Classical Truth and Beyond

[TheRedneckProfessor]

25 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Is there a reason you can’t just discuss without attempting to demean?  Did you not get enough dessert?

 

19 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You can always move the thread to the coliseum if you can’t control yourself.   

 

16 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Let me ask you this… what are you lacking that keeps you from being an ass.

I'm not demeaning you; I'm not being an ass.  I'm simply disagreeing with you.  If you were genuinely comfortable with the meaningless conjecture you've based your life on, you wouldn't get so offended by someone disagreeing with you.  But your defensiveness betrays you.  

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

 

I'm not demeaning you; I'm not being an ass.  I'm simply disagreeing with you.  If you were genuinely comfortable with the meaningless conjecture you've based your life on, you wouldn't get so offended by someone disagreeing with you.  But your defensiveness betrays you.  

My point exactly… that you are not willing nor capable of filling the gap.  Nor am I for you.  Which again, what’s the gap that Christianity and science both acknowledge. I’m suggesting other ideas.  And all you seemingly can do is describe how smart you consider yourself.  Oh, or  if the universe is larger that answers it.  lol.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

My point exactly… that you are not willing nor capable of filling the gap.

Of course I'm not willing to fill an imaginary gap that you invented.  Why would I be?

 

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Which again, what’s the gap that Christianity and science both acknowledge.

If you're referring to "fullness" or whatever, I've already addressed that.

 

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

And all you seemingly can do is describe how smart you consider yourself.

I'm always honored when you project your unresolved father issues on me.  But, honestly, it's not the healthiest way to deal with them.

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Of course I'm not willing to fill an imaginary gap that you invented.  Why would I be?

 

If you're referring to "fullness" or whatever, I've already addressed that.

 

I'm always honored when you project your unresolved father issues on me.  But, honestly, it's not the healthiest way to deal with them.

I’ll start a thread elsewhere hoping for more maturity.  Thx.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

20 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I’ll start a thread elsewhere hoping for more maturity.  Thx.

Perhaps you should; because there is nothing to discuss here beyond the gap you created yourself.  And no one else is obligated to solve problems that only exist inside of your own head.

 

You claim there is a "rule" that is neither logical nor rational; but somehow still maintains order.  But order is logical and rational; so a rule that is not cannot maintain order.  You then implied that the rule may not be binding; but, obviously, if it is not binding, then it cannot be a rule, and it certainly cannot maintain order.  Your entire conjecture is an exercise in intentional ignorance; and the self-contradictory nature of your conjecture would be obvious to you, were you not purposefully ignoring it to create a "gap" for your god to fill.  

 

This is not a subject that anyone over the age of 12 can treat with the level of "maturity" you're looking for.  So, absolutely, you should start a new thread.

[Edgarcito]

9 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Perhaps you should; because there is nothing to discuss here beyond the gap you created yourself.  And no one else is obligated to solve problems that only exist inside of your own head.

 

You claim there is a "rule" that is neither logical nor rational; but somehow still maintains order.  But order is logical and rational; so a rule that is not cannot maintain order.  You then implied that the rule may not be binding; but, obviously, if it is not binding, then it cannot be a rule, and it certainly cannot maintain order.  Your entire conjecture is an exercise in intentional ignorance; and the self-contradictory nature of your conjecture would be obvious to you, were you not purposefully ignoring it to create a "gap" for your god to fill.  

 

This is not a subject that anyone over the age of 12 can treat with the level of "maturity" you're looking for.  So, absolutely, you should start a new thread.

Right… that I responded to Pan… that you felt the need to bring the chip on your shoulder into the conversation.  You interjected there buddy.  So you can excuse yourself just as easily.  Amf…

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Right… that I responded to Pan… that you felt the need to bring the chip on your shoulder into the conversation.  You interjected there buddy.  So you can excuse yourself just as easily.  Amf…

So... you're not going to start a new thread?

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So... you're not going to start a new thread?

Are you drinking?  Follow your own advice and quit participating in this 3rd grade thread.  Then there’s no need for me to restart.  You just said you weren’t obligated.  Be gonneth there bud. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

42 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Are you drinking?  Follow your own advice and quit participating in this 3rd grade thread.  Then there’s no need for me to restart.  You just said you weren’t obligated.  Be gonneth there bud. 

Whether I interjected or not is irrelevant, Ed.  This is a public forum and this is how public forums work. 

 

What is relevant is that your conjecture cannot even stand up to the most basic of scrutiny; and yet you still cling to it because it allows you to remain comfortably dumb.  I'm not obligated to point that out to you either; but that's what true friends do.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

55 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

and yet you still cling to it because it allows you to remain comfortably dumb. 

 

Is Ed comfortably dumb, or comfortably taunting every one here who will tangle with him??

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

 

Is Ed comfortably dumb, or comfortably taunting every one here who will tangle with him??

Ed has spent the last decade insisting that there must be some great Absolute maintaining order in the universe.  Now he has put forth the conjecture that an irrational, illogical, non-binding "rule" maintains order.  He cannot really believe both of these statements are true.  He has to realize that he has blatantly contradicted himself.  He has to know that an irrational, illogical, non-binding "rule" cannot also be an Absolute. 

 

Or does he...?

 

Ed has shown remarkable determination in his quest to keep himself just confused enough to find comfort in his beliefs.  He has demonstrated a near super human stubbornness in ignoring and rejecting anything that might contradict his own assessment and belief.  He is a textbook study in willful ignorance. 

 

He is, perhaps, the purest example of cognitive dissonance we may ever find.  While others who discovered such a self-contradiction might immediately start to question and examine their beliefs, Ed will double-down and force his brain to conform to, and confirm, his predetermined conclusion. 

 

He also would much rather argue with anyone else than to actually analyze the contradictions, implausibilities, and impossibilities of his own claims and statements.  In that regard, I would hazard the answer to your question is "Both."  His taunting protects his ignorance; and his ignorance informs his taunting.  He is truly a wretched creature, worthy of compassion from better men than I.  

[pantheory]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I think so as well, but believe there is some rule that drives the order....not just random cohesion/tangling.  Just trying to submit ideas.  Thx.

 

Here's another thought.  What if what we are observing is, in fact, not complete.  Why must we demand a classical solution?

 

What if the solution is not logical nor factual...

 

If the solution to a question is logistical with a simple understanding, then most could understand its fundamental nature as then it could be a valid answer. If incomplete, than the idea could have some merit, but would be debatable. But if not factual, that would imply that any related statements about it could be untrue, meaning no conversations about it would likely have little meaning or merit to them.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So... you're not going to start a new thread?

So where's that thread? And what is it supposed to be about? Looking for answers? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 minutes ago, moxieflux66 said:

So where's that thread? And what is it supposed to be about? Looking for answers? 

 

 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]