RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 9:26:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Does the surviving twin have 2 souls now?


Nope, two bodies, two souls, despite the bodies never totally separating.

When one of the twin's body dies, that twin's soul goes to wherever souls go. The other twin, whose body hasn't died, just keeps their soul where they've always had it.


Where do those souls go? Are they recycled?



UllrsIshtar -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 9:28:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Does the surviving twin have 2 souls now?


Nope, two bodies, two souls, despite the bodies never totally separating.

When one of the twin's body dies, that twin's soul goes to wherever souls go. The other twin, whose body hasn't died, just keeps their soul where they've always had it.


Where do those souls go? Are they recycled?


No idea. I don't believe in the concept of a soul, but if I did, I'd vote for either "the same place all other souls go" or "gets recycled and another shot at being born".



Hillwilliam -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 9:39:19 AM)

One thing you folks must realize about this exercise in logic. I'm not trying to 'prove' anything up to and including the existence of a 'soul'
What I am trying to do is disprove the concept of. "The soul enters the egg at the moment of fertilization and makes it a full fledged human".

If that is true then either a human can have 2 (or more) souls because if a human can only have one then ensoulment cannot occur at fertilization. It must occur later.
At least one of a set of monozygotic twins (triplets, etc) has no soul.
The entire concept is bullshit.



tazzygirl -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 9:39:50 AM)

I dont either, at least not in the religious sense.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 9:49:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl



Where do those souls go? Are they recycled?

I wonder how much you can get for a soul down at the recycling center. Maybe I can afford to stop saving aluminum.[8D]



mnottertail -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 9:53:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Does the surviving twin have 2 souls now?


Nope, two bodies, two souls, despite the bodies never totally separating.

When one of the twin's body dies, that twin's soul goes to wherever souls go. The other twin, whose body hasn't died, just keeps their soul where they've always had it.


Where do those souls go? Are they recycled?


If you are a believer in the Tao, and the Wuji, there is a vast cauldron of souls sort of hanging on the shelf up there and they thru birth and creation (here would be Taiji) are separated into yin and yang, and when you leave, you go back into the void up there and so yeah, I guess recycled in that philosophy.



eulero83 -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 12:47:19 PM)

I try to solve this with algebra:

a=b
a^2=a*b
a^2-b^2=a*b-b^2
(a-b)*(a+b)=b*(a-b)
a+b=b
but a=b so
a+a=a
2a=a
2=1

so also 1soul=2souls, ergo the two souls in the twins are the same thing as the soul in the egg at fecondation time

this is in order to say that if you use your own hypothesis you can demostrate anything.



FunCouple5280 -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 12:56:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

I try to solve this with algebra:

a=b
a^2=a*b
a^2-b^2=a*b-b^2
(a-b)*(a+b)=b*(a-b)
a+b=b
but a=b so
a+a=a
2a=a
2=1

so also 1soul=2souls, ergo the two souls in the twins are the same thing as the soul in the egg at fecondation time

this is in order to say that if you use your own hypothesis you can demostrate anything.



WRONG
check your math you fudged it up

if you came up with 2=1, that should have told you something. other than that, I count 7 mathematical errors at a quick glance



DesideriScuri -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 1:13:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
I try to solve this with algebra:
a=b
a^2=a*b
a^2-b^2=a*b-b^2
(a-b)*(a+b)=b*(a-b)
a+b=b
but a=b so
a+a=a
2a=a
2=1
so also 1soul=2souls, ergo the two souls in the twins are the same thing as the soul in the egg at fecondation time
this is in order to say that if you use your own hypothesis you can demostrate anything.


a = b = {0}

The only math that works.



eulero83 -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 1:21:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

I try to solve this with algebra:

a=b
a^2=a*b
a^2-b^2=a*b-b^2
(a-b)*(a+b)=b*(a-b)
a+b=b
but a=b so
a+a=a
2a=a
2=1

so also 1soul=2souls, ergo the two souls in the twins are the same thing as the soul in the egg at fecondation time

this is in order to say that if you use your own hypothesis you can demostrate anything.



WRONG
check your math you fudged it up

if you came up with 2=1, that should have told you something. other than that, I count 7 mathematical errors at a quick glance


seriusly?

if you are serius: 7 operation 7 errors? I'd like you name them all there is only one mathemathical error I divided by (a-b) that being a=b equates to 0, but that was not the point, the point is this logical exercise is built on hypotesis hillwilliam built and used them to confutate some answers, like that soul stay in egg, that soul can't split end evolve independently, that one egg is one soul this are all things he decided. I don't care about religion my attempt was only aiming to crack the logical loop hillwilliam created.



FunCouple5280 -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 1:31:33 PM)


a=b good
a^2=a*b also = b^2 but good
a^2-b^2=a*b-b^2 Meaningless because =0
(a-b)*(a+b)=b*(a-b) This becomes =0 and a+b=2a=2b
a+b=b =2b or 2a not b
but a=b so
a+a=a =2a
2a=a =2a
2=1 =2

Sorry 5, I didn't take that much time the first go, just saw that it was full of issues



Hillwilliam -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 1:39:20 PM)

If A = B = 0 would that prove that souls don't exist? [8D]



FunCouple5280 -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 1:42:32 PM)

Well based on that math, sure [;)]

but any value could be assigned to a or b so we could be talking poly souls[sm=nervous.gif]



mnottertail -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 1:58:33 PM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pwaklOkoTU



eulero83 -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 1:59:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280


a=b good
a^2=a*b also = b^2 but good
a^2-b^2=a*b-b^2 Meaningless because =0
(a-b)*(a+b)=b*(a-b) This becomes =0 and a+b=2a=2b
a+b=b =2b or 2a not b
but a=b so
a+a=a =2a
2a=a =2a
2=1 =2

Sorry 5, I didn't take that much time the first go, just saw that it was full of issues


I suppose you didn't graduate in mathematic, physics, engineering or informatics
As I told you before I ignored on purpose the hypothesis that x/0 gives no valid resoult for any value x to prove a point
what I did are all valid algebrical manipulation just one is not valid because it's a division by 0 for the hypothesis but it's not a mistake by itself.



Kirata -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 2:05:40 PM)


~ FR ~

Unh... as we're talking about them, has anybody asked what exactly a "soul" is?

K.



FunCouple5280 -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 3:03:02 PM)

Lol I don't see a division of 0[8|] you are arbitrarily manipulating and forgetting a basic principle of algebra = is = and what is done on one side must be done on the other and equal the other.

Nothing there divides by 0 it may = zero, but you can't move 0 to the other side of the equation. Once something is = to zero is it is = to zero

The statement goes like this (a-b)*(a+b)=b*(a-b) --- 0*(a+b)=ba-bb which then becomes =0 no division necessary, mostly because 0/0 is still zero and always will be. So it proves nothing.

I have a degree in engineering, I am a practicing PE. I do structural engineering all day. And if I didn't know what i was talking about, I would have killed someone by now. Take your equation to a high school math teacher and see if you get an A. Maybe you can bully them into forgetting everything they learned about math, but once you come up with 2=1 you are boned, you cocked it up.



UllrsIshtar -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 3:33:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

One thing you folks must realize about this exercise in logic. I'm not trying to 'prove' anything up to and including the existence of a 'soul'
What I am trying to do is disprove the concept of. "The soul enters the egg at the moment of fertilization and makes it a full fledged human".



I understand that, and I will absolutely grant that if you take your entire premise literal, it being disproven is the logical conclusion.

However, what I'm trying to point out to you is that it doesn't matter if you disprove the concept, because your starting premise isn't based on anything including not the on the very religious theories you are trying to disprove.

If you assume for the sake of argument that these people's theory of The soul enters the egg at the moment of fertilization and makes it a full fledged human" is true, then that STILL does not imply that there can't be "two fully fledged humans in a single egg until they're necessarily split up". All you know is that people after birth can only have one soul. You have no arguments, including those of the religious that state that it is also necessarily impossible for an egg to have two souls, other than the fact that you state "lets assume an egg can't".

So yeah, if we assume an egg can't have two souls, then identical twins are soulless... but the religious statement "The soul enters the egg at the moment of fertilization and makes it a full fledged human" does not at all imply that it's impossible for an egg have two souls... that's just something you're throwing in in order to make your argument work.

If you deliberately construct you starting premises such that must lead to a single conclusion, obviously they'll lead there... that doesn't mean that your starting premises are sound though, even if we were to assume that relies dogma is true for the sake of argument.



eulero83 -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 4:15:38 PM)

ok so we have exactly the same education background, when I have (a-b)*(a+b)=(a-b)*b I can write (a-b)*(a+b)/(a-b)=(a-b)*b/(a-b) if I simplify numerator and denominator it's invalid because I divided by (a-b) using a hypothesis that was not valid (that x/0=k with k a real number) I did something wrong ON PURPOSE so to prove a point about logical procedure: resoults depend on hypothesis validity so if I use a false hypothesis (in this case that a division by 0 gives a resoult) I can arrive to a false resoult, you are arguing that's somehow mandatory to reach a numerical resoult to an equation as soon as possible, that's more an opinion than a priciple. Do you think I don't know that 1 doesn't equate to 2? what I was arguing is that the OP's argumentation is no more correct than this quite famouse mathematical fallacy as he made up the hypotesis to fit his argumentation and demostrate his thesis, I used this becuse it was OBVIOUSLY WRONG, the OP was just more underhand.
Anyhow as I told this exampe is quite famous and used quite often in classes to explain logical fallacies, it's not I came with this from nowhere, it is used also on wikipedia so you can check here what I meant Mathematical fallacy and by the way if i write 0=0 is correct so the first thing you wrote in red is not a mistake it's still a legitimate equation, a+b=b is not wrong by itself as if a=0 it's valid any b so even with the hypothesis a=b is still correct as just means that a=b=0 the same for a+a=a



tazzygirl -> RE: Twins have no soul (an exercise in logic) (4/5/2013 6:24:50 PM)

Who says we are limited to one soul? Maybe thats where disorders like schizophrenia come from.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.054688E-02