Allah is a logical entity.
-
Besides look at woman. Things can be both logical and illogical at the same time.
A woman is a paradox with legs.Eh? I think I might resent that...as if men are any better...sheesh.
I was just kidding sis.
http//www.gallica.us/the%20boys/puppy%203%20006.jpg
please forgive me!
-
please forgive me!
Lol. T'is alright... D
Sorry for screwing up your thread neo...it had to be done.
-
To you, from where you stand, they will be illogical. That you dont understand does not make anything illogical as a whole. But it will remain illogical to you. And yes, we can still appreaciate such aspects.
No. There is no relativity in logic; it doesn't matter where I'm standing. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it's illogical - it means I don't understand it. Like the example of evolution - just because there are things we don't know doesn't mean there are illogical aspects to evolution. I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again logic is not subjective. It is not up to 'interpretation'.
-
To you, from where you stand, they will be illogical. That you dont understand does not make anything illogical as a whole. But it will remain illogical to you. And yes, we can still appreaciate such aspects.
No. There is no relativity in logic; it doesn't matter where I'm standing. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it's illogical - it means I don't understand it. Like the example of evolution - just because there are things we don't know doesn't mean there are illogical aspects to evolution. I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again logic is not subjective. It is not up to 'interpretation'.
Yes but I strongly disagree
No. There is no relativity in logic; it doesn't matter where I'm standing. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it's illogical - it means I don't understand it
wich would make it "not logical" to you, personally. Everything is perspectives, and nothing more. And they are all subjective.
-
To you, from where you stand, they will be illogical. That you dont understand does not make anything illogical as a whole. But it will remain illogical to you. And yes, we can still appreaciate such aspects.
No. There is no relativity in logic; it doesn't matter where I'm standing. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it's illogical - it means I don't understand it. Like the example of evolution - just because there are things we don't know doesn't mean there are illogical aspects to evolution. I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again logic is not subjective. It is not up to 'interpretation'.
Yes but I strongly disagree
No. There is no relativity in logic; it doesn't matter where I'm standing. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it's illogical - it means I don't understand it
wich would make it "not logical" to you, personally. Everything is perspectives, and nothing more. And they are all subjective.
No. Please go and study logic and come back. Or read my replies to mquran in this thread.
-
No. Please go and study logic and come back. Or read my replies to mquran in this thread.
4 entries found for logic.
log?ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ljk)
n.
The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.A system of reasoning Aristotle's logic.
A mode of reasoning By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
Valid reasoning Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
Computer Science.
The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
Computer circuitry.
Graphic representation of computer circuitry.Not a single definition even hints that it is something objetive. But im well aware that many subjective writs have been made on objective logic. Unfortunally that is a paradox in itself. So...I still disagree.
-
Thanks for chatting, but I don't have time for such facetious ramblings. Good day.
-
Thanks for chatting, but I don't have time for such facetious ramblings. Good day.
I was not joking. But whatever. Keep your pet idea sacred )
-
Pet idea? Yes, if you consider 2000+ years of academia "pet idea" in the face of some post-modernist relativistic bullshit, yes.
Both views are age old man. So you are on one side i am on the other. then what? that makes you right by default because you can sau 2000 years of academia? Look, the vatican has been around for some 1600 years, does that mean their theology is da bomb? I thought not!
-
When you can prove that 2+2 = 5 or prove that x? + y? <> z? or something can indeed come from nothing, then come back and talk to me. Seriously, I find it baffling that a person who touts chaos theory buys into this subjective logic bullshit. But, your stupidity is ultimately your burden - so good luck.
-
When you can prove that 2+2 = 5 or prove that x? + y? <> z? or something can indeed come from nothing, then come back and talk to me. Seriously, I find it baffling that a person who touts chaos theory buys into this subjective logic bullshit. But, your stupidity is ultimately your burden - so good luck.
2.1 is still 2 at a higher value. thus 2.5+2.5=5. This is perfectly within the limits of math. You just have to use large values of a number.
Thus 2+2 actually CAN be 5
Dont take me on in math, or rather. please do! Then call me stupid.
and right back at you
-
When you can prove that 2+2 = 5
2.1 is still 2 at a higher value. thus 2.5+2.5=5
Thus 2+2 actually CAN be 5lol
-
Laugh all you want to sis . It is a math joke related to the very subject we are talking about. the lack of objectivity outside an esoteric environment. But perhaps you are unfamiliar with large values of numbers?
or perhaps you would argue that 2.9 is 3 and not a large value of 2, just because it is closer to the definite value of 3, than that of 2?
To a calculator that rounds up and down it would be. But within the framework of math it doesnt have to be. The same thing is present with logic. Logic in a sterile thougth up environtment can be objective. But there are no such thing in the real world. And this classic math joke, is most mathematicians reminder that it is so.
-
lol Here Mel a link for you, I know how much you like pictures but do pay attention to the description...
http//www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/science/60f5/
-
lol Here Mel a link for you, I know how much you like pictures but do pay attention to the description...
http//www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/science/60f5/
That is all good. Now here is what it is really about and it is not tshirts from geekthink
The statement is, "2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2." It's a joke about rounding and estimating. For instance, suppose you have your calculator set to round all numbers to integers (no decimal places) and the problem you're actually computing is 2.48 + 2.47. The calculator will automatically round, so when you punch 2.48 and ENTER, it will show up on the screen as 2. When you punch in the 2.47 and ENTER, it will also show up on the screen as 2. Then when you add, the sum 4.95 will be rounded to 5. Hence, 2 + 2 = 5 if the value of 2 is large enough.
It's a joke ... but a joke with a somewhat serious point. All measurements in the real world (as opposed to the esoteric whirled of mathematics) are estimates; they're always rounded to something. There's no such thing as absolute precision. So rounding must come into play sometime or other, and the joke about 2 + 2 = 5 if 2 is large enough, is a reminder about the way that estimation errors compound.
--SDSTAFF Dex
Straight Dope Science Advisory BoardNow take a breather, and think about it
-
But im sure you allready googled your way past the streightdope answer, wich is the correct one.
-
Bwahahah, you picked this up from straightdope?!?! I didn't need to google, I am a regular at thinkgeek, just like I don't need to look up dictionary.com for what logic is, that was a good one though... lol
Now take a breather, and think about it
It's a joke ... but a joke with a somewhat serious point. All measurements in the real world (as opposed to the esoteric whirled of mathematics) are estimates; they're always rounded to something. There's no such thing as absolute precision. So rounding must come into play sometime or other, and the joke about 2 + 2 = 5 if 2 is large enough, is a reminder about the way that estimation errors compound.
Did you notice the key word 'measurements'? Do you know of measured values and true values?!? In relation to what neo asked you do you know what real numbers are? What constants are in mathematics? Maybe I should add are you even aware of what numbers are and how they play out in mathematics?!?
But I understand, google is your friend, learn it, live it, love it.
-
2.1 is still 2 at a higher value. thus 2.5+2.5=5. This is perfectly within the limits of math. You just have to use large values of a number.
Thus 2+2 actually CAN be 5
Dont take me on in math, or rather. please do! Then call me stupid.
and right back at you
LMFAO
2+2 = 4.
2.5 != 2Please, just shut up before you embarrass yourself further.
lol Here Mel a link for you, I know how much you like pictures but do pay attention to the description...
http//www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/science/60f5/
That is all good. Now here is what it is really about and it is not tshirts from geekthink
The statement is, "2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2." It's a joke about rounding and estimating. For instance, suppose you have your calculator set to round all numbers to integers (no decimal places) and the problem you're actually computing is 2.48 + 2.47. The calculator will automatically round, so when you punch 2.48 and ENTER, it will show up on the screen as 2. When you punch in the 2.47 and ENTER, it will also show up on the screen as 2. Then when you add, the sum 4.95 will be rounded to 5. Hence, 2 + 2 = 5 if the value of 2 is large enough.
It's a joke ... but a joke with a somewhat serious point. All measurements in the real world (as opposed to the esoteric whirled of mathematics) are estimates; they're always rounded to something. There's no such thing as absolute precision. So rounding must come into play sometime or other, and the joke about 2 + 2 = 5 if 2 is large enough, is a reminder about the way that estimation errors compound.
--SDSTAFF Dex
Straight Dope Science Advisory BoardNow take a breather, and think about it
And then you do it anyway.
Rounding is only an approximation and a premise of rounding is that you do not equate it. ! So when 2.4 is rounded down to 2 you ackowledge the fact that 2.4 is not actually 2, but you're rounding it down for simplicity's sakes.
God you're stupid. Seriously, what school did you go to? Because they obviously didn't do their job. I've read some ridiculous things on the internet but this takes the cake.
-
2.1 is still 2 at a higher value. thus 2.5+2.5=5. This is perfectly within the limits of math. You just have to use large values of a number.
Thus 2+2 actually CAN be 5
Dont take me on in math, or rather. please do! Then call me stupid.
and right back at you
LMFAO
2+2 = 4.
2.5 != 2Please, just shut up before you embarrass yourself further.
lol Here Mel a link for you, I know how much you like pictures but do pay attention to the description...
http//www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/science/60f5/
That is all good. Now here is what it is really about and it is not tshirts from geekthink
The statement is, "2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2." It's a joke about rounding and estimating. For instance, suppose you have your calculator set to round all numbers to integers (no decimal places) and the problem you're actually computing is 2.48 + 2.47. The calculator will automatically round, so when you punch 2.48 and ENTER, it will show up on the screen as 2. When you punch in the 2.47 and ENTER, it will also show up on the screen as 2. Then when you add, the sum 4.95 will be rounded to 5. Hence, 2 + 2 = 5 if the value of 2 is large enough.
It's a joke ... but a joke with a somewhat serious point. All measurements in the real world (as opposed to the esoteric whirled of mathematics) are estimates; they're always rounded to something. There's no such thing as absolute precision. So rounding must come into play sometime or other, and the joke about 2 + 2 = 5 if 2 is large enough, is a reminder about the way that estimation errors compound.
--SDSTAFF Dex
Straight Dope Science Advisory BoardNow take a breather, and think about it
And then you do it anyway.
Rounding is only an approximation and a premise of rounding is that you do not equate it. ! So when 2.4 is rounded down to 2 you ackowledge the fact that 2.4 is not actually 2, but you're rounding it down for simplicity's sakes.
God you're stupid. Seriously, what school did you go to? Because they obviously didn't do their job. I've read some ridiculous things on the internet but this takes the cake.
Good job on missing the point completely you stupid fuck! I have a bachelor in theoretical math, with main focus on logical algorithm's. Altso called AI. Abstract and creative thinking is not part you is it? Incredible for someone who want to argue about something like logic.
theoretical world = things work within the framwork of itelf, like something silly as large values and objective logic, this does not make it wrong. But it makes it theoretical, not real.
I can't even be arsed to tell you what the point of the joke was if you don't get it youself. But ofcourse, that would take brain to do so.
Good day fucktard