AXE:"You still have not explained why such an inconsistent system is of any value."[/i] "Explain to a deaf man why music has value to his life." Nice dodge. In other words... you have NO defense to as why your faith based system is full of so many inconsistencies. The rest of your post is therefore irrelevant, except this: "What is the proof that your method of thinking is reflective of reality, ultimate reality any more than another method?" Because logic is directly based on reality. It must be accepted as axiomically true for you even to be able to say anything. In fact.... it is quite silly to ask me to prove something which is REQUIRED to exist for you to even be able to ask the question. The following article explains why logic is superior to this faith nonsense and directly addresses your challenges: http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/reasonvfaith.htm However... your faith... I have already proven to be one huge contradictory mess. MANY people can have contradictory faith based knowledge proving the impotence of faith. It is so simple. All you can claim is that they "dont really have faith", or used it incorrectly...blah blah... but this is a mere cop out. You cannot claim to be the SOLE correct user of faith in the universe. If I claim I have faith that god doesnt exist, you have NO authority to claim that is not the case. *I* , not you, am using MY faith. So drop the excuses, they are quite silly. If you are allowed to claim that my faith must not be real, or that I used it incorrectly, then I can just as easily claim that YOUR faith is not real, that YOU are using faith incorrectly, that YOUR faith is false. It's gets us nowhere fast. In the end , you are left with nothing. Not a shred of reason as to WHY faith is a good system of knowledge. I have pointed out the GLARING contradictions of faith based systems, and you have not to date resolved them by any RATIONAL means or criteria. You will say that my criteria is not valid, but this is just your empty unsupported opinion, since you are completely incapable of showing why my criteria, logic, is false, since you contradict yourself everytime you try to show this BY USING LOGIC You have trapped yourself. You reject logic, and think that it is unsupported and therefore have no means of communicating anything to me or anyone else without self contradiction. Just TRY and propose ANY argument without using logic/reason. It's simply not possible, because logic *IS* the framework in which we communicate. Your next tactic is to claim that reason/logic works great EXCEPT for god, where FAITH should be used. But as the article says: If faith were a viable alternative to reason, then what are its rules? How do we know when to apply it? How do we know that someone has misapplied it? How can we tell the difference between the effects of faith and the effects of inadvertent, though well-meaning, self-delusion. Its simply impossible. Faith is NEVER a good alternative to reason because it is impossible to verify when faith is right, wrong, used correctly, incorrectly, and produces countless contradictions. Guess what... there are millions of Muslims in the world who have FAITH that your religion is bunk. There are millions of christians in the world who have FAITH that the muslims religion is bunk. Just more proof that faith is IMPOTENT because of its huge inconsistencies. If reason is not the standard, then there literally is no standard, and people can believe what they choose. peace axeman That you practiced faith in God in an inconsistent manner has no bearing on either the validity of God or the practice of faith. Like the deaf man who can't hear music and rejects its validity, you failed in the practice of faith and reject its validity. <SNIP>
I will pull an axeism here, and just dismiss your entire thread as irrelevant and a dodge. How weak is that to simply dismiss someone elses ideas. It is vain, pompous, and reflective of a self centered and shallow view of life. You put relativistic logic up as the pinacle, yet can provide no justificaiton beyond logic itself. Ok, if it works for you, cool, but if faith works for the majority and produces knowledge of God, that is not sufficient for you. If that isn't the ultimate in circular reasoning, I don't know what is. You apply relativistic logic, without knowing with certainty that your first assumption is correct, and build a structure according to the rules of logic and reason. Prove that your first asumptions are more than first assumptions when it comes to the existence of God. Prove the your use of relativistic logic is in fact the most accurate view of ultimate reality when it comes to the discussion of God, that it is in fact a more accurate tool to use than the heart. If you cannot, it is just another belief system, based on faith in sensory perception and intellect, and it is entirely self referral in its checks and balance system. Quite honestly, I don't understand why you can't simply say the truth: "I tried, I failed, I don't believe it is right for me, but I don't really know for sure if it works for others." You simply don't know about anyone else, and in fact, you don't even truly know for yourself....yet it is the overbearing sense of intellectual self righteousness that permeates your comments.
"I will pull an axeism here, and just dismiss your entire thread as irrelevant and a dodge. How weak is that to simply dismiss someone elses ideas. " I did no such thing. I explained in detail why I dismissed your post. " It is vain, pompous, and reflective of a self centered and shallow view of life. " Fallacy: Ad Hominem. Big surprise. "You put relativistic logic up as the pinacle, yet can provide no justificaiton beyond logic itself. " apparently you didnt read what I posted or the article. " Ok, if it works for you, cool, but if faith works for the majority and produces knowledge of God, that is not sufficient for you. If that isn't the ultimate in circular reasoning, I don't know what is." I have shown this is NOT the case. My FAITH does NOT produce knowledge of god. You continue to DODGE this fact. FAITH allows you to believe ANYTHING you want and is therefore an inconsistent and useless system for discovering any kind of truth. "You apply relativistic logic, without knowing with certainty that your first assumption is correct, and build a structure according to the rules of logic and reason. Prove that your first asumptions are more than first assumptions when it comes to the existence of God." Logic is based on the first law of identity, that is that A is A. A universe where identity didnt exist, is impossible. This is an axiom. If you reduce logic to its bare minimum you end up with axioms which are undeniable without denying your very own existence which would be a contradiction. I have NO assumptions of god. "Prove the your use of relativistic logic is in fact the most accurate view of ultimate reality when it comes to the discussion of God, that it is in fact a more accurate tool to use than the heart." I have already done so. Your faith/heart is inconsistent. I have proven this beyond any doubt. You simply refuse to accept this. But give NO alternative proof that your faith/heart is accurate in any way whatsoever. "If you cannot, it is just another belief system, based on faith in sensory perception and intellect, and it is entirely self referral in its checks and balance system." You like to change the definition of faith mid-argument as a fallacious way to make points. Faith in god and faith in our perceptions are worlds apart. Using a nebulous word as faith does NOT make them the same. "Quite honestly, I don't understand why you can't simply say the truth: "I tried, I failed, I don't believe it is right for me, but I don't really know for sure if it works for others."" Irrelevent. I tried faith , and yes it failed for me. That is the truth. But this ** IS NOT ** the reason I reject faith. This is completely irrelevant. I reject faith for the reasons I have already given. Faith allows you to believe ANYTHING you want and is an INCONSISTENT system. You have NOT proven it to be consistent. You consistently DODGE this issue. "You simply don't know about anyone else, and in fact, you don't even truly know for yourself...." LMAOOOOOOOO.... now you know ME better than ME. Talk about pompous!! "yet it is the overbearing sense of intellectual self righteousness that permeates your comments." Fallacy: Poisoning the well. What else is new. All your arguments are FULL of fallacies. I should go back and total the number, but it would take too long. LOL! All of modern science is basec on reason/logic. It has proven beyond a doubt, that it is an awesome system for discovering truth. It is based on undeniable axioms, which if you were to reject, you reject you very existence. And yet... you wish to claim that faith is an alternative, EVEN THOUGH, I have proven, that it is an INCONSISTENT system. Dream on. HOW do you justify this? WHO should believe in a system which allows you to label just about anything as true, as long as you "faith" it. Ridiculous. I can think of NO system more flawed than a system based on faith. I have FAITH that you are wrong. Millions of muslims have FAITH that you are wrong. By your logic... I guess your wrong The problems with faith are so obvious, even a child can see them clearly. How can you possibly defend such nonsense? peace axeman
Quote from axeman: "Irrelevent. I tried faith , and yes it failed for me. That is the truth." Let me shout like and make emphasis like axe. YOU tried the practice of faith, and YOU failed. FAITH did not fail you, YOU FAILED TO PRACTICE FAITH CORRECTLY. In the same way that YOU made a conscious choice to reject my entire reply based on your own personal criteria, YOU ALSO MADE A CONSCIOUS CHOICE TO REJECT THE PRACTICE OF FAITH BASED ON YOUR OWN CRITERIA. The correct practice of faith, which you FAILED to perform, would have been to TRUST IN FAITH, and reject intellectualism. YOU FAILED FAITH, not the reverse. Wow, this all caps really works. How odd is man, that if he seeks to know not just a higher intelligence, but the HIGHEST possible intelligence, God, that he makes a decision in times of doubt to trust in his own LIMITED intelligence, rather than asking the higher intelligence for the strength to overcome his limited intelligence. YOU COULD HAVE DOUBTED THE DOUBTS YOU HAD, but you instead chose to trust in doubt. YOU PRACTICED FAITH IN DOUBT, and the results are 100% consistent with those who practice faith in doubt. Faith is 100% consistent when practiced 100% consistently to know God. YOU FAILED TO DO SO, yet like the fox who had no choice but to conclude sour grapes, you must necessarily say that faith failed you.
"YOU tried the practice of faith, and YOU failed. FAITH did not fail you, YOU FAILED TO PRACTICE FAITH CORRECTLY. In the same way that YOU made a conscious choice to reject my entire reply based on your own personal criteria, YOU ALSO MADE A CONSCIOUS CHOICE TO REJECT THE PRACTICE OF FAITH BASED ON YOUR OWN CRITERIA." Such silliness. I already explained that my failure of faith was NOT the reason that I rejected. Several times even. How convenient that you ignore my main point and make the EXACT same error and ridiculous claims that the only reason I reject faith is because it failed ME. HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... listen closely this time. The REASON I rejected faith is because I realized how completely contradictory and inconsistent it is. WHICH TO DATE, you have NOT refuted, because you CANT. "The correct practice of faith, which you FAILED to perform, would have been to TRUST IN FAITH, and reject intellectualism. YOU FAILED FAITH, not the reverse." Who cares. Again... this is NOT the reason I reject faith. Pay attention. "Wow, this all caps really works. How odd is man, that if he seeks to know not just a higher intelligence, but the HIGHEST possible intelligence, God, that he makes a decision in times of doubt to trust in his own LIMITED intelligence, rather than asking the higher intelligence for the strength to overcome his limited intelligence. YOU COULD HAVE DOUBTED THE DOUBTS YOU HAD, but you instead chose to trust in doubt. YOU PRACTICED FAITH IN DOUBT, and the results are 100% consistent with those who practice faith in doubt." More circular reasoning. Prove god FIRST before making such bold unsupported claims. Otherwise, your simply telling us a fairy tale. "Faith is 100% consistent when practiced 100% consistently to know God." LOL! I have already given numerous examples which prove this is NOT true. Millions of people have CONTRADICTORY faith that the other is wrong. Just look at most of the religions in the world. They all have FAITH that THEY are right. Yet they cant all be right. Again you fail to justify this HUGE gapping whole in your faith based system. "YOU FAILED TO DO SO, yet like the fox who had no choice but to conclude sour grapes, you must necessarily say that faith failed you." Once again.... IRRELEVANT. You purposely PRETEND to KNOW that the reason I rejected faith is because it failed me. Listen closely, so you will get it this time: THIS IS NOT THE CASE Its an inconsistent system. I have proven this beyond doubt. You have FAILED to justify it. End of story. We can just agree to disagree at this point, but I think it is OBVIOUS to even a child, that faith is NOT capable of producing non-contradictory results. I can come up with examples of contradictory faith every day for the rest of my life. Faith completely FAILS as a system of finding truth. I cant think of a MORE inconsistent system of thought. It is completely impotent. peace axeman Oh and PS. I have FAITH that your completely wrong. LOL!
I have faith that I will make money in the markets. I have faith that I will make money in the markets. I have faith that I will make money in the markets.... Please please please.. Its not working :/
Oh, if I say THIS IS NOT THE CASE followed by a smiley face, this makes it so. Interesting school of thought.
Axeman - did you say that your trading systems were 100% accurate based on logic and reason? If so are they for sale and guaranteed? Do you only pull the trigger when you are 100% logically sure your 100% accurate systems are 100% accurate.
Part of man's folly is as follows. Man can intellectually postulate that there may be an intelligence higher than his own. Man knows he is limited in intelligence, very limited, yet he can imagine something greater, something even greater, and finally something which is greatest. He may not believe this, and may be holding out for proof, but the proof needs to be something he can understand. If the intelligence is higher, how could he understand? How could you speak to someone who was convinced his limited mind and understanding were wrong, unless that person was willing to admit to this? The atheists demand that a higher intelligence, if that intelligence exists must necessarily conform to a lower standard than the higher intelligence. If God did appear before man, and jumped through all the hoops, the man would say, you are not God, but simply a man. God could say, "but my world is different than your world, it is the opposite of your world, so you can't understand with your limited mind as there is nothing in this world to create a point of reference, but to say that my world is the exact opposite of this world. So, intellectually, it is impossible for you to understand.....However, I can show you if you trust me, if you follow me." Now, when we talk of God, we are talking about the supreme intelligence, above which there is no higher intelligence. Conceptually, an intelligence that was able to create the entire universe. How many men have the degree of intelligence to do that? Hardly anyone can catch a fly with their bare hands. So, if you can get the atheist to accept for the sake of argument that such an intelligence and a personality in which that intelligence resided did in fact exist, ask they how they would know that to be true? They then drag out their limited knowledge and hoops and place them in front of you and demand that the higher intelligence must meet those terms. Why must they meet his terms? Because that is the limit of his understanding. The atheist would demand that a higher intelligence step down to his level so that he can understand, so that he can be convinced according to his level of understanding, so that he can trust. He even believes that a higher intelligence would necessarily be able to convince him according to his standards, but this conclusion is circular as the conclusion is based on his own limited understanding. Try going to someone who is smarter than you and demand that they prove something they that they know, something that you don't know, and demand that it must be done according to your level of understanding, tell the higher intelligence that you are unwilling to follow any instruction to increase your existing intelligence in order to gain understanding, that you are not willing to change your fixed point of view. Not ask mind you, but demand belligerently that they must meet your needs of proof. This is the mind of a child, who places intellectual demands on a higher intelligence in order to evolve from their current level of understanding. Another term for it is stubbornness, or vanity, or ego. Learning begins when some admits they don't know, that they need help to know, and they are willing to take the necessary steps to gain that knowledge. If people are happy with their limited intelligence, that is their choice. Others seek more, as they have been honest enough with themselves to admit they don't know it all.