Another apologist with his "clever" questions

[Edwardo Piet]

To make "2 + 2" = "5" you have to redefine "2" to mean "2.5" but you can't have "2.5" without "2." as well as ".5" so that would make the "2" within "2.5" also "2.5"... + ".5" = "2.55" so that would make "2"="2.55" and "2.55"+"2.55"=5.1 not "5"... so even if you redefine "2" to be "2.5" to try and make "2+2"= "5" you still end up failing by unintentionally making it equate to "5.1" instead of "5".

You with me?

[FallentoReason]

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

By this stage I can't even remember the original premise that sparked this huge detour of a discussion. It's further back somewhere in the thread.

[FallentoReason]

To make "2 + 2" = "5" you have to redefine "2" to mean "2.5" but you can't have "2.5" without "2." as well as ".5" so that would make the "2" within "2.5" also "2.5"... + ".5" = "2.55" so that would make "2" "2.55" and "2.55"+"2.55"=5.1 not "5"... so even if you redefine "2" to be "2.5" to try and make "2+2"= "5" you still end up failing by unintentionally making it equate to "5.1" instead of "5".

You with me?

You're using our logic on goblygoop. We already know 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't work *here*, but that's not the point.

[Excited Penguin]

What is the point beside you just declaring that you're imagining an impossible concept working in another universe somehow similar enough to have intelligent beings who describe it using Mathematics yet just different enough to have it not make any sense...


Sorry. You need to adhere to logic when describing concepts.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

By this stage I can't even remember the original premise that sparked this huge detour of a discussion. It's further back somewhere in the thread.

No it's not, I conveniently quoted it for you not but a few posts back....specifically -so- that you couldn't feign ignorance, as you're doing now. Bonus round denied.

I'm in your base, stealin all your mineralz.

[FallentoReason]

By this stage I can't even remember the original premise that sparked this huge detour of a discussion. It's further back somewhere in the thread.

No it's not, I conveniently quoted it for you not but a few posts back....specifically -so- that you couldn't feign ignorance, as you're doing now.  Bonus round denied.

I'm in your base, stealin all your mineralz.

Ah really? Try mining your own base first.

In the spirit of being witty, I have a question.

Would it -matter- if god existed, if it was a terrible fucker?  Does any more need be said, about god, does the conversation need to "ascend" from that point?  Personally, I don't think that it does.  Assholes exist irl and I don't need to argue them into existence, but we don;t seem to be falling all over ourselves to worship them on the brute force of that fact. In that way, judeo christian god belief is pathetically funny. People have imagined such a terrible asshole that they feel compelled to worship it..idk, as the prime example of the asshole type. Prima Annulus.

This is what sparked our little 10 page dialogue.

[FallentoReason]

What is the point beside you just declaring that you're imagining an impossible concept working in another universe somehow similar enough to have intelligent beings who describe it using Mathematics yet just different enough to have it not make any sense...


Sorry. You need to adhere to logic when describing concepts.

Here's the gist of what was being said way back...

I think in a world where this jerk of a god exists, things would be different, as in, our perception and logical constructs would fit around that reality. Kant comes to mind, how he thinks morality is nothing more than an agent acting rationally. If we for a second entertain that idea as being the true interpretation of morality, then a world where a seemingly trivial god with seemingly ammoral rules exists, we would come to the rational conclusion that it must be "good". All of this is based on the assumption that since this god created that universe, it also set in place its ammoral metaphysics as being *the* abstract truths.

...ya lazy jerk.

[FallentoReason]

*ahem*

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?

[Edwardo Piet]

To make "2 + 2" = "5" you have to redefine "2" to mean "2.5" but you can't have "2.5" without "2." as well as ".5" so that would make the "2" within "2.5" also "2.5"... + ".5" = "2.55" so that would make "2" "2.55" and "2.55"+"2.55"=5.1 not "5"... so even if you redefine "2" to be "2.5" to try and make "2+2"= "5" you still end up failing by unintentionally making it equate to "5.1" instead of "5".

You with me?

You're using our logic on goblygoop. We already know 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't work *here*, but that's not the point.

It doesn't work anywhere. 2+2 can only ever=4 (I was joking about the redefining) for the same reason that all bachelors are always unmarried. These two tautological facts, the first mathematical the second verbal, are facts in all universes and all realities both actual and hypothetical.

"Logic" isn't absolute, but logic is absolute.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nah brosef, Imma need that for my third expo.  Then it's full baneling rush.  The stench of burning manpinions will reach the queen of blades herself. It's been glorious thusfar, wouldn't you agree?