Circular logic does not prove anything. It also does not disprove it, but if one has to resort to it, inferences can be drawn.

---

Circular logic does not prove anything. It also does not disprove it, but if one has to resort to it, inferences can be drawn.

And the so called logic of something from nothing isn't circular? Your statement makes no logical sense at all, it's circular, inferences can be drawn.


And then we are back to square one and Saint Augustine's First Mover, logical science statement...

And then we are back to square one and Saint Augustine's First Mover, logical science statement...

You and Saint Augustine have assumed the causal principal. Before you do that prove it! Good luck. René Descartes didn't get it right, he used circular logic, and everyone who has tried after him has failed too.

---

And then we are back to square one and Saint Augustine's First Mover, logical science statement...

You and Saint Augustine have assumed the causal principal. Before you do that prove it! Good luck. René Descartes didn't get it right, he used circular logic, and everyone who has tried after him has failed too.

0+0=0

Prove multi-verses. Show me one where anti-matter won the day.

And then we are back to square one and Saint Augustine's First Mover, logical science statement...

You and Saint Augustine have assumed the causal principal. Before you do that prove it! Good luck. René Descartes didn't get it right, he used circular logic, and everyone who has tried after him has failed too.

0+0=0

Prove multi-verses. Show me one where anti-matter won the day.

non sequitur

---

No, it isn't a non sequitur.

You asked for proof. I gave you proof.

You pose another answer. I ask for proof of your answer.

Simply isn't a non sequitur.

You can only prove or DISPROVE something from an accepted set of true premises or axioms. What do you think that these should be ??

We have no accepted set. Not that I haven't been making that attempt.

0+0=0 then you say..."Well, sometimes that is not true. Sometimes it's more or less then zero" Prove it, show me the verse where anti-matter won the day.

We have no accepted set. Not that I haven't been making that attempt.

0+0=0 then you say..."Well, sometimes that is not true." Prove it, show me the verse where anti-matter won the day.

Math is not a natural science, thus the rules that govern it are different to the ones governing the natural sciences, for example, there are such things as mathematical proofs. Who here, other than yourself, has said that "sometimes 0+0=0 is not true"? Who here, other than yourself, has suggested anything about multi-verses?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID, don't the circular arguments that you use make you dizzy?

---

No, it isn't a non sequitur.

You asked for proof. I gave you proof.

Simply isn't a non sequitur.

You gave babbling circular nonsense and have offered nothing since. Non sequitur defined.

---

Science? No....I think instead a yearning to return to the familiar and comfortable. I now chair a committee and sit on another and feel as strong in my faith as ever.

faith == __Comfort_of_childhood

Your point?

Of course faith is what most have been taught from their childhood.

My point is that it is a retreat from adulthood.

It is not a retreat...it is how and where I choose to express my faith. Taking positions among the elders of my family's life-long church does not earn you the right to insult me by calling my return a "retreat from adulthood" (ie childish).

---

We have no accepted set. Not that I haven't been making that attempt.

Actually the following is universally accepted.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zermelo-FraenkelAxioms.html

We have no accepted set. Not that I haven't been making that attempt.

Actually the following is universally accepted.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zermelo-FraenkelAxioms.html

Picky of you to bring up the rules.

---

Chance is what you speak of. If the Designer was not the One who made everything we see then chance is what it is left up to.

You would be tared and feathered by most people if you told them there are not math truths. They would ask you who balanced your checkbook! Get real.

Science? No....I think instead a yearning to return to the familiar and comfortable. I now chair a committee and sit on another and feel as strong in my faith as ever.

faith == __Comfort_of_childhood

Your point?

Of course faith is what most have been taught from their childhood.

My point is that it is a retreat from adulthood.

It is not a retreat...it is how and where I choose to express my faith. Taking positions among the elders of my family's life-long church does not earn you the right to insult me by calling my return a "retreat from adulthood" (ie childish).

Amen.

Chance is what you speak of. If the Designer was not the One who made everything we see then chance is what it is left up to.

You would be tared and feathered by most people if you told them there are not math truths. They would ask you who balanced your checkbook! Get real.

Who here, other than yourself, has argued that the rules of mathematics are indistinguishable from the rules of the natural sciences?

[ETA]Do we need to start counting the straw men you introduce?[/ETA]

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Chance is what you speak of. If the Designer was not the One who made everything we see then chance is what it is left up to.

You would be tared and feathered by most people if you told them there are not math truths. They would ask you who balanced your checkbook! Get real.

They are rules not "truth". One could postulate a different set of rules and get different results.
Majority does not make for truth!

---

Picky of you to bring up the rules.

I sorry.

Chance is what you speak of. If the Designer was not the One who made everything we see then chance is what it is left up to.

You would be tared and feathered by most people if you told them there are not math truths. They would ask you who balanced your checkbook! Get real.

Who here, other than yourself, has argued that the rules of mathematics are indistinguishable from the rules of the natural sciences?

Mathematics would exist even if the universe did not.

[ETA]Do we need to start counting the straw men you introduce?[/ETA]

Good idea Bobby!

---