Another apologist with his "clever" questions

[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.