Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Power_of_Logic
"There is no connection between x and y"
|
There are other ways to use the null hypothesis: it depends on what you're trying to demonstrate. But why the sudden change of subject? You had been going on about
x equalling
x using Aristotle's approach to (for example) objects in motion. The problem being that when you use logic of that type it's always necessary to re-define reality—which is easy enough to see—so that she accords with your preconceptions.
X would normally be taken to represent anything. "It," say; the thing in question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Power_of_Logic
With that being stated, I hope you will agree that these rules are imperative to all discussion, and that disobeying them leads to anarchy.
|
I don't suppose it's your fault you're European. But I should point out that this stuff you enthusiastically spout originates there. Their philosophers weren't all based in Athens where Paul gave his address on Mars Hill (already cited but here
Acts 17:16-22 is the preamble from Luke's testimony) but even so from Euclid to Archimedes it was all downhill to the Greece we know today.
Therefore two points need addressing before you move on to your new topic.- Firstly: what was the status of your "Laws" at the moment of Creation?
- Secondly: the question of how someone who is to be obeyed mutates into someone who obeys, anything at all, at any time, ever?
If you prefer to ignore those applications of
if x is a true statement then x is a true statement, simply moving on to something else instead, we'd wonder why you bothered to introduce it in the first place and probably conclude that questions regarding your other statements would equally remain unaddressed.
There are several other issues but those two will do for now. Perhaps in your reply you could include a Scripture passage you have found encouraging. I've re-read your posts in this introduction but as yet you have not cited anything identifying the very thing you're trying to disprove.