Thoughts on the gay cake case

[Bradski]

Or, more prudently we should be saying, “It is confounding to think that something can APPEAR to be in two places at the same time.” There is an appearance of it being in two different places at the same time, but that does not mean it is, nor that it is a “thing” in any physical sense.

It was an atom. That’s definately a thing. It could be measured. It could be examined. He won a Nobel prize for the experiment. People who know one hell of a lot more about this than either you or I have agreed that what he did was verifiable.

Peter: Two places at the same time? That’s illogical.

You were wrong. It appears to be illogical but it isn’t.

Peter: Something from nothing? That’s illogical.

This time we don’t know if you are right or wrong. It appears to be illogical but that, as we have just seen, cannot be used to determine something’s veracity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Classing something as illogical cuts no ice I’m afraid.

What, precisely, do you mean by “cuts no ice?”

Are you claiming that it is illogical to “class something as illogical?”

Or are you just expressing your fear that logic doesn’t work effectively for cutting ice?

 

[Peter_Plato]

It was an atom. That’s definately a thing. It could be measured. It could be examined. He won a Nobel prize for the experiment. People who know one hell of a lot more about this than either you or I have agreed that what he did was verifiable.

Peter: Two places at the same time? That’s illogical.

You were wrong. It appears to be illogical but it isn’t.

Peter: Something from nothing? That’s illogical.

This time we don’t know if you are right or wrong. It appears to be illogical but that, as we have just seen, cannot be used to determine something’s veracity.

Interesting. Is this a general rule?

So when an atheist proposes that God cannot exist because he can’t create a stone bigger than he can lift we can hand wave that piece of “logic” away with the counter that logic “cannot be used to determine something’s veracity.”

You do realize that “veracity” becomes… well… empty of all meaning since anything could be true and not true (false) at the same time under your new epistemology, yes?

 

[Peter_Plato]

You were wrong. It appears to be illogical but it isn’t.

Yes, of course, it “appears” to be illogical but isn’t means it actually isn’t illogical, correct?

However, discrete spacial “objects” are, by definition, objects confined to a particular spacial location. If you claim there are objects that are not constrained in that way, then what you are talking about are non-spacial objects. Ergo, there is no illogic, merely an expansion of our understanding of what grounds or underwrites spacial reality.

Or it could, merely, mean that whatever instruments/algorithms we are using to detect those objects, those instruments/algorithms are giving us confusing results.

It would seem that before we logically conclude that illogic has been demonstratively shown to be conclusive, we ought to rule out other alternatives. THAT would be logical, no?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The topic of this thread keeps appearing and disappearing.

There, I have gracefully tied the “appearance of non-existent things” back into the topic at hand.

Now we can move on and make the topic of the OP actually be the one being discussed.

On the other hand, if Bradski is right then “thoughts on the gay cake case” may - despite the constraints of logic - be decided based upon the fact that some subatomic particles may exist in two places at once.

Sounds illogical, but as Bradski insists, it might only appear to be illogical but actually be the determining feature of the discussion.

Don’t hold your breath.

 

[minkymurph]

The topic of this thread keeps appearing and disappearing.

There, I have gracefully tied the “appearance of non-existent things” back into the topic at hand.

Now we can move on and make the topic of the OP actually be the one being discussed.

On the other hand, if Bradski is right then “thoughts on the gay cake case” may - despite the constraints of logic - be decided based upon the fact that some subatomic particles may exist in two places at once.

Sounds illogical, but as Bradski insists, it might only appear to be illogical but actually be the determining feature of the discussion.

Don’t hold your breath.

That you for your intervention PP.

The discussions on this thread were becoming somewhat bizarre. :whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

Quite right. It’s an image of a non existent object. You are seeing something that isn’t there.

NO.

I am seeing light.

When your son says, “Daddy! I see a star in the sky!”

You would be correct in saying, “No, son. That star went out of existence centuries ago. You are not seeing the star.”

But you would be WRONG in telling him, “You are not seeing anything, Braddy.”

Because he’s going to tell you, quite rightly, “Umm…no, Daddy Bradski. I am seeing something. It’s a twinkling little light. But I do understand that the star doesn’t exist anymore. But its light does. Am I not right Daddy Bradski? Am I not seeing something?”

 

[PRmerger]

Well, hell yes, it certainly DOES appear to be illogical.

You have no idea how happy this little sentence makes me, Bradski.

 

[Bradski]

Because he’s going to tell you, quite rightly, “Umm…no, Daddy Bradski. I am seeing something. It’s a twinkling little light. But I do understand that the star doesn’t exist anymore. But its light does. Am I not right Daddy Bradski? Am I not seeing something?”

Apologies for this not being cake related…

All this is quite correct. To say that someone can see something that doesn’t exist is illogical. Unless you are aware that stars are immense distances away and that light has a finite speed. This knowledge enables to say that although it appears to be illogical, it isn’t. We have knowledge that allows us to correct what appears to be a conundrum.

Likewise, one object in two places appears to be illogical. Unless you are up to speed on quantum mechanics and understand the type of experiment linked to previously in which case we understand that it is not.

Likewise, if you are conversant with relativity you could understand how the apparent illogical scenario of a man growing older than his father is not illogical.

Now you’d like to suggest that the only way the universe could have come into existence sans God is by something coming from nothing. And your only defence for that not being the case is this:

‘It appears to be illogical’.

In the previous three examples, that defence has proved to be wrong. It is obviously not sufficient to make your case.

 

[PRmerger]

Apologies for this not being cake related…

All this is quite correct. To say that someone can see something that doesn’t exist is illogical.

Yep.

Unless you are aware that stars are immense distances away and that light has a finite speed. This knowledge enables to say that although it appears to be illogical, it isn’t. We have knowledge that allows us to correct what appears to be a conundrum.

Let’s clarify here.

What is the “something” that you are claiming doesn’t exist?

The star?

If so, I agree with you.

But are you saying that the light that Braddy is claiming to see doesn’t exist?

 

[Bradski]

But are you saying that the light that Braddy is claiming to see doesn’t exist?

I am saying that things that appear to be illogical turn out not to be so when we know more about the matter. Simply saying: ‘It appears to be illogical’ does not, in itself, make it so.

Ditto qualifying it by saying something along the lines of ‘I can’t imagine…’ or ‘I’ll bet you can’t give me an example of…’. These are appeals to ignorance.

 

[PRmerger]

I am saying that things that appear to be illogical turn out not to be so when we know more about the matter. Simply saying: ‘It appears to be illogical’ does not, in itself, make it so.

Ditto qualifying it by saying something along the lines of ‘I can’t imagine…’ or ‘I’ll bet you can’t give me an example of…’. These are appeals to ignorance.

Yeah. I knew you couldn’t answer.

It is indeed illogical (and impossible) to to see things that don’t exist.

No one can see something that isn’t there. At least, not if she’s sane.

 

[bjryman]

il·log·i·cal

adjective

lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.

“an illogical fear of the supernatural”

Synonyms:

irrational, unreasonable, unsound, unreasoned, unjustifiable, groundless, unfounded; More

Seems to me that the debate going on in this thread is somewhat driven by the interpretation by authors of the variuos Synonyms used as alternatives to Illogical

 

[PRmerger]

I haven’t said that science will explain everything.

What you have asserted, Brad, is that something coming from nothing will someday be explained, without God.

That’s a faith based assertion.