Richard Dawkins quote regarding agnostics: "Fence-sitting, intellectual cowards

[watsup]

I've defended every statement I've made when you made any sort of coherent critique at all, which you did not come close to doing. I reviewed all your statements up to this point and you aren't even clear about what the "garbage" is. Is it the anti-Tylorian views I cited weeks ago? I brought them up because you did such a piss poor job of responding to them, and gave that as a reason why I don't bother "expanding." I already know that all you've got is a mechanical repetition of dogma. I've also thrown other posts to which you just said "nuh-uh”

Just yet another excuse for not expanding the Gish Gallop that you posted way back there. All that you did was to post it and then say “see, that shows that you were wrong” without trying to specifically cite even one quote in that garbage, and that’s because I don’t think that you even read it for understanding. Get back to me when you can do so.

 

[Frank Apisa]

This thread is a lesson in futility.

Actually it is a lesson in how atheists are as willing to get absurd in defense of their blind guesses about the REALITY...as are theists or religionists.

Going great as far as I am concerned. Exactly the way I intended for it to go.

 

[watsup]

Actually it is a lesson in how atheists are as willing to get absurd in defense of their blind guesses about the REALITY...as are theists or religionists.

Going great as far as I am concerned. Exactly the way I intended for it to go.

Yet more projection.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Yet more projection.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You are fabricating something you know is bull. But that is all you have. What I actually said was that it is not a possibility that a triangle has 3 angles (not sides).

Ah, my mistake. You claimed it was impossible for a triangle to have 3 angles.

Which is obviously nonsense.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Ah, my mistake. You claimed it was impossible for a triangle to have 3 angles.

Which is obviously nonsense.

If you quoted the entire of my comment...anyone still reading this absurd thread would realize what I actually said.

Here is the quote, "It is not possible. A triangle MUST HAVE three angles." There is nothing absurd about that. A triangle MUST HAVE three angles. Period. It must have three angles or it is not a triangle. I was highlighting that fact. But you know that...and are only pushing this because you have had almost everything else shot down.

Fine. Go desperate.

It has a value as humor.

 

[watsup]

If you quoted the entire of my comment...anyone still reading this absurd thread would realize what I actually said.

Here is the quote, "It is not possible. A triangle MUST HAVE three angles." There is nothing absurd about that. A triangle MUST HAVE three angles. Period. It must have three angles or it is not a triangle. I was highlighting that fact. But you know that...and are only pushing this because you have had almost everything else shot down.

Fine. Go desperate.

It has a value as humor.

Is a square a triangle? After all, it does have three angles.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Is a square a triangle? After all, it does have three angles.

No, a square is not a triangle...nor is a pentagon or other polygons, like quadrilaterals, hexagons, octagons, and such.

Most learned people would know that.

 

[watsup]

No, a square is not a triangle...nor is a pentagon or other polygons, like quadrilaterals, hexagons, octagons, and such.

Most learned people would know that.

You said that a triangle must have three angles. A square has three angles. Therefore a square is a triangle. Ergo, this logic is impeccable.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You said that a triangle must have three angles. A square has three angles. Therefore a square is a triangle. Ergo, this logic is impeccable.

You wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you on the ass.

here?

So, CC...what do you have to say about W's logic here?

 

[watsup]

You wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you on the ass.




So, CC...what do you have to say about W's logic here?

Are you still saying that a square does not have three angles? Have you ever looked at a square? Can you see three angles? Where is the breakdown in logic?

 

[Frank Apisa]

You wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you on the ass.




So, CC...what do you have to say about W's logic here?

Not sure what happened with that quote, CC, but I acknowledge it is in error. I just wanted to quote you to get you onto this supposed bit of logic from W.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Are you still saying that a square does not have three angles?

I have never said that a square does not have three angles. Ever! Anywhere. Of course a square has three angles. It even has a fourth.

What on Earth makes you think I have suggested it doesn't?

Have you ever looked at a square? Can you see three angles? Where is the breakdown in logic?

You wouldn't understand. You do not have even an elementary understanding of logic.

If CC wants to explain it to you...good for her.

 

[watsup]

I have never said that a square does not have three angles. Ever! Anywhere. Of course a square has three angles. It even has a fourth.

Thank you for finally acknowledging that. It sure took long enough. But here is your original statement:

A triangle MUST HAVE three angles.

By that standard, a square is indeed a triangle since it meets your criteria of having three angles. How is that not logical in accordance with your original statement?

A triangle must have three angles.
A square has three angles.
Ergo, a square is a triangle.

Perfect logic.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

If you quoted the entire of my comment...anyone still reading this absurd thread would realize what I actually said.

I quoted what you actually said. You actually said that it is not possible for a triangle to have 3 angles.

Which is bonkers.

Here is the quote, "It is not possible. A triangle MUST HAVE three angles." There is nothing absurd about that.

The absurd part was the part where you said that it is impossible for a triangle to have 3 angles.

If a triangle must have 3 angles, then it must be possible for a triangle to have 3 angles. If it is not possible for a triangle to have 3 angles, then a triangle cannot have the 3 angles that it must have.

This is pretty basic stuff.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Thank you for finally acknowledging that. It sure took long enough. But here is your original statement:



By that standard, a square is indeed a triangle since it meets your criteria of having three angles. How is that not logical in accordance with your original statement?

A triangle must have three angles.
A square has three angles.
Ergo, a square is a triangle.

Perfect logic.

You are pitiful at logic...but

I quoted what you actually said. You actually said that it is not possible for a triangle to have 3 angles.

Which is bonkers.

No you did not. You truncated it to make it look like it is bonkers.

The absurd part was the part where you said that it is impossible for a triangle to have 3 angles.

The absurd part was you truncating my post.

If a triangle must have 3 angles, then it must be possible for a triangle to have 3 angles. If it is not possible for a triangle to have 3 angles, then a triangle cannot have the 3 angles that it must have.

If you want to use "possible"...where is is an absolute necessity...fine with me.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Yeah...like W's bit of logic.

Gonna comment on that?

 

[watsup]

You wouldn't understand. You do not have even an elementary understanding of logic.

You have previously said that anything that has not been shown to be impossible—is possible.
I just want to make sure that you still agree that since Baloob the God of Gravity has it been shown to be impossible—it is thus possible. Still agree?

 

[Frank Apisa]

You have previously said that anything that has not been shown to be impossible—is possible.
I just want to make sure that you still agree that since Baloob the God of Gravity has it been shown to be impossible—it is thus possible. Still agree?

Frankly, I do not think your Baloob has been shown to be impossible...but if you are claiming it has been established as impossible...then it cannot be possible. Nothing that has been established as impossible can be possible.

But establishing something as impossible is not an easy task...and doing so via "witnessing" is not going to cut the mustard...especially if the witnessing is being done by someone like you.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

No you did not. You truncated it to make it look like it is bonkers.

It was bonkers when you said it. I quoted specifically the bonkers part so that you wouldn't be confused about which part was bonkers.

But at least you can admit that it looked bonkers when you said that it was impossible for a triangle to have three angles.

That is progress.

If you want to use "possible"...where is is an absolute necessity...fine with me.

Not just me. That necessity implies possibility is a basic principle in modal logic.

Since you esteem the opinions of A.I. so highly, here is what ChatGPT has to say about it:

Q: Is it true that necessity implies possibility in modal logic?

ChatGPT said:​

Yes, it's true that in modal logic, necessity implies possibility. This can be understood through the relationship between the modal operators □ (necessity) and ◇ (possibility).
In modal logic:

• □p means "it is necessarily the case that p" (i.e., p is true in all possible worlds).
• ◇p means "it is possibly the case that p" (i.e., p is true in at least one possible world).

The relationship between necessity and possibility is formalized as:

• If □p (p is necessarily true), then ◇p (p is possibly true).

This is because if something is true in all possible worlds (necessary), it must also be true in at least one possible world (possible). This principle is often written as:
□p → ◇p
So, in summary, necessity implies possibility in modal logic.

 

[Frank Apisa]

It was bonkers when you said it. I quoted specifically the bonkers part so that you wouldn't be confused about which part was bonkers.

But at least you can admit that it looked bonkers when you said that it was impossible for a triangle to have three angles.

That is progress.

What was being said...and I am sure you realize it, is that a triangle MUST HAVE three angles...no more, no less. That is what I meant when I said not possible...meaning, for certain. I should have put it that way, but I was counting on you being more ethical than you are.

Not just me. That necessity implies possibility is a basic principle in modal logic.

What I said makes sense...and if you want to parse it in a way that changes what I iwas saying, fine with me. After all... It confirms what I think about atheists.

Since you esteem the opinions of A.I. so highly, here is what ChatGPT has to say about it:

 

[Frank Apisa]

What was being said...and I am sure you realize it, is that a triangle MUST HAVE three angles...no more, no less. That is what I meant when I said not possible...meaning, for certain. I should have put it that way, but I was counting on you being more ethical than you are.


What I said makes sense...and if you want to parse it in a way that changes what I iwas saying, fine with me. After all... It confirms what I think about atheists.

You still haven't chimed in on that "logic" that W is trying to sell...and defend.

Why not?

 

[watsup]

Frankly, I do not think your Baloob has been shown to be impossible...but if you are claiming it has been established as impossible...then it cannot be possible. Nothing that has been established as impossible can be possible.

But establishing something as impossible is not an easy task...and doing so via "witnessing" is not going to cut the mustard...especially if the witnessing is being done by someone like you.

Let me try that again with proper wording:
You have previously said that anything that has not been shown to be impossible—is possible.
I just want to make sure that you still agree that since Baloob the God of Gravity has NOT been shown to be impossible—it is thus possible. Still agree?

 

[watsup]

You still haven't chimed in on that "logic" that W is trying to sell...and defend.

Why not?

My logic was perfect. Here it is. You can’t show otherwise.

Here is what you said in post #1781:

A triangle MUST HAVE three angles

My logic followed:
A triangle must have three angles.
A square has three angles.
Therefore a square is a triangle.

This logic is based on your statement above. How is it wrong? It is perfect logic.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Let me try that again with proper wording:
You have previously said that anything that has not been shown to be impossible—is possible.
I just want to make sure that you still agree that since Baloob the God of Gravity has NOT been shown to be impossible—it is thus possible. Still agree?

If Baloob has not been established as impossible...it is possible.

 

[Frank Apisa]

My logic was perfect. Here it is. You can’t show otherwise.

Here is what you said in post #1781:



My logic followed:
A triangle must have three angles.
A square has three angles.
Therefore a square is a triangle.

This logic is based on your statement above. How is it wrong? It is perfect logic.

It is not logical in the least. It is laughably illogical.

Ask CC to explain it to you.