| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
praxthym
New Mark
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 51
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| ApolloTe wrote: |
God and Cheeseburgers ..... WOW.
I can see a cheeseburger , I can have someone produce it for me , if I asked 10000 times for a cheesburger sooner or later someone will make me one
If I ask 100000 times for god to speak to me directly, i will just grow tired of repeating myself
|
Sure someone may make you a cheeseburger. Also indeed, if you try to ask the logical structure of reality to do you a favor you will just grow tired of repeating yourself. Yet that is precisely what logic dictates.
You you are merely failing to grasp the crux of my argument.
Would you deny the existence of mathematical truths on similar grounds? You can write symbols that will help you understand algorithms and look at that, but if the written symbols themselves are what count as proof, then that would stop us to being able to rearrange the symbols in a fashion that would change mathematical laws? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bradleycsocal
New Mark
Joined: 04 Dec 2008
Posts: 1186
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| praxthym wrote: |
| ApolloTe wrote: |
God and Cheeseburgers ..... WOW.
I can see a cheeseburger , I can have someone produce it for me , if I asked 10000 times for a cheesburger sooner or later someone will make me one
If I ask 100000 times for god to speak to me directly, i will just grow tired of repeating myself
|
Sure someone may make you a cheeseburger. Also indeed, if you try to ask the logical structure of reality to do you a favor you will just grow tired of repeating yourself. Yet that is precisely what logic dictates.
You you are merely failing to grasp the crux of my argument.
Would you deny the existence of mathematical truths on similar grounds? You can write symbols that will help you understand algorithms and look at that, but if the written symbols themselves are what count as proof, then that would stop us to being able to rearrange the symbols in a fashion that would change mathematical laws? |
Easy Good Will Hunting.....You have an interesting point of view and the blog was enlightening. What are your thoughts on the possibility of the human race originating from another planet and or extraterrestrial???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
praxthym
New Mark
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| Basically I'm suggesting that humans may not be able to understand the true structure of reality. Similar to the way a dog can see a book, can see words, but will never comprehend what those symbols mean. The universe may or may not have a logical structure that humans can understand. |
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| What we, as humans, consider logic, may not apply to the actual structure of the universe. |
If we kept humans deprived of an education I would not be surprised if they were unable to comprehend the concept of logic. Yet to say of those humans that may correctly comprehend the concept that their understanding of it may not apply to the structure of the universe is to suggest attempting to imagine an instance when logic would not apply.
Such an attempt is futile. It is impossible to make sense of the notion of an instance when logic does not apply, and so I must dismiss the notion.
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| Regardless, you seemed to have latched on to this very limited definition of god= logical structure. That certainly has no correlation to the myths and "rules" that most believers apply, as they see fit, to their definition of god and religion. |
Unlike all other objects in the universe, the logical structure of reality is not contingent upon anything else. Of all beings, the logical structure of reality is supreme.
While I wouldn't say that there is no correlation, I would suggest that the definition that most believers employ is just a case of mistaken identity. Divine command theory does not hold up to logical scrutiny. If the run-of-the-mill theist is going to continue to wave the banner of knowing god, then he has a duty to come to terms with this.
St. Thomas Aquinas remarked that god's nature is expressed through natural laws and it would be impossible for god to violate those laws without ceasing to be god. Yet few would rebuke Thomas as having a limited definition of god for this.
Philosophers in general tend to have a better understanding of god than any jesus freak could hope for.
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| "Logical Structure" doesn't require worship, faith, prayer,etc. it simply is. |
"God" even according to divine command theorists doesn't require worship, faith, prayer, etc. "God" may have completely disobedient creations that are all going to hell!
I'm not sure how you're employing your quotation marks, but it seems that you're referring to the logical structure of reality as "Logical Structure". If that is so, then if you are referring to "Logical Structure" as "it" in the next sentence, then saying "it simply is" constitutes an expression of a belief in the existence of the logical structure of reality. That counts as a belief in god.
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| If you want to call that "god", or Tom, Dick, or Harry, doesn't make it so. The term "god" has a basic connotation as something beyond the physical laws of the universe. |
I assume that you mean if one calls the logical structure of reality "god", then that doesn't make it the case that it is actually god. Yet the "god" you're referring to goes by a long list of names as well, like Jupiter,Allah, Jehovah, Zeus, etc.
If I were to use some variable (like "x" for example) to denote the logical structure of reality instead of the term "god", upon what grounds would you dispute it?
Yes, god does have a basic connotation as something beyond the physical laws of the universe. Yet my definition qualifies here: God is the logical structure of reality. The logical structure of reality is beyond the physical laws of the universe. As I've previously mentioned, logic is necessary to make sense of the physical laws to begin with.
So in some senses your statement is true, yet in others it is false.
I suggest reading the Unspeakable Logos and Atheism and Theism Reconciled. It explains in further detail how theological logicism also counts as a form of atheism.
Last edited by praxthym on Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
praxthym
New Mark
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bradleycsocal wrote: |
| Easy Good Will Hunting.....You have an interesting point of view and the blog was enlightening. What are your thoughts on the possibility of the human race originating from another planet and or extraterrestrial???? |
Thank you, but I can't take much of the credit. I'm more like a mockingbird.
On the possibility of humans originating from another planet or being the children of extraterrestrials, although it is conceptually possible (we can imagine it), I would reject its having happened in the real world. If someone comes along and actually proves the case for planet hopping or E.T. birthing, then I would be guilty of having a mistaken belief and rectify the situation by changing my mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHAG
New Mark
Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 1027
Location: Saint Clair,Pa.
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alrighty then, Glad I stopped back to see what's been going on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mansonmark
New Mark
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 131
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| praxthym wrote: |
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| What we, as humans, consider logic, may not apply to the actual structure of the universe. |
If we kept humans deprived of an education I would not be surprised if they were unable to comprehend the concept of logic. Yet to say of those humans that may correctly comprehend the concept that their understanding of it may not apply to the structure of the universe is to suggest attempting to imagine an instance when logic would not apply.
Such an attempt is futile. It is impossible to make sense of the notion of an instance when logic does not apply, and so I must dismiss the notion. |
Logic as humans understand the concept may not apply. You can dismiss it but the fact is that some things may be beyond our comprehension. See my dog and book analogy. There are missing elements of the universe that we can as yet not identify. Dark matter, dark energy, and now dark flow, are terms we are using because at the present time the way the universe is behaving doesn't fit with our current logic. We may be able to figure it out, but we may not.
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| Regardless, you seemed to have latched on to this very limited definition of god= logical structure. That certainly has no correlation to the myths and "rules" that most believers apply, as they see fit, to their definition of god and religion. |
| Quote: |
Unlike all other objects in the universe, the logical structure of reality is not contingent upon anything else. Of all beings, the logical structure of reality is supreme. |
How can the structure of reality be considered a "being"?
| Quote: |
While I wouldn't say that there is no correlation, I would suggest that the definition that most believers employ is just a case of mistaken identity. Divine command theory does not hold up to logical scrutiny. If the run-of-the-mill theist is going to continue to wave the banner of knowing god, then he has a duty to come to terms with this.
St. Thomas Aquinas remarked that god's nature is expressed through natural laws and it would be impossible for god to violate those laws without ceasing to be god. Yet few would rebuke Thomas as having a limited definition of god for this. |
How can anything be impossible for god? If god has limits then "he" is not god.
| Quote: |
"God" even according to divine command theorists doesn't require worship, faith, prayer, etc. "God" may have completely disobedient creations that are all going to hell! |
Another place where their faith doesn't hold up. No one can do anything that god doesn't want to happen, because that would mean god has limits. If one can defy god then one becomes more powerful than god.
| Quote: |
I'm not sure how you're employing your quotation marks, but it seems that you're referring to the logical structure of reality as "Logical Structure". If that is so, then if you are referring to "Logical Structure" as "it" in the next sentence, then saying "it simply is" constitutes an expression of a belief in the existence of the logical structure of reality. That counts as a belief in god. |
Not at all. Words have to have specific meaning. You have made the equation god = logical structure. I don't agree with that assumption. I can make the equation black = white but that does not make it true. Assuming there is a comprehensible logical structure of reality does not make it fit the common definition of god and various religions. Labeling it as such muddies the waters and makes discussion meaningless. You could say religion = science as well, since presumably they are both trying to find the truth of reality, yet functionally they are completely different. Religion is more often a denial of reality.
| Quote: |
If I were to use some variable (like "x" for example) to denote the logical structure of reality instead of the term "god", upon what grounds would you dispute it? |
An undefined variable such as "x" is appropriate, a defined word such as "god", which already has a specific meaning, is not.
_________________
www.evalbum.com
www.diyelectriccar.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
praxthym
New Mark
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| Logic as humans understand the concept may not apply. You can dismiss it but the fact is that some things may be beyond our comprehension. See my dog and book analogy. There are missing elements of the universe that we can as yet not identify. Dark matter, dark energy, and now dark flow, are terms we are using because at the present time the way the universe is behaving doesn't fit with our current logic. We may be able to figure it out, but we may not. |
You are conflating logic with the comprehension of it. Are you suggesting that there are different logics?
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| How can the structure of reality be considered a "being"? |
What aspect of the structure are you referring to? If you are referring to its physical structure, then there are readily many constituents we can point to. Yet the structure of reality has a logical structure of which it is contingent. If you mean the logical structure of reality, then we must refer to reality's metaphysical architecture. Yet the architecture is in a sense indeed nothing, which is what qualifies theological logicism as a form of atheism.
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| How can anything be impossible for god? If god has limits then "he" is not god. |
You're assuming that this impossibility is a limitation as though there were possibilities outside of logic. It is impossible to describe coherently what that would be like. It is in this sense that your use of the concept "limits" fails to qualify as making any sense. You cannot identify anything that rules out logic.
It's akin to asking, "How are the corners of squares that are at the same time elliptical shaped?" The statement implies a conceptual impossibility. It is impossible for one to meaningfully employ the concepts in such a manner and so I must dismiss your statements as nonsense.
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| Another place where their faith doesn't hold up. No one can do anything that god doesn't want to happen, because that would mean god has limits. If one can defy god then one becomes more powerful than god. |
See my previous statement above.
Besides, you are responding to a joke. I believe hell to be a fictitious place. Also, the way I employed my remarks is obviously nonsensical. But since were on the topic of defying god, can you prove the existence of reality outside of logic?
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| ]Not at all. Words have to have specific meaning. You have made the equation god = logical structure. I don't agree with that assumption. I can make the equation black = white but that does not make it true. Assuming there is a comprehensible logical structure of reality does not make it fit the common definition of god and various religions. Labeling it as such muddies the waters and makes discussion meaningless. You could say religion = science as well, since presumably they are both trying to find the truth of reality, yet functionally they are completely different. Religion is more often a denial of reality. |
As long as you hold a belief in the existence of the logical structure of reality, then whether or not you want to call it god, it still counts. You seem to be arguing that words have only one true definition. The last time I checked, many words have multiple meanings. Besides, it also seems you're making the fallacious inference that there is but one conception of the notion on the basis that you're only familiar with one. What about the god of the ancient Greek philosophers? If anything, the god of divine command doctrine falls short of the traditional conception. If you need a vindication of this, just look at the influence Aristotle has over theologians throughout history and today.
The use of a symbol is what gives it significance. When I'm referring to the logical structure of reality as 'god', you understand well enough and respond accordingly. What more do you want?
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| An undefined variable such as "x" is appropriate, a defined word such as "god", which already has a specific meaning, is not. |
.
See my previous statements above. On what grounds would you dispute my substituting "god" for "x"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mansonmark
New Mark
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 131
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| praxthym wrote: |
You are conflating logic with the comprehension of it. Are you suggesting that there are different logics?
|
No, I'll agree there is only one logical structure of the universe, whether we comprehend it or not.
| Quote: |
It's akin to asking, "How are the corners of squares that are at the same time elliptical shaped?" The statement implies a conceptual impossibility. It is impossible for one to meaningfully employ the concepts in such a manner and so I must dismiss your statements as nonsense.
|
This actually goes to my point about logic that we can't comprehend. The answer to your corner question might be found in multidimensional space.
| Quote: |
But since were on the topic of defying god, can you prove the existence of reality outside of logic?
|
No, but that only matters if I accept your very specific and limited meaning of god as the logical structure of the universe. I still see no reason to call it "god".
| Quote: |
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| ]Not at all. Words have to have specific meaning. You have made the equation god = logical structure. I don't agree with that assumption. I can make the equation black = white but that does not make it true. Assuming there is a comprehensible logical structure of reality does not make it fit the common definition of god and various religions. Labeling it as such muddies the waters and makes discussion meaningless. You could say religion = science as well, since presumably they are both trying to find the truth of reality, yet functionally they are completely different. Religion is more often a denial of reality. |
As long as you hold a belief in the existence of the logical structure of reality, then whether or not you want to call it god, it still counts. You seem to be arguing that words have only one true definition. The last time I checked, many words have multiple meanings. Besides, it also seems you're making the fallacious inference that there is but one conception of the notion on the basis that you're only familiar with one. What about the god of the ancient Greek philosophers? If anything, the god of divine command doctrine falls short of the traditional conception. If you need a vindication of this, just look at the influence Aristotle has over theologians throughout history and today.
The use of a symbol is what gives it significance. When I'm referring to the logical structure of reality as 'god', you understand well enough and respond accordingly. What more do you want? |
I understand it because you had to explain it, and you had to explain it because there is no definition of god as the logical structure of the universe. I can label it "dog" and if I tell you that by "dog" I mean the logical structure of the universe you might understand what I mean but the word "dog" still has a different meaning. Aristotle's concept of god is similar to what you are proposing, I can't claim to be familiar enough with his ideas to comment other than that he was wrong about many things, such as slavery being acceptable.
| Quote: |
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| An undefined variable such as "x" is appropriate, a defined word such as "god", which already has a specific meaning, is not. |
.
See my previous statements above. On what grounds would you dispute my substituting "god" for "x"? |
On the grounds of my "dog" example. If you have to go out of your way to define an unconventional meaning for a term I'd suggest that's not an appropriate usage. The word "god" carries too many different connotations than the "logical structure of the universe."
You seem to be trying to divorce the word "god" from religion.
_________________
www.evalbum.com
www.diyelectriccar.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
praxthym
New Mark
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| praxthym wrote: |
| It's akin to asking, "How are the corners of squares that are at the same time elliptical shaped?" The statement implies a conceptual impossibility. It is impossible for one to meaningfully employ the concepts in such a manner and so I must dismiss your statements as nonsense. |
This actually goes to my point about logic that we can't comprehend. The answer to your corner question might be found in multidimensional space. |
"Squares that are at the same time elliptical" fails to qualify as having a truth value. To say that our 'elliptical squares' are logical, regardless of our attempted comprehension, is to misunderstand the concept of logic. Logic dictates the impossibility of such a notion and it is expressed in our inability to comprehend it.
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| praxthym wrote: |
| But since were on the topic of defying god, can you prove the existence of reality outside of logic? |
No, but that only matters if I accept your very specific and limited meaning of god as the logical structure of the universe. I still see no reason to call it "god". |
You're attempting to employ the concept of "limited" in a similar fashion as you did in previous posts. Now in some senses the term "limited" may make sense as if your expectation of god is 'logical structure of reality + something that is missing'. What does the logical structure of reality lack that bars it from qualifying as god? Of all that exists in reality, the logical structure of reality is supreme. Unlike everything else, it is not contingent upon anything else for its existence.
We have already covered the other type of 'limitation' in my previous post.
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| I understand it because you had to explain it, and you had to explain it because there is no definition of god as the logical structure of the universe. I can label it "dog" and if I tell you that by "dog" I mean the logical structure of the universe you might understand what I mean but the word "dog" still has a different meaning. Aristotle's concept of god is similar to what you are proposing, I can't claim to be familiar enough with his ideas to comment other than that he was wrong about many things, such as slavery being acceptable. |
You're agreeing with my argument in the course of your reply. Aristotle may indeed have a similar conception of god as what I'm proposing. You even used the term 'god' to describe it instead of saying something along the lines of the logical structure of reality (or perhaps the Unmoved Mover).
Your argument is strong assuming that I'm just referring to a concept using some unrelated word. Yet this is clearly not the case, as you suggest.
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| On the grounds of my "dog" example. If you have to go out of your way to define an unconventional meaning for a term I'd suggest that's not an appropriate usage. The word "god" carries too many different connotations than the "logical structure of the universe." |
See my previous statements above.
The attributes of god of which you are familiar are as unintelligible as our 'elliptical squares' or your first version of god's 'limits' . The god of divine command theory is in large part conceptually impossible. Those that attempt to employ the concept of god in such a fashion fail to qualify as making sense. Thereby the only being that could logically qualify as god is the logical structure of reality.
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| You seem to be trying to divorce the word "god" from religion. |
I am not trying to divorce god from religion. If it happens to be the case that a better understanding of the nature of god suggests a different form of worship apart from what is currently endorsed by organized religious doctrine, then so be it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mansonmark
New Mark
Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 131
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| praxthym wrote: |
| Mansonmark wrote: |
| praxthym wrote: |
| It's akin to asking, "How are the corners of squares that are at the same time elliptical shaped?" The statement implies a conceptual impossibility. It is impossible for one to meaningfully employ the concepts in such a manner and so I must dismiss your statements as nonsense. |
This actually goes to my point about logic that we can't comprehend. The answer to your corner question might be found in multidimensional space. |
"Squares that are at the same time elliptical" fails to qualify as having a truth value. To say that our 'elliptical squares' are logical, regardless of our attempted comprehension, is to misunderstand the concept of logic. Logic dictates the impossibility of such a notion and it is expressed in our inability to comprehend it. |
How about a "flat" sphere? A sphere in two dimensions is a circle, in one dimension it's a line. What is a sphere in four dimensions, or five, etc?
Regardless, we've engaged in a battle of semantics and made no real progress. Universe = god, and understanding the universe = worship to you, and for some reason you think it's important to apply those terms in that manner. I don't see it, nor do I see what is gained by using those terms thusly. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I agree that universe = god, and science = worship, (I don't). What does that change?
_________________
www.evalbum.com
www.diyelectriccar.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bradleycsocal
New Mark
Joined: 04 Dec 2008
Posts: 1186
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It changes nothing. For some God exists for some God exists in various forms and for some God does not exist. I have however enjoyed reading these posts as you have had a most intelligent discussion without it turning into a fuck you fest. Salute.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blackstern
New Mark
Joined: 08 Nov 2009
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:47 pm Post subject: Stop it |
|
|
Most of you are still letting semantics distract you from the point of the OP.
BOTH Manson and Brent needs to chill with all that atheism BS. It alienates a lot of people.
THE END. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
praxthym
New Mark
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mansonmark wrote: |
How about a "flat" sphere? A sphere in two dimensions is a circle, in one dimension it's a line. What is a sphere in four dimensions, or five, etc?
Regardless, we've engaged in a battle of semantics and made no real progress. Universe = god, and understanding the universe = worship to you, and for some reason you think it's important to apply those terms in that manner. I don't see it, nor do I see what is gained by using those terms thusly. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I agree that universe = god, and science = worship, (I don't). What does that change? |
I think we made a lot of progress. I'm sure that my position on god is confusing (it confuses me too). I don't completely agree with your labeling with regard to my position. It's not like I think that the universe is god or that understanding it necessitates worship. But I'm worn out with this, to be honest. You're an excellent intellectual opponent, but you would make an even better intellectual ally. After all, it's not a big deal if atheists believe in the logical structure of reality. It is the non-logicist theists that will have a much tougher time coming to grips with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BCJim
New Mark
Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Posts: 13
Location: BC Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| praxthym wrote: |
| BCJim wrote: |
| Depends who's reality it is and to what topics you are applying some sort of logic I guess. |
While I grant that one's perception of reality may differ from another's, to say that there are different realities as such may not make sense. Logic is an essential aspect of speaking meaningfully. The application of logic seems to suggest that someone or some time lacks its restrictions, which is incomprehensible.
| BCJim wrote: |
| I`m talking about a so-called God[...] |
This looks like a case of mistaken identity. It's sort of like thinking that an alligator is an amphibian.
Individuals may correctly lack a belief in amphibian alligators. Yet that doesn't mean they should also lack a belief in alligators themselves.
| BCJim wrote: |
| In reality it would not take much insight placed in the Bible to make it believable, but it`s just not there. |
Why must you base your arguments in reality? You suggest that people have their own realities. Assuming this is true, if someone's reality demonstrates believable Bible insight, then you must concede that it is there.
| BCJim wrote: |
| Not sure who you mean by we, but all biblical story arguments do end up in the supernatural. |
When I say 'we' I am referring to thinking individuals. I mean to say that the supernatural may suggest that we can 'peek behind' logic. Sure, many have tried, but it is an impossible task. |
Some people's realities are formed without the use of logic, by definition. It is still their own "reality". When you see a reality from the outside and use logic to examine it you can see the shortcomings. Look at the Heaven's gate cult, they had their own reality, to them it was accepted that an alien spacecraft was coming in on the tail of a comet to collect them. Could they be convinced otherwise? Nope.
We clear on the semantics chief?
_________________
The future ain't what it used to be |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
praxthym
New Mark
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BCJim wrote: |
Some people's realities are formed without the use of logic, by definition. It is still their own "reality". When you see a reality from the outside and use logic to examine it you can see the shortcomings. Look at the Heaven's gate cult, they had their own reality, to them it was accepted that an alien spacecraft was coming in on the tail of a comet to collect them. Could they be convinced otherwise? Nope.
We clear on the semantics chief? |
You can save the sardonic remarks for someone else, champ.
Anyway, my argument isn't merely semantical. It involves conceptual analysis in a fashion that attempts to draw one's attention to thoughts that may not have otherwise been taken into consideration. My ultimate end isn't to clarify the meanings of words. If you can't see that, then perhaps you should read my discourse with Mansonmark. You could learn something from the both of us.
Otherwise I would just find myself repeatedly explaining the incomprehensibility of the conceptually impossible while you fail to understand what actually constitutes the argument.
I've also left plenty of links for you to go and actually research some of the academic literature that I am attempting to portray.
Now if we could continue our talks in a gentlemanly fashion, I am willing to give what time I can to a future discourse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
