Another apologist with his "clever" questions

[FallentoReason]

Why assume that there are other universes with other rules? Just because you can imagine them existing doesn't mean they are real.

It's always been a hypothetical in our discussion here.

[Excited Penguin]

You're not following the conclusion of your ideas, ftr. Yes, you can argue about how ambiguous Mathematics is in principle or whatever, about how there could conceivably be other rules of logic in another universe... But you actually can't because you're in this universe and bound by the logic "from here". Trying to argue another kind of logic into existence by using yet another one is much like trying to both have your cake and eat it. It won't work.

No shit. I've already said a multitude of times in the beginning that we're conditioned to this space-time. All that means is that we can't imagine what other rules would be like in principle, but we can imagine that there could be other ones that exist, because again, why even assume *these* rules are the only ones that can be applied to a universe? Nothing more, nothing less.

. You can imagine it if you want, but it won't make any sense by your own admission.

[Jesster]

Why assume that there are other universes with other rules? Just because you can imagine them existing doesn't mean they are real.

It's always been a hypothetical in our discussion here.

Then it's pointless. Thank you for clarifying for me.

[FallentoReason]

No shit. I've already said a multitude of times in the beginning that we're conditioned to this space-time. All that means is that we can't imagine what other rules would be like in principle, but we can imagine that there could be other ones that exist, because again, why even assume *these* rules are the only ones that can be applied to a universe? Nothing more, nothing less.

. You can imagine it if you want, but it won't make any sense by your own admission.

My own admission is that goblygoop is a logical set of rules.

[FallentoReason]

It's always been a hypothetical in our discussion here.

Then it's pointless. Thank you for clarifying for me.

Then philosophy to you is pointless, which is fine.

[Jesster]

Then it's pointless. Thank you for clarifying for me.

Then philosophy to you is pointless, which is fine.

That has been true so far on this forum.

[Excited Penguin]

. You can imagine it if you want, but it won't make any sense by your own admission.

My own admission is that goblygoop is a logical set of rules.

Yes, I can see that.

[The Grand Nudger]

. You can imagine it if you want, but it won't make any sense by your own admission.

My own admission is that goblygoop is a logical set of rules.

Then it's not goblygoop, it's just logic, and logically, 2+2=4...so, as was pointed out pages ago, no, your hypothetical god can;t do the thing you claimed it could (make 2+2=5) in order to avoid a serious and rational god concept that you would be held to, while ducking for cover from the previously dropped ramblings of how the universe would be so and so if god were such and such.

Whose time do you value less, for reference. Mine or your own?

[FallentoReason]

Sure we can imagine them, you imagined a universe in which 2+2=5.  Is there some point at which you;re goig to say anything that's true even by reference to your own loose statements and standards?  

Can we skip to that point?

Again, no, goblygoop is emphatically not a set of logical rules, you invoked it specifically to avoid logical rules, you've described it as being a set of rules that lead to illogical conclusions..... and fred is still not bob.  We can discredit goblygoopland and goblygoop as logical, only because you explicitly imagined them to be so.  It doesn;t mean that, in goblygooplan, 2+2 -isn;t- 5...just that this isn't logical, it;s goblygoopal..and you;re still just equivocating...now, after you've claimed that they -weren't- the same thing.  Do you need me to quote you......I shouldn't have to.

You reek of desperation for the credibility the term logical seems, to you, to confer ...but as you've since envisioned and described "logic" - in your terms..it has none.  It's just a bunch of subjective nonsense......remember?

Fred is not fucking bob!!!! I already called you out on that. Fred and bob are both humans. Our rules here and goblygoop are both "LOGICAL". They are both a formal set of rules that define how a universe works. By that definition goblygoopland has its own version of logic. I'm not asking you to make sense of the actual rules (i.e. 2 + 2 = 5) because yes, TA-DAAA, they are not logical here. But I never said they were logical here. I said they are logical *there*. And the reason being is simply because why not? To say why they aren't logical there is to somehow say our rules here are the True Logic ™ of all the universes. No, that simply isn't so. For all we know, our universe *is* goblygoop. The only way to find out is if we could uncondition our minds, which we obviously cannot. Capeesh?

[Excited Penguin]

Fallen, let's say I accept your premise. What follows?