Greylorn Ell wrote: ↑
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:38 am
You jump into the most conventional belief system like a cheap slut on food stamps jumps into the bed of the first promising millionaire.
Your name is a misnomer. You are not logical, no more so than the farcial Spock character on old Star Trek episodes-- you're a con man, like him.
To the casual reader. What is Greylorn attempting to do here?
Lets start with our plausible hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Greylorn is trying to expose Logik as a fraud.
Hypothesis 2: Greylorn is drawing the spotlight away from himself so as to avoid being exposed as a fraud.
Which one is true? What better way to start 2019 than to find out!
Also, since good science requires accurate predictions: I predict that Greylorn is not a scientist. He's a just a silly tools operator. He knows how to use logic/mathematics, but he has no clue how or why they work. He doesn't understand the limits of his own tools so he keeps tripping over circular reasoning.
I predict that I will find a flaw in Greylorn's belief-system (be it infinite regress, circular reasoning, hypocrisy or a contradiction). That is if he cares to allow for his beliefs to be scrutinised (which I doubt - given his grumpy old age).
How logical is it to believe that a universe in which every action arises from the interaction of at least two opposing forces might have come into existence by the spontaneous uncaused action of a single entity?
Because we aren't talking about what happens IN the universe. We are talking about where the universe (all of it!) came from.
It seems I am being accused of believing in uncaused causes. Lets get right down to ontological matters.
Can you explain to all of us mortals the two opposing forces from which photons arise?
Genuine logic operates independently of agreement systems, whereas you merely suck their teats.
Sadly, you are wrong. All logic systems emerge from rules: axioms, semantics and grammar.
So if you could be so kind as to openly state the axioms, semantics and grammar of the the logic which you call "genuine logic" - you will be doing us mere mortals a favour.
Your beliefs are dreadfully ordinary. Why present them on a forum open to non-conventional ideas?
You only believe that your beliefs are "extraordinary and unconventional”. They fall into the same old patterns logicians and mathematicians have been yawning about for centuries.
Old ideas dressed in new words.
You are no free thinker. You are a slave of your tools. You are no logician - you "suck at their teats". Nobody is wasting your time except your own dogma.