While I don't agree with the way they phrased their explanation, it's akin to saying "I'm not sure if 2 + 2 = 4 is true, but I am sure it can't equal anything else." Then falling back to "but there could be oddities in the foundation of mathematics that I'm not aware of" when pressed on the inconsistency.
If you claim that your understanding of logic isn't exhaustive, I don't see how you can also claim that X is logically impossible. ("I'm not a car expert but there is no possible way the problem is with the engine")
Thanks for that analogy, that gives me a new way to think about it.
I believe I can agree with the 2 + 2 = 4 theorem because I already agree with agreement in the summation of the components represented.
To illustrate:
If I put up 2 figures, then another 2 fingers, I can reliable get consensus from a survey of people and my own intuition/memory that it represents 4 fingers, and correspondingly the number 4.
Meanwhile, I don't have any kind of clear idea of what people are on about when they say god, so doing any logical operation from there is unclear. The rea...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.
4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.