How thick is Matt Slick?

[SteveII]

First, I did not say that process is not a noun. Read it again. "It" in each of those sentences is "logic". The sentences are not connected in any other way then their subjects are the same. You have YET to show me how I was wrong in anything.

So you said,

"[Logic] is not a process. [Logic] is a noun."

It is natural for me to infer that you are saying that logic is not a process because logic is a noun, which would mean that you don't think "process" is a noun.  Technically, you did not say this so you technically don't have to admit to being wrong on this issue, but I think we both know what you meant and I'd be impressed if you acted with some humility and intellectual honesty here.  Or you could clarify what you meant here and how my inference is totally off base.

I did not get to your question about parallel lines because I didn't even address your second point yet about logic being a human invention. I started typing that but stopped when I saw this ridiculous post. 

If you don't want to continue, fine. 

BTW, parallel lines do not intersect.

Ok great now we're getting somewhere. Parallel lines don't intersect. Now please expound on your position that mathematicians who perform geometry on a sphere or in other non-Euclidean spaces are using math that is incorrect because it violates the absolute principle you set forth.  I assume you have your PhD in mathematics and are fully qualified for this task.  I assume further that your notion that absolute truth exists arises from your in-depth education on formal logic and mathematics.

I await your demonstration in refuting non-Euclidean geometry. The floor is yours.

I don't need to expound my position. Parallel lines do not intersect. 

Actually I don't want to continue this at all. You are unnecessarily condescending and immature. You think you are making a good point when you are not. I listened to both of your calls with Matt Slick and your characterization of them is amusing. You were way out of your depth.