Give it up Art, you are looking really stupid now. I ONLY use YOUR ARGUMENTS to show YOUR ARGMENTS fail Try to L@@K... get it in your relativistic logic brain cell..... by YOUR argument: The edifice of theism is constructed on the foundation of relativistic logic, not absolute knowledge. If __Faith_________, then ____God_______. So if ___Faith _______, then ____God_________. Hence if ____Faith________, then _____God_________. You ONLY have your relativistic construct there is nothing else. Everything is suspect inside of it, including your FAITH and including NO FAITH and including anything else you put in it. (CLUE: It's because your logic equation is CRAP!! as is your relativistic construct argument ) The ONLY way to ascertain true from false is by explanation , evidence, probability of outcome, measurable result. There is no other way. Put Faith, No Faith, Fairies, Bollocks.. whatever in your stupid equation and the argument that theism is based upon anything other than your relativistic construct thingy, still fails. It failed before... it's still failing!! .... as anything else would which gets put in your - now really fukin stupid equation. For fukin fuks sake ART grow up.
Your statement: "The ONLY way to ascertain true from false is by explanation , evidence, probability of outcome, measurable result." My response: If we accept that the explanation, the evidence, the probability of outcome, and the measurable results are the product of absolute instrumentation, ONLY then we could have absolute knowledge of true and false. If on the other hand we are using instrumentation that can only be verified subjectively and could possibly be faulty or not representative of truth outside of the limits of the technology used to provide the evidence, the probability of outcome, and the measurable results, then we would gain nothing but relativistic true or false results. They would be conditional at best on the quality of the instrumentation. That you condescend with logic teacher positioning and slurs is of course the standard operating procedure. Classic. An in addition to the rigidity of self righteousness of response, the only other consistency is the dodge of your own first assumption in play. I know you won't go there, and we both know why. I ask that question over, and over, and over, and like a liar on the witness stand, the answer never comes. It is very difficult to have discussions with fundamentalist Christians about God, and equally as difficult to have discussions with fundamentalist atheists. Two sides of the same coin.
Your argument has failed, you are saying nothing which alters that. You keep asking me for an assumption. I gave you one. I shall rephrase it for you if you want. It will make no difference. Your argument has failed: You are a toss pot. Now you have my assumption, what will you do with it? What use is it to you ? Without relativistic logic/construct you cannot reject it measure it assess whether or not it is true. Though apparently it is true. Your argument has failed.
My agument has exceeded your capacity, not failed. The limits and boundaries of a mind locked into relativistic logic comes to bear. Just as failed theists blame their lack of faith on the nature of faith itself, rather than admit they quit out of weakness of mind, and consequently live in a sour grapes display of resentment and anger towards the successful theists. It is a cop out. Your first assumption about the nature of reality is that I am a toss pot? Who is calling the kettle black? You can claim my argument has failed all you like, your claim is but an opinion. Free country. More fundamentalism and fanaticism from the fanatical fundamentalist atheists is all I see though.
ART: >My agument has exceeded your capacity, not failed. And the winner is.... ART, by absolute assertion. JB
Your argument has failed. Your words... "I agree, you are correct. My arguments fail, as your arguments fail, as all arguments fail to produce absolute knowledge when they are constructed on a relativistic platform. Again I repeat , YOUR words.... "all arguments fail to produce absolute knowledge when they are constructed on a relativistic platform". Faith is constructed upon a relativistic platform. If it is not, explain how it is not. <Warning> you will have one hell of a job in doing so. As you will need an explanation constructed upon a relativistic platform as there are no others. Your argument will be circular by your own definition. Faith is no different to anything else. If it is show how it is. But you will need an explanation constructed upon a relativistic platform as there are no others. Your argument will be circular by your own definition. <Warning> you will have one hell of a job in doing so. etc etc... It appears you just don't have the balls to acknowledge your Faith idea fails and is circular too. It has no 'free of a relativistic platform' . The limits and boundaries of a mind locked into relativistic logic comes to bear. ....on your Faith as on everything else... except that, many things have explanation , evidence, probability of outcome, measurable result. Faith alone does not. Your argument fails on all sides.
hey.. wait a minute.. you used THAT on me a while back .. :-/ diet thread.. remember?? diff is.. I *WAS* clear winner! lol