Why I'm Not an Atheist: The Case for Agnosticism

[defacto7]

179. Your clear understanding of the simple binary condition of these two concepts

is really refreshing. Most of the contrary comments seem to be based on not understanding what binary is. Yes, they think they know but are stuck on why there's no .5 in whole numbers and try to apply it anyway. Quantum aside only to dissuade exponentiation of the argument, you mention that 2 is not part of a binary, and that is where understanding the concept versus knowing the language makes for a lot of misunderstanding. It's either on or off, 0 or 1, is or isn't... there's no "not on or off" switch (and zero is not a negative).

I agree with you completely. A person has to see that there are nuances in language and concepts only after the arithmetic has determined a basic root for the branching of those nuances. There is plenty of room for all the belief or non-belief systems and every gradation that can be imagined, but the basic root, zero and one, or should I say " " and "a" still stands in this binary concept. Without that base determination, concepts are a free-fall of anything and nonsense. All language and philosophy are meaningless without the math. Some see it, some don't. And that's just the way brains bounce. I wish it were easier to convince; sometimes you can't, sometimes you shouldn't even try.

Thanks.