The real problem, is that for something to be "not-logical" there has to be logic to define by what logic something is declared "not-logical". Another green emotion sleeps furiously in this thread. While it is grammatically correct to put a "not" in front of the word "logical" to change its meaning; the idea of "not-logical" is gibberish. The reason is, that there would have to be a logical framework within which something would be proclaimed "not-logical" and for that to occur the thing could not exist to be proclaimed as such.
Just for fun here is a link explaining the informal laws of logic: http://atheism.about.com/library/glossar...flogic.htm
Describe how something could violate any of those laws and still be a thing. Ixnay on the uantumquay ysicspha! If someone mentions a superposition in this thread I will punch them!
Just for fun here is a link explaining the informal laws of logic: http://atheism.about.com/library/glossar...flogic.htm
Describe how something could violate any of those laws and still be a thing. Ixnay on the uantumquay ysicspha! If someone mentions a superposition in this thread I will punch them!
