Summations Only

quote:

---

If you are going to preen, you ought at least be right about something.

---

The first phrase of your post is in violation of forum rule #10. The matter under discussion is not about how someone can or cannot square a circle on a computer. It is about the law of identity, as a logical absolute."In logic, the law of identity is the first of the three classical laws of thought. It states that: each thing is the same with itself and different from another. By this it is meant that each thing (be it a universal or a particular) is composed of its own unique set of characteristic qualities or features, which the ancient Greeks called its essence. Consequently, things that have the same essence are the same thing, while things that have different essences are different things. In logical discourse, violations of the Law of Identity (LOI) result in the informal logical fallacy known as equivocation."

quote:

---

You are right when you say that you cannot square a circle using a computer.

---

I dislike using imprecise language when writing in a forum such as this, and so I try my best to be as precise as I can. I originally asked if the person I was answering could "square a circle". They replied that they could using a computer. In my answer I explained that they could not, because of the law of identity. That I was referring to the law of identity should have been obvious with my original reference to "can you make a dog a cat..?"

quote:

---

The 'square the circle' problem is to construct, using only a straight edge and compass, a square having the equivalent area of a given circle. Turning a square into circle or equating the two has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is intractable because addressing the problem requires multiplication by a multiple of pi squared using the tools given.

---

Okay, but that has nothing to do with the problem of the fallacy of equivocation, due to a failure to observe the law of identity.

quote:

---

Using a computer fails because only the compass and straight edge are allowed. Period.

---

Okay. You are arguing an issue that is not in contention. A square is defined as: a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles. A circle is defined as: a round plane figure whose boundary (circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed center.Therefore, according to the law of identity it is impossible for a square to be a circle or a circle to be a square.

quote:

---

You are dismissed.

---

I don't mean to belabor this point, but a thing is what it is, and is not what it is not. Please refer to my original post to see this referenced. A cat cannot be a cat and not a cat simultaneously, and that is one of the impossibilities defined by the law of identity.The entire discussion started based on the poster who asserted that "nothing is impossible", and my response using the logical absolutes to show that indeed there are some things which are impossible.From Wikipedia: "Squaring the circle is a problem proposed by ancient geometers. It is the challenge of constructing a square with the same area as a given circle by using only a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge. More abstractly and more precisely, it may be taken to ask whether specified axioms of Euclidean geometry concerning the existence of lines and circles entail the existence of such a square.In 1882, the task was proven to be impossible, as a consequence of the Lindemann—Weierstrass theorem which proves that pi () is a transcendental, rather than an algebraic irrational number; that is, it is not the root of any polynomial with rational coefficients. It had been known for some decades before then that the construction would be impossible if pi were transcendental, but pi was not proven transcendental until 1882. Approximate squaring to any given non-perfect accuracy, in contrast, is possible in a finite number of steps, since there are rational numbers arbitrarily close to .The expression "squaring the circle" is sometimes used as a metaphor for trying to do the impossible."I was using the phrase in its metaphorical sense. Class is dismissed.

Every time you submit text into this forum you are saying something, ya dingus. Or are you gonna go the route of none of this stuff being protected by the First Amendment because we're not literally "speaking"? And please, for the love of blowjobs, do not provide an argument via dictionary. They're descriptive, not proscriptive. When Michael Jackson sang that song Bad, he was not saying that he was of low or poor quality, even thought that is the definition of the word.How could you not know this stuff? Wow, you're prejudiced too? I notice that you edited out the line from your previous message (ABE: my mistake, that's still there in a more recent message) where you said that you didn't feel like you had to be nice to me because the other Christians you've encountered have told you that you were going to hell. Do you also cross the street to avoid black people?And just so you understand what I'm saying, since you cannot see past the literal meanings of words, prejudice is that act of pre-judging someone before you get to know them. It would be like me seeing that picture in your avatar and saying that since you've got that flimsy posture with your ass pushed out and have a creepy molester mustache, then you must be a homosexual and therefore you're a cocksucker. But I'm not gonna do that, because I'm not prejudiced like you are.Anyways, this topic is about what if Jesus and Satan were real.If Satan was real, then he would send bigoted queer pedants to post inane stuff on this forum in an attempt to test the faith of the good Christian folks that are here.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

True. However the problem with such a statement as a response to a statement regarding squaring a circle on a computer is that despite being true the statement does not address the reason why you cannot solve the problem on a computer. More specifically, the poster did not make any improper statements about squares and circles being the same.But secondarily, if there was any doubt about the issue before this post of yours, it is pretty clear that you had no idea what 'squaring the circle' meant. And yet that lack did not stop your pompous lecture. Which is, of course, not the reason why you cannot square a circle on a computer or anywhere else. You can, for example, solve the analogous problem of constructing a triangle with the same area as a given square without a square and a triangle being the same.

You're an idiot, so we will have no further interactions.

At least I know that squaring a circle has nothing to do with the law of identity.

quote:

---

True. However the problem with such a statement as a response to a statement regarding squaring a circle on a computer is that despite being true the statement does not address the reason why you cannot solve the problem on a computer. More specifically, the poster did not make any improper statements about squares and circles being the same.

---

Nor did I need to explain why he couldn't do it as I was using that particular reference metaphorically as an example of an impossibility. He asserted that he could do something which is specifically listed as an impossibility in all the sources I could find.

quote:

---

But secondarily, if there was any doubt about the issue before this post of yours, it is pretty clear that you had no idea what 'squaring the circle' meant. And yet that lack did not stop your pompous lecture.

---

Can you tell what I am thinking now. Pretty arrogant of you, don't you think, to suggest you know what I was thinking. Talk about pompous! I provided an explanation after you decided to lecture me on the subject that I was using the phrase metaphorically. Do you need an explanation of what that word means..?

quote:

---

Which is, of course, not the reason why you cannot square a circle on a computer or anywhere else. You can, for example, solve the analogous problem of constructing a triangle with the same area as a given square without a square and a triangle being the same.

---

Are you perhaps a mathematician..? I WAS USING THE PHRASE METAPHORICALLY. One cannot square a circle as a matter of mathematics, but that was not my usage. You are still refusing to consider the issue raised was those things which are impossible. Could you explain mathematically his assertion that he could just name a cat a dog and vice versa, and that that would solve the problem with the law of identity..?

He gave an answer in response to your asking him if he could square a circle. You brought it up. A review of your message reveals that the topic was not identity but impossibility.Your claim is that my correction to you is off topic because the topic is 'identity'. Is identity indeed the obstacle to 'squaring a circle'? No. So the issue was not relevant when you brought it up. Is it actually possible to produce a drawing or calculate the side of a square whose are is equal to a circle on a computer. Yes, and doing so does not require equating a circle and a square.What you are insisting on is the right to make irrelevant statements in defense of your point, and then to call corrections to your irrelevant statements off topic. You believe that the rules of these forums protect your irrelevant statements in such a way. No you did not need to do that. But you tried it anyway and failed.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Satan lizard laughs.

If you review the message in question you will see that I did not have to guess what you were thinking. Are you going to continue to pretend that you were not addressing his answer regarding squaring a circle using software. If you do, expect me to label your behavior using the 'L' word.

People that trust their wife not to cheat on them may trust their wife not to cheat on them just because they choose to trust their wife not to cheat on them. The trust does not always have to be based on prior experiences.I don't praise God because I want something from God. Yes you're correct, God does exactly what God is going to do based upon God's plan. What I don't understand is people who are not thankful for existing and argue that God does what he wants. Remember God is going to grant you eternal life in a existence that God is creating. I was not saying faith is a negative or a unreliable practice. The definition is below. The point I was making is that an observation of X does not mean that the observation of X is true. X is the phenomenon that has many potential observations. A observation is a interpretation. We all observe and accept our observations and form thoughts. My thoughts on both sides of the atheist vs theist debate agree God is real and further Christ is his son. The reason I would pray to God is because I have learned to trust God via revelation. This is also why I would accept Christ as his son via revelation. Merely faith = Just faith
Merely knowledge = Just knowledge The argument that Satan could be the person answering my prayers does not make sense especially if you read any satanic book. I am not claiming that it is not possible but it does not make sense. Why would Satan teach via revelation that Jesus is the son of God? Why would Satan teach via revelation that God is real? Why would Satan teach via revelation that God created all things? Why would Satan teach via revelation to praise God? Wouldn't it make more sense for Satan to teach of a godless existence? Wouldn't Satan promote atheism? Wouldn't Satan promote a higher level of disease transmission as is shown in homosexuality? Your thoughts that Satan is answering my prayers would make sense if the revelations didn't occur.I want to make another point. It seems as if you are arguing that faith based claims are unreliable and therefor false. I have been reading a lot about the theory of inflation. The theory of inflation is based on red shift. There is actually several types of red shift. The only type of red shift that is suggestive of inflation is the doppler effect. However, recently if you follow the electric universe model, the red we see being emitted by stars probably signify age. So, here we have Scientist's who have "observed" and formed "knowledge" but that "knowledge" that is based on physical "observations" is being shown as probably wrong. I will admit that some revelations may be being interpreted incorrectly, but this is also true in Science. What is real in Science is not always REAL just like what is real in revelation is not always REAL. Arguing that revelations must not be real because they can be unreliable is just a argument not a fact. First you have to prove God is not real. Evil existing does not prove God is not real. In my opinion, Evil existing is evidence God is real. In nature have you seen a pride of lions go on a mission to commit genocide? The reason genocide occurs in my opinion is because of Evil (unless you're removing evil), not because of nature. God has a specific plan and is sticking to that specific plan. This is why Evil occurs, it has not been destroyed yet. When God's plan is complete Evil will be blotted out.

ringo, I disagree with you. The actual context of vs 14-15 is per vs 12. Edited by Blue, : ErrEdited by Blue, : ErrEdited by Blue, : Removed accidental smiley faces in prior edits..

CS may be many things, but in my books, he's certainly not an idiot. I learned a lot from CS on this thread. Maybe I'm the idiot without realising it? Please note that I don't necessarly take his side on this thread, but be fair to a very intelligent person.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Hey! Except for the bigoted and queer parts this sounds a whole lot like me! God, I hope I'm not here to test you, CS. You're one of my favorites here. Maybe shake you up from time to time but what are friends for?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Clearly you weren't sent by Satan Please, do test. I like you too, Paul. Shake me up, baby.

I appreciate the vote of confidence.Us dicks, though (me and MFF), we gotta sword fight each other. Thanks again. Please, point out my errors. I can't tell the brainwashing from the learning