Notice the decimal point. That happens because of round-off error. Besides, why do you assume the large values of 2 are the same?
Spotted the point
Both are 2, I assume 2 is equal to 2 no matter how large the value of 2. Could be wrong thought
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Notice the decimal point. That happens because of round-off error. Besides, why do you assume the large values of 2 are the same?
3=1.5 + 1.5
Both end in odd numbers.
I went with the only logical answer:
When two "2s" love each other very much they have sex and give birth to a "4"
How is this logical?
2s are delusion disguising reality.
Also, buying into 4s leaves one intellectually broke.
Because it is a universally recognized truth is that two plus two equals four. Dismissing the wit of the two's making love but still arriving at the rational sum of four makes it the only logical answer.
You're making a "no true scotsman" fallacy. We are discussing 2s and 4s here. Not twos and fours.
Last I checked, I had no Scottish in my ancestry.
2s are twos and 4s are fours.
They're entirely different. Saying 2s are twos is like saying humans are gods. That would mean a human and a god could breed and make a divine child. That's just... ...oh... ...wait.
Never mind.
That is in no way a logical comparison. Try again.
Sorry, but with it being the 29th of the month, our monthly allocation of logic for this forum has been depleted. Check back in 3 days or so.
Probably. Give us your example of this experience.
Well, it's not about the person your talking to. Remember, there are lurkers all over the place. . . I read almost everything you post, even if I don't have time to comment or leave a "like." There are times I've wanted to respond, but interacting with the depth of your ideas is often beyond my abilities or time.
For me, RF is not an echo chamber or a brick wall. It's a place with a silent audience, and the purpose of rhetorical debate is not to sway your opponent. It is to sway the audience.
Thanks for everything you do, and the high effort and thought you put into your communication. You've really made me think.
I am happy you are here!
Sorry, but with it being the 29th of the month, our monthly allocation of logic for this forum has been depleted. Check back in 3 days or so.
Check out the Correspondence Theory of Truth and get back to me on that.
I say use the "doubters" or "disbelievers" as a foil. Use their claims to tighten and hone your own arguments and substantiate your claims as much as possible. Do it like courts construct their opinions: set out the petitioner's or respondent's arguments one-by-one, as honestly and with as much clarity as possible, and show why each one is wrong or right but irrelevant, etc.I'd rather not. I don't think it would help and I don't really want to blame people or start the same rows over again. I'm more interested to see if someone has found of way of dealing with it.