Faith, Logic, and Freedom

[walterpthefirst]

It's a classic ploy.

 

If you don't make the play, you can't lose.

 

So, substitute the play in hand with a different one.

 

But don't actually make the play that's asked of you.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

And the example you then presented is off-topic, as you well know.

 

Game over.

Looks like cherry picking from your side Walter.  This fits our model, but then it's "off topic" when it doesn't.

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@Edgarcito, you are welcome to introduce, or re-introduce, any topic or point you would like.  You are not, however, entitled to have said introductions entertained until such time as you have sufficiently addressed the issue currently before you.

 

Do you, or do you not, agree with the logical conclusion that god cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving.  If disagreeing, can you find a flaw in the logic (sufficient reason for rejecting the conclusion)?

How can you turn my thread into your topic?  You closed your thread.  How does that work exactly.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Looks like cherry picking from your side Walter.  This fits our model, but then it's "off topic" when it doesn't.

 

No.

 

It's not my model, it's the Prof's.

 

He's consistently asked you to stay on topic.

 

You know what the topic is but you are now trying to change it.

[walterpthefirst]

Why don't you play the "persecuted Christian" card, Ed?

 

That should enable you to avoid answering the question while saving face.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

24 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

but I'd please like to see the associated equation(s)

OB+W=-E   {where OB=omni-benevolence, W=willingness, and E=evil}

 

OP+A=-E   {where OP=omnipotence, A=ability, and E=evil}

 

+E=-OB+-W (or) +E=-OP+-A

 

+E => -OB (or) -OP

 

Do you agree with the conclusion based on the equations; or can you find a fault with the equations?

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No.

 

It's not my model, it's the Prof's.

 

He's consistently asked you to stay on topic.

 

You know what the topic is but you are now trying to change it.

What parts do you want to discuss?  The imposed axioms and how those demonstrate logic very well? Then do we want to get a more complicated model where math doesn't sufficiently demonstrate reality?  I'm not a math expert Walter, but that's just what I have gleaned from a cursory glance.  

 

Let's jump on the bandwagon that simple dictates we have a complete understanding.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

How can you turn my thread into your topic?  You closed your thread.  How does that work exactly.

You made the claim that logic is an absolute.  I'm just putting your claim to the test.  If I draw on my own knowledge and experience to do so, that is well within my purview.  

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

What parts do you want to discuss?  The imposed axioms and how those demonstrate logic very well? Then do we want to get a more complicated model where math doesn't sufficiently demonstrate reality?  I'm not a math expert Walter, but that's just what I have gleaned from a cursory glance.  

 

Let's jump on the bandwagon that simple dictates we have a complete understanding.

 

Your questions should be addressed to the Prof, Ed.

 

But they're really just another ploy, aren't they?

 

Don't answer the question that's asked of you, keep firing other questions back.

 

Keep stalling and playing for time.

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You made the claim that logic is an absolute.  I'm just putting your claim to the test.  If I draw on my own knowledge and experience to do so, that is well withing my purview.  

Yes, you've made your decision.  I'm very aware of that.  Thanks.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

The problem Walter is, I don't agree.  Yes, 42, to that set of rules, but let me pose this.  1) Two lefts make a right.  2) Two wrongs don't make a right.  And 3), multiplying two negatives, the answer is positive. 

 

Is mathematics saying logically that statement 2 is wrong? 

 

What do we do with this please.

 

There is still an absolute. Because you know multiplying two negatives makes a positive. It is still the same set of rules. The law of mathematics. It is just plugging different numbers into the equation. 

 

We proved out in the last thread that you can put any number of things into the equation and it still comes out that if Bible God exists. He has to be evil. 

 

Or God isn't what the Bible says he is.

 

Or he doesn't exist. 

 

 

If there is a flaw in the logic please make an argument against it. 

 

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Your questions should be addressed to the Prof, Ed.

 

But they're really just another ploy, aren't they?

 

Don't answer the question that's asked of you, keep firing other questions back.

 

Keep stalling and playing for time.

To my knowledge Walter we don't possess the/a gut.  

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Yes, you've made your decision.  I'm very aware of that.  Thanks.

 

An ad hominem attack on the prof's integrity.

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, DarkBishop said:

 

There is still an absolute. Because you know multiplying two negatives makes a positive. It is still the same set of rules. The law of mathematics. It is just plugging different numbers into the equation. 

 

We proved out in the last thread that you can put any number of things into the equation and it still comes out that if Bible God exists. He has to be evil. 

 

Or God isn't what the Bible says he is.

 

Or he doesn't exist. 

 

 

If there is a flaw in the logic please make an argument against it. 

 

You might want to research your comments DB, thx.

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

An ad hominem attack on the prof's integrity.

I'm not attacking anything Walter...you've seen my attacks before, right?  He just acknowledged his subjectivity and is happy with it.  Not a biggie.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

You might want to research your comments DB, thx.

 

Or you could test the logic of the Prof's argument for yourself, just as he has been patiently asking you.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm not attacking anything Walter...you've seen my attacks before, right?  He just acknowledged his subjectivity and is happy with it.  Not a biggie.

 

And playing the subjectivity card is one of your preferred methods of killing the thread.

 

Everything is subjective!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

He just acknowledged his subjectivity and is happy with it.

Are you suggesting that there is subjectivity involved in the logical conclusion that god cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving?  If so, then you are proving that logic is not an absolute and your claim is false.  If not, then, yes, that was intended as a (mild, for you) ad hominem.

[walterpthefirst]

Nice dilemma!

[Edgarcito]

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Are you suggesting that there is subjectivity involved in the logical conclusion that god cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving?  If so, then you are proving that logic is not an absolute and your claim is false.  If not, then, yes, that was intended as a (mild, for you) ad hominem.

I never intended to prove logic was absolute.  As I said, I do believe it is, but we can't do it.  That's what I said.  I think it's out there to be had, maybe when "we are changed", but not now.  Each of you, on the other hand seem to think the logic of a simple equation means that we possess that complete absolute logic.  We don't and never will.  It's entirely subjective that you, a choice.  Science is uncertain. Mathematics is apparently incomplete.  What do you want to do with this, lie?

[walterpthefirst]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I never intended to prove logic was absolute.  As I said, I do believe it is, but we can't do it.  That's what I said.  I think it's out there to be had, maybe when "we are changed", but not now.  Each of you, on the other hand seem to think the logic of a simple equation means that we possess that complete absolute logic.  We don't and never will.  It's entirely subjective that you, a choice.  Science is uncertain. Mathematics is apparently incomplete.  What do you want to do with this, lie.?

 

Play that subjectivity card, Ed!

 

 

Introduce science (which plays no part in the Prof's argument) to muddy the waters.

 

Introduce the incompleteness of math, when you know full well that this has no bearing on the Prof's argument either.

 

Math is absolute, regardless of how complete or incomplete it is.

 

But you knew that, didn't you?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 + 2 = 4

 

Care to show us where and how 2 is anything else but absolutely 2?

 

Or how 4 can be anything else but absolutely 4 ?

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I never intended to prove logic was absolute.  As I said, I do believe it is

If you believe that logic is absolute, then why won't you answer the question that would demonstrate this belief?  

 

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Each of you, on the other hand seem to think the logic of a simple equation means that we possess that complete absolute logic.

Not a single one of us thinks that, as is evidenced by the fact that none of us have put forth that claim.  As a matter of fact, the purpose of the experiment was to demonstrate that logic is not absolute.

 

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I think it's out there to be had, maybe when "we are changed", but not now.  ... We don't and never will. 

Now you're just contradicting yourself.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, @Edgarcito, is it reasonable to conclude that you disagree with the logical conclusion that god cannot be both omnipotent and omni-benevolent; but that you also cannot find any fault in the logic that led to that conclusion?

[Edgarcito]

Here's a sermon for you DB when you go back to preaching.  Logic is pretty much what happened to Eve.  When she saw X and Y and Z, she ate.  Which is really a good example of the human condition.  We, on the inside, want to be seen as faithful, that righteous person, but we often choose the X,Y, and Z, the deception.  And that's why it's about faith. to see people as that person and not the decision, the sin.  We love the person, we don't love the sin.  We can convict anyone we want to at a moments notice...but that would be an error, the same error in using logic.