing is not Flew's logic, and the errors you find are Flew's, they're all yours. Every time you've said you've disproved Flew, you've actually just proven that you are unable or unwilling to actually consider what is being said.

At the end of the day, none of your attempts to prove Flew wrong have worked, since at no point have you actually managed to correctly put the logic into your truth tables, circuitry, code or arguments.

 

He insists on defining the terms in such a way that he can't make sense of anybody saying something who defines the terms differently, even when they clearly state what they mean by the terms.

This entire thread is a semantic game pretending to be logical reasoning.

 

Its total nonsense. the negation of lights on is lights off, not your ridiculous 'there is a bulb in the socket'.

I considered it, its trash, it proves beyond any doubt atheism is an irrational religion.

I did you fail as usual to see see the woods because there are
Agnostic is defined as 'NOT believe God exists' and 'NOT believe God does not exist', 0,0.
AGAIN AS YOU INSIST
Theist is defined as 'NOT believe God does not exist' and 'believe God exists' 1,0.
AGAIN AS YOU INSIST
Atheist is defined as 'believe God does not exist' and 'NOT believe God exists' 0,1.
AGAIN AS YOU INSIST

NB = believe God does not exist
B = believe God exists

The proof:



You think an atheist can be defined as:
not believe god does not exist and believe god does not exist at the same time.

That is an irrational contradiction.

 

Since this seems to be so difficult for you I'll throw you a bone;

Atheism IS indisputably 0,1 UNLESS:
You want claim this: Atheist defined as 'believe God does not exist' is a false statement.

That is only true for a 'single' input condition. For 2 inputs (combinational logic, which describes 3 'exclusive' identities) both inputs are required to be considered simultaneously for each outputed identity.

0 = 'believe God does not exist' = atheist
1 = 'believe God exists' = theist
proposition/proposition-negation

that is not true with 2 input conditions where BOTH have to be satisfied.

then flew is even more ****ed up than I imagined!
its illegal to have a 0 in the first column "believe god exists" without having a 1 in the second column for "believe god does not exist" for a 2 input condition. both input conditions must agree to be satisfied without contradictions. Works the same way for theist.
For 2 input conditions:
Agnostic can only be 0,0
Atheist can only be 0,1
Theist can only be 1,0
to remain logical

If you want to add flew you have to come up with logic and a TT THAT WORKS, put it in your falstad program and it cannot violate logic, structure or method.

Whatever point you want to make prove it out in your falstad logic simulator so we can all review it, as I have done.

 

I haven't claimed that those are negations. In this example, the negation of "the lights are on" is "the room is dark" (since for every line, only one is true).

This proves very little, given that you haven't justified why you've placed either label by any particular set of gates.

That would be an irrational contradiction, but as usual, you haven't understood my position. The definition I suggest is to "not believe that God exists, regardless of whether you believe God does not exist", i.e., not(X), regardless of what Y is.

In our truth tables, a person is represented by a row. In the truth table I have provided, there are two rows that have a 1 in the atheist position. This means that there are two people who both fulfil the definition of atheist, not that there is one person that somehow satisfy both sets of inputs "at the same time".

You seem to have mixed in an extra "not".
On this format, Flew's statement would be

'Atheist defined as "believe God does exist" is a false statement'​

or, the equivalent

'Atheist defined as "not(believe God exists)" is a true statement'​

(since if X is a false statement, then not(X) must be a true statement)
or simply

'Atheist defined as "not(believe God exists)"'​

It seems to me your assertion "indisputable" is simply false, as shown by the fact that we're disputing it.

Source?

It seems to me there is no mandate for both inputs to be "considered". Technically, 2 inputs give rise to 16 distinct possibilities for outputs (you will find them in the four first lines of the table here, I happen to be using the one labelled with a superscript 3). There is no rule saying that both must be considered, although an input is often omitted if it has no impact. I have not omitted it, because I want to keep the visibility on the difference between Y and not(X) (they are very clearly distinct in the spelled out version).

In Flew's definition, atheism is a single input definition. You can display a truth table with an additional, unrelated piece of information (the idea that other statements exist doesn't break or invalidate the workings of logic).

This is one of the reasons I want to keep track of the differences between not(X) and Y. In our previous tables, "believe God exists" and "believe God does not exist" were columns (correctly, in my opinion) and we were able to consider any combination between them. Now you've instead changed them to correspond to values of one column. At the very least, you would have to justify that swap. This new setup doesn't seem to have any space for agnostics.

With Flew's definition, there is only one condition, corresponding to a 0 in the X column. Any other condition you demand is your failure to actually consider Flew's logic. Any flaws that derive from that are yours, not his.

I have a feeling you have misphrased this. "It is illegal to have a 0 in the first column without having a 1 in the second column" seems to indicate that being an agnostic is illegal (since they indeed have a 0 in the first column, and do not have a 1 in the second column), whereas in reality of course agnostics are possible.

If it was "illegal" for them to be the same, then Y would be completely constrained by X, and Y wouldn't be an input, it would be an output.

I seem to recall having posted it here, but since you've provided a new gif which shows what you're willing to consider as proof, we can update it:

(Source)

In particular, note how the selection of gates follow exactly from the definition of each output (as opposed to your combinations of three gates at a time with no justification for why you've selected that configuration of gates). Theist follows directly from X, with no other pieces of information needed. Agnostic follows only from the NOR of the two inputs. Atheist follows solely from the negation of X, as Flew's definition demands.

(in the gif, I have omitted the crazy instance of [1,1]. I would have added a buffer gate for the theist line, to keep "current" being drawn from the clock, but that's a cosmetic concern, not a logical one.)

The corresponding truth table for each of the outputs is here:

Anything that is on the same line can be true simultaneously for a specific person (for instance, it is possible to be both agnostic and atheist). If there is a line with two 1s, it follows that the columns in which they are found are not contradictions.

 

functions, they simply show all the logic gates etc
you have 4 individual UNIQUE output identities for 2 inputs, no more.
That means one output, one identity, for EACH individual 2 input combination (pair), not 2, not 3, 10, or 100.

I tild you I dont give a **** how you want to assign them, I copied your table, yet you complain.

for atheist

Wow talk about a trip through the strawberry fields reading that one! damn man.

Ok now down to beesness, you created 2 separate truth tables LOL.



Oh and that is illegal, illogical and irrational btw.
One TT for agnostic, and one TT for atheist v theist




the first creates a 4 input TT, the second a 3input TT.

What you really have is:



flews are confused
as you can see mine demonstrates a 'single' truth table, which cretes one boolean expression for the set of conditions. NOT 2 or 3 or more independent truth tables which creates BUNK.

As we can see atheist and agnostic are the SAME LOGICAL INPUTS! ILLEGAL!

WHICH MEANS 2 DIFFERENT IDENTITES ON THE SAME OUTPUT IS ILLEGAL, CREATING 2 TRUTH TABLES CREATES 2 SEPERATE EXPRESSIONS, ILLEGAL

Once again you need to create a TT that does not violate logic as in does not contradict itself IN ONE TT, NOT 10!

You already agreed that 0,0 and 0,1 was irrational, combining yours that is what you have, as I have shown when properly configured to create ONE TT in the above example.

Good luck with that!

 

Yes, I agree that you have 4 individual unique output identities for 2 inputs, however, you can group those unique outputs in 16 different ways (which indeed are identified by the gates). There is no logical rule that says a word (such as "atheist") need to correspond to a "unique" output, it can just as easily describe a combination of outputs.

I don't recall posting that table. That being said, I don't mind the table, it's the haphazard and inconsistent way you apply the words that breaks your logic.

It seems to me, it is the definition that determines what combinations of the inputs makes someone an atheist or not, and if we're considering Flew's definition, the assertion you make simply isn't true. Of course, we can consider other definitions, but if we do, it is not Flew's logic you're poking holes in.

A truth table shows the values of the outputs for any combination of the inputs. It seems to me quite possible in my diagram to provide any combination of inputs, and read the outputs, which is all that is needed to make a truth table. That truth table happens to be as follows:

Your assertion that both inputs need to be included in the evaluation seems to be something you've made up. Certainly, the circuit simulator has no trouble evaluating the outputs, nor would computer code or a manual evaluation of each entry in the truth table.

Nothing illegal about it. Show me the "law". Definitions specify which things are taken into account when we determine whether a word applies. If the definition depends only on one input, then a specific output can be evaluated using only that input.

For instance, "Theist" can be evaluated knowing only the value X, and there is nothing illogical about that. If anything, it is illogical to demand that some other input should be used in the evaluation, when the definition demands only the value of X. That fact remains true even if you include it in a larger truth table that also is able to evaluate other stances.

As another example (which I have already brought up), the truth table for logical truth is:
View attachment 148066
(Source)
This shows a fully functional table, in which the input p is present, but does not factor into the evaluation. Given that this is an established truth table, this shows that there is nothing illogical or "illegal" about a truth table not "evaluating" all available inputs (although granted, an input that isn't used in the evaluation is often safely omitted).

Not sure what you mean. It is irrational for a person to hold more than one position at the same time, but it is possible for a group such as "atheists" to contain several people who have different positions.

Sure. Not sure what you're intending to show by this.

Again, you claim that Flew's atheists "Believe G/god does not exist", which is not actually what Flew suggests. You have accurately identified a logical error, not in Flew's logic, but in your own reading ability.

What law is it breaking? It is akin to saying that something is a car and a Ford at the same time. If one is a subset of the other, there is nothing illegal about being both.

It is illogical for one person to hold both [0,0] and [0,1]. It is however not illogical to identify/name a group which includes several people, some of whom hold [0,0] and some of whom hold [0,1].

 

Then why do you insist on continuing to violate LNC?

yep that is agnostic, we agreed on that

yep that is atheist, we agreed on that

You claim to logically represent FLew, identifying your error then means I identified flews error.

z,y, z is a fully functional truth table.

f=∑1, 2, 3, 5
f above is the same as z, the output.

as I just proved to you in the previous response the outputs of x and y are evaluated in rows not columns, you made columns, frankly I never seen such nonsense in my entire life.

By this you also proved you do not understand boolean algebra.


this is the nonsense you call a valid truth table FFS

The logic you think is correct is so ****ed up you have theist as believing god exists and believing that god does not exist at the same time!

yes left to right, not crisscross and any loosy goosy hap hazard concoction you can dream up.

You have 3 choices in these logic tables, 0,0 agnostic, 0,1 atheist, 1,0 theist, there simply are no others, your mission Mr Phelps if you choose to accept it, is to see if you can figure out how to fix it without LNC violations or producing nonsense TT's.

 

ONE ROW FOR EACH POSSIBLE COMBINATION! NOT one column as that nonsense TT you posted or the nonsense in your gate logic.

Hope that helps, good luck!

 

I do not. Just like something can be a car and a Ford at the same time, without violating LNC or any other logic.

Here is a quote of me explicitly disagreeing with something that you thought I agreed with.

"I agree that there can be no other bit combination, but I do not agree that the condition for atheist is indisputably [0,1]." (Source)​

I also pointed the same thing out in this post. I guess I'll just add this to the ever-growing pile of things that Kokomojojo hasn't understood (and seemingly haven't even tried to understand).

And more to the point, you ignored the actual point I was making (as you have with many of my other points). It is entirely possible to identify and name a group of people which includes several of the lines in our truth tables, without breaking any logic or suggesting that they're the same people, or hold the same beliefs.

So is my full one.

Not sure what you think this shows. There is no law written out, and at best what you have are examples, not laws.

You seem to have taken it from here (or more likely, from this derivative, since you've managed to include the "f=∑1, 2, 3, 5" from a different chapter).

You have proven no such thing, you've merely provided that you can have a single output system, not that you have to have a single output system. The source you used above for instance includes this circuit:


This setup evaluates 3 different logical statements (Source). Different output lines (like the ones you linked to LEDs in your example) correspond to output columns, just as I have used them. Clearly, no problem arises from having several statements evaluated as different outputs (displayed in columns of the truth table).

Similarly, not all outputs depend on all inputs. The above circuit shows for instance that the f1 input does not feed into the A output. Again, electronics people and I agree, only you impose arbitrary rules that don't hold up.

(The above chart does contain one error, which is discussed in the book source, which is that not all combinations of inputs are considered. The book goes on to correct this issue, and a fuller version of the circuit can be found in picture 5.25 (however, that picture looks kinda blurry when I try to copy it). If you find that this distinction matters to an argument you wish to make, please refer to Figure 5.25 in the source, it has all the same features, and shows that your arguments are mistaken just as much)

Nope, I have not constructed that truth table. Truth tables require one row per possible combinations of inputs, you have written here two rows for [0,0]. I have two different ways to describe the one [0,0] line, I do not suggest that they are different lines.

Sure you can have one row corresponding to several identities. For instance, a person can have both the identity "French" and "left handed" at the same time, and it is not a contradiction (and, should you wish to, you could construct a truth table that shows this, based on some inputs, showing that it does not violate logic or truth tables).

Sure it can. A person cannot hold 0,0 and 0,1 at the same time, but there is nothing keeping us from defining a group which contains both people who hold 0,0 and 0,1 (if you will, "0,X", where X is either 0 or 1). For instance, in the French/handedness example, if X was being French, and Y was being left handed, "French people" could be defined as [1,X], i.e. them being French is required to be in the group "French people", but there is no requirement on being left handed. This does not constitute a contradiction or any logical problem.

Nope. Again, "at the same time" is your addition, I have not suggested that. The two rows represent different people (and arguably, one of them represents an impossible person) who fall in the same group. Granted, given that we both know that the 1,1 case is impossible, I didn't spend any particular effort on ruling out the 1,1 person (frankly, I don't really know what I would call such a person).

Again, as long as you assert that atheism is 0,1, you are doing something other than evaluating Flew's logic. This is also sometimes known as the fallacy of equivocation, where you have one definition (Flew's), yet you introduce points that were made with a different definition.

One row for each possible combination, one column for each statement that could be assessed for each row. I've given you plenty of examples of working truth tables, created by reliable experts, which have more than one column outputs. It seems to me the slide above uses the word "a" because there is one output to a gate, not because it is a fundamental aspect of truth tables (for instance, we've both shown circuits with more than one gate).

For instance:

 

bullshit, that is what it is by literally every dictionary and school of philosophy on the planet.


Definition of atheist noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
atheist noun
a person who does not believe that God or gods exist
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/atheist
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist


Oxford Quick Reference
The theory or belief that God does not exist.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095431374

Definition of atheist

: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

atheist
An atheist believes there is no such thing as god, or any other deity.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/atheist

Definition of 'atheist'
atheist
An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God.

atheist in American English
a person who believes that there is no God

atheist in American English
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings
Most material © 2005, 1997, 1991 by Penguin Random House LLC. Modified entries © 2019 by Penguin Random House LLC and HarperCollins Publishers Ltd

atheist in British English
(ˈeɪθɪˌɪst )
noun
1. a person who does not believe in God or gods

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false.

Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe


The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster. And the vast majority of U.S. atheists fit this description: 81% say they do not believe in God or a higher power or in a spiritual force of any kind.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/06/10-facts-about-atheists/

atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism

To make posts claiming the above definition is false is patently ridiculous.

Thats your problem pal not mine, you are the one trying to slip Flew into the equation not me.

I really dont give a **** what you agree or disagree with. This is not a consensus matter.

All I need to do is examine the validity of the logic you use to prove the Flew position passes the sniff test, hint: it doesnt

I have never changed my position on points made since the very first day on this board.
I am using the standard definition you are using a counterfeit since you cannot logically assign an identity without violating LNC.

Clearly you are trying to take this to the point of insanity, since by those standards definitions dont exist, since you can define a theist as an atheist.
Im surprised you dont see how over the top out to lunch that is.

The logic used demonstrated by circuit did, and you constructed the circuit, its the corresponding TT.

DUH! Your logic shows it for 2 rows.

First you deny it then you argue that you have it ffs

and you argue again that the same bit combination can have 2 different identities.

Looks like you are begging for the face palm again, there is a limit to how far I will endure this level of nonsense.

 

Sure that a demux function, problem is that it is useless for what you are trying to prove.
Oh, I bet you disagree! lol PROVE IT then.

 

I agree with the definition, but I do not agree that that corresponds to [0,1]. Let's look closer at the quote

a person who does not believe that God or gods exist (source, formatting by me)​

In addition, we have the definitions of (what we call) X and Y:

X: believe that God or gods exist
Y: believe that God or gods do not exist​

As you can see by the colouring, X is identifiable within the definition (I had to add "or gods" to our definition or X and Y, which we've left out for brevity in the past, but it should have no impact on the logic). Y however, does not feature within the definition given. This means we can simplify the definition with our nomenclature:

Atheist: a person who does 'not(X)' (with no particular requirement on a stance regarding Y).​

So, in our [X,Y] format, X is required to be 0, and Y can be anything (either 0 or 1, which I will denote as lower case x, so as not to confuse it with X). This makes the requirement for atheist [0,x] (where x is either 0 or 1). That doesn't mean "Y is 0 and 1 at the same time", but simply regardless of whether Y is 0 or 1.

Of course, the other definition, "a person who believes that God does not exist" also exists, and just like with the word "orange", a person will pick the definition that is most useful to the point they're making, as long as they don't mix their uses (and clarify in case of confusion).

The problem is that it's not Flew's logic you're sniffing. You've evaluated an unrelated piece of logic (and mostly caught the whiff of your own hands).

I have shown the interpretation of what you call the "standard" definition above. Besides, it is quite possible for there to be several definitions, such as with my favourite example "orange". Nothing is keeping you from using either definition (as long as you don't use them at the same time), the same is true here.

Do you have any reference to how these "standard definitions" are supposed to work? We have examples that defy an unbending dedication to "standard definitions" such as "orange" (which is a word that we know works just fine), so either there is no conflict between my use and "standard definitions", or "standard definitions" don't work at all.

That being said, my first paragraph in this post deals step by step with the definition you have quoted.

Nope, the combinations of inputs define the rows of the truth table. If you end up with more than one row with the same inputs, then you're not constructing a truth table properly. It is however quite possible to have several outputs, shown in a truth table as several columns (with one entry per row each). I have provided several examples showing that it is possible and a common way in which to use truth tables.

Nope, truth tables have by definition one row per possible combination of inputs. Therefore, the two pieces of information you point to (which are not themselves inputs in our setup) should not be represented by rows (but, in this particular case, by columns).

Nope, I argue that different descriptions are represented by columns, not rows. The addition of the erroneous row is your mistake, it is not present in the underlying logic or circuitry, nor in the truth tables that I have presented.

Depends a bit on what you mean by "identity", but yes. For instance, as in my previous example, a person can be both French and Left-handed, and there is no logical trouble with that setup. Where do you get the idea that you can have only one such descriptor?

The point I am trying to prove with this table is that it is possible to have several outputs from a circuit, and that they are represented as output columns in a truth table. The fact that it has been done proves that it can be done.

 

What do Xs mean on a datasheet truth table?

Profile photo for Bob Mikkelson
Bob Mikkelson, BS Industrial Engineering & Electronics, California State University, Long Beach (1971)
Answered September 22, 2018

An “X” means that the logic level of that pin or signal does not matter. It can be ‘HIGH” (1) or “LOW” (0) and will not affect the resulting output pin/signal level.

The X’s mean that it doesn’t matter what those are as inputs, some other input is controlling the outputs at that time. For instance if a reset input is high, all the other inputs are irrelevant.

If the X’s are at an output, it might mean the output is undefined, or is an open-circuit with the sets of inputs.
[IOW DISCONNECTED AND USELESS TO THE OUTCOME!]

Profile photo for George Gonzalez
George Gonzalez, I worked as an EE for a year and somehow fooled everybody.
Answered October 14, 2016

The X’s mean that it doesn’t matter what those are as inputs, some other input is controlling the outputs at that time. For instance if a reset input is high, all the other inputs are irrelevant.

If the X’s are at an output, it might mean the output is undefined, or is an open-circuit with the sets of inputs.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-Xs-mean-on-a-datasheet-truth-table

CLEARLY THE VALUE OF X,Y IN THE TT AFFECT THE OUTPUT (IDENTITY)!
AGAIN YOU SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

Yours?

You think you can simply throw **** anywhere and it works, that is precisely why I demanded putting this in gate format because you will disagree with everything all the time because you simply do not know or pretend not to know what is proper TT construction.

Using YOUR inputs
X: believe that God or gods exist
Y: believe that God or gods do not exist

AGAIN:
Therefore:
Z=!x,!y = agnostic
x=0 = NOT believe that God or gods exist
y=0 = NOT believe that God or gods do not exist

Z=!x,y = atheist
x=0 = NOT believe that God or gods exist
y=1 = believe that God or gods do not exist

Z=x,!y = theist
x=1 = believe that God or gods exist
y=0 = NOT believe that God or gods do not exist

Not usable except to prove agnostic where output = 0 for all other conditions
x=1 = nuts
y=1 = nuts

Truth tables cycle through all possible inputs:
00
01
10
11

00 = Agnostic identity
01 = Atheist identity
10 = Theist identity
11 = unusable

Your attempts to arbitrarily stick an 'x' in the truth table and pretend its usable in the fashion you are trying to use it is laughable frankly.

At the end of the day Mr Phelps, your mission if you decide to accept it is to create PROPERLY formatted conditions and constructed truth table and associated logic to prove FLew is logical.

If you think that there are 10 different atheist identities by all means, prove them out, but I absolutely will not let you get away with any bullshit logic or LNC violations. In the end they are going to forever remain an 'atheist identity'. ps; it cant be done in reference to the other identities unless you want to invent a new form of logic or pretend you can wipe out agnostic.

 

Koko will now go on to prove that black is white and get himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

Swensson! Not koko. He is trying to 'manipulate' Flew into the equation as you can see failing miserably. There is simply no place for him to go with this that is 'logical', ie agnostic-atheist 'cannot' exist in the logical academic world. It can in vivid imaginations however

and this is further ILLOGICAL because with that crap what you are trying to claim reduces to anyone who is not a believer that gods do exist is atheist, in which case the negation would be anyone who is not a believer that God or gods do not exist is a theist.

In which case you just shot yourself in the foot by wiping flews lacker theory out again.

.