Total posts: 5,890
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Can non-logic create logic? Yes or no then?
No.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Yet something which makes no sense just happens to be the only explanation which actually makes sense.Non-logic = logicThis violates law of identity, yet must be true anyway."Logic = logic"This respects law of identity, yet cannot ever be true.
This is the literal definition of unintelligible.
Making no sense is not making sense.
Non-logic is not logical.
If you can't understand that then you are by definition, too stupid to talk to. Sorry.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Contradictions dont apply to place without any logic.
But they do apply to any argument you could possibly present. Otherwise you are presenting something that makes no sense, and presenting something that makes no sense cannot possibly prove anything.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
I didnt use "A=A" alone there.
Yes you did, that's what you're not getting.
In order to even utter the words "non-logic" you are applying A=A to it, otherwise uttering it would have no meaning at all. Therefore anything and everything that follows automatically comes from from A=A.
You cannot escape this without applying it, which puts you right back into it. That's what I've been telling you from the start.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Non-logic means everything is possible to exist there
According to Logic: A=A
Therefore, non-logic by it's definition means A=/=A
"Everything is possible" is an idea. That idea can therefore be expressed as A.
So if we're applying non-logic, then A (everything is possible) =/= A (everything is possible).
How are you not seeing this contradiction?
The answer is obvious, because you are applying the law of identity to non-logic in order to describe it. In other shreds you are applying logic to something that is definitely not logic.
You're entire argument is a massive contradiction.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Thus, non-logic proves "A=A" true here, as it allows it to exist.
You are again, talking about non-logic as a thing, with rules, capabilities, and identifiable qualities. In other words, non-logic = A. Yet non-logic by it's very own definition doesn't equal anything, that's the whole point of invoking it. Your entire case here is one huge contradiction.
You're claiming that logic justifying logic is circular and therefore invalid. Thus the only way to validate logic is by invoking non-logic. But again, non-logic is literally defined by it's invalidity, so you're trying to validate logic with invalidity. That's makes no damn sense.
Your whole construct here relies not on how showing how illogic can explain logic but by claiming that logic cannot validate logic and declaring that non-logic wins by default. Sorry, that's just wrong. If you want to invoke non-logic to explain logic then you need to make sense of non-logic as the explanation, but the thing you're trying to invoke is definitionally senseless. You're just stuck and need to accept that. You cannot escape an inescapable box.
Every attempt to explain logic in this thread rested on your use of logic. Every attempt you have made in this thread to explain why A=A began with an acceptance that A must equal A in order to begin your explanation. You used A=A in order to identify an alleged problem with accepting A=A in need of solving, and then you used A=A in order to formulate a solution to it.
In other words, you are beginning with A=A in order to explain why A=A does not come first. If you can't understand how absurd that is you're beyond help.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
which contradicts your entire point that only a god could have created logic.The problem is that the only other explanation is that non-logic directly created logic.
Wrong. If there is no logic than literally anything qualifies as an explanation. God created logic, the flying spaghetti monster created logic, pain created logic, yellow created logic, a triangle created logic, what rocks dream about created logic, logic created logic...
You are asserting non-logic. That's what non-logic means. And that... cannot... in any coherent sense... be used... as proof... of anything.
God is all powerful ultimate being
Only if the law of identity applies, but you're saying it doesn't apply to God, so God is also not an all powerful being, he also exists and doesn't exist, he is also infinitely evil and infinitely good, he is also a rock, and a corpse, and a cricket, and a house, he's also all of the above and none of the above.
Logic therefore created logic and that's how we got logic.Then God created God and thats how we got God.
Sure, that's possible, so is every other combination of letters I can possibly type. So how do we determine which one it actually is? Logic doesn't apply there, so now what?
if we assume logic proves everything else, then what proves logic?
Already explained this. See post 122.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Then logic created logic. No god requiredIf you agree that things can create themselves, then God can create himself too.
I'm not the one arguing that things can create themselves, you are. You're claiming there is some plain of existence where non-logic applies. If so, then in this plain anything is possible no matter how incoherent. Therefore you don't need a god to explain anything because if there are no rules then nothing is necessary, which contradicts your entire point that only a god could have created logic.
Logic therefore created logic and that's how we got logic. This explanation, along with a million others is every bit as plausible under this construct as your explanation that goddidit.
This is the problem with trying to place god above logic, if there are no rules then you just cut your legs out from underneath you because it is those very rules from which your case relies upon.
Your position is every bit as problematic as you claim mine to be. The difference between us is that I limit my worldview to the assumptions that are necessary. You make unnecessary assumptions. If you believe in logic as you say you do, that's a major problem for you.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
A=A is not subject to proof, because A=A is not a claim. It is a prerequisite for intelligible thoughtNow you are just not even responding to my arguments.
Because your arguments are a jumbled mess of incoherent nonsense for which you demonstrate your utter ignorance of with every repetition.
How many sides does November have? What color is logic? What shape is anger?
Are you going to answer my questions, or are you going to dodge them by claiming they make no sense?
Asking me to prove that A=A is every bit as stupid and incoherent as the three questions above.
Once again. Proof of anything requires acceptance of A=A at the outset. It is not something that can be proved. It is not something that cannot be disproved. It is categorically outside the boundaries of proof because you cannot even conceptualized what it means to prove something without first accepting A=A and you cannot conceptualized what it means to have a problem with accepting A=A without first accepting that A=A.
This is why the laws of logic are often referred to as the laws of thought. If you do not limit your beliefs to them then you are incapable of intelligible thought, in which case any further conversation with you is futile. I might as well be arguing with the guy in a mental institution who thinks he's John Connor.
Stop asking me this stupid question, moving forward I will just defer you to the above.
My position is that logic comes before anything else.And that is an impossible position here.
And how did you reach that conclusion?
Your position is that god comes first, then logic follows because God and only God can create logicNo, again. My position is that non-logic was first one.
Then logic created logic. No god required.
Refute that claim.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Logical laws, such as "A=A" here, cannot in any way be proved. And that is the crucial problem here.
You still don't get it.
A=A is not subject to proof, because A=A is not a claim. It is a prerequisite for intelligible thought.
The very concept of A being what it is and not being what it is not applies to every concept imaginable, including the concept of proof itself. So in order to ask for proof of anything you are already accepting at the outset that A=A. Asking me to prove something to you that you already accept is just plain stupid and/or dishonest.
Here's the summary of this debate; My position is that logic comes before anything else. Your position is that god comes first, then logic follows because God and only God can create logic (why logic is subject to a necessary creator but God is not is beyond me, but that's a topic for another day).
Your problem is that if God comes before logic, then God must be outside of logic. So A=A does not apply to God. In other words... God is not God. If A=A is not true, then God is a rock. God is a flag pole. God is October. God both exists and God does not exist. God is both the creator of logic and not the creator of logic.
So when you suggest that anything proves a God not subject to logic, you're necessarily wrong because if God isn't bound to being whatever he is then there isn't anything there to be conceptualized in the first place. That is not a probable concept, that's just a rhetorical jumbled mess of meaninglessness. Your conclusion is therefore, by definition, incomprehensible, making it... Impossible to prove.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Thus, logic fails
And yet you had to accept logic as valid in order to reach your own conclusion.
If you don't see how self defeating your position is you are beyond help.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
God doesnt need logic to exist, but all logic does need God
This is not only nothing more than a bold assertion you have done nothing to prove, it is also unprovable because it is completely incoherent.
God is (in concept) a powerful being. A powerful being having the ability to create anything can only make sense if we presuppose the laws of logic, yet there would be no laws prior to him creating anything.
You might as well tell me a triangle can have 5 sides (oh that's right you never answered that question either).
any attempt to do either requires the usage and therefore validity of it to be assumed at the outset.So you have to use logic to prove logic now?
No. Tired of holding your hand. Read the above, apply the English language correctly and try again.
Why is circular reasoning a problem?It is only a problem for your position there.
And I asked you why it's a problem for yours. I even went on a whole rant telling you that I don't care what you think is a problem for my position because I am asking you about yours. Naturally, because you are so brazenly dishonest you can't just answer the question.
This is what presuppositionalism is, it's not a good faith intellectual discussion, it's a game. Not interested, answer the question or go away.
Logic either can be proved or cannot be. 3rd option doesnt exist. Which one of these is it?
Your question is definitionally incoherent. Proving anything is a product of logic. You cannot apply proof to logic itself. Like I said over and over again, it's presumed at the outset. That is the only way it can be used, and denying that is self contradictory.
None of this btw applies to a god. You can claim it so all day long, you're just talking to yourself.
you cannot prove "A=A" in any way. Any attempt to prove it fails. And that is whole logic failing
Great job, you just assumed logic is valid in order to argue that logic itself fails.
This is literally the stupidest argument one can make.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
You failed to address the last question I asked, a trend I've noticed. Everytime you are faced with a question that would expose your absurdity you ignore it. Here, I'll try again:
Proposition X: "God is both a god and not a god (at the same time in the same sense)".
Question: is Proposition X possible? Yes or No?
Then prove it without using logic. GoIf I dont need logic, it is already proved then with no need for me to prove it.
Yeah, that's what I thought. You can't and you know you can't, so you just proclaim yourself above it. Sums up your entire argument.
Why is that a problem?Its a problem for you, because if you hold position that "A proves A" is a valid form of reasoning, then God is proved by merely saying "God proves God". And if you hold position that something can be proved by simply not being questioned, then me not questioning God would prove God.
This is not an answer to my question. You're attempting to reflect by pointing out what you perceive to be the flaws in my construct. I'm asking about yours
I'll go ahead and address this nonsense, then we can get back to the question I asked you.
A proves A has never been my position. If you bothered to read what I said, I pointed out that logic can neither be proved nor disproved, because any attempt to do either requires the usage and therefore validity of it to be assumed at the outset.
So no I'm not actually trying to use logic to prove logic, I'm explaining to you why the position that logic needs to be proved is absurd and necessarily self defeating. And no, not questioning something can't prove that something, that's even dumber.
So you understand?
This problem of logic cannot be solved in any way, and many philosophers spent their entire life trying to solve problem of logic being entirely circular.Its same problem with basic definitions. In the end, they all must end up in a circle, because you cant define all words infinitely.
Again... Why is circular reasoning a problem?
You are the one asserting it as a problem, so tell us what you are pointing to that you see as problematic.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The very concept of proving anything requires logicThat is not true.
Then prove it without using logic. Go.
The problem in your argument that its essentially circular.
Why is that a problem?
God can exist without logic
Proposition X: "God is both a god and not a god (at the same time in the same sense)".
Question: is Proposition X possible? Yes or No?
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
And now that I think about it, wasn't the entire point of this thread supposed to be that you can use math to prove God?
And since math is a function of logic this thread literally means you are trying to use logic to prove God. But now you're claiming that god proves logic.
So...
God proves logic
Logic proves God
Hmmm, I believe there is a fallacy which describes this.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Still want an answer to this, btw
Can a 5 sided triangle exist? Yes or No?
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
logic itself is unproved without God creator of logic
The very concept of proving anything requires logic, as you are demonstrating right now. So no, god cannot prove logic because you need logic in order to make sense of that statement in the first place.
Your explanation for logic is: "Well, uh, it just exists".
No, you're the one asserting that it requires an explanation, which is absurd by definition. You cannot even conceive of what it is without using it, so the very notion of trying to explain it is incoherent.
You are the one admitting that logic cannot be proved, while at the same time trying to use logic to prove something.
Ok. I'm using logic to prove logic, and you're using logic to disprove logic. So which one of those you think is a better position?
Your position is fundamentally self defeating, but since you don't care about logic that isn't a problem for you. Congratulations, you figured out how to escape from the restrictions of having to make sense... Just stop caring about it. That's called faith, and I would respect you more if you would just admit that rather than sit here trying to use logic to make a logical argument against logic.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
To put it simply, I can explain here why "A=A". Its because God created that law along with all the other laws in the whole universe.You, on the other hand, have no any explanation for why "A = A" exists.
Yeah, I should have known that you would end up here parroting presuppositionalist garbage. Now it all makes sense.
"Goddidit" is not an explanation, especially when the god you are asserting is not bound by the laws of logic. For something to qualify as an explanation it must, before anything else, be coherent. Yet the thing you are asserting is definitionally incoherent. Your explanation fails before it even begins.
But then it gets worse. You are telling me that I need to prove to you that A=A (which is literally the same thing as telling me to prove to you that a rock is a rock) but you don't think you need to prove that there exists a being that can violate the laws of logic. You get to just assert it. That's just stupid.
But the worst thing about presuppositional apologetics is that are you really sitting here telling me that I have to prove the validity of the very thing you are using to make your point. Your "explanation" can only make sense if we begin with the presumption that logic is the arbiter of acceptable thought. If I make an argument that doesn't follow logically, you will (as you have attempted to do this entire conversation) call me out for engaging in logical fallacies. All of this adherence to logic you are stressing, while simultaneously arguing in support of a conclusion that explicitly violates logic.
Presuppositionalism is fundamentally self defeating and dishonest. It's nothing more than a rhetorical game of trying to make the other person trip over their words. Find something else.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Almost forgot
Can a 5 sided triangle exist? Yes or No?
I'd like a straightforward answer to this.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
If logic leads to logical conclusion that non-logic exists within very logic
It doesn't. The existence of something that violates logic, by it's own definition... contradicts logic. That's the opposite of a logical conclusion.
If logic didnt have premises, then the very logic would be invalid always.
OMG. Are you reading any of this?
Logic doesn't have premises. Logic is what we use to connect premises to the conclusion.
Arguments have premises. An argument is:
Premises + logic = conclusion.
Invalid is when the conclusion does not follow from the premisrs. In other words, it's when the logic of the argument fails.
Soundness is when the premises are true and the logic is valid.
Please get this straight. If you're really going to sit here and try to argue about logic it would be helpful to understand the very basics of it.
So when you say "A = A" applies to everything, that is your premise and an assumption here.
A=A is literally the first law of logic. In other words, it is the most basic requirement of logical coherent thought. For you to claim that's "my premise" is insane. If you do not accept that as a necessity you are by definition irrational and not capable of carrying out an intellectual conversion (which you've pretty much demonstrated here).
Also, you are making a false dichotomy between "You must always use logic everywhere" and "You must never use logic anywhere".
Logic is a set of rules governing acceptable thought. They either apply to everything or they don't, and if they don't then you no longer have any basis to draw a line between what it applies to and what doesn't because drawing that line itself requires logic.
It is not a false dichotomy, it is the truest dichotomy possible, literally.
Logic doesnt apply to things logic doesnt apply to, by tautology itself.
The only reason a tautology has any meaning at all is because violating a taugtology means violating logic. And yet you are using a taugtology to argue that logic can be violated.
You are literally using logic to argue against logic. To not see how absurd that is is itself absurd.
You even admitted in past comments that there are some things where logical laws dont apply.
What I said is that there is a point where the laws of logic breakdown. In other words; we cannot possibly know what or if anything is possible behind that. The prime example of those is the big bang. It starts at the first Planck second because it's not [logically] possible to go back any further.
Your point here in this thread is that you can prove the existence of a being that violates logic. I'm telling you that you cannot, because that requires violating the very thing you are using to prove it in the first place. You cannot prove something via absurdity.
Again, the problem in your logic is:1. Many people agree that by definition, God is above laws of logic.2. If God is by definition above logic, your premise 1 is false by definition.
People can agree to anything they want. I can find people who think that the earth is flat, which means that it is round. You do not have to accept logic as the foundation of acceptable thought, you can just be an irrational person if that's what you choose.
But that's my issue here. You like to present yourself as a rational individual while trying to defend that which is definitionally irrational. It's dishonest. You attack my position as being logically circular. Why does that matter? If circular reasoning is bad, why? You talk a lot about taugtologies. Why do they matter? Because violating then violates logic? So what? So does the god you are trying to prove exists.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Again, you asked me to answer question about specific mutually exclusive Gods. That is not my position in this debate.
I asked you to answer a question which demonstrates that your understanding of applying probability to prove the existence of something is total nonsense. That is why you won't answer it.
Why would I have to prove to you the validity of something you are relying on right now?I am not relying on it.
That is for damn sure.
Sure, you can make a perfect logical circle about anything really.You can say:1. God is defined as everything which exists2. Everything which exists cannot not exist3. God cannot not exist
You seem incapable of understanding what circular logic is. I've already explained it to you multiple times. For it to be circular you would have to be relying on the conclusion as support for the premises. That's not what this is and that's not even you're accusing me of.
This is begging the question. That's when you build your conclusion into the premise.
That's what you're accusing me of, but that's nonsense because you keep pretending that everything I accept because it follows from the premise is somehow logically invalid. It's not, that is not how logical fallacies work.
P1. It is wrong to steal
P2. Little John stole another child's toy
C: John was wrong
What you're doing is the equivalent of refuting this by saying I haven't proven it's wrong to steal. Uh, yeah of course I haven't, because that's the starting point of this argument. Every argument has to start with something, and that something can be questioned endlessly, which is exactly what you're doing here.
Which is why if we go aaaaaall the way to the beginning, it literally all begins with the acceptance of logic as the governing principal of acceptable thought. I've already explained why. Asking me to prove that is by definition, absurd.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
saying that using logic proves its validity isnt true, because you can use logic to prove logic wrong
Yeah, that pretty much sums up what I'm contending with this entire conversation.
If you use logic to prove logic wrong, then you just disproved the very thing which your entire case is built on. Do you not see the contradiction there? Do you not see how self defeating that is? This is where the term "you're cutting off the branch you are sitting on" comes in.
The fact that you are even willing to make this argument shows you to be incapable of understanding how reasoned thought works. It is out of nothing more than sheer exercise that I continue with you.
all premises in logic are either circular, infinite, assumed as true without proof, or depend on another premise.
Ugh.
Premises are not logic. Premises are not within logic. Premises are the assumptions we accept at the outset. Logic is what connects those premises to the conclusion.
You said in step 1 that logic was only crucial for coherent thoughts, which is also not true because thoughts can be not logical, and in that case, logic wouldnt apply to them.
This is just plain dishonest. The key word in this first sentence is coherent, and then you go on to "refute" it by leaving the key word off.
Again, logic is necessary for coherent thought. Why does that matter? Because this entire thread is about whether god can be proven mathematically. Or hell just drop off the mathematically part and just say this thread is about whether god can be proven.
In order to prove something, the most basic qualifier is that the idea you are trying to prove is coherent. And yet you are asserting a being that is definitionally incoherent, making your argument definitionally irrational. And all you're doing to square this circle is sitting there going "nuh uh!".
If you do not accept logic as a necessary qualifier for acceptable thought then you are literally, definitionally, beyond reason.
I am quite capable of imagining world without logical laws
Can a 5 sided triangle exist? Yes or No?
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
OMG. You started a whole other thread on this? Wow.
I asked AI:"If there are two Gods and each have 50% chance to exist...
In other words, you fed into AI the very premises being disputed and it told you that you were right. Congratulations.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
You begin with premise that logic applies to everything, including God himself. And then you end up with conclusion that logic applies to God.The problem, again, is in the fact that you already assume as a premise the thing which you are trying to prove as conclusion.
The point that the laws of logic apply to God was step number 3. You apparently missed step numbers 1 and 2, so let me repeat, again.
Step 1 is the point I made about logic being foundational. That's where all of this begins, and that point has absolutely nothing to do with a god. To reiterate; logic is the most basic qualifier of coherent thought. Any attempt to refute it requires the usage of it, thereby presupposing it's validity.
Step 2: if logic is foundational, then it must apply to everything.
Step 3: if logic applies to everything, it applies to God.
Do you see how step 3 is the end of this string, and cannot be asserted as the beginning? Do you understand that circular logic would require the starting point to rely on the ending point for it's validity, which is not the case here?
P1. Logic doesnt apply to things which are above logic, which includes Gods and supernaturals.P2. Gods are included in things which are above logic.C. Logic doesnt apply to Gods.
Do you not find it ironic that you are trying to use logic in order to assert something that is definitionally illogical?
Zeus: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universeAllah: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universeAgain, you are stuck on that definition which I am not even using. Monotheist religions arent the only religions.
That has nothing to do with it. We were talking about the law of excluded middle and why your arguments demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of it. All you have to do is answer the questions I asked you and the problem will show itself to you.
you make a logical circle by saying only things which dont violate logic can exist. The problem, again, is that you assume as true the thing which you are supposed to prove as true first.
Why would I have to prove to you the validity of something you are relying on right now?
You keep telling me my argument is circular. So what? Is that a bad thing? And if so... Why?
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
For example, when casting a dice, its not this:6 or not 6But it is 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6.So again, my logic works while yours happens to fail.
Zeus: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universe
Allah: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universe
Proposition A: a god exists
Q1: if Zeus exists, does that make proposition A true? Yes or No?
Q2: if Allah exists, does that make proposition A true? Yes or No?
Q3: Does the option of Zeus existing contradict the option of Allah existing, and vice versa?
Answer these three questions, then explain what, according to the law of excluded middle, are the options for proposition A.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Laws of logic apply to what? If you say that laws of logic apply to everything, including God, then your premise is that laws of logic apply to God. Again, this is circular reasoning.
After you even trying at this point, or just trolling? I'm having a really hard time telling the difference.
Again, circular reasoning is when both ends of the argument are used to affirm each other, thereby leaving no starting point. So in order to show that what I'm presenting is circular, you would have to show that the conclusion is being used to justify the premise. Yet you yourself acknowledged that the premise is "repeating itself" which by definition means the argument is not circular. What that means at worst is that the premise is not supported. An unsupported premise is not circular reasoning, those are two different things.
So back to this point, what I'm saying is that the laws of logic always apply. God would thus be included in that. I am therefore not beginning with the premise that the laws of logic apply to God and therefore apply to everything, I'm beginning with the laws of logic apply to everything and therefore apply to God. That's only one direction, it does not go both ways as you are trying to spin it into (which would make it circular).
if you say that being which violates logic cannot exist, you are going to have to prove your claim.
Even theologians accept this premis, so you are really reaching. But ok, let's discuss it.
We'll start by talking about what it means to say something is possible since the term has different usages. It's best illustrated by contrasting possible with impossible. As far as I would put it, there are 3 categories of impossible:
[Practically] impossible, meaning unrealistic. i.e. "it's impossible for me to get all this work done today"
[Physically] impossible, meaning it violates the laws of physics.
[Logically] impossible, meaning it violates the laws of logic.
There are, as far as I am aware, no other usages of the term impossible. And of these usages, the highest form of impossibility is logically impossible.
What you are claiming is that a being who can violate the laws of logic is possible. The problem is not that you are necessarily wrong, but that as a matter of coherent reasoning, if it is possible to violate the laws of logic then the term "possible" itself has no longer has any meaning because at that point literally anything is possible. Why? Because at that point you have violated the laws of logic in which case you are, by definition, no longer bound by reason, aka irrational.
The truth is, you are actually getting at something important here because there is point where the laws of logic break down, physicists call this a singularity. Why is there something rather than nothing? There is no way to answer this question without contradicting logic itself. But the fact that we can't answer the question within logic simply means that it is an answer for which we have no way to knowing, so you cannot assert anything about it. And yet you are asserting things here (such as a god that can violate logic). That is a statement that cannot, possibly, be justified.
You started this thread claiming that probability proves god. But by definition, proving anything requires sound reasoning, which requires adherence to logic. You cannot, definitionally, prove anything via an inherently irrational argument because argument presupposes logic, which you are actively arguing against. Your entire case here is one massive contradiction.
If you want to keep believing in god because of faith then that is your business, but just say that and stop arguing your point here since at that point you are presenting a case that cannot possibly be justified.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
In this case the starting point is simple: the laws of logic applyThis is again circular reasoning.
I already explained what circular reasoning is and how this statement clearly and explicitly differs from that. Did you read it? Do you understand it?
Circular reasoning is an invalid form of reasoning. What makes it invalid is that it violates how logic works. In case you aren't aware, the word invalid means that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
So all of this is an evaluation of whether these arguments are themselves logical, therefore any criticism you offer only has meaning if we assume logic at the outset, and that's what you don't seem to be getting. What your arguments really boil down to in this thread is that you are trying to use logic to argue against logic.
The reason we assume logic at the outset is because we have no other choice. It does not matter whether you're trying to affirm it or invalidate it, any attempt to do either requires the use of it, which prepossess its validity.
So when you claim that the necessary acceptance of logic is circular you are in fact arguing against the very tool you are using to make your argument in the first place. That is absurd.
You begin with the premise that laws of logic apply to God, and you end up with conclusion that laws of logic apply to God.
The premise was never that the laws of logic apply to God, it's that the laws of logic apply. Explained that already, and you obviously read it because you snipped it and replied directly to it.
True excluded middle would be:1. A exists2. A doesnt exist.But in your version, you are putting contradictive options as one option.
Why is this so difficult for you?
Let's try this...
Zeus: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universe
Allah: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universe
Proposition A: a god exists
Q1: if Zeus exists, does that make proposition A true? Yes or No?
Q2: if Allah exists, does that make proposition A true? Yes or No?
Q3: Does the option of Zeus existing contradict the option of Allah existing, and vice versa?
Answer these three questions, then explain what, according to the law of excluded middle, are the options for proposition A.
Its like rolling dice and saying: its 6 or not 6. So I have 50% chance at getting 6.
For the, what (?), 4th or 5th time now...
The law of excluded middle has absolutely nothing to do with probability.
Read that sentence over again, as many times as you need. Then proceed.
You are the one who is trying to frame the true dichotomy that the law of excluded middle necessitates in terms of probability. You are the trying to warp the math on that probability towards proving the existence of god. That is you doing that, not me.
The most I did was indulge in your fallacious reasoning by showing you where your own logic leads, you have since grabbed right onto that in an attempt to shift your own fallacious reasoning on me. That's BS and if you were arguing in good faith you would know that.
If you roll a dice, 6 or not 6 are your only two options within the framing of whether the dice will roll a 6. The same framing can be applied to 5, 4, etc. The dice example only further illustrates the point I've been making since the start of this thread. You cannot use the A/not A framing to determine probability. That's not how that works.
Looks like AI agrees with me on this one.
OMG.
It agrees with you because you explicitly asked it what the odds would be if each god had a 50% chance of existing independently. That's why it concluded an 87.5% chance of at least one god existing. That's not what we're talking about.
I used the examples of God/Allah/Zeus specifically because they are all mutually exclusive. That means the odds of any one of them existing, if that could be calculated, would directly impact the odds of the others existing. So in that example, if one of them had a 50% chance of existing, that would only leave a 50% chance for all other possibilities.
On the other hand, if we're limiting this to gods that can coexist, then this math checks out fine. The problem is that you have yet to put forward a means by which we can calculate the probability of any god since the law of excluded middle has nothing to do with probability.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Alright. Lets test your claim.Coin has 50% chance landing on heads. So if I throw coin 3 times, its 150% chance?Thats amazing logic you used there.
lol, it wasn't my logic, that was yours.
You are the one who argued that you can increase the odds of a god existing by singling out each god on its own. If that were true, then you would end up with a scenario where the proposition "a god exists" would exceed 100%. That's the natural conclusion of your argument, not mine. I don't know why that's so difficult for you to understand.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
When you say its X or not X, thats false.
That's literally what the law of excluded middle states. At this point you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with logic 101.
Because X happens to contain multiple contradicting options, which also contain or.
The fact that some of the options contained within X contradict each other is irrelevant. If any of those options were to exist then that would satisfy the proposition.
Again, we have Allah and we have Zeus. Two god options that definitionally contradict each other. If the proposition is: "a god exists", then either of those gods existing would make the proposition true. There is nothing about the proposition as stated that would require multiple options to exist simultaneously because the proposition states "a" god, as in "any" god. Does Allah fit into "any god"? Yes. Does Zeus fit into "any god"? Yes. Either of them will work.
Let's try another one. You can turn left, turn right, or go straight. If I say "do not turn left", then you have a choice: turn left, do not turn left. If you do not turn left, then that leaves you with two possibilities; go straight or turn right. Can you turn right and go straight? No, they contradict each other. Does that matter? No. Turning right satisfies the direction to not turn left. Going straight satisfies the direction to not turn left.
The law of excluded middle has nothing to do with how many possibilities there are. It is telling you that there are two categories of possibilities for which there is no third alternative. The lack of a third category is the point. Every possible must for into one of those two categories. That's the point.
You do realize that you cannot place contradictive options into one option?If you could, then:1. Allah exists2. Some other God exists and not Allah, or no God existsSo now Allah is more likely than "no God exists"?
No, because as I have been explaining to you since the start of this thread, that is not how probability works.
The fact that "not Allah" can include the existence of multiple god options or no gods at all doesn't have anything to do with likelihood. The law of excluded middle is purely about narrowing down your options into what is logically possible. Possible has nothing to do with probable.
You say: "Being which violates logic cannot exist because it violates logic".That is circular reasoning, which violates logic.
That's not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when both sides of the chain affirm each other, thereby leaving no starting point.
In this case the starting point is simple: the laws of logic apply.
If you begin with this as your premise, then you can be a rational person and have rational conversations, because to be rational is by definition to be in accordance with the laws of logic.
If you do not begin with this starting point then you are by definition irrational, which is to say you do not value the foundational laws of thought, consistency and coherence the laws of logic establish. At that point trying to have any conversation with you is utterly pointless because once you throw the laws of logic away you can believe anything you want with no rules at all. That's useless and ultimately self defeating.
So back to the point: the laws of logic apply. Therefore any assertion which requires them to not apply is irrational and can therefore justifiably be discarded, such as the assertion that gods are not subject to the laws of logic.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
But the law of excluded middle doesnt always mean just 2 options. Obviously, there are cases where there are 4 opposite claims and only one must be true while all others must be false.
Here is the law of excluded middle (again):
"In logic, the law of excluded middle or the principle of excluded middle states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true."
That, by definition, necessarily, means that we're only talking about two possibilities.
1. The proposition
2. The negation of the proposition
That's 2. Not 4.
You can apply the law to as many propositions as you like, the law itself only applies to one proposition at a time. The whole point is that there is no middle ground between those two. You cannot claim there is a third option from X or not X. That's it, it's only X or not X. Nothing else.
That's two.
This is your logic:1. A or B or C2. DThis isnt law of excluded middle, because option 1 has multiple options which give further split, while option 2 does not.
This is exactly how the law of excluded middle works. In this case it works out to:
1. A god exists
2. A god does not exist
Does not is the negation.
If God of the bible exists, then that affirms statement 1 is true, which necessitates that statement 2 is not true.
If Allah exists, then that affirms statement 1 is true, which necessitates that statement 2 is not true.
If Zeus exists, then that affirms statement 1 is true, which necessitates that statement 2 is not true.
If no gods exist then that affirms statement 2 is true, which necessitates that statement 1 is not true.
Notice how all of the first 3 affirm the same statement, while the 4th affirms the last? That's why A & B & C etc. all fit into statement 1. That's not "my logic", that's just logic.
You cannot claim X or not X or... Some other version of X.
If it's another version of X, then that, by it's very own label, makes it... fit... under... X. So it's X.
And if you want to claim that this other version of X is not the same as plain old X, then that makes it... Not X.
Again, you are trying to fit multiple contradicting options into one option to hope it excludes the middle.
There is no middle. That's the point of the law.
The Christian God was just one example. Obviously, multiple Gods can exist, and many ancient people believed in multiple Gods.
Whether multiple gods can simultaneously exist is an entirely different conversion which ultimately comes down to their definitions. I use God vs Allah vs Zeus because they are all explicitly defined as being the ultimate creator and ruler of the universe. That is where the contradiction in asserting their existences simultaneously is. You can remove that along with any other contradictions all you like, that only makes their existence possible, not probable.
I can believe in any number of Gods which dont contradict each other, but even if they did contradict each other, they are supernatural and not affected by contradictions by their own definition.
Again, if you believe gods are not subject to the laws of logic then your belief is by definition irrational. At that point argument is pointless.
Is the existence of God decided?
Yes, by reality. A god either exists or no gods exist. Whatever the truth of that proposition is, is so today just as it was yesterday just as it was the day before, and so on. It is not subject to the concept of probability, the only tool we have to tell for ourselves which it is is via the use of reason. That's about evidence, not a game of applying math to our own imagination.
150%? Oh God... in math of probability, chances arent summed up.
Yes, 150% according to your argument when traced to it's logical conclusion. That's the point, your argument is logically absurd.
Seriously, what the fuck?
My question exactly.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Again, thats not how limited options work or how the law of excluded middle works. These Gods are options separate from each other. They are not same options. In law of excluded middle, all options must be present for it to be an excluded middle.
I'm sorry, you are confused on what the law of excluded middle states and how it applies.
"for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true, and there are no other possibilities"
The law of excluded middle explicitly limits every proposition to just two options. It can be expressed as: "X or not X". The whole point is that one of these two must be true and one of these must be not true.
You cannot combine different propositions into this, that is explicitly creating the middle ground the law of excluded middle... Excludes.
So if the proposition is made "a god exists", the law says that is either true or not true. That's it. That's all.
You're trying to create other possibilities by asserting god A, god B, etc. But none of those escape the original claim, they all fit into "a god exists". So if god A exists, the statement is true. If god B exists, the statement is true. And so on. Conversely, of none of them exist, the statement is false. There are no claims outside of this unless you're changing the subject entirely.
There is no middle ground between true and not true. That's the point of the law.
1. Christian God exists2. Christian God doesnt exist.This is also a perfect law of excluded middle, and by your logic, Christian God now has 50% chance to exist. This then negates your argument that individual Gods decrease in chance with increase in number, and negates the idea that probability of option "some God exists" is 50% because, if you havent noticed, math says that its over 50%.
If the claim is that the Christian god exists, then you are correct in that the negation of that claim is that no Christian god exists. The problem now is that if any other god exists instead of the Christan god, then the claim is wrong. So if the Muslims have it right and Allah exists, the claim is wrong.
So to argue that you have just increased the odds of a god existing by doing this you have created yourself a mathematical contradiction, because we can now do the same with Allah and every other god ever asserted. Observe;
1) the Cristian god exists: 50% yes, 50% no
2) Allah exists: 50% yes, 50% no
3) Zeus exists: 50% yes, 50% no
So now you have 3 gods, all of which directly contradict each other and each has a 50% chance of existing, so you're now at a 150% chance one of them exists. That's not logically possible.
This is why in my last post I told you the framing of this is wrong but I'm indulging you anyway to show you where your flaws are and that requires meeting you where you are. It's not my argument that the proper way to think of this is in terms of equally assigned probability, that's your assertion.
So if probability doesnt apply to things which exist and to things which dont exist, or chance of existence, what does it apply to then?
Probability applies to outcomes that are not yet decided. You acknowledged this yourself when you said that if something happened already, probability can't be applied to it. So what's the probability of Trump winning the election? He already did so there's nothing to calculate.
The answer to the question of whether a god (or anything for that matter) exists has already been decided. If a god exists then it already existed yesterday, and the day before, etc. We just don't know whether one does or whether none do.
What you're confusing is that probability can be applied to the outcome that is selection process itself. If you are given a multiple choice question with 4 choices, one of those choices is correct. The probability of you choosing the right answer is 1 in 4, but that doesn't mean the probability of any individual answer being right is 1 in 4 because the correctness or incorrectness of any individual answer has already been decided.
So let's say the question was who won the 2024 election and 4 different choices are given, Trump is choice B. What are the odds that a random selection will land on B? 1 in 4. What are the odds that Trump won? 1 in 1. What you're doing by adding gods is equivalent to me adding options to this question in an attempt to reduce the odds that Trump is president right now. That's not how logic works.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
You're talking about the principal of indifference which is not calculating probability,Nope. that's not how probability works
Ok. Enlighten me.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Now, you are again strawmanning my argument by saying its not actual evidence.
I'm explaining what your argument amounts to. Whether you intended to make that argument is a different question.
The first problem with your assessment here is that you're applying probability to a claim of existence. That is already fundamentally wrong. Something either exists or it doesn't. Probability doesn't apply to that, probability applies to outcomes which is an entirely different concept.
But I've largely ignored that because I've decided to focus on the more central flaw you are making, which is the idea that probability is something that can be impacted simply by imagining additional possibilities. Again, not how it works. Even if I grant you your 'exists vs doesn't exist' framing, which would make the probability 50/50, it doesn't become 1 in 3 because you imagined an additional god. You still have a true dichotomy, so any additional gods would only fall into the 'exists' category, thereby splitting the 'exists' half of the equation. So adding a second god would make it 50/25/25, and so on. Because of this, the 'no god' option actually becomes the most reasonable single option by far over any of the many thousands of gods people have prayed to over the ages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Again, this is a joke, but one that illustrates a point. Might've posted this joke here before, I don't remember one way or another.
There are different versions of this, I think of the guy who gets paid to dig a hole then another gets paid to fill it back example.
You are misunderstanding my point. I'm not arguing that frequency of transactions is the only thing that matters in the economy. My argument was a targeted response to a targeted point. You argued that shutting down government agencies would be better for the economy because it meant more money in the hands of private sector businesses, I'm saying it's not that simple. When thinking of it in the sense of that money being spent right away (which will in turn pump it right back into the private sector) public agencies are far less likely to sit on that money so it is more economically stimulative.
Does that make it better? That's a whole different question. Going back to the foods stamps example, even though foods stamps are objectively more economically stimulative that doesn't mean that this is where we would rather see our tax dollars go. I bring it up only to make the point that you cannot leave consumption out of the equation, without that there's nothing for an investor to invest in.
In the absence of tax cuts, stock buybacks would still be happening, since they represent an outstanding liability a company will want to take care of at some point. But now, the stock buybacks will be paid for by making cuts elsewhere in the company's budget, such as to R&D, infrastructure investments, or employee salaries. Tax cuts let the stock buybacks happen without necessitating said cuts, or at least said cuts are rendered less severe than they otherwise would be.
That's not true. Companies pay taxes on their profits, which is what's leftover after all of this things you mentioned. Take salaries for example, a company will only pay an employee to do a job if it determines that the value the employees work brings to the company is greater than the salary they are paying said employee. If it's not then it doesn't matter what profit a company is making, they're not going to keep that employee on its payroll.
Tax cuts have no impact on this. The idea that it would only makes sense of we think of companies as charitable organizations looking for ways to ensure the families of their employees remain fed. That is not the cooperate world works.
It's also not true that stock buy backs represent a liability of some kind, all these companies are doing is increasing the value of these companies shares without any kind of innovation or investment. And of course the overwhelming bulk of those share increases go towards to rich. I would love to see us go back to when stock buy backs were highly regulated. Study's have shown that companies did things with that money that benefited the working class far more than what they're doing now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As for me, I believe economic strength comes from real value creation, not from how quickly dollars get passed around D.C. like hot potatoes.
It's not one or the other.
As we saw the last administration, when money moves faster without an increase in actual goods and services, you just create inflation.
We saw inflation because of supply chain disruptions. Money was certainly not moving faster during this period.
But more importantly, there is an opportunity cost too. When the priority becomes speeding up money creation, subsidies, and flows, rather than creating real value
I didn't argue this so you're just having a conversation with yourself
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The only way to assign probability is to assign equal probability when different probability cannot be justified.
Correct, in the absence of any data, that is how you properly assign probability. That doesn't mean the probability is actually equal, that's just the assumption you are making.
Assumptions cannot be used as a rational basis to justify a belief.
What you're trying to argue ultimately is that the absence of evidence can increase the probability of an outcome, that's absurd. If Shaquille O'Neal is shooting a 3 pointer, the probability of him making it is about 5 percent. We know that because we know he's a terrible 3 point shooter (from the data). But to barrow your logic, if we just wipe away the data so that all were left with are two possibilities (make or miss), well now the probability increases to 50%. But that's nonsense. Your ignorance didn't make him a better 3 point shooter.
Also, you assume Gods contradict each other, but Gods are above logic and created logic, thus dont suffer from such silly argument.
To assert a belief that does not adhere to the principals of logic is by definition irrational. Which is to say it's the silliest argument one can offer.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
It was already explained that when no different probability can be assigned to limited options, equal probability is the only one which can be applied, and reasonably so, because if every version of percentage of probability is possible, what follows is that it creates the average where probability is equal. If you take all numbers from 0 to 100 as possible, average is 50. Thats just basic math.
You're talking about the principal of indifference which is not calculating probability, it's just assigning it due to a lack of knowledge. In other words, it's a placeholder. That cannot logically be used as a basis for conclusion.
All it takes is 10 seconds of thought to recognize how fallacious your argument is.
I am conceiving of a flying spaghetti monster. Since he either exists or doesn't, the probability of his existence is 50%. Now I'll come up with 98 other versions of this monster, and just like that, the probability of the existence of any FSM is now 99%.
Repeat this process for every being one can imagine, and suddenly there's a 99% chance that every single one of them exists, even if some of them contradict the others.
That's not how it works. Probability is a measurement of outcomes within reality, not your imagination.
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
In the limited options argument, one option must occur. So we already know that one option is true and has occured, and since no different probability can be assigned to any option, probability is considered equal.
That's not how probability works. You cannot assign probability to an unknown - that's a logical contradiction. That's why if you plug the math into a spreadsheet without a number of confirmed examples you get a big fat error message.
Probability is an inference. Inference is using past events as a guide towards expectations of the future. If you have no prior examples then you're not infering anything, you're just making shit up.
If we had clear example of God existing, there would be no calculating any probability that God exists.
Yeah, that's kind of the point. This has nothing to do with probability. God either exists or he doesn't, it's just a question of whether we have any way to know that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
a given sum of money retained by taxpayers because of budget cuts has a greater chance of creating new private sector jobs than the number of public sector jobs created by that money being spent by the government.
I'm really not sure how you're reaching that conclusion, and frankly it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Economic strength is driven by the frequency at which money changes hands. That's why economists hate fear and uncertainty so much. Even if there is nothing fundamentally wrong, if people think there is and change their spending habits, that alone can cause a recession. Nothing changed in terms of the money supply, people were just holding onto it so it wasn't circulating. $1000 under the mattress is indistinguishable from $1000 that doesn't exist.
This is why study after study shows that the most economically stimulative thing the government can spend money on is food stamps, because people who receive them will spend it quickly. The least stimulative? Tax cuts for the wealthy.
So with regards to the government spending on jobs via the public sector, the bulk of that money will get spent right away because people have to live. Factoring the added benefit of a public service, seems like a pretty good deal.
Insofar as a bank tries to violate either of these things, then yes, it's the government's job to stop them. But a Republican-sized government is up to the task.
This is just hand waiving. Trump has gutted the agencies who's job it is to go after institutions who engage in fraudulent activities. There is no reasonable argument that that will not result in more fraudulent activities.
a bank can only "rip you off" in an involuntarily transaction. To frame voluntarily transactions as involuntary is doing no one a service in the long run.
It's doing the public a service. Preying on the vulnerable people in a society is a path that's been traveled by fraudsters as long as money has existed. That benefits no one and when allowed to run rampant affects all of us. Societies flourish when it's citizenry contributes to it's well being. There is no contribution by people who are taking people's money without providing a real service of value.
That is unfortunate. But we can't decide national policy on the basis of not angering foreign tourists who contribute a tiny sliver of our GDP.
No, we decide national policy on what's best for the country. Pissing off our trading partners by belittling them does nothing for anyone, except those that hate us. And this isn't the result of a global virus or a failure of imagination, this is the result of of one petty, childish and small man who for reasons I'll never understand people looked at and said "yeah, that's the guy who should be running the country".
Created:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Probability is calculated by dividing the total number of times something occurred by the total number of opportunities in which that thing could have occurred.
You cannot calculate the probability of a god until you have at least one example of a god existing.
In your heads/tails example, we know it's 50% because we already know both sides exist. If I held out my hand and said what are the odds that the coin I'm holding will land on the side with a battleship, you wouldn't be able to know that without knowing if the coin has a battleship at all, or hell, without even knowing if there is a coin in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
There sure are a lot of trump supporters and republicans trying to kill trump. You know those guys firebombing tesla dealerships probably own Tesla stock and love elon musk
Yeah that's the typical throw away response I would expect.
Neither of those individuals were known to be Trump supporters, but they certainly weren't blue blooded democrats acting on subliminal orders from MSNBC as you guys love to portray it. Two random individual people do not represent an entire political movement in any rational sense, especially when they didn't even share the ideology you guys are trying so desperately to slander. The point is that your implications here are absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Do you not realize how close we were to a one party state?
No, please enlighten me.
Hell they wanted a one party state so bad there was 2 assassination attempts
Ah yes, the nefarious "they".
And by "they" you're talking about one deranged conservative kid who by all the evidence was motivated by nothing more than a desire to be famous by killing someone famous, and one Vivek/Haley supporter. But tell me more about "they".
What type of defense is "well there is an opposition party so the intent to make America a third world country by continuing the inflation, opening borders, cutting the penises off of gay kids and continued attacks on free speech doesn't matter"
It's the type of defense one makes up because they have no rational position to defend so instead they invent a cartoonish caricature of the opposition to attack as a distraction.
You claimed that voting for the status quo would turn us into a third world nation. The status quo means doing the same. So I challenged you to explain how the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth doing the same thing it always does would turn it into a third world country. Still waiting for an answer on that.
The rest of your post is just hard to take as a serious set of beliefs, yet I've interacted with you enough to know that you really do believe them. Inflation was a global phenomenon resulting from the disruptions of COVID. The US handled it better than all of our peer nations and it had already fully subsided by the time Biden left office. So claiming the Dems fully intended to keep it going is just plain stupid.
You already said the borders were never open.
Cutting penises off of gay kids... This is too stupid to even comment on. Moving on.
Attacks on free speech??? Says the guy now supporting the president who is ordering the FCC to investigate news networks he doesn't like, deporting students based on their political views, ordering the DOJ to investigate former employees for their political views and now ordering the investigation of a rival political advocacy group. Right, tell me more about how much you value free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
the private sector does a better at job creation and it's not even close. In 2023 the Fed employed about 0.61% of the US population with a budget amounting to nearly 23% of GDP. About 88% of US GDP in the same year came from the private sector, which employed about 40% of the population. To do the math, the private sector is about 16x more efficient at this purpose than the USFG dollar for dollar.
Apples to oranges comparison. The government doesn't charge for it's services, it does the opposite, because government has a very different purpose than the private sector. Take social security for example, the is no private sector equivalent to a government agency whose job it is to just mail income checks out to a significant portion of the population.
there were anti-vaxxers refusing to give their kids measles shots long before RFK became Secretary of the HHS.
There have been 9/11 conspiracy theorists since 9/11. That doesn't make it acceptable to put one in charge of Homeland security.
Your bank rips you off? Stuff it. Your local health clinic closes? The air and water you breathe is filthy now? Stuff it.Oh look, more stuff that's not going to happen.
You think banks not ripping us off or company's keeping our air clean happens by itself? Trump has gutted the agencies that enforce these things, you really think a spike in things like this won't follow?
Your income is down because no tourists want to visit your eatery?If our friends would turn on us just like that after decades of subsidizing their defense over what's objectively a nothing burger, then some friends they were. Good riddance.
You're talking about international business partners like we're 6th graders figuring out who we want to sit at the lunch table with.
I work in a tourist attraction in NYC. Our business is down about 20% from last year, a significant reason for that is a loss of international customers. Our contacts in Canada who normally organize school groups have flat out told us they're not coming because of Trump. Just yesterday I sent an email to 4 individuals we were going to hire to tell them we don't have an open position for them to fill after having to downgrade all of our projections for the rest of the year. We cancelled the entire hiring wave where we were originally planning to hire another 9 people.
That's not because of a natural disaster or some international conflict, that is literally, directly, because of the arrogance and incompetence of this one man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The US ranks among the top of the economic freedom index.What are you talking about?Yes and we want to stay near the top.
So voting for the status quo will make us a third world country, because economic freedom index, which were near the top of the world on and want to keep it that way, by doing something totally different from what we've been doing... What?
Yes the borders were never open. Your welcome.
So we'll become a third world country because open borders, which were never open. What?
There was still sanctuary cities and other attempts to open it so we were able to prevent that sort of thing.
Ah I see, those Dems want open borders but we never had them because even though they were in power republicans stopped them and this is why you shouldn't vote for democrats because they'll open the border.
Ok bro.
We can see from the fight to bring back actual MS13 illegal immigrants
The Trump administration has yet to produce any evidence that the man in the headlines is MS13 because he never had a hearing, which is the point here. We're talking about due process, you know damn well that what the Trump administration is doing is blatantly illegal and indefensible so you shift the conversation onto attacking a caricature you invented because attacking absurd ideas, even when they're you're made up ideas, is always easier than attacking what the other side is actually saying.
California literally made it child abuse to not cut your child's dick off by request and have legalized pedophilia or down rates it as a crime.
I have no interest in even googling this to see if it is close to what you are characterizing it as. History tells me it's not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Economic freedom index, open borders. Predictable economic effects that happen every single time under similar conditions. We aren't special if we do something that has failed every single time, we will also fail.
The borders were never "open".
The US ranks among the top of the economic freedom index.
What are you talking about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Why would voting against becoming a 3rd world country...
Right, so the wealthiest super power on earth and envy of the entire globe voting for the status quo = becoming a third world country.
Perfect encapsulation of why America is so fucked. The fact that this logic passes for half this country is mind bending.
Created:
-->
@RemyBrown
I don't think the US should fund Israel because I don't want the US funding other countries
You do understand that funding a foreign conflict =/= sending them our money... Right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
If you think "enlightened centrism" is despicable, then I don't agree, but me refuting it is pointless because I know it won't change your mind.
If your goal when making an argument is to change the mind of the person you're talking to you'd probably be better off watching a Netflix special or something. Very rarely does anyone change their mind based off a counter argument, especially on a site people visit for the purpose of debating their views.
If I said anything not left wing is contemptable to you, then would that be accurate?
No. I respect the views of plenty of people I disagree with, on this site Thett comes to mind. If you followed what I explained, I never attacked centrism. Being in the middle doesn't make you an "enlightened centrist". The term is used to point to someone who focuses more on being above both sides than holding any particular beliefs or holding any real values. Again, the core value for this kind of person seems to be to place themselves above anyone who strongly favors one side over the other. If that's you, then that is what I find contemptable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
I don't care what you become, I'm criticizing the idea to which you didn't refute describes you.
An enlightened centrist is better than a MAGA republican, but still contemptable as far as I am concerned. Again, it's not about what side you're on on any issue or even broadly, it's about whether you actually believe anything at all or are just standing on the hill pretending to be better than everyone else cause you're above it all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
It would be great if everyone was a member of the Balls and strikes party
Everyone is a member of the balls and strikes party in their own mind.
I'm not sure if this is where you were coming from, but when I read this it comes off as an argument made for the "enlightened centrist", which I find contemptable. All I see with those people is a need to feel above everyone else. They start with the presumption that democrats are biased towards the left and republicans are biased towards the right, so they're going to sit above it all in their unbiased middle and call out both parties evenly.
The problem here is that these people don't seem to believe in anything. Their core value seems to be criticizing both parties, so they are constantly equivocating. Neutrality and objectivity are not the same thing.
Created: