Another apologist with his "clever" questions

[FallentoReason]

Why change the label? I mean to say what the term "logical" means. Its reference is the meaning I'm conveying when describing other universes. You can't push me back from wanting to grab that meaning and use it in order to construct an argument. Call it goblygoop if it makes the point get across, doesn't matter.

It obviously matters to you, lol.

Bro... please. It does not matter to me. I just finished saying we can call alternate logic "goblygoop".

  What amuses me to no end is that you're desperately seeking logical illogic in an alternate, imagined universe......as though it might help you in this one.  May as well cut the bs and just say "I think god's really powerful, and can do whatever it wants" hur-dur.

Not even. What's wrong with a god saying this universe will play texas hold 'em poker while the other universe plays that other rule where you hold all 5 cards? It's not that hard.

  All this back and forth like you have an argument or demonstration for some super rational this or that,  pointless.

I don't think you've told me why two logical rules can't exist. Unless my memory sucks and I can't recall our dialogue from 2-3 nights ago, which could very well be the case.

Those other gods that people believe in, that can only do what;s logically possible, pussies.  Your god is bigger, better. 

I don't have any god. Those things can stay embedded in philosophy books 

[The Grand Nudger]

Bro... please. It does not matter to me. I just finished saying we can call alternate logic "goblygoop".

Excellent, that's settled then.

Not even. What's wrong with a god saying this universe will play texas hold 'em poker while the other universe plays that other rule where you hold all 5 cards? It's not that hard.

Nothing, according to the laws of goblygoop, as we've already agreed.  

I don't think you've told me why two logical rules can't exist. Unless my memory sucks and I can't recall our dialogue from 2-3 nights ago, which could very well be the case.

You can't stop can you.  There are more than just two logical rules, but we're talking about the rules of goblygoop, not logic, so stop peddling a false equivalence.
(that being against one of the slightly more than two -logical- rules)

I don't have any god. Those things can stay embedded in philosophy books 

You could at least own the god of goblygoop, you created it after all......gods must have truly miserable existences, created out of convenience by feckless followers only to be swiftly abandoned and denied by the very same. 

[FallentoReason]

I don't think you've told me why two logical rules can't exist. Unless my memory sucks and I can't recall our dialogue from 2-3 nights ago, which could very well be the case.

You can't stop can you.  There are more than just two logical rules, but we're talking about the rules of goblygoop, not logic, so stop peddling a false equivalence.
(that being against one of the slightly more than two -logical- rules)

The rules of goblygoop *are* logic. If you're implying something logical is A, and goblygoop is ~A, then you're misunderstanding my position. Texas hold 'em and the other rule are A. So is our logic in this universe and in the other one. There is no error in describing goblygoop as A.

[The Grand Nudger]

If they're the same thing, then.....no..your hypothetical god could not make 2+2=5, and no, there wouldn't be different rules in a different universe, there would be the same rules....what with logic and "goblygoop" being the same thing and all......

So, what's the call, would you prefer the false equivalence or the self contradiction?

[FallentoReason]

If they're the same thing, then.....no..your hypothetical god could not make 2+2=5, and no, there wouldn't be different rules in a different universe, there would be the same rules....what with logic and "goblygoop" being the same thing and all......

So, what's the call, would you prefer the false equivalence or the self contradiction?

Your inability to even entertain the idea of a different universe isn't a refutation. 

Logic and goblygoop are the same class of thing. 

Until you understand that, the ball is in your court.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who's not entertaining a different universe?  We both agree that in a different universe, where things are different, things would be different.

I think "class of thing" is your dumpster phrase after having realized how idiotic your non-points have been thusfar.  It means nothing, just an attempt to save face. You want the hypothetial god of goblygoop to be logical(this much is painfully obvious). Trouble is, it isn't and by definition could not be.

It's goblygoopal. What's the problem? Run with it. We have proposed, for our consideration, a hypothetical.... illogical god, that does illogical things, in hypothetical..illogical alternate universes.

[FallentoReason]

Who's not entertaining a different universe?  We both agree that in a different universe, where things are different, things would be different.

I think "class of thing" is your dumpster phrase after having realized how idiotic your non-points have been thusfar.  It means nothing, just an attempt to save face.  You want the hypothetial god of goblygoop to be logical(this much is painfully obvious).  Trouble is, it isn't and by definition could not be.  

It's goblygoopal.  What's the problem?  Run with it.  We have proposed, for our consideration, a hypothetical.... illogical god, that does illogical things, in hypothetical..illogical alternate universes.

You have no argument. You're positing that goblygoop is illogical, and that has as much weight as insisting you want to play texas hold 'em as opposed to any other rule. That isn't going to fly. This is my hypothetical where the alternate rules of another universe are just as coherent as the logical axioms that govern this universe.

Until you accept the hypothetical I'm afraid we can't move forward.

[downbeatplumb]

I think it is immoral to kill your daughter for not marrying who you tell her to.

In some areas of the world it is considered moral.

I think it is immoral to impose your own views of what is acceptable for consenting adults to participate in sexually, others disagree.

I could go on like this for quite some time.

Morality is  a movable feast and changes over time, which is why modern morality is superior to the past when religious immovable morality was imposed on all.

In backwards areas of the world we see what religious morality leads to, I am thinking of areas controlled by ISIS and Saudi arabia which resemble the oppression of past Christian theocracies.

These are not examples of two opposing truths about something, but are two opposing views of the what is true.  If it is immoral to kill your daughter, then it is, whether you agree or not.

You have missed the point. Morality is dependent on the society and times in which you live. In the case of ISIS it is not immoral for them to kill in fact to them it is the moral thing to do.
Making morality subjective.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who's not entertaining a different universe?  We both agree that in a different universe, where things are different, things would be different.

I think "class of thing" is your dumpster phrase after having realized how idiotic your non-points have been thusfar.  It means nothing, just an attempt to save face.  You want the hypothetial god of goblygoop to be logical(this much is painfully obvious).  Trouble is, it isn't and by definition could not be.  

It's goblygoopal.  What's the problem?  Run with it.  We have proposed, for our consideration, a hypothetical.... illogical god, that does illogical things, in hypothetical..illogical alternate universes.

You have no argument. You're positing that goblygoop is illogical, and that has as much weight as insisting you want to play texas hold 'em as opposed to any other rule. That isn't going to fly. This is my hypothetical where the alternate rules of another universe are just as coherent as the logical axioms that govern this universe.

You -told- us that goblygoop was illogical.  Under goblygoop rules 2+2=5.  I assume it can square circles, and all the other fun stuff as well. They're different rules, and if they're different from logic- then they're illogical by definition. It's pointless to bitch and moan about that, or comment on it being "posited" - it simply is, so long as you propose it to be.

Sure, goblygoop might be coherent. Coherently illogical, which is a fun twist on the relationship between those two terms. Though I don't know why it would need to be, or how we could determine that it was....since it's not subject to rational restrictions or penetrable by rational inference.

Until you accept the hypothetical I'm afraid we can't move forward.

..........................I thought we'd already agreed on all of this? If things were different, they'd be different. In a hypothetical, illogical alternate universe, under the rules of goblygoop created by a hypothetical, illogical god..... 2+2=5.

What's the problem?

[FallentoReason]

You have no argument. You're positing that goblygoop is illogical, and that has as much weight as insisting you want to play texas hold 'em as opposed to any other rule. That isn't going to fly. This is my hypothetical where the alternate rules of another universe are just as coherent as the logical axioms that govern this universe.

You -told- us that goblygoop was illogical.  Under goblygoop rules 2+2=5.  I assume it can square circles, and all the other fun stuff as well.  They're different rules, and if they're different from logic- then they're illogical by definition.  It's pointless to bitch and moan about that, or comment on it being "posited" - it simply is, so long as you propose it to be.

Sure, goblygoop might be coherent.  Coherently illogical, which is a fun twist on the relationship between those two terms.  Though I don't know why it would need to be, or how we could determine that it was....since it's not subject to rational restrictions or penetrable by rational inference.

Until you accept the hypothetical I'm afraid we can't move forward.

..........................I thought we'd already agreed on all of this?  If things were different, they'd be different.  In a hypothetical, illogical alternate universe, under the rules of goblygoop created by a hypothetical, illogical god..... 2+2=5.  

What's the problem?

We have two people, Bob and Fred. Fred isn't Bob, but Fred is a human just like Bob. Just because Fred isn't Bob doesn't mean Fred is inhuman all of a sudden.

We have two sets of axioms, the ones here and goblygoop. Goblygoop isn't the set of axioms here, but goblygoop is logic just like the the set of axioms here. Just because goblygoop isn't the set of axioms here doesn't mean goblygoop is illogical all of a sudden. That would be like Fred calling Bob inhuman, which we know not to be the case.