with complete sincerity, I'm sorry to read about your upbringing. Parents, no matter how well intended, often make horrible mistakes. I can only imagine what it must have been like.
You are (as usual) misinterpreting my response. Why would I provide a first assumption? Why do you require an assumption rather than to define what constitutes proof. Is it because your method of argument relies eventually upon accusing me of making an assumption in place of dealing with the actuality ? From what you have produced so far, if you don't know if Pink Pixies exist(lack of proof??) then you do not know any more that God exists (lack of proof ??). Lack of evidence in Pink Pixies or God suggests no proof of Pink Pixies or God. Not proof that Pink Pixies or God do not exist. Faith in Pink Pixies existing , by itself, will not alter the actual evidence (or lack of) in Pink Pixies. Or just believing there is some extra evidence when there is no evidence, does not constitute proof of Pink Pixies (or God) You say this: Logic makes no assumptions whatsoever. In the same paragraph you say this: So, with relativistic logic there is a starting point, or a first assumption. You will need to address your contradictions properly before presenting the idea that 'relativistic logic' requires an assumption, when you say logic requires no assumption. Remember I asked you why do I need to supply an assumption ??! You are possibly only seeing a circular argument because you are making it. Constructing all your own assumptions and then arranging your own argument around it. You are right when you say airtight. There is no room to breathe in your stream of assumption. "However, where is the proof that senses are not flawed, where is the proof the relativistic logic is not flawed, where is the proof that human mind is not in a state of delusion to begin with that needs faith to overcome the flawed state?" Even if I go along with your assumption game, you simply end up with Pink Pixies, and ironically , there is where the consistency lies ! A severe Lack of evidence in '..the proof that human mind is in a state of delusion to begin with and needs faith to overcome the flawed state' suggests no proof of a general state of human delusion requiring faith ,or Pink Pixies or God. Neither is such "relativistic logic" put forward as proof that human delusion, Pink Pixies or God do not exist. There is however, more evidence it is the 'Faith' which is the delusion. Prove it !
You are (as usual) misinterpreting my response. You (as usual) as dodging the issue. See how useless it is to say things like "as usual"? This is simply unnecessary and fruitless and can degenerate to become a shouting match. It is not a provable fact that I am misinterpreting, just your opinion. You are free to clarify your position, but accusations are not productive at all. From my perspective, I don't misinterpret you at all. I read you quite clearly. Do you see how your games spiral quickly into flaming? Person A: "You misinterpret me." Person B: "No, YOU are misinterpreting me." Person A: "NO YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING ME." Person B: "NO YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING ME!" Person A: "NO YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING ME!!!! ad infinitum. Useless. Why would I provide a first assumption? Why do you require an assumption rather than to define what constitutes proof. Why would you provide a first assumption? Because I asked you nicely to do so. Please provide me your working definition of proof as relates to this topic. Is it because your method of argument relies eventually upon accusing me of making an assumption in place of dealing with the actuality? Accuse you of making an assumption? You used the word "actuality." Please define by what method you determine what is "actual." Then please tell me the "fact" that is the starting point of this process of arriving at "actual." From what you have produced so far, if you don't know if Pink Pixies exist(lack of proof??) then you do not know any more that God exists (lack of proof ??) If I knew God existed, why would I need to practice faith? Faith is part of the wiring of human beings. If we were computers we could not practice faith, but we are not computers and faith is an essential part of our human nature. Lack of evidence in Pink Pixies or God suggests no proof of Pink Pixies or God. Not proof that Pink Pixies or God do not exist. Lack of evidence. Okay, now define what exactly would be evidence. Faith in Pink Pixies existing , by itself, will not alter the actual evidence (or lack of) in Pink Pixies. I agree. Or just believing there is some extra evidence when there is no evidence, does not constitute proof of Pink Pixies (or God)You say this: Logic makes no assumptions whatsoever. Yes, the rules of logic makes no assumptions whatsoever. Human beings make an assumptions. One of those assumptions is that logic itself is flawless and perfect. What is the check on this assumption? If we use logic to check logic, logic to calibrate logic, how do we know that the logic we are using to calibrate logic is not flawed? In the same paragraph you say this: "So, with relativistic logic there is a starting point, or a first assumption." Yes. Relativistic logic is the application of logic to relational situations. Absolute logic is the application of logic to absolute situations. All sensory input and conclusions drawn on that basis are relativistic in nature. Black is known relative to white. Good relative to bad. Limit relative to no limit, etc. It is this process of defining something relative to something else. Now, imagine something which has no opposite value, existing everywhere and nowhere at the same time eternally. From that perspective, an absolute perspective you could begin to apply absolute logic, not relativistic logic. Logic itself would stay the same, i.e. the rules would be the same but given a different first assumption you arrive at different conclusions. The process of moving from assumption to conclusion is the same. You will need to address your contradictions properly before presenting the idea that 'relativistic logic' requires an assumption, when you say logic requires no assumption. You see contradiction based on the application of relativistic logic. Remember I asked you why do I need to supply an assumption ?? Of course. I said you don't "need" to. It was a request. !You are possibly only seeing a circular argument because you are making it. That is a possibility, but I don't think that is the case. I am pointing out that there are certain assumptions being made, and a case is being made on your part as a result. Constructing all your own assumptions and then arranging your own argument around it. If I am making certain assumptions please point them out. Is it or is it not a fact that there is no external check on human beings use of relativistic logic? Is it or is it not true that there is no external check on human sensory perception without use of the senses? [You are right when you say airtight. 1+1=2 is airtight. I can generate a set of rules, accept those rules, then construct an airtight case on this basis. However, the rules of mathematics are either an invention of man, or they exist independent of man. How could it be known that the rules of mathematics exist outside of man's mind only? There is no room to breathe in your stream of assumption. That is an assumption on your part. "However, where is the proof that senses are not flawed, where is the proof the relativistic logic is not flawed, where is the proof that human mind is not in a state of delusion to begin with that needs faith to overcome the flawed state?" Even if I go along with your assumption game, you simply end up with Pink Pixies, and ironically , there is where the consistency lies! I don't end up with Pink Pixies at all, on the possibility of Pink Pixies does exist. A severe Lack of evidence in '..the proof that human mind is in a state of delusion to begin with and needs faith to overcome the flawed state' suggests no proof of a general state of human delusion requiring faith ,or Pink Pixies or God. Neither is such "relativistic logic" put forward as proof that human delusion, Pink Pixies or God do not exist. There is however, more evidence it is the 'Faith' which is the delusion. If you assume the product of faith is fantasy, and then you assume product of "evidence" is fact, then an assumption is being made. So, what is the basis of this conclusion? Is it by faith that you have come to this conclusion? Is it on the basis of your own personal experience? Is it on the basis of every single human being that has ever lived that you conclude this? Or is it by the application of relativistic logic and sensory perception that you conclude this? If it is the latter, then the conclusion is dependent on the proper and accurate function of senses and intellect. How do you know that sense and your intellect are calibrated properly? Do you look to what the majority of human beings experience is, and on this basis draw this conclusion? If 99 out of 100 people see the color red, and one sees it as gray, we label the 1 person defective and color blind. How do the 99 know they are seeing it accurately? How do they know their eyesight is showing them the reality of the color? See, it boils down to what people define as reality, what they trust, what they have faith[/b] in. The 99 have faith they are seeing it correctly on the basis of numbers. Does this mean that independent of human senses that the color is red? All this focus when it comes to God on "logic" as the means to know God over the practice of faith. We have the majority of people saying that when they practice faith they come to know God. We have a minority who practice faith and fail say that they didn't come to know God via faith. Who is right, the minority or the majority of human experience? You choose the minority position as valid. I choose my own experience as valid.
I believe the word is apar - which in ancient Hebrew did NOT have a singular meaning (like many other Hebrew words). Depending on context/intent, it could mean anything from loose earth, dust, clay, clods, mortar/plaster, debris, ashes, as well as "nothingness".
If you are genuinely interested in debate then why fan sparks into flames? I showed how you misinterpreted my my response.. shall I go through it for you.... You first make MY premise for me... if that isn't at least running the risk of gross misinterpretation what is?? It turned out to be the case that the premise YOU decided for ME was a total misinterpretation of my position. Then you say: If I was wrong, please then provide your first assumption I say: Just why do I need to provide an assumption? You then say: You don't "need" to. I asked a simple question of you and you are refusing a simple answer flaming a little here are "we" ART, or is it just you doing it?? But at this point you have misinterpreted yet again! By explanation I say: Why would I provide a first assumption? Why do you require an assumption rather than to define what constitutes proof..... You are (as usual) misinterpreting my response So where's the problem ART... why so tetchy?? It is not a provable fact that I am misinterpreting, just your opinion. You sure ??!! So do you really want to do this 'senses and relativistic logic' stuff , or are you just pissing about as usual?
Just a note to say, despite the flaming, there are some excellent points from both sides, a good thread.
The classroom is an entirely one sided debate where you are not even allowed to bring your religion into the question or have much of a career if you are an intellectual heretic and don't believe the current party line. There is one guy that I know of that will give you the other side of the debate, Kent Hovind, for $15 for a CD of his lectures. He tells the history of the debate, which the classroom never does, he tells you the problems with evolution theory, and he tells you his own theory. At least the other side of the debate is available at last, thanks to technology. Who is really right on everything?? I don't know,but I refuse to discuss things with people that have heard one side of an argument and claim that they are the superior thinkers. Max
I shouldn't have even tried. You theists are able to manufacture endless revisionist linguistics and interpretations. Dust is nothingness. 6 days is 5 billion years. Pregnancy is virginity. (War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength...) Anything to maintain your false sense of purpose, I suppose.
Exactly so Rearden and in addition, you must also make assumptions at their order, just so they can have it that you make assumptions. Of course by the same perverted logic of the theist, 'Faith' is not an assumption, but logic is. But only when they want it to be.