Jump to content

Faith, Logic, and Freedom


Edgarcito
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If logic were an absolute, then you and I, following the same logical progression, would reach the same conclusion.  Do you agree?

Yes I do.  And it's not a contradiction to say postulate it exists but say we don't have that capability to understand it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Appears like grace is even more relevant to modern society than legislation, i.e. uncertainty and loss of freedom...

None of which has anything to do with logic; and does nothing to address the point that your alternative to incomplete understanding is ancient goat-lore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Yes I do.  And it's not a contradiction to say postulate it exists but say we don't have that capability to understand it.  

That is not what you said, though.  You said initially that it exists as an absolute; but then said it was not an absolute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

None of which has anything to do with logic; and does nothing to address the point that your alternative to incomplete understanding is ancient goat-lore.

Yeah it does....morality through legislation, the idea that our knowledge base is adequate to define our freedom.  Idiotic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
10 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If logic were an absolute, then you and I, following the same logical progression, would reach the same conclusion.  Do you agree?

 

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Yes I do.  

Would you like to put it to the test, then?  An experiment, as it were.  Both of us consider a logical progression and see if we arrive at the same conclusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

That is not what you said, though.  You said initially that it exists as an absolute; but then said it was not an absolute.

I believe it's an absolute.  I know we aren't able to define that absolute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Just now, Edgarcito said:

Yeah it does....morality through legislation, the idea that our knowledge base is adequate to define our freedom.  Idiotic.

Do you just eat a box of Scrabble letters and write down whatever you shit out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Would you like to put it to the test, then?  An experiment, as it were.  Both of us consider a logical progression and see if we arrive at the same conclusion?

Lol, ok, sure.  You define all the components, and the interval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Just now, Edgarcito said:

I believe it's an absolute.  I know we aren't able to define that absolute.

Perhaps not; but, as I have indicated, we can put it to the test. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you just eat a box of Scrabble letters and write down whatever you shit out?

Some days, lol.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Perhaps not; but, as I have indicated, we can put it to the test. 

No we can't because you can't adequately define the components, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Just now, Edgarcito said:

Lol, ok, sure.  You define all the components, and the interval.

Fair enough.  To begin with, I propose we conduct a Control experiment using a known absolute, mathematics.  This will demonstrate that the experiment model is appropriate and effective.  We will both solve the same mathematical equation; and, to ensure that there is no bias in our conclusion, I will ask both @walterpthefirst and @DarkBishop to also solve the equation and provide their answers here.  Once we have an answer from all four of us, myself, you, Walt, and DB, then we will move on to considering the same logical progression. 

 

Sound fair?  If so, solve for X, given that L=18 and W=3:

 

2L+2W=X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No we can't because you can't adequately define the components, period.

We can test if logic is an absolute.  You agreed to this; and the experiment has already been set in motion.  I await your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

We can test if logic is an absolute.  You agreed to this; and the experiment has already been set in motion.  I await your answer.

You haven't met the conditions for my participation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
22 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Lol, ok, sure.  You define all the components, and the interval.

 

12 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

We can test if logic is an absolute.  You agreed to this; and the experiment has already been set in motion.  I await your answer.

 

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You haven't met the conditions for my participation...

You already agreed to participate.  Are you reneging on your agreement?  If not, please solve for X 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

 

You already agreed to participate.  Are you reneging on your agreement?  If not, please solve for X 

Can you not read.  "All the components and the interval"  I'm waiting on your definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Just now, Edgarcito said:

Can you not read.  "All the components and the interval"  I'm waiting on your definitions.

The parameters are 2L and 2W, given that L=18 and W=3.  The interval is 1.  I assumed your grasp of basic algebra was strong enough that the implication would be understood.  My bad.

 

Now, please solve for X.  Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The parameters are 2L and 2W, given that L=18 and W=3.  The interval is 1.  I assumed your grasp of basic algebra was strong enough that the implication would be understood.  My bad.

 

Now, please solve for X.  Thank you.

"All" would include my physiology, my environment, yours, Walters, etc. and our similar and unique chemical/physical mechanisms/environment. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
9 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

"All" would include my physiology, my environment, yours, Walters, etc. and our similar and unique chemical/physical mechanisms/environment. 

"All" is not remotely related to this experiment.  Physiology, environment, chemistry, physicality and mechanisms are not remotely related to this experiment.  Hell, other than being a potential participant, Walt is not even remotely related to this experiment.

 

Please solve for X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

This is pretty simple, Ed.  You made the claim that logic is an absolute and agreed to test if that claim was true.  Either you really are willing to test the claim, or you're not.  The way you're attempting to obfuscate the issue suggests you're getting cold feet about having your claim tested.  Is this true?  If you're scared, just say you're scared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is pretty simple, Ed.  You made the claim that logic is an absolute and agreed to test if that claim was true.  Either you really are willing to test the claim, or you're not.  The way you're attempting to obfuscate the issue suggests you're getting cold feet about having your claim tested.  Is this true?  If you're scared, just say you're scared.

 

30 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"All" is not remotely related to this experiment.  Physiology, environment, chemistry, physicality and mechanisms are not remotely related to this experiment.  Hell, other than being a potential participant, Walt is not even remotely related to this experiment.

 

Please solve for X.

My brain is directly related to this experiment....my particular physiology, whether I poured sugar on my Chex cereal or cocaine this morning....js. 

 

Let's see where this goes....for your sake.

 

X=42

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Nah, you're wrong, bro.  god originally created one hermaphroditic entity, which was Adam.  But when it was realized that Adam did not have a suitable partner (helpmate), god separated the feminine side of Adam (the metaphorical "rib") and created the female.  Laugh till the cows come home; but I actually heard a christian apologist offer this explanation with a straight face.

     This is an old idea.  The original creation was both male and female in one "person" so to speak in order to reflect the wholeness of god (or something I don't totally recall but it's also to reflect the first creation of creating both males and females) and then was later split into two along the back or side (since the word for rib can also be read this way) leaving the two distinct parts.

 

          mwc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You haven't met the conditions for my participation...

 

Edgarcito,

 

Because mathematics deals in absolutes there are no conditions that you can invoke to change that. 

 

X = 42 for you, for me and for the Prof.  And for everyone, everywhere and anywhere.

 

Even if the what we don't know about X is infinite, that doesn't change anything about the math or the result.

 

They stay the same.  They are absolute. 

 

Different brains, different personalities, different genetics, different anything - none of that changes the math or the result.

 

They stay the same.  They are absolute.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2(18)+2(3)=x

36+6=x

x = 42

 

Is this correct @TheRedneckProfessor?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Thanks for posting this link! A little more deconversion ammo there 😃 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.