Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As if its your right to pass judgment, now that you are ending the conversation.
Why wouldn't I have such a right?
You've got to be kidding, right?
And you're not going to answer my question?
Avoidance.
Unsupported. The only observers we know about that observe like us are us, and we definitely observe a world of data.
Data precedes our thoughts about it.
Answer the question: is data its own start and end point?
You patently know this does not make sense, so you are avoiding it.
You hardly addressed it, believe me I have checked.
Now you are saying it is the start point but not the end point, and I am interested to know how you justify that claim.
Stop putting some needless price on your opinion, it's worth almost nothing (even if you're perfect).
Yes but if it's factually wrong, you can't easily affirm it, can you? That's the point. It's evident in principle long before it's evident in fact. As I said, there is far too much data for that on its own to be an answer to anything.
You said
Which dodges the question entirely and then gives a random thought that changes the context.
Answer the question: is data its own start and end point?
You patently know this does not make sense, so you are avoiding it.
"Data" is its own start point. "Interpretation" is the end point. To say otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.
I would argue that data is not its own start point and that interpretation is "an" end, not "the end". So we clearly differ in opinion, which is the point. Variant doesn't seem to grasp the need to state this, despite a vocal belief in fact.
The point is, if data is its own start and end point as Variant is suggesting, then it's resolution is internal to itself and science is not needed, thus principle which requires spirit becomes that which governs the interpretation of what remains (as you may have been alluding to). So whether you like principle or not, it is there whether data is contingent or exclusive, which is my point.
Unfortunately Variant can't handle greater powers existing over anything apparently, so the conversation will be terminated at an embarassing exit stage right - embarassing because to live without principle is at the very least a great embarassment.
I introduced a concept, you are not answering it.
This is typical of Evolutionists.
When its too hard to be opinionated, you withdraw into your shell and everyone has to cow tow to your wants.
You cannot see that I am guiding you into reason with my question? Or you don't want to know?
Intellectual dishonesty? Really? I was going to demonstrate that data cannot be its own start and end point if it attempts to be a part of any kind of meaningful set whatsoever, but you seem to think you know this, and wait, that you already don't need to know.
In other words, you are spoon feeding the conversation from inside a shell you were in from the beginning and now you are hurling insults to prevent yourself from being found out, your baby "data" is therefore acidically prepared as a defence mechanism should anyone try to convince you that science is a doormat to belief in God.
Yes but if you arbitrarily introduce the idea that data is its own start point - as you are doing - then what is the difference between that and arbitrarily introducing the idea that data is its own end point also.
So you see, the idea that I am arbitrarily steering the conversation is actually a projection of your own confused imagination about where things begin.
Believe me, if I thought correcting you was my job, you would suffer a great deal more than to answer a simple question (which to my recollection is all I've asked).
Now if you honestly believe that you are going to where you started up (and you're not) because that is where the data all points, then by all means go back there, but don't drag everyone else along and then claim the higher ground on the basis of principle which people were trying to tell you was more important all along... thankyou.
They are different ideas with different consequences and one doesn't follow from the other.
It would be a bit like me saying your father preceded you, which would in no way imply that he also succeeds you.
What I have been arguing is that data is primary to interpretation for our system of viewing the world.
And I have corrected you several times now, and, I have no intention of defending an idea that I did not present.
I am not responcable for your sloppy intellectualism, but I do notice how your position only seems to work if you assume a theistic mindset.
Very muddled thinking indeed.
Yes but for all intents and purposes it is the exact same thing.
It's primary to a secondary interpretation that eschews the spirit of principle for the letter of principle, but it cannot exist as a primary interpretation because without an observer that only principle can create, any associations made primarily are meaningless. If you could show that arbitrarily ignoring the meaninglessness of certain associations in the beginning was justified by ignoring equally meaningless associations in the end, then you would have a point...
...but only by first establishing the principle of equanimity.
Congratulations you have come to the realization that there is a God, by observing my adherence to principle. I myself said nothing of the sort, but you are quite correct. I can only conclude that you are complimenting me for maintaining principle through what has clearly been a very slow conversation.
Now I suggest you ask yourself, if I am thinking there is a God now and my data does not suggest that I would, what else am I thinking exists in relation to the principle this person is clearly sticking to? Am I an observer of my own principle? Or do I contend that the basis for my own observation is facile?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?