Push on a wall with your hands. Now, did you push on the wall, did it push on you, or both?

You on it.

Look at the way classical physics work on the macro scale of Creation, but not the micro Quantum level of Creation. Reality doesn't fit nicely inside a box.

Then that is how it behaves based on conditions. In no way is this a problem for logic. In no way does this prove that doublethink is a good idea.

"A popped tire is both popped and unpopped because at one time it was unpopped in the past!!"

Nope, a condition had to be met (the nail popping it). Just because things can change doesn't justify doublethink at all. How absurd. The tire is only either popped or unpopped, not both. Before the nail, it is objectively only absolutely unpopped. After it, it pops and is objectively only absolutely popped. The fact change exists does not mean "both at once".

I find your manner of thinking to be a limited form of logic in which it becomes linear to the point of absurdity.

I find that you have mistaken "things can be different at different times" for "contrary ideas can be true at once".

If either of us never made a decision because we could always be wrong, our senses could be deceiving us, and etc, we'd never believe or decide on anything.

Because God gave us reliable senses. How do you extrapolate "axioms exist" to "doublethink is good"? What a stretch.

How do I know any of the authors of the Biblical texts were inspired by God and/or portrayed an accurate portrayal of literal events that happened? While you go on about how do I know what I claim to know and the shortcomings of it with objective proof, what objective proof do you have that the conversations as stated in Genesis between Adam and Eve, and Eve and a snake (or Satan) actually happened as described?

Because out of all the other worldviews, Biblical Christianity has the LEAST holes of all and the MOST explanatory power of all and performs the BEST at justifying reality and giving rational reasons for things. The Bible has been proven right on countless, endless things, and never successfully proven wrong on any, so we can trust the rest of it is true.

If a Weatherman has a great record of successfully predicting the weather, do you trust him or do you trust 5,000+ randos whose record you don't even know??

There comes a point that if you want to bring logical to it's fullness, it requires bringing intuitive thought to it, which looks illogical.

What axioms do you know of that you believe are true?

Push on a wall with your hands. Now, did you push on the wall, did it push on you, or both?

You on it.

Look at the way classical physics work on the macro scale of Creation, but not the micro Quantum level of Creation. Reality doesn't fit nicely inside a box.

Then that is how it behaves based on conditions. In no way is this a problem for logic. In no way does this prove that doublethink is a good idea.

"A popped tire is both popped and unpopped because at one time it was unpopped in the past!!"

Nope, a condition had to be met (the nail popping it). Just because things can change doesn't justify doublethink at all. How absurd. The tire is only either popped or unpopped, not both. Before the nail, it is objectively only absolutely unpopped. After it, it pops and is objectively only absolutely popped. The fact change exists does not mean "both at once".

I find your manner of thinking to be a limited form of logic in which it becomes linear to the point of absurdity.

I find that you have mistaken "things can be different at different times" for "contrary ideas can be true at once".

If either of us never made a decision because we could always be wrong, our senses could be deceiving us, and etc, we'd never believe or decide on anything.

Because God gave us reliable senses. How do you extrapolate "axioms exist" to "doublethink is good"? What a stretch.

How do I know any of the authors of the Biblical texts were inspired by God and/or portrayed an accurate portrayal of literal events that happened? While you go on about how do I know what I claim to know and the shortcomings of it with objective proof, what objective proof do you have that the conversations as stated in Genesis between Adam and Eve, and Eve and a snake (or Satan) actually happened as described?

Because out of all the other worldviews, Biblical christianity has the LEAST holes of all and the MOST explanatory power of all and performs the BEST at justifying reality and giving rstional reasons for things. The Bible has been proven right on countless, endless things, and never successfully proven wrong on any, so we can trust the rest of it is true.

If a Weatherman has a great record of successfully predicting the weather, do you trust him or do you trust 5,000+ randos whose record you don't even know??

There comes a point that if you want to bring logical to it's fullness, it requires bringing intuitive thought to it, which looks illogical.

What axioms do you know of that you believe are true?