i dont know if i follow but.. my eyes seems to be working fine. as is my nose, ears, sense of touch (i am not being facetious here) senses working OK.. check! my intellect seems at very least in working order here too.. i get by day to day w/o much difficulty .. i eat, i breathe, i sleep, i solve usual daily mundane probs with relative ease.. intellect seemingly working ok... check! what am i missing (if anything)?? what's next??
i don't know how (to see as you do)?? i really don't! I am not the anti-christ.. given enlightened CHOICE b/w TRUTH or UnTruth.. I choose TRUTH! I choose Truth, I do, as *I* KNOW it. :-/
What's next for you? If you can imagine nothing beyond your mundane existence, my guess of what is next for you would be inebriation. Then wake up with a hangover tomorrow and push the rock up the hill again. "The well does not go to the thirsty." ------------Hindu Proverb----------------
Yes, as your "know" truth, you choose it. The mind that judges itself completely sane is certainly not.
ART, my imagination is quite active. I 'see" all sorts of things in my minds eye but i dont let things get out of hand.. i apply the filter of reason. logic, heuristic devices to my intellectual constructs to keep my feet (and mind) well grounded in "reality" (as we can only know it). I dont know of any other way that is more reliable in discovery. or more pragmatic. if i could be privay to any "absolute truth" i would gladly embrace it with bells on. i would be a fool not too...
Pardon me for butting in, but, speaking for myself, I can imagine something beyond my "mundane existance" (though I find mine quite exciting!). I can imagine lots and lots. In fact, I am big day dreamer (in a good way). But, I just not really sure that those things exist. You seem to have had "the thirst" and, golly wow, you found your well. Not hard to understand.
Hi nononsense, Thank you for your clarification re: proof. Thank you also for your other gracious remarks. In standing together that it is impossible to disprove a negative (or arbitrary assertion), and therefore not useful in discourse, I think we've raised the bar for those who inadvertantly or mistakenly may go down similar paths in the future. At the very least when they do, we can simply point them to our exchange, and save ourselves the time of doing it again. I agree with some of your other points, disagree with others. To the latter and only to note it here, I refer specifically to the "kinds of knowledge" assertions that I've often seen used, and not necessarily by you, in vain attempts to position Faith on par or even above Reason as a means of knowledge, or to otherwise attempt to undermine fact, contextual certainty, or any possible determination of objective value. I am not a mystic, nor do I subscribe to the ideas of a Kant or a Marcuse in their attempts to blend secularism with religious superstitions. But those are possibly discussions for another day. My concern in my original reply to you was solely on the topic of proof and to debunk thoroughly what I perceived was a common error on this board. By your reply to me, I do see that you can take ideas seriously and I believe that our contribution here in this context will make ET a more useful forum for those who share a similar commitment. Cheers.
Quote from rgelite: Rules of evidence require the burden of proof be placed on those who assert the positive (in this instance that "god exists"). Please cite your source for the rules of evidence definition. It sounds specious to me. The are rules regarding who has the burden.
If I'm understanding you correctly, I think perhaps you've focused on the legal "Rules of Evidence" (note the caps) and, as a code, its nuances for determining relevance in a court of law. As one example: http://expertpages.com/federal/federal.htm If that was your intent, then yes, I'd agree, the burden varies based on context. But I'll also condition my agreement with an understanding that a claimant's initial burden must be to provide some factual justification for the claim. Faith is not sufficient. It is not the defendant's initial responsibility to prove the claim is baseless, at least not in the United States. I can understand how it might have "sounded specious" if you had interpreted "rules of evidence" as "Rules of Evidence." But legal nuance wasn't the essential focus of this thread. The context of my reply was merely to debunk a common fallacy in epistemology, the consequence of adhering to such a flawed method being that the intended (stated) process goes nowhere. Once arbitrary assertions are allowed to seep into discourse, one is trapped; they can't be disproved because in rebuttal another arbitrary assertion can simply be manufactured to "counter" all prior argument. This is a common practice in the polemics that masquerade as civil discussion here on ET and in many other forums. The way out of the trap is simply to refuse to play on those terms. Because I say so? No, of course not. Because those terms, those rules of engagement clearly lead nowhere, something most people understand after they've been through one or two loops in an issue of relevance to them. For the others who play with ideas, and I've already written on this, they may not care about the waste of their time/life. But I care about mine. Bottom line, the example I provided in the guise of a courtroom drama was to demonstrate why calls to disprove the arbitrary are fruitless. Those "rules of evidence" that permit such a method don't work. My effort succeeded in doing that and will stand on its own merits. Thanks for the opportunity to clear up any ambiguity that existed in my original post. Cheers.
rgelite, I was interested by your proposition that [paraphrasing].. ideas should be taken seriously and that debate will make for a more useful forum. That would be a pleasant change, but I think you will struggle hard to achieve such a laudable aim. For instance, notice all the ""s nononsense assigns to words which do not require ""s .They hold clear meaning and understanding by themselves. This is intended to indicate (I presume correct me if I am wrong nonon') that there is some "deeper" (see what I mean?), or more subtle inference attached to the word, a true meaning of which perhaps cannot be found. Or perhaps it's a method - all be it, possibly a subconscious one - to foster the grounds for another agenda which is already firmly decided, so that words and meaning can be changed or altered as the agenda starts to be undermined By this, words no longer say what they mean. Now look, I am not seeking to be argumentative here, I was attracted to your idea that infers there could be rational and civil debate without the usual descent into juvenile insult. But my experience in these threads, is that those arguing For absolutes, God, faith, religion, are very keen to have words mean what they want them to mean, and not what is generally understood language (using "" s is one example). Soon all human knowledge, proof, space and time (no ""s required) and stu's (lol) do not pertain, yet strangely enough, guess what,... their argument still does! I expect you are being very optimistic (although I like optimistic) in believing you can hold a debate and keep within the grounds of reasonable discussion, where the definition and meanings of words are established if necessary and then adhered to Very soon the absurd takes over the Pro supernatural's arguments, once you attempt to define, or in some cases, even dare to question. Case in point.... my next post