elzoog

Can you guys give me the evidence that in societies that allow women and men to freely choose what they want to do, that stereotypical gender preferences increase rather than decrease?

I created a blog called "Christianity will not save western civilization". Can you guys give me any feedback? https://christianitywontsave.home.blog/

VillageWisdom, it seems like what you are saying is that for example, if I were to say "What does God want me to do?" I would be giving up responsibility and agency. Am I correct?

The daughter's mother wants her to have nothing to do with me.

Except that I did tell the spirit to do it within a certain period of time. It was one day late, but still...

That's my point. If it was merely my thoughts then why did it create that effect? Maybe it's because it was only my thoughts before.

The problem with your analysis is, my relationship with my daughter has been an ongoing problem for many years. So if the subconscious is telling me "my daughter is important" it is telling me something I already knew. The BIG difference is this time, the experience seems to have caused something externally (i.e. my daughter contacting me).

I was wondering what you guys would say about this. I had a feeling of the presence of God. I had not been in contact with my daughter for over 6 years. So I told this presence that if he is real, have my daughter contact me. About 5 days later, I noticed that my daughter contacted me. Any comments?

In the middle ages, the invading Muslims were defeated by the crusades and other battles. So, Christianity beat Islam. Then in the 20th century, secularism and atheism pretty much destroyed Christianity's stronghold on civilization. Thus Atheism beat Christianity. Currently, Islam is taking over the secular west. So Islam beats Atheism.

I can make my case very simply. Atheism beats Christianity Islam beats Atheism Christianity beats Islam

An example of a UNIVERSITY MATHEMATICS web site that will say for example, 7 + 6 = 1 WITHOUT the mod, is here. http://www-math.ucdenver.edu/~wcherowi/clockar.html#ans1 Also, I could argue that 7 + 8 = 13 without any mod. Your response?

I agree that universal statements are generally meaningless. How someone who actually doesn't understand the foundations of mathematics can tell me that I don't understand the foundations is beyond me. An example of where 7 + 8 = 3 is explicitly explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic "A familiar use of modular arithmetic is in the 12-hour clock, in which the day is divided into two 12-hour periods. If the time is 7:00 now, then 8 hours later it will be 3:00. Usual addition would suggest that the later time should be 7 + 8 = 15, but this is not the answer because clock time "wraps around" every 12 hours; in 12-hour time, there is no "15 o'clock". Likewise, if the clock starts at 12:00 (noon) and 21 hours elapse, then the time will be 9:00 the next day, rather than 33:00. Because the hour number starts over after it reaches 12, this is arithmetic modulo 12. According to the definition below, 12 is congruent not only to 12 itself, but also to 0, so the time called "12:00" could also be called "0:00", since 12 is congruent to 0 modulo 12." And later "Modular arithmetic is referenced in number theory, group theory, ring theory, knot theory, abstract algebra, computer algebra, cryptography, computer science, chemistry and the visual and musical arts."

Well, YOU said that universal "means applicable (or relevant, or appropriate) to ALL cases." Since there exists a case where 7 + 8 is not 15, the statement "7 + 8 = 15" is not applicable to ALL cases. Therefore, it is not universal according to YOUR definition. If not, why not?

But there IS a time and place where 7 + 8 isn't 15. So it can't be universal. Also, there IS a time and place where a circle can be a square. See for example, taxicab geometry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry As to 7 + 8 not being 15, if the numbers represent hours on a clock, then 7 + 8 would be 3 (i.e. 7 o'clock + 8 hours later is 3 o'clock, not 15 o'clock). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic

I can give you examples where both of those are NOT true. For example, a "circle" in Taxicab geometry looks like a square. "You will experience on this page that this t-square is also a t-circle. This is strange." http://www.mathematische-basteleien.de/taxicabgeometry.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry In YOUR definition of universal, YOU say it "means applicable (or relevant, or appropriate) to ALL cases." (emphasis mine) Since taxicab geometry is at least ONE case where you do have a "square circle", the theory that "square circles don't exist" can't be universal according to YOUR definition. 7 + 8 = 15 is ALSO not true in ALL cases (there is more than one case where 7 + 8 doesn't equal 15). Therefore, it too can't be universal.