According to your argument, people are incapable of knowing anything constructed on a relativistic platform but you then state it is not necessaily that faithhas to stay circular. No, my assertion is that what is called knowledge gained via relativistic logic and senses is subject to logical doubt as to the truth of that knowledge, as the foundation of that knowledge, i.e. the the tools of relativistic logic and senses may in fact be faulty in their ability to reveal reality independent of relativistic logic and senses. The acceptance of what we know on the basis of relativistic logic and senses ultimately is an act of faith until we can know absolutely that senses and relativistic logic themselves are beyond the possibilty of flaw. It is logically possible that you are in a fully delusional state from the perspective of an absolute truth. That is the arguement I am making. The reason that faith need not stay circular necessarily, is because faith may lead to something different, as through faith one could surrender their relativistic logic and sense and trust in something else, where relativistic logic and senses will have to deliver only that which can be verified by senses and relativistic logic as knowledge. It is a simple argument, suprised that it exceeds your grasp. And as soon as you say that, your argument is again worthless. For no longer does anything else have to stay circular , including a NO faith , No God, No deeper meaning , No assumption. How silly. Your are trying to use your relativistic logic to attempt to disprove my argument that relativistic logic is subject to being not necessarily being reflective of absolute truth. Fully circular and the product of an insipid thought process. Like a hamster in a cage on a wheel. For all the effort, it goes nowhere but in a circular path. Your argument still fails, only it is looking more and more silly the more you protest this type of nonsense ... Each time you counter my argument with the use of your relativistic logic, you appear fully dead intellectually and philosophically. You function just like a computer, no creative thinking at all. Stu: THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE. THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE. MY NAME IS NOMAD, MY NAME IS NOMAD. (imagine the voice of a computer when this is read). I understand it is hard for some people to think in the abstract. Merely because someone passes logic courses doesn't mean they have a philsophical head. Your conclusion based on the use of relativstic logic. So are your assertions that I am wrong. That is your statement based upon your relativistic platform, therefor according to your argument it is circular.... it therfore stands by your own argument and using your own words that... You are stuck in a relativistic loop, running endlessly, with no way to get off the wheel... Stu on the wheel Faith without relativistic logic is the same no matter what the Faith is in, whether it be God, Pink Pixies, an 'Absolute truth', Or a Faith in No Faith. They all hold the same meaninglessness where there is no relativistic logic. Faith using relativistic logic requires, explanation , evidence, probability of outcome, reasonable assumption...without these they remain the same, whether it be God, Pink Pixies, an 'Absolute truth', Or a Faith in No Faith. The most important questions could ONLY be answered with the senses, intellect and reasoning abilities. Since you don't know God, you don't know if faith does in fact lead to God, or not lead to God. Pure relativistic speculation. The rest is just unfounded statements and opinions, which of course you are free to hold as you wish.
ART can't even recognize when his arguments ass has been kicked. Reminds me of the big study at Stanford (?) where it was clearly shown that incompetence and the ability to recognize incompetence are hopelessly intertwined. JB
it's all we have. it's all YOU have.... you are subject to same constraints we are.. what you think you are arguing with? you kid yourself you have god's ear. :-/
Then by equal measure so may No faith or, No God in accordance to your 'challenging Logic' and relativistic arguments... Both fail miserably , but as ever you are ungracious in defeat of your arguments. As most theists do, you display a cowardice by trying to squirm your way around using childish insult rather than face up to the failure of your statements.
BRAVO! BRAVO!! {{clap clap clap}} standing ovation.. well said. well said! and needed to be said!! Well Stu, it's been great to watch you work, a real pleasure. your reasoning is impeccable! same to Turok, and GG, you bring a spark to these discussions like no one else can.. if i've forgotten anyone, i apologize, i'm just happy to be here on the right side. :-/
Thank you for recognizing the way the game is played. If _____________, then ____________. As long as we never challenge the "if" of relativisitic logic and physical perceptions "then" we can create arguements that we can always win.
I should use "adult" insults like the resident atheists? LMAO. Which is it Stu, are you afraid to tell us your first assumption, or do you think you aren't functioning with one? Really, it is so funny to watch a gang effort fail so miserably then watch the participants rally together in a congratulatory society. You have nothing but a first assumption that you are afraid to bring to the table, as when that is show to be wanting, the entire position of certainty would crumble. The edifice of atheism is constructed on the foundation of relativistic logic, not absolute knowledge. If ___________, then ___________. So if __________, then _____________. Hence if ____________, then ______________. Now the atheist cheers wildly and proclaims himself to be the victor. At least theists are intellectually honest that their position is ultimately based on faith and a wish for an absolute knowledge in their life.