What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[Lockjaw]

The universe not being contained is the only example I can offer.

 

Just the one example?

 

That has shown, logically - not scientifically - to be the case.

 

Is there anything else you have against scientists, then?

[Lockjaw]

That's because my logic isn't restricted by the box Jack. I'm not using your deduction by default method of reasoning, it's flawed.

 

Logic is logic.

 

Claiming your logic is not restricted by the box (assuming you know the meaning of logic, which I don't think you do) is saying you're not using logic.

 

Oh, and, I haven't as far as I'm aware, used a "deduction by default method of reasoning". No need ... Logic does the job fine.

 

Now, when you understand the true meaning of logic, tell us how it is flawed.

[danot]

Just the one example?

Yes!.

 

Posted by Jackzrake

That has shown, logically - not scientifically - to be the case.

Agreed. It merely corresponds with human logical reasoning, but what it doesn't do, is prove or disprove anything particular theory.... or deity.

 

Posted by Jaksrake

Is there anything else you have against scientists, then?

Iv'e nothing against them personally, I just consider their matter of fact attitude towards their theories, and their smugness when dismissing theories outside of their field to be arrogant.

[truman]

Yes!.

 

 

 

Iv'e nothing against them personally, I just consider their matter of fact attitude towards their theories, and their smugness when dismissing theories outside of their field to be arrogant.

 

Do you have an example of this?

[danot]

Logic is logic.

 

Claiming your logic is not restricted by the box (assuming you know the meaning of logic, which I don't think you do) is saying you're not using logic.

 

Oh, and, I haven't as far as I'm aware, used a "deduction by default method of reasoning". No need ... Logic does the job fine.

 

Now, when you understand the true meaning of logic, tell us how it is flawed.

Iv'e made clear where the flaw is. It's the deduction by default method of reasoning to which you conform.

[danot]

Do you have an example of this?

Yes, Richard Dawkins... your God

[Lockjaw]

Iv'e made clear where the flaw is. It's the deduction by default method of reasoning to which you conform.

 

Um ... Show me where i've used this "method" ... If you want.

 

Me? I'm afraid, like Obelix, I am now tiring of your refusal to engage with the arguments and, from me, suggestions which would enable you to do so. You are refusing to, at the very least, correct your misconception regarding the meaning of logic as shown, yet again, by the above post.

 

This renders any attempt to engage with or attempt to help you pointless so I'm off.

 

Have fun.

[truman]

Yes, Richard Dawkins... your God

 

Why my god?

[danot]

Um ... Show me where i've used this "method" ... If you want.

Do you, or do you not adhere to that method of reasoning?.

 

Posted by Jackrake

Me? I'm afraid, like Obelix, I am now tiring of your refusal to engage with the arguments and, from me, suggestions which would enable you to do so. You are refusing to, at the very least, correct your misconception regarding the meaning of logic as shown, yet again, by the above post.

 

This renders any attempt to engage with or attempt to help you pointless so I'm off.

 

Have fun.

Will do!. Thanks for your contribution Jack.

[plekhanov]

Why my god?

This would seem to be yet another example of what danot regards as "thinking outside the box" in this case by inventing their own peculiar definitions for common terms like "god".

 

Sheep like you might try to use language in ways others can understand danot is clearly above that kind of thing.