[iclaudius]

This section found here.

Quote by: Chandler Frank Criminally as in I should be in jail? Because I am apparently uninformed? Gosh, you and your absurd accusations.

Don't be a dick, Chandler. Jargon, slang, the idiom, and most every other means of communication that don't adhere to the exact lexicography of things are just as legitimate a method of communication as any. Your picking apart stuff like this is stupid, pointless, and ineffective as argumentation. It doesn't help that you didn't even interpret it correctly. For the record: because I did not specify whose criminal action it was, you (and the reader) are left to assume that this burden of guilt is the responsibility of whomever prevented you from learning. That the first thing to come out of your mouth is a witless (and premature) defense, I am left to assume that you feel... shall we say... guilty?

Sounds like a faith statement to me. Is not one of the main detractions of creationists (to bring that up again) the broad statements made without evidence? (eg. 'just because you can't sense God directly doesn't mean he doesn't exist')

Judging by the level of misinterpretation/misunderstanding in virtually every statement you've ever made to me, I'm not surprised you read that as a statement of faith, and that you've decided the faith of this statement is on the level of your faith in religion. Thing is, everything requires some degree of faith, but that comparison is non-applicable because I supply specific proof for its existence. (See before.) Furthermore, I would never use "you can't see God, therefore he doesn't exist" as an argument against it; I merely ask that creationists do not front religion as a scientific enterprise. Unless you can cite me as specifically stating something like this, this statement has no impact on our discussion. Furthermore, it's misleading; your implicative comparison to religion isn't fooling anyone. They are still completely different.

You have said this already in multiple forms. (Another faith statement) Just because a square peg exists does not mean a square hole must exist. The human mind perceives that a hole for the square peg to go into could be possible, (and thus the mind may choose to implement that idea into the creation of a square hole for the square peg to go into) The only place where the square hole must exist is in your infinity, which is automatically disqualified from being the cause, lest we create another of your circular arguments.

Everything is a faith statement. The only "faith" I have is the faith that the facts I have observed and the logic I present are not fallible. Your argument that it is circular means nothing unless you can tell me why this is bad for my case. Because it relies on itself? In fact, that it is circular is entirely the point. It's singular theory -- the entirety of everything is one giant self-reflexive statement. Your statement is essentially sunk because my circular argument has punched a bunch of little circular holes in it.

Numbers do not go on forever with this rule, they only go on as far as one is willing, or decides, to use them. The perception of all (infinite) numbers is there, but the reality is not demonstrated unless (once again) infinity is employed - creating another circular argument.

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH.

Wait, wait....

WWAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHA.

Whew. You say that numbers only go as far as we are willing to acknowledge them, but what determines what the value, placement, name, etc. of this new number? Already present rules defined by two numbers being existent. Since these rules do not specify where numbers stop, it is possible to count forever. This does not depend upon us counting; rest assured, they would still be factual concepts even if we hadn't founded mathematics. Oh, and their reality is everpresent. They are a symptom of a greater rule that governs and defines everything.

A mere equivocation. Just because the mathematical equation exists does not mean that it applies to the universe.

No, it's not a "mere equivocation." If it's an equivocation at all (it's not; the rule is tailor-fit to an explanation of everything), then it is the equivocation. Your classifying it as such does not diminish the impact of the argument. And all equations, no matter how rebellious, correspond to some action in this infinite universe. I believe I've already demonstrated this in these posts, though.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I would state it as: If you exist, if something you see exists, then you can perceive that EVERYTHING [could exist].

I would restate this as: "Whoops! I relied on a fundamentally unprovable assertion and ridiculed myself in public because I forgot to do my research concerning fundamental laws of mathematics."

But again, we've been over this issue in this post session, so...

Thus either infinity itself is a paradox, or the existence of a paradox is a paradox. Again you base everything on the assumption that this universe IS infinite.

No... that things which seemed impossible previously suddenly become less than impossible only indicates that our perception of rules is flawed. For someone who fronts that "perception lies" argument so often, you don't seem to have a very good grasp on it. We see so much and understand so very little. That's what I was saying.

Try arguing such without the (even unspoken) preamble of "if the universe is infinite" or "because the universe is infinite" because at the moment you are walking in circles.

Try arguing without fallible non-argumentation and fantastic lengths of non-applicative reasoning. That's the reason we're walking in circles, Mr. Frank.

You say that we are generally able to perceive the difference between reality and a mind-trick, then you say that theoretically EVERYTHING is possible. Thus theoretically the notion that we are all 'mind-tricked' and cannot perceive this difference is also possible.

When I was talking about things being possible, I was specifically referring to physical phenomena, and not contradictory, faulty logical "possibilities." Your supposed possibility and what I spoke of are entirely different things.

If you are going to skip so happily between theoretical possibilities and realistic possibilities, I'm afraid your arguments aren't going to hold too much water.

Yeah? And if you're going to disregard the dimensions of the debate, and skip merrily through logical barriers, I bet you could make it seem like it didn't make any sense at all.

As a sidenote, there is no difference between "theoretical possibilities" and "realistic possibilities." All possibilities are realistic. And my argument does hold water (sorry to be the bearer of bad news).

And here you assume that we can actually ascertain and understand these patterns of logic, in an infinite universe (as you propose it) it is perfectly possible that such patterns of logic are indeterminable by the human mind - in fact they could be relatively illogical, at least in relation to what else we may call logic.

What evidence do you have that says we can't?