Gekko, can you prove...
- Thread starter Malestrom
- Start date
It is a stawman argument when the house is built of staw.
If we cannot discuss the tools used to derive our measurements from, if we cannot discuss how those tools are chosen, if cannot discuss how we KNOW those tools are the right tool for a job, if we cannot discuss proper calibration of said tools, and if we cannot discuss our assumptions, then there is no real platform for discussion.
Those who are unwilling to examine the foundation they build their science, philosophy or religion on are afraid of something.
That the atheists here chicken out from the REAL debate is not surprising to me at all.
I can clearly recall many years ago when in the halls of "logic" where philosophy professors were playing games, as they had long ago concluded they couldn't find truth.
If _______________ then ______________ becomes the game.
If physical perception and relativistic logic are the accurate means to know reality outside of human consciousness, then they would reveal the truth.
Yet, it remains a conditional statment no matter how much one wants to believe otherwise.
The condition accepted, but not proven except via circular reasoning, is that senses and relativistic logic are in FACT representative of Reality, and not just producinig illusion themselves.
I can see why you don't want to go there, i.e. discussion of your first assumption, but you prefer to practice blind faith in the tools of your choosing.
Who am I to take away that warm stupid feeling that comes when the human mind believes itself to know the Truth.
If we cannot discuss the tools used to derive our measurements from, if we cannot discuss how those tools are chosen, if cannot discuss how we KNOW those tools are the right tool for a job, if we cannot discuss proper calibration of said tools, and if we cannot discuss our assumptions, then there is no real platform for discussion.
Those who are unwilling to examine the foundation they build their science, philosophy or religion on are afraid of something.
That the atheists here chicken out from the REAL debate is not surprising to me at all.
I can clearly recall many years ago when in the halls of "logic" where philosophy professors were playing games, as they had long ago concluded they couldn't find truth.
If _______________ then ______________ becomes the game.
If physical perception and relativistic logic are the accurate means to know reality outside of human consciousness, then they would reveal the truth.
Yet, it remains a conditional statment no matter how much one wants to believe otherwise.
The condition accepted, but not proven except via circular reasoning, is that senses and relativistic logic are in FACT representative of Reality, and not just producinig illusion themselves.
I can see why you don't want to go there, i.e. discussion of your first assumption, but you prefer to practice blind faith in the tools of your choosing.
Who am I to take away that warm stupid feeling that comes when the human mind believes itself to know the Truth.
Quote from LongShot:
ART is all over the place with his nonsense he doesn't have a clear position just a bunch o' loose wierd "ideers" but he cant connect the dots.
You think you are in a position to know?
Hubris, no doubt.
Hubris, no doubt.
Gentlemen,
It is time to change the paradigm.
The question really should be:
Why would anybody allow themselves to be killed/murdered?
There is an assumption throughout this thread, that the murderee has no choice.
This assumption needs to be challenged.
JohnnyK
"All the world is a stage, and we are merely players", Shakespeare
It is time to change the paradigm.
The question really should be:
Why would anybody allow themselves to be killed/murdered?
There is an assumption throughout this thread, that the murderee has no choice.
This assumption needs to be challenged.
JohnnyK
"All the world is a stage, and we are merely players", Shakespeare
That you see yourself in a position of judgment, without proper foundation, of the problems of others is hubris.
Or do you need a dictionary to understand the word?
Or do you need a dictionary to understand the word?
