Apologetics

[Colonel Olrik]

Oh and Darth Wong, if I am such an idiot, why do you continue debating with me?

STARDESTROYER.NET: Take your fill of sci-fi, science and mockery of stupid people

[Durandal]

Nevermind...

None of you seems to understand what logical proof is at all. Has anyone here actually taken the time to learn about logic? If so, where, when, and how long?

First semester at university, I took a class on critical thinking which covered all logical fallacies. Creationist and theist arguments were often used as examples of how not to argue.

And I thought that variables were generally assumed to express nonzero real numbers?

You're a fucking imbecile, and you have no place commenting on subjects like basic high school algebra or critical thinking. That's only true when the general solution comes with the form "if x =/= 0". Otherwise, a variable can represent any number in its given range. Every bit of this is covered your first year in high school. You did go to high school, didn't you? Or did your parents home-school you?

[The Apologist]

Well, my mistake then, though I must comment that you are now being a nitpicking troll - my point was not to show that the equation itself was correct, but that denotations of variables need not be specified in order to ensure the validity of the equations or inferences they comprise.

Longer than the time you've spent learning Science and Math. Discussing logig by itself, when not applied to a specific problem, is futile. Logic is used as a means to solve problems, not as an end to itself. No amount of logic prevails over facts and science.

If so, where, when, and how long?

STARDESTROYER.NET: Take your fill of sci-fi, science and mockery of stupid people

So then why does he bother with the debate part?

First semester at university, I took a class on critical thinking which covered all logical fallacies. Creationist and theist arguments were often used as examples of how not to argue.

So in other words, you learned little to nothing about real logic.

[aerius]

And you're a fucking WHACK-A-LOON. Let me say that again so it sinks in a bit. You're a fucking Whack-a-loon. If you wanna know why go read the other thread. You'll see my logical deductions there.

[Sir Sirius]

STARDESTROYER.NET: Take your fill of sci-fi, science and mockery of stupid people

So then why does he bother with the debate part?

I guessing because it is fun to make fun of morons (like you) and the best way to do that is to destroy their ridiculous arquments (like yours).

[Colonel Olrik]

Well, my mistake then, though I must comment that you are now being a nitpicking troll

POT.. CALLING.. THE KETTLE.. BACK..

And it was a severe mistake. The mere fact that you managed to type it without realizing the solution was wrong reveals that you do not have any kind of education as far as math is concerned. And, without math you cannot learn science. To sum up, you lack the skills to debate on even therms with a mechanical engineer or a science college student. Therefore, you nitpick logic instead of debating actual facts.

my point was not to show that the equation itself was correct, but that denotations of variables need not be specified in order to ensure the validity of the equations or inferences they comprise.

And you did exactly the opposite. By not defining correctly the problem restrictions, you arrived to an useless result. If you had established physical therms, and then applied the basic math rules, you'd reach a valid conclusion.

Longer than the time you've spent learning Science and Math. Discussing logic by itself, when not applied to a specific problem, is futile. Logic is used as a means to solve problems, not as an end to itself. No amount of logic prevails over facts and science.

If so, where, when, and how long?

here
I've had a semestral course solely on logic, much like Durandal's. You must understand that an engineering course has plenty of physics to teach, so we don't pass the whole five years around it. But it is enough to understand that nothing is gain by simply going around and around with it. It's a means, not an end. Of course, my mathematical studies on logic are well beyond your reach.

STARDESTROYER.NET: Take your fill of sci-fi, science and mockery of stupid people

So then why does he bother with the debate part?

That's the mockery. Clever mockery. Showing the idiocy hidden in your tiny arguments.

[The Apologist]

Well, that is odd indeed - enjoyment appears to be the last thing that Darth Wong is receiving from arguing with me.

Unless he is a masochist... then it would all make sense.

And it was a severe mistake. The mere fact that you managed to type it without realizing the solution was wrong reveals that you do not have any kind of education as far as math is concerned. And, without math you cannot learn science. To sum up, you lack the skills to debate on even therms with a mechanical engineer or a science college student. Therefore, you nitpick logic instead of debating actual facts.

Well, I am only sixteen...

I was merely looking to find an example of an equation consisting only of variables, and there it was.

Also, I would think that someone like you would be the last person to suggest that "actual facts" are debatable. I certainly hold no such view.

I've had a semestral course solely on logic, much like Durandal's. You must understand that an engineering course has plenty of physics to teach, so we don't pass the whole five years around it. But it is enough to understand that nothing is gain by simply going around and around with it. It's a means, not an end. Of course, my mathematical studies on logic are well beyond your reach.

Hmmn... the site you provided does not depict IST as a particularly philosophically-inclined institute. I guess this accounts for your lack of understanding of even introductory logic.

So, tell me what you did learn about logic from a technical college.

For example, tell me the basics about syllogisms, or categorical propositions.

[Colonel Olrik]

Well, I am only sixteen...

I guessed it. Go to a good college, and learn. I also had logic classes at high school. They don't win debates.

I was merely looking to find an example of an equation consisting only of variables, and there it was.

And you provided yourself an example of the difference between a method and the way you use it to deduce new facts from existing ones. The equations without a physical backgound are useless. The deduced ones are not valid. The same happens with logic. It's a tool. Don't overrate its importance.

Also, I would think that someone like you would be the last person to suggest that "actual facts" are debatable. I certainly hold no such view.

Facts are not debatable. The inferences you take from those facts are debatable. The way you explain the ocurrences of those facts are debatable.

Hmmn... the site you provided does not depict IST as a particularly philosophically-inclined institute. I guess this accounts for your lack of understanding of even introductory logic.

WTF? I told you, it's an ENGINEERING college, not a God damned philosofic institute. The horror! And that's precisely what I know. Introductory logic, with a more advanced study of math logic on the top.

So, tell me what you did learn about logic from a technical college.

For example, tell me the basics about syllogisms, or categorical propositions.

Tell me Young's Law and I'll consider it. I told you many times, I refuse to debate logic by itself, and I'm not in the fucking 1st year anymore.

[actually, I've graduated some months ago]

[aerius]

For example, tell me the basics about syllogisms, or categorical propositions.

A syllogism is a logical statement with 3 parts.
This is not a syllogism whack-a-loon.

[Durandal]

So in other words, you learned little to nothing about real logic.

Who are you to tell anyone about what "real logic" is? You're sixteen. You simply assume that your position is logical, when in reality, it's a fucking logical farce. There have been textbooks published that are used in critical thinking courses that include examples of how not to argue, and the "proofs" for God's existence are often cited as examples of poor argumentation and reasoning skills.

Who should I take logic classes from? You? Your fucking moron pastor? Who the fuck taught you how to critically think? Whoever it was, he probably couldn't evaluate his way out of a paper bag.

Well, my mistake then, though I must comment that you are now being a nitpicking troll - my point was not to show that the equation itself was correct, but that denotations of variables need not be specified in order to ensure the validity of the equations or inferences they comprise.

Nitpick? You based an entire argument on your utter and complete misunderstanding of basic high school algebra! You think that, for some reason, since variables in math can mean any number, your tautologies and circular reasoning like, "A therefore A" prove to be true! This is simply amazing! Do you even know how to do a basic mathematical proof?

Here's a hint: "A therefore A" is not a mathematical equation, and you can't substitute "A" for any claim you want. You'd have to be extraordinarily stupid to even think that this is the case.

Hmmn... the site you provided does not depict IST as a particularly philosophically-inclined institute. I guess this accounts for your lack of understanding of even introductory logic.

So, tell me what you did learn about logic from a technical college.

For example, tell me the basics about syllogisms, or categorical propositions.

Jesus fucking Christ! You don't think that a technical school teaches you how to think critically? You're certifiably insane! Part of the scientific method is logical deduction. Do you seriously think that one must go to a "philosophy inclined institute" to receive an education in logical reasoning? If so, then who the fuck are you to be telling any of us how to think critically? You're not even out of high school, fucktard. Do you have any idea how inconsistent and outrageously moronic your position is?

[The Apologist]

WTF? I told you, it's an ENGINEERING college, not a God damned philosofic institute. The horror! And that's precisely what I know. Introductory logic, with a more advanced study of math logic on the top.

You seem ashamed of your knowledge of it, though, if are so unwilling to tell me what you have learned. Perhaps you retained introductory logic about as well as I apparently retained Algebra II.

Tell me Young's Law and I'll consider it. I told you many times, I refuse to debate logic by itself, and I'm not in the fucking 1st year anymore.

Well, good. That last thing I want is for you to debate logic.

Now then, tell me what you know about it.

Who are you to tell anyone about what "real logic" is? You're sixteen. You simply assume that your position is logical, when in reality, it's a fucking logical farce. There have been textbooks published that are used in critical thinking courses that include examples of how not to argue, and the "proofs" for God's existence are often cited as examples of poor argumentation and reasoning skills.

Who should I take logic classes from? You? Your fucking moron pastor? Who the fuck taught you how to critically think? Whoever it was, he probably couldn't evaluate his way out of a paper bag.

http://www.philosophypages.com

It seems Mr. Kemerling is a professor of logic.

Here's a hint: "A therefore A" is not a mathematical equation, and you can't substitute "A" for any claim you want. You'd have to be extraordinarily stupid to even think that this is the case.

Well, Greylock is to blame for implications of mathematics in this, asserting that the "value" of "A" needs to be predetermined in order for inferences to function properly. Take it up with him.

And, please name one proposition that cannot be plugged into "A, therefore A" and explain why it would be improper.

Jesus fucking Christ! You don't think that a technical school teaches you how to think critically? You're certifiably insane! Part of the scientific method is logical deduction. Do you seriously think that one must go to a "philosophy inclined institute" to receive an education in logical reasoning? If so, then who the fuck are you to be telling any of us how to think critically? You're not even out of high school, fucktard. Do you have any idea how inconsistent and outrageously moronic your position is?

If that is the case, why are you the one exhibiting anger and frustration?

And, since when is "critical thinking" the same as formal logic?[/i]

[SeebianWurm]

A=The Speed of Light is 20MPH

"The Speed of Light is 20MPH, therefore the Speed of Light is 20MPH"

Because it's not true in the first place.

[aerius]

Didn't I just tell you to take your Vitamin Q? From another thread, whack-a-loon.

May I ask what this 'sufficient reason to believe in God' is?

My own experiences, realizations, perceptions of Him, and His speaking to me.

I see we've finally arrived at the root of the problem...you are a whack-a-loon.

To which you responded:

How do you conclude that?

The answer is simple really and it goes like this. Delusional people hear voices in the heads. You are hearing voices in your head from a non-existent entity. It is not possible to hear voices from something which does not exist, and since you say you can, you are delusional. Whack-a-loon. Take your Vitamin Q, it'll help with the voices in your head.

That is logic dumbass, and I do believe it's a syllogism as well whack-a-loon.

[The Apologist]

So? Valid conclusions are not necessarily true conclusions.

[Darth Wong]

Nevermind...

None of you seems to understand what logical proof is at all. Has anyone here actually taken the time to learn about logic? If so, where, when, and how long?

Notice how our arrogant little dipshit friend continues to ignore direct point-by-point rebuttals of his idiotic circular logic claims. Notice how he continues to rely on "rebuttals" of the form "I know more than you, therefore I'm right and you're wrong". The irony of someone appealing to his own self-proclaimed authority in order to defend his statements on logic is simply too delicious.

The fact that he's just a precocious 16-year old kid is merely icing on the cake; he has already proven in countless ways that he wouldn't know logic from labia.

[Darth Wong]

So? Valid conclusions are not necessarily true conclusions.

Of course, because you might be a brain floating in a jar and the entire universe might be a figment of your imagination. But those of us who accept that the universe is real can use observation and logic to figure out what that means. Your personal refusal to do so is not an invalidation of our methods.

[The Apologist]

Wow, fast posting.

My last post was in response to SeebianWurm.

[aerius]

So? Valid conclusions are not necessarily true conclusions.

Speak for yourself Whack-a-loon. And I told you to take your Vitamin Q not Flintstone vitamines whack-a-loon.

[SeebianWurm]

So? Valid conclusions are not necessarily true conclusions.

Do you want to address some points?

He plays dodgeball too much.

Nevermind...

None of you seems to understand what logical proof is at all. Has anyone here actually taken the time to learn about logic? If so, where, when, and how long?

Notice how our arrogant little dipshit friend continues to ignore direct point-by-point rebuttals of his idiotic circular logic claims. Notice how he continues to rely on "rebuttals" of the form "I know more than you, therefore I'm right and you're wrong". The irony of someone appealing to his own self-proclaimed authority in order to defend his statements on logic is simply too delicious.

The fact that he's just a precocious 16-year old kid is merely icing on the cake; he has already proven in countless ways that he wouldn't know logic from labia.

"Logic from a what?" - mutterings of the moron when he sees this

[The Apologist]

The fact that he's just a precocious 16-year old kid is merely icing on the cake; he has already proven in countless ways that he wouldn't know logic from labia.

Well obviously, the difference there is that logic is something you don't have.

[SeebianWurm]

Quick get a camera, he doesnt know what the labia is!

[Durandal]

The fact that he's just a precocious 16-year old kid is merely icing on the cake; he has already proven in countless ways that he wouldn't know logic from labia.

Well obviously, the difference there is that logic is something you don't have.

This is just fucking priceless.

[Darth Wong]

Well obviously, the difference there is that logic is something you don't have.

Hey look, it's Darkstar's clone. The same pathetic insistence that he's right even when every point has been dissected and annihilated. The same feeble insistence that if he just says he's right enough times, it will become true. The same childish style of flaming (ooooh, questioning my manhood; not a particularly devastating attack when he's obviously a palm-fucker while I've had pussy thousands of times). It is quite clear that he is sliding into Black Knight Syndrome(TM). In effect, he's basically saying:

[aerius]

Quick get a camera, he doesnt know what the labia is!

I'm laughing my ass of good at the screencap I took to preserve his stupidity. That was rich!

[The Apologist]

All right, since rational debate is above you all, I resign from this topic. Flame wars are not worth our time.