Double_R

You do know Kimmel was employed by Disney & ABC, yeah? That's who dismissed him for failure to be worth his salary in revenue collection. It's supposed to be profitable to be Jimmie Kimmel. When it's no longer so, that's when shyte happens. Welcome to the USA.

Ah, so we're just going to gloss over the fact that the FCC chairman publicly stated Jimmy Kimmel should be fired and suggested that ABC's affiliates might have their licenses pulled if they kept airing him saying "we could do this the easy way or the hard way" mere hours before the decision to suspend Kimmel was announced.

At that point, it doesn't even matter why Kimmel was suspended or if he would have been suspended anyway. The issue at hand is the egregious abuse of power by this administration using the power of the state to crack down on criticism of this administration in what is a blatant violation of the first amendment.

If anything remotely like that had occurred during the Biden presidency you would have lost your mind and you know that.

Apparently free speech to conservatives means being able to post mean tweets and not be banned by Twitter, but the government using it's power to silence dissent... That's aye ok.

You do realize leftism and communism are same

No, they're not, that's just the childishly silly lies they tell you to scare you into thinking leftists are evil, and sadly it clearly works.

Communism killed 50 million people, so wanting Communism isnt exactly healthy.

Don't know a single person who wants communism.

killing person for his speech doesnt exactly make leftism look good

Tyler Robinson isn't "the left".

so we can say for sure Communists dont believe in free speech

Are these communists in the room with you right now?

Propaganda is awesome (it's called a dramatic opinion).

No, it's called lying in order to manipulate people into accepting a political viewpoint, often with the aim of attaining or maintaining power.

How could someone want Kirk to die for his opinions and not want rando conservatives on the street to die for their opinions?

There is a very big difference between cheering the murder of a single individual who is viewed as responsible for spreading a dangerous and hateful ideology, vs wishing fort the deaths of over 200 million people. Both are abhorrent, but the former doesn't come close to the latter so asserting it with no evidence of a connection is ridiculous.

If all sizes are fine, then they would want to murder conservatives to take out fascist viewpoints (aka right wing viewpoints).

Well at least we're admitting that the political right in this country is a fascist movement. That's progress, I guess...

"Overt victimization" is claiming the right wants to murder you over a bathroom disagreement.

No serious person said that.

The victimization here is more justified than a rape victim's victimization

No, it's not. This is straight up delusional.

A rape victim is a person who actually got raped. What happened with Kirk is that he (the individual) was killed by a deranged kid. You didn't get killed. The political right didn't get killed. And "the left" didn't pull the trigger.

And if you want to talk about the fear factor here, it is left wing figures who have far more reason to be afraid right now. Not only because retaliation Isa normal concern in any situation such as this, but because it's the right salivating at the prospect of going to war with many claiming we are at war.

You guys are such babies it's insane.

The right could call them a male. If a dude is in the Aussie outback and they get their dick bitten off by a rabid dingo, and they somehow survive, then they aren't a woman.

So you are equating a man getting his dick eaten off with someone who was actually born with a vagina.

Yeah, great point.

Nobody supports genitalia absolutism.

Nobody uses that as a definition

What does it mean to live life as a female/male?

As you are one to do, you focus on every individual sentence rather than absorbing the point.

There are many different factors to consider when forming a definition of male or female. The left understands this, which is why when you ask someone on the left to define a woman they hesitate. The recognize intuitively if nothing else that it's a stupid question given the context it is asked within. On the right they don't recognize this, because in their simple minds the world is divided into two sexes, which by definition also means two genders, and that's all there is to it.

One of these views is in touch with reality, the other is not, and it's not the one you all seem to think.

So if democracy rules (because you love democracy), then wouldn't that apply here?

We're talking about definitions of words, not democracy.

And also, because "I" love democracy? What does that even mean, do you not? Are you and your ilk finally deciding to just admit that you don't care?

It's not 30%; it's 18% according to Ipsos.

Congrats?

That 18% relies almost exclusively on identitarianism (which is inconsistent as then you can identify as a deer, but that doesn't make you a deer)?

No one is claiming that identifying as something makes you that something. Why are right wingers so incapable of understanding what this conversation is about?

They would WISH for every conservative and independent to get murdered (because of the belief that the conservatives and independents are filled with hatred and fascism).

This is 200 million or so people vs Hitler’s 10 million.

This is so incredibly stupid. I wouldn't even take this post seriously but it actually does reflect much of what we are seeing on the political right these days.

As usual, when the political right wants to pretend there's some sort of equivalence between what we've seen come out of their side they immediately jump to the depths of the internet, which is undefeated in producing clip after clip of vile and disgusting filth. It makes no difference where you look, it's always there. So naturally, when your political movement runs purely on propaganda, the cesspool that is social media will confirm any abhorrent thing you wish to portray your opposition as.

It's a fundamentally dishonest and intellectually vapid way of arguing what the reality of the situation is.

Meanwhile, when we on the left decide to use clips of right wingers doing and saying vile shit we don't need to look any further than the president of the United States, along with all the prominent newscasters, podcasters, and lawmakers of significant power and influence.

There's no equivalence here.

And even if we look past that, and turn to Billy Bob from Twitter to tell us what "the left" thinks, even then, even as you are opportunistically jumping on these vile anecdotes you still go egregiously further to strawman them. It's almost impressive. Wanting a person who has significant influence within a vile political movement to die doesn't = equal "I want to commit genocide".

You need help.

The crackdowns on free speech, the overt victimization, the "we're at war" sentiment... One thing this tragedy did is reveal what so much of the political right is about. Megan Kelly's response to Tom Homan's crimes being swept under the rug is a perfect example; these people do not care about any of the principals they pretend to champion and never did. It's all about power, full stop.

What would be the issue with calling an AIS person a male?

The fact that they are often born with a vagina and have no idea themselves let alone anyone else that there's anything different about them. So sure, call them a male if you want, at that point your pronouns are utterly meaningless.

Have you ever had your chromosomes tested? How do you know you are a male (I'm assuming you are, otherwise female) according to your own definitions? You do know there are some people out there who don't find out till well after puberty, right?

But what are the other definitions?

Other definitions are whatever we say they are. Take your pick. Are we talking about genitals? Then Caitlin Jenner is a a female. Are we talking about a uterous? Plenty of biological "women" are born without them. Are we talking about what gender they live their lives in accordance with? Cause the political right outright rejects that definition.

There is no definition you can offer that doesn't come with some sort of problem. That's what makes it a human construct.

Who is, "we"? And how many have they decided to define?

"We" is society, and whatever the majority of people decide to call it would qualify for the most part, but if a significant portion (I'd say anything around 30% or more) call it something else it's going to be extremely messy, which is exactly what we're seeing.

but from your point of you, you cannot respond to it, because every response you make depends on logic to exist in order to be logically valid, and if logic doesnt exist, your responses cannot be according to logic.

If you're going to tell me my position does not work according to my view, then you need to adopt my viewpoints, not insert your own in order to claim mine are inconsistent.

Once again, "from my view", logic does not need nor could it ever be proven. I've explained this numerous times already. If you still don't understand it that's because you don't want to.

But the question of whether logic "exists" is even more ridiculous. Not just because you're butchering the definition of "exist", but more importantly, even setting that to the side, the proof that logic exists is the fact that we are using it right now. To question that is every bit as absurd as as telling me to prove to you that I exist, or to prove to yourself that you exist. It's not a serious argument, it's a level of incoherence suitable for a patient in a mental institution.

Again, logic is foundational. Every coherent thought we have begins with logic. It isn't proven, it's presupposed. If you want to challenge that then tell me how that presupposition can be questioned without accepting the validity of logic at the outset.

4 pages in and still nothing.

-->If you do not know what something is it, by definition, cannot be used as an explanation.

You have reading issues. No one said "unknown is an explanation". But "unknown can be explanation".

You do know that "cannot" is the negation of "can"... Right?

But go on, tell me more about my reading comprehension issues.

Unknown thing which can be anything likewise can add clarity and understanding.

It cannot add clarity because "unknown" is the literal negation of "known", which is what clarity requires.

In order for that unknown thing to be able to add clarity it must first become known, which is an entirely different statement.

Beyond that, what is with this obsession with "can" and "possible"? Telling me "X can be a possible explainion for Y" is a totally meaningless statement. So what? My bank account can possibly have 7 figures in it, that doesn't mean I get to quit my job and go on a cruise.

The time to assert something as an explanation is when it is an explanation, till then it's meaningless.

No, saying "Logic is proved by logic" is circular reasoning. Saying "Logic is proved by things outside logic" is by definition opposite of circular reasoning and doesnt violate laws of logic.

I'm going to set to the side that you still don't get why the word proof cannot be applied to logic itself.

So with that, yes you are correct that saying logic proves logic is circular (which is why I've never said that despite how many times you pretend that is my position), but it is logically valid to say logic can be proved by [something external to logic].

The problem for you is that as a human being, it is not possible for you to step outside of logic. The moment you attempt to identify anything outside of logic, you're already using it. You're already back in the "logic box". You can appeal to God all you want, your "conclusion" that logic is valid will always be the result of you using your own logic.

You cannot escape this box.

That it called adding to definition. You can prove necessary being. You cannot prove the added part

Great, so we agree at least that the "God" part cannot be proven.

Proof means:

There exists a system for determining whether thing exists or not

System confirmed that thing exists

Existence of such system itself cannot be proved by system itself.

Confirming = conclusion

A conclusion, by definition, is the result of logic.

There is no definition of proof that does not entail logic, which is why proving logic is a definitionally absurd task. Which is why your argument, no matter how rhetorically clever it could ever be made, will always fail. No matter how hard you pretend you're not using logic to prove logic, that's exactly what you're doing here and throughout this whole thread.

External validation is non-logic

And triangles are circular. See, anyone can play this game.

You're just writing words with no understating or consideration of what they mean. Non-logic is the anti to validation, which is to say you cannot use it to validate anything by it's own definition.

Ok, so you cannot identify non-logic.

I didn't say you couldn't identify it, I said that the moment you even attempt to identify it you are presupposing that it can be identified and are thus accepting the first law of logic as valid. That automatically puts you in the box of logic. You continue to pretend that you can stand on the outside of it and look at logic and non-logic and shift back and forth between the two. You can't.

If you cannot know what it is, it can be explanation for...

OMG

An explanation is that which adds clarity and understanding. If you do not know what something is it, by definition, cannot be used as an explanation.

If you asked me how I pulled a rabbit out of a hat and I told you "magic", that's not an explanation, all I did was move the question backwards.

using logic to confirm logic violates principles of logic

That's literally what you've been attempting to accomplish this entire thread.

Offering God as an explanation for logic is an attempt to convince people through the use of reason that logic itself is valid. That is by definition circular reasoning.

and you assume different from logic cannot exist either

Saying non-logic is a different form of logic is like saying abstinence is a different form of sex.

You do not know what these words mean.

such necessary something would still be creative power which is capable of creating everything which exists, power which by definition still only suits God.

A unicorn is a horse like being that necessarily exists.

There, I canned it necessary, therefore it must exist now.

Prove unicorns don't exist. You can't, because they do, because I defined them that way.

The assertion "god is not subject to human logic" is a philosophical claim that God's nature transcends human understanding and limitations

Which is still not worthy of being taken seriously. If it lies outside of human understanding there cannot possibly be a basis to assert it. The proposition defeats itself.

many mainstream Christian and Jewish traditions hold that God is not subject to human logic but rather defines it

I can believe the universe is a toaster oven if I want to, the point at which anyone should care is if the view being expressed, at bare minimum, makes some kind of sense. Belief in a thing outside the laws of logic is an irrational belief by it's very definition and therefore excludes the possibility of making sense out of, thus it is not a belief worthy of being taken seriously.

The right is canceling people for supporting murder and the left for edgy takes from. 15 years ago so it's both cancel culture but it's not exactly equal

The right cancelled Bud Light for a social media post commemorating a trans person and Cracker Barrel for changing their logo. But tell me more about their high ground on this issue.

I never heard of cancel culture until Liberal Democrats started going after people for something they said or did years or even decades ago. Now its being used against them. What comes around goes around.

You never heard of it until conservatives realized they could take something that was neither new nor unexpected within a civilized society and utilize their victimhood complex to weaponize it for political gain.

Since the days of Newt Gingrich or even Reagan conservative politics has revolved around the demonization of certain groups, so of course they were more likely to say something offensive that would get them cancelled. That's not political warfare, it's cause and effect, a concept most right wingers these days have no understanding of.

So your logic doesnt exist and all what you say is unproved. Alright.

Unproved according to someone who does not understand what proof means.

I dont see why atheists struggle with transcendental argument for God this much. Non-logic doesnt require an explanation because it is everything and nothing. In place without logic, no logical explanation is even necessary.

Atheists "struggle" with this because unlike yourself, most atheists have a basic understaffing of what these terms mean. Explanations definitionally require logic to qualify, you cannot explain why logic is valid, only why it is necessary. Non-logic isn't valid by definition and isn't possible to rely on because you would have to first identify it, putting you in the camp of relying on logic before you've even started.

You claimed mind cannot contain non-logic, so by your own words, everything I say is perfectly logical.

No, you just don't understand what these words mean. Already explained how there are two different ways in which the term was being used, you just ignored it to stick with the version most convenient to you.

Choice can be made without a reason. Building reason into a definition doesnt prove reason is necessary.

Which is different from a decision, which is why I used the term decision, not choice. And even if you reject that, that's also why I stipulated with the term "thinking mind", which you conveniently glossed over because you're not a serious person.

If what you're going with is now referring to minds that are not thinking at all, then this conversation really has no meaning.

As it was said before, non-logic does not require a logical explanation.

The mere action of identifying "non-logic" as a concept which can be conveyed and discussed already means you're using (and therefore accepting as valid) the first law of logic.

You dont accept non-logic, so likewise cannot explain logic in any way other than circle, which is a fallacy according to your logic.

Already explained to you multiple times the difference between foundational and circular, and which one applies to my position. This isn't confusion by this point, you're just lying because you know your position is not defendable.

It is you who denies non-logic, so the problem exists in your position only.

No, you deny non-logic too, you just don't know what these words mean so you say you don't.

If you accepted non-logic then none of your criticisms against me hold because when you criticize me you're criticizing the fact that my arguments do not (according to you) meet the standards of logic. That position requires acceptance of logic, which definitionally entails the rejection of non-logic.

What you're claiming you're actually doing is just criticizing me from my own position, 'holding up a mirror' if you will. But that fails as well. The idea there is that I'm supposed to be consistent, but that's only a problem within logic. You claim to accept non-logic, so that's still not a problem within your world view. It is only a problem from your view if you're beginning with logic, which you pretending you're not.

To put that more simply, non-logic means everything is ok, so if you accept non-logic everything I've said it's ok.

Your stated position, not mine.

I am certain you dont know what tautology is

This is just hilariously stupid. I explained in detail what a tautology is and why it matters before, you had nothing to say then but now want to claim I don't know what it is.

You're not a serious person.

C. Necessary thing exists which explains dependent things, and doesnt require to be explained

"Don't need to be explained" is subjective first off all. But more importantly, this is a meaningless conclusion. An explanation is what which provides clarity. Calling something necessary does nothing to enhance our understanding of why and how it came to be.

The only thing which doesnt require to be explained is non-logic, thus God.

Meaningless, definitionally irrational, and a non-sequitur

Logic either exists or doesnt.

The very concept of existence cannot be applied to logic itself. You would know this if you understood what these words mean.

Dual state was already explained to you.

Telling me something is what it is and is also what is not, is not an explanation, that's just a jumbled mess of words with no coherent concept binding them.

An explanation, by definition, requires clarity. Non-logic is, by definition, the opposite of clarity.

You do not understand what any of these terms mean.

God exists even when he doesnt.

Yeah, this is really all anyone needs to know about you.

Also, saying that I am illogical while saying I cannot not use logic is another contradiction.

No, it's not. Logic is being used in two different ways here. One is describing a process/tool of the mind, the other is an assessment of whether that tool is being used properly.

What if decision is made without a reason?

Then it doesn't fit the definition of a decision. A decision requires thought, which is why I used the term "thinking mind"

My path is: 

Non-logic > God > Logic > Explanation

Non-logic leading to God is a conclusion, which means by that point you are already using logic, which means everything you have to say here only works within the framework of logic, which means inserting logic into this equation is a massive contradiction. You can't use logic to prove logic, remember?

You cannot rely on non-logic because you deny it.

So do you, you just pretend you don't.

If you didn't deny non-logic you wouldn't be pretending circular reasoning is a problem. The whole purpose of pointing out that an argument is circular is to deny it on the basis that the argument is non-logical. If you accept non-logic then there's nothing wrong with that.

Only something with power to create all existence can create all existence

"Create existence" is a contradiction. If something doesn't exist it couldn't, by definition, create anything.

P1 is true tautology. Opposite claim of P1 is impossible, which would be: Something without power to create all existence can create all existence. Since opposite of P1 is impossible, P1 must be true.

P2 is true tautology, existence exists by definition.

And C must follow.

That's not how argument works. Two tautologies as premises cannot result in any conclusion outside of those tautologies. You would know this if you understood what these terms meant.

your left didn't really use the power of the government to eliminate opposing thoughts, they just outsourced 3rd parties and radicals to do that job

Examples please

The only problem is when the American public sees your side as protesting too much.

No idea what this means

In order for you to use logic in the first place, logic must exist.

Just. Wrong.

Logic does not "exist". You can't point to it, you can't hold it, you can't see it. Logic is, in a cognitive sense, a process of the mind founded in three most basic principals governing coherent thought. In a more general sense it is best described as the rules of existence itself. So you have it backwards, logic isn't subject to existence, existence is subject to logic.

If God exists, that could only be if God is whatever he is, and is not whatever he's not. To assert anything else is to spout meaningless nonsense of the kind that makes you indistinguishable from someone who belongs in a mental asylum. This is the very reason that even theologians have given up on this silly notion and accepted that God is in fact limited by the laws of logic.

Logic can be not accepted. Rock doesnt have any logic.

We're not talking about inanimate objects genius. We're talking about processes of the mind. Rocks do not have a mind so they have no place in this conversation.

A thinking mind cannot reject logic because that would be a decision being made for some reason. Logic is the thing that connects that decision to that purpose.

And dont confuse your position with mine. I can explain logic

You're literally using logic to form your explanation. Watch:

All powerful creator capable of creating everything is the only one who can account for existence of everything.

P1. An all powerful creator can create logic

P2. It is the only one who can

C: An all powerful creator must have created logic

To reach your conclusion you had to begin with premises. Logic is the thing that connected those premises to your conclusion. So you are, once again, using logic to prove logic. The same exact thing you have been criticizing me for all thread. So by your own standards, your proof fails.

Your logic is only true if you already assume its true, and that is circular reasoning.

You continue to demonstrate that you do not understand the basic concepts involved here.

Logic is not a claim subject to being true or false, logic is the tool by which we are able to determine what is true or false. So your options are not true or false, your options are valid vs invalid. That assessment can only be performed on identified examples, it cannot be performed on the tool of logic itself, so your criticism is definitionally incoherent.

The validity of logic itself can only be accepted. It cannot be rejected because in order to reject it you would have to assess it as unreliable. That assessment requires you to use it, which requires you to assume it's valid at the outset.

You cannot escape this, all you can do is say you can escape it, which only demonstrates your ignorance of the subject.

That isn't circular reasoning, it's foundational. Circular is using X to prove X. This is starting with X and using it to prove everything else. If you still don't understand the difference it's because you don't want to.

The problem for you is that you already conceded that you cant prove logic

The problem literally solves itself. It could only be a problem within the framework of logical reasoning, which is only bad if we are accepting the validity of logic, at which point the problem becomes meaningless because we're already past that point.

The far greater problem is questioning logic's validity because by the time you get to that point you're already relying on it, so you are literally questioning the very thing you are using to form the question in the first place. That is absurd.

While I can prove logic

You can't. All you're doing is claiming you can prove it then offering Goddidit as your explanation. That is totally meaningless and intellectually lazy.

An explanation that works for everything works for nothing.

And since your position lacks proof by your own words, why would anyone prefer your position?

God is an explanation for logic

And how do we test the validity of that explanation?

One can use both logic and non-logic, and see how each works

You cannot use non-logic. To do that you would have to begin by identifying what it is, which means accepting A=A, which means you're already using logic and not "non-logic" before you've even started.

non-logic is dual state of things, dual reality

Non-logic is a banana.

I know you have a hard time of understanding dual reality

My understanding on a non-logic reality is equal to your understanding of a house made out of November.

Non-logic exists by definition

Cool. So if I define the toothfairy as a necessarily existent being, does that mean she exists?

because thing capable of ignoring logic would simply ignore it.

Ignoring logic is like ignoring your existence. Doesn't matter, you're still operating within it.

And since your position lacks proof by your own words, why would anyone prefer your position?

My position is the same as yours when it comes to the validity of logic, the only difference between us is that you engage in an absurd attempt to escape an inescapable box while I simply operate within that box. If you can't understand why my position there is preferable then no one can help you.

There is the precense of a Y chromosome, so male.

And there it is. AIS is a condition where many people born with it grow up being raised as a female and don't even know there's anything unusual until they hit puberty. But in your mind, that's a male plain and simple.

This is what makes the question "what is a woman" so stupid. It is asked under the premise that there's men, woman, and nothing else, and everyone neatly falls into one of these two buckets. That is easily provably not true, but the political right continues on with this nonsense because it sells, despite being complete bullshit.

If you are incapable of seeing nuance then there's not really a point to continuing this.

So then neither, then? You are saying that TW aren't men or women.

I'm saying that TW = TW.

Whether they fit into the male or female categories depends on how you're defining them. By you're cited definition it would seem they're defined as male. By other definitions they don't. You keep trying to paint this conversation as if there's a difinitive answer like there is for 2+2. It's not.

Well, how many genders are there?

As many as we decide to define.

When you weaponized government you open that door. So no we don't have to keep taking punches and never punch back. Maybe after this term if you guys can promise to stop being evil than we can stop using your own tactics against you

This is just deranged.

Firstly, if you believe government shouldn't be weaponized you would be advocating for new measures aimed at ensuring that never happen again. Every single democrat in Congress would support that effort. But instead you're supporting the weaponization of government against you're perceived political opponents and thereby telling on yourself. You don't actually hold this value.

But even worse, it's just a blatant lie. The government was not weaponized in the prior administration, that's just the excuse the MAGA right is uncritically accepting because it provides the narrative they need to justify the weaponization they have been salivating over for years.

Lastly, the "evil" thing is a nice touch. This is why propaganda works, as the old saying goes; "if you can get people to believe absurdities you can get them to commit atrocities". I used to wonder how the Holocaust happened, I don't anymore. I've now seem first hand how an entire population can be radicalized with flagrant bullshit. It's enlightening but also makes me so sad for the human race.

Everyone knows you are supposed to kill Hitler so yes the media and leftwing politicians continually calling center of the road Republicans like Kirk Hitler is an attempt to get whack jobs to do stupid shit.

No prominent figure on the left called Charlie Kirk "Hitler", this is a lie being perpetuated as an excuse to justify the horrendous anti-constitutional amoral things the right is about to engage in, and it was predictable. See the thread I made the morning after.

What many on the left have done is called Trump and those in lock step with him fascists, because they are. That's a fact, and I would be more than happy to debate that.

But that's where the lie comes in, because the best lies are always based on a nugget of truth. Hitler was a fascist, and is a useful reference for explaining to people why fascism is bad. But none of that means fascism = Hitler. This is where nuance comes in, but on the right it's more useful to pretend it doesn't exist, and anyone arguing one is necessarily talking about the other. That's how prapoganda works.

What I do find interesting here, are those who stop short of saying the left called them Hitler, and stick to the actual truth; that the left called them fascists. These people are telling on themselves. The idea here is that fascists are so bad, that someone would be reasonable in thinking they have to kill them. Well if you believe that, then why do you support a fascist movement?

It's called stochastic terrorism and the left are masters at it.

Funny how the right suddenly now understands this term. I'm old enough to remember when Trump stood on a stage in front of thousands of supporters and told the crowd that there would be nothing they could do to stop Hilary Clinton, except "maybe the 2nd amendment people there's something they can".

That was just one of many examples we've gripped about over the years, including the most prominent; January 6th. The defense of Trump then was that Trump couldn't possibly be responsible because these were just wackos who had agency and therefore Trump couldn't be responsible for their actions. But now, all of a sudden, when one deranged gunman does something stupid the entire left wing of the country is responsible.

They need a new word, hypocrisy doesn't even register anymore.

I told you. You are just saying same thing twice.

And why is that a problem?

You clearly aren't going to answer this question so let me cut to the chase; your criticism of me is itself only meaningful *if* you accept as a precondition that logic is the arbiter of acceptable thought. And if you are doing that then your belief in the existence of something that can violate the laws of logic fails within your own stated position.

You need to pick one. You either believe in logic (at which point your central position on God collapses), or you abandon logic (in which case the ground you are standing on to criticize me collapses). Either way, your position collapses.

I am literally arguing that God is above logic

In other words, you are using logic to argue against logic.

That is only if you define meaning as logically possible

That's literally the reason why we have formalized laws of logic.

I can explain why logic exists, but you cannot. And that is the crucial flaw in your position, because it relies on something which only my position can explain.

Yeah, I was wondering when we were going to get to the Matt Slick Sye Ten Bruggencate nonsensical presuppositionslist garbage.

You cannot explain why logic "exists", all you can do is claim you can explain why logic exists. The explanation you offer is definitionally incoherent, and is nothing more than an attempt to obfuscate definitions into confusing people who do not know any better into believing you.

Every attempt you could possibly make to account for logic requires the use of logic to establish it's own validity.

It reminds me very much of what I call the belief box, which is when someone tries to assert something beyond their own belief ("I don't believe God exists, he does exist!"). Yeah except when you assert something as true, all you are saying, by definition, is that you believe it. Every attempt to escape that box only places you right back into it.

Logic is exactly the same thing. You cannot make sense of it without using it. You cannot point to it's flaws without assuming it's validity. No matter how hard you try, it will always come first.

My whole position here is that God is above logic. So to claim that I was using logic when I specifically talked about non-logic is a bit silly accusation.

The very fact that you are calling it "non-logic" already proves me right. "Non-logic" could only have meaning if we assume it is what it is and is not what it is not. That assumption is literally the first law of logic.

You cannot escape this box.

so I truly hold a position which cannot even be questioned

What you are holding onto is a state of total incoherence, I wouldn't be bragging about that.

I just needed you to confirm that you werent making an argument, but just saying same thing twice in a circle.

Are you ever going to tell me why circular reasoning is a problem, or just keep dodging the question because you know it undercuts your position?

But sure, since you insist, go ahead and prove that God cannot create a married bachelor.

Nice try. I asked you whether you need me to prove to you that a married bachelor cannot exist. Answer the question.

Logically impossible object can be asserted to exist.

Ok, I should have known this conversation was that deprived of sense to the point that I would need to rephrase. You can assert anything you want, love flavored cereal, a bed made of sleep, etc. You cannot do so coherently. All you're doing is throwing words around and you really think you're making a logical argument all while arguing against logic itself. The fact that you can't see the absurdity of that is quite amusing.

You can define impossible as "cannot exist according to logic", but God is above logic and doesnt need to exist according to it.

There is no higher bar (or lower depending on how you're phrasing it) than logic as a limitation in distinguishing possible vs impossible. So once we knock that bar down, the word possible no longer has any meaning in language. Therefore, anything you assert beyond that point also becomes meaningless.

We're back to the excel error on a spreadsheet. I would ask if you understood that reference, but of course you don't.

And what is it that you are going with?

That one's "failure" to "prove" a 5 sided triangle does not exist, does not mean it does exist.

You're turn.

You cannot even demonstrate how a logic could prevent something capable of existing by ignoring logic.

Because logic is foundational as I've already pointed out. You cannot demonstrate it, your only choice is to assume it which is exactly what you're doing right now and doing throughout this entire thread, all while arguing against it. But go on and continue explaining to me why I need to prove to you the validity of the very thing you are actively relying on to argue against me.

The mere definition of such a thing makes any logic used against it flawed by default.

No, the very fact that you are defining something as existing outside three boundaries of logic makes your definition unintelligible and meaningless. That's why arguing against it is flawed, because there's no coherent concept to argue against.

Does the person have a Y chromosome? If yes, then the right says they are a male. Else, the right says they're female.

Google Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome

What is a woman? If you can't define what a woman is, then just claim that TW are men

How about you define it since this is your topic. Your first attempt failed ^^^, so try again.

Is a TW a man, woman, or somebody else?

TW = TW. Not that complicated.

You continue to try and place everything into two neat buckets as if there are no other options. You know who disagrees with you? Nature. See first point ^^^

And irrational is "not according to logic"?

Correct. If you don't believe me Google the definition.

More circular reasoning from you, I guess.

And what if it were? Would that be a problem, and of so, why?

Its a tool God can use.

Completely baseless and incoherent.

Well, by all means, go ahead and disprove that non-logic can exist. I will wait.

Do you need me to prove to you that married bachelor cannot exist?

No really, do you?

If you think lack of logic makes something impossible, then that is burden of proof you cannot possibly uphold.

My argument isn't that a logically impossible object cannot exist, my argument is that a logically impossible object cannot be asserted to exist. Do you understand the difference? If not please ask.

It would be helpful here to define the word impossible. When we say something is impossible we are saying that it's possibility should be rejected in accordance with an assumed limitation. There are three general limitations; practicality, physically, and logically.

Practical impossibility simply means unrealistic, i.e. "it's impossible to get this done by 5pm".

Physical impossibility is a higher bar, meaning it would violate the laws of physics, i.e. an object traveling faster than the speed of light.

Logical impossibility is the highest bar of impossibility, meaning in violation of the laws of logic, i.e. a 5 sided triangle.

There is nothing "higher" on the scale other than a logical impossibility, so at that point the word impossible loses all meaning. If logic is not a limitation of possibilities then literally everything is possible and nothing is impossible. At that point all coherent thought and ability to communicate breaks down. This is why it's absurd to claim God can do this. If such a being is possible then it's possibility is meaningless to the human mind, and most certainly cannot be proven.

Lastly, I find it interesting that you assert I have a burden to prove anything here. What principals are you using to reach that conclusion?

More circular reasoning.

Still waiting for you to tell me why that's a problem.

However, non-logic proves itself because it cannot be prevented from existing.

So, if I cannot "prove" a 5 sided triangle does not exist, then it must necessarily exist? Is that really what you're going with?

As I said, I used non-logic to prove God. So no logic was used.

Let's see if I can understand this claim;

P1. Non-logic =/= logic

P2. Non logic was used

C. Logic was not used

Is this your claim?

Circular circle.

Still wondering why this is bad

[Me:]If logic does not have to be adhered to, then the Easter bunny exists, while also also not existing, and is also a car, which is also a tree, which is a true and a false statement.

Its called belief in infinity.

No, it's called a jumbled incoherent meaningless mess of words. Why? Because it does not adhere to the laws of logic.

Do you really need me to "disprove" this statement? That's not a rhetorical question, answer that.

So God creating himself out of nothing can also be act of transformation, which doesnt actually violate A = A, because Not A can become A.

That has nothing to do with this conversation. The first law of logic is that A equals A, which is to say that A is A, not A will be A at some point.

A becoming A is not a violation of logic, so if there is a God who can do this it wouldn't make him powerful enough to violate the laws of logic.

That is non-logic, something a divine being is capable of. So the claim that I am using logic to describe non-logic is false.

You're literally doing that right here in this paragraph.

Again, YOU are asserting that a being can exist outside the boundaries of logic. That makes this stated belief, by definition, irrational.

What about that so you not understand?

Same can be said about non-logic. It cannot be disproved or even questioned.

Non logic isn't a thing. It's not a tool one can use. Non-logic = incoherence, so your argument is that incoherence cannot be disproven, which is absurd and goes to show that you do not understand even the most basic of concepts involved here.

Non-logic would be like a formula error in an excel spreadsheet. Once you get an error, every formula that is tied to it, directly or indirectly, will also spit back an error message, so your entire sheet can become one huge error message all because of one cell. That's what it looks like to try and defend non-logic as a concept; it is incoherent and so then is everything you try to build off of it.

saying that you need logic to prove logic just means you cant even prove logic.

Correct, you cannot prove logic, which if you read my previous post I already said. Logic is foundational, so it is presumed at the outset. It is not itself proven, it is the tool by which everything else is proven. Why? Because we have no other choice. The very concept of proving or disproving anything at all requires that we begin with logic as a presupposition. If you do not, then you cannot prove or disprove anything.

The very fact that you are having this conversation right now means you are using logic. It is not a choice, it's a precondition of intelligible thought. Your only other option is incoherence, which is exactly what you are engaging in all while pretending you're not.

Logic doesnt apply to "Not A = A"

Correct, because that is by definition an illogical statement, which is by itself a refutation of it.

Tautology also means statement logically derived from other statement. In other words, when one statement is true, other must be as well.

No, it's not. A tautology is a self affirming statement, like "it is what it is" or "all triangles have 3 sizes". The whole idea of a tautology and reason why we have a word for it is because statements like this are often uttered in an attempt to sound like something meaningful is being said. Calling someone's statement a tautology is a direct way of telling that person their statement is meaningless, that's the whole point.

Question: Do you believe it is acceptable for your beliefs to violate the laws of logic? Yes or No?

Answer: Yes, because then they cannot even be questioned. A much better debating position.

Wow.

I'll grant you that your beliefs cannot be questioned, but that's because your beliefs are definitionally incoherent. That's not a better debating position, it means your position is invalidated before you've even begun.

If logic does not have to be adhered to, then the Easter bunny exists, while also also not existing, and is also a car, which is also a tree, which is a true and a false statement.

That's what your position amounts to, and no, it's not clever nor is it sophisticated. It's just a jumbled mess of words while forming no coherent concept by which one could even contemplate let alone understand.

If someone tells you, "If Y chromosome, then male, else female", then how do you respond to someone who believes the CDC and all medical entities will say what they get paid to say (so they don't trust medical organizations)?

Read this over like 5 times, I have no idea what you're asking me. Please rephrase.

I'll break this up into two parts, the first "if Y chromosome...", I would say ok cool definition, too bad nature isn't always so clean and neat since there are plenty of people born with a chromosome typically of one sex while holding many biological markers of the other sex. So good for you to settle on one simple definition, but too bad it's meaningless when it comes to settling the public debate around trans people.

The second part about someone believing medical entities hissy day whatever they get paid to say, well that person is clearly a conspiracy theorist and therefore requires a much deeper conversation.

But when the left does things that upset normies, then they lose states like these to DeSantis and Vance.

No, it's when the right claims that the left is doing these things that people listen to the propaganda and go vote republican.

if you don't believe that TWAW, then you think TW are men then, correct?

No, I think TW are TW, as does nearly every TW on the planet. Have you ever heard a TW say "I'm a TW"? Why do you think they would say that if they thought they were a woman (by your definition)?

My use of logic has nothing to do with God's own abilities.

No but you are using logic to come to that conclusion, just as you are using logic to reach every conclusion you have ever reached in your entire life. That's why what you're doing is definitionally absurd - by asserting that anything can exist outside the boundaries of logic you are abandoning logic as the rule of thought, so in order to continue defending your assertion you have to put yourself in the position of using logic to argue against logic, which is exactly what you are and have been doing.

If you don't find that absurd then you have no concept of what the word means.

Circular reasoning

There is nothing circular about this. Logic is foundational, that is, all thought begins with logic. It cannot be proved or disproved, and any attempt to do either requires the usage of it, thereby presuming its validity at the outset. That's why abandonment of logic is immediately dismissed as incoherent to a level where you are indistinguishable from someone who belongs in a mental asylum.

If you need logic to disprove God, and logic does not apply to God, then you cannot disprove God or even question his existence.

There is no such thing as a concept that logic doesn't apply to. Arguing that logic doesn't apply to God is every bit as incoherent as me saying I can prove to you that you don't exist.

God is above logic = Logical laws cannot stop God from creating himself out of nothing.

This is true by tautology

A tautology is definitionally, a meaningless statement. All it means it's that a statement is consistent with itself, that cannot be used to prove anything, that's why in any debate between educated participants the term is used as a pajorative. Telling someone their statement is a tautology is telling them that they're saying nothing at all.

So God can be "A = A", but he can also be "Not A = A" and "A =/= A".

Do you believe it is acceptable for your beliefs to violate the laws of logic? Yes or No?

I dont see any proof that God cannot be above logic

The proof is the use of logic itself. If you are using it, then God cannot be above it. If you are not using it, then you are literally not even thinking coherently, at which point nothing you say has any meaning.

God is above logic by definition

Definitions require the application of logic in order to make sense. You cannot define something as being above logic any more than I can define a 4 sided triangle into existence.

So if you accept the definition of God as is, it leads to conclusion that God must exist

And how did you reach that conclusion? What did you use to get there?

I think the identity of the democratic party has gone completely downhill. Atheists fall too far down the Atheism --> Nihilism route that allows them to feel no empathy or sympathy for any basic human functions, and the Democratic Party is just one step closer to those insane leftist-leaning priorities. It is not even like the left has bad policies, I just think that the values that the left has, when you go farther and farther down the aisle. Nihilism will ultimately be the destruction of this country.

Nihilism has nothing to do with the Democratic party or "leftist" values. This is right wing propaganda at work. There's no way to defend the candidate, so just make things up about the opposition as an out.

I'd rather align myself with the side has still closely holds the values of family, empathy, etc

Family values is a meaningless phrase. Everyone believes in family, what republicans are talking about when they talk about family values is almost always anti gay anti trans nonsense. And empathy, really? The republican party sees empathy as weakness, and is lead by the most un-emathetic human being to ever occupy the oval office.

You really need to rethink your position.