Quote from nononsense:
Hi rgelite,
After having run through Longshot's many quotes of Bertrand Russell, which he "believes" to give more than adequate intellectual backing to his convictions, I quickly dropped the Gödel example in order to put a little damper on the hype. In this context I also opposed my "disprove" to his "prove".
I didn't really expect to get a reaction like yours in which you attempt to put some badly needed rigor in all this. In fact you may also have seen my short question about "rationality".
As your argument concerns "proving" or "proof", we of course would both recognize that the nature of the proposition is of paramount importance. The almost endless confusion on the Chit-Chat threads like this one is mainly due to the failure to recognize the fact that "human knowledge" can be of different kinds. As an example, you probably noticed our friend "stu's" reply almost following yours where he in fact believes to be able to "disprove" a proposition of a metaphysical kind with arguments about "space and time"....
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
Quote from rgelite:
Once arbitrary assertions are allowed to seep into discourse, one is trapped...
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
