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.
You accuse me of reason which is logic. I accuse you of logic which is reason. The difference is, I have that something more to compare it with...and you don't. I have the reason of logic of two world...and you don't.I hope you aware that what you see as impossible, what you cannot imagine... that this is not a validation of truth... not a sign of "knowledge".
That isn't even including the option of fakery, not the option of self-delusion... it is just pointing at the inevitable fact that, at some point, you have to accept something as true without being able to get "proof without imagination".
Just claiming "this cannot be wrong" is not enough. It shouldn't be enough by "common sense"... and it is definitly not enough when using logic.
You can claim that I "simply don't understand", that I "have nothing to base it on". Quite the contrary: I understand logic very well, and understand that it is a working system to base knowledge on. And you don't.
So you claim. So you assert.You accuse me of reason which is logic. I accuse you of logic which is reason. The difference is, I have that something more to compare it with...and you don't. I have the reason of logic of two world...and you don't.
Well, neither were you reasoning with me in my world. In my world, you need to back up assertions with something more than the reference to "another reality".Even if you don't believe me, I have reasoned with you in your world...but you have not reasoned with me in mine.
I don't think that you, as a "contestant" are the authority to define what is or isn't considered a "forfeiture". That would be for the jury to decide.In any contest, your response would be considered a forfeiture...regardless of any consideration to evidence.
It's not logical.
You counter my assertion...then you insist on back up for assertions. Not only is it all just talk (assertions) on both sides, but you do not live up to your own standard. You can offer nothing more than hearsay as well, and defining evidence your own way, proves nothing. I do the same and you do not accept it...so I do not accept yours either. Is that it, then?So you claim. So you assert.
I counter that assertion.
Well, neither were you reasoning with me in my world. In my world, you need to back up assertions with something more than the reference to "another reality".
You hypothetically turning things around, without actually having any knowledge of my world, means nothing. You have never been, and you don't know. I, on the other hand, intimately know from experience in both worlds, and cannot be fooled by your conjecture. You bring nothing to the table that I don't already know. But you cannot say the same (even if you try and turn it around).But let me apply the reasoning of "your world" to my side:
Even if you don't believe me, even if you don't think that I am serious now: I know more than you think, and I know that "your world" is imaginary. This knowledge is part of my very existence.
These are the rules from your side of the discussion, your world, your rules. I have lived up to them...you have not. Nothing a jury could say would change that. And if you are honest, you will admit it.I don't think that you, as a "contestant" are the authority to define what is or isn't considered a "forfeiture". That would be for the jury to decide.
Wrong. You are not very good at that mind-treading trick, are you?
- Let me get this straight: You think that reality is based on fixed laws in an ever changing world whirling through an undefined space within an uncertain time frame? Right!
So, how do you resolve the Noah story with observations of reality?
Let us pretend that we are in a philosophy forum, and work with the definition of "reality" that we can agree upon.Which reality? <snip>
No, and it's not a true representation of the world. The point here, is that the definition of reality, is debatable.Let us pretend that we are in a philosophy forum, and work with the definition of "reality" that we can agree upon.
I have it as a noun, meaning "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."
Does this work for you?
Your world, your rules... not mine. That would mean that it is you who doesn't live up to his standards.You counter my assertion...then you insist on back up for assertions. Not only is it all just talk (assertions) on both sides, but you do not live up to your own standard. You can offer nothing more than hearsay as well, and defining evidence your own way, proves nothing. I do the same and you do not accept it...so I do not accept yours either. Is that it, then?
Hypothetically? I never said that.You hypothetically turning things around...
How quaint!... without actually having any knowledge of my world, means nothing. You have never been, and you don't know. I, on the other hand, intimately know from experience in both worlds, and cannot be fooled by your conjecture. You bring nothing to the table that I don't already know. But you cannot say the same (even if you try and turn it around).
Well, you can keep claiming that you "have lived up to" my rules until you are blue in the face... you havn't.These are the rules from your side of the discussion, your world, your rules. I have lived up to them...you have not. Nothing a jury could say would change that. And if you are honest, you will admit it.
See, here I am, playing by your rules. I present assertions, claim that I have a means to know, to prove... and hide these means from your view.You counter my assertion...then you insist on back up for assertions. Not only is it all just talk (assertions) on both sides, but you do not live up to your own standard. You can offer nothing more than hearsay as well, and defining evidence your own way, proves nothing. I do the same and you do not accept it...so I do not accept yours either. Is that it, then?
I hear you, man, I feel you. But when you come to know a truth, you know, and it would be dishonest to appease. History is full of new discoveries that demonstrate this to be so. And the new horizons are not getting smaller, they're getting bigger.Your world, your rules... not mine. That would mean that it is you who doesn't live up to his standards.
Hypothetically? I never said that.
How quaint!
See, here you are, talking about "both worlds" as if you... well, know, that there are exactly these "both worlds" and anything else is wrong. Again, an unbacked assertion - that you base all of your argument on.
You are correct, I have never "been" in "your world".
But when you claim that you have "intimate[...] know[legdge] from experience in both world, and cannot be fooled", you ignore the possibility that there might be another "world"... one that you don't know anything about, one different from "this world" and "your world". One that you don't know anything about, one that I intimately know by existential necessity.
And this knowlegde tells me that you are wrong... must be wrong. In the same way that your "knowledge" tells you that all the conflicting worldviews and religions are wrong... cannot be right because they contradict your worldview.
I might not know "your world"... but neither do you know mine. And my world proves to me that your world is wrong. I know that!
So what now?
Well, you can keep claiming that you "have lived up to" my rules until you are blue in the face... you havn't.
And this is not an assertion - I can show that.
Remember: I presented you with the logical reasoning why your assertion does not work, why it is logcially impossible. These are the rules of "my side".
You countered it by excusing yourself from these rules by claiming to adhere to a different set of rules... those of "your world", which "overshadows" mine.
Sorry, but that is not playing by the rules. You cannot claim you have won by touchdowns when playing tennis.
So let me get back to the beginning of the post once more:
See, here I am, playing by your rules. I present assertions, claim that I have a means to know, to prove... and hide these means from your view.
Here you seem to see it: it is hearsay, defining evidence your way, proves nothing... and you do the same!. Cudos to you for admitting that.
But on the other hand, I try to play by the standards of ... not "my world", not "your world" - our world, our shared reality.
Am I hypothetical when I assert inherent knowledge? Am I sincere? You don't know... and you will never know. Because I usually keep using such an argument. Because it doesn't lead anywhere.
Don't you think then it would be better to go back to talking about our "beliefs" - the things that we are totally convinced are true, but cannot share - instead of claiming "knowledge"?
It is... well, not dishonest, but... unreasonable, when you insist on a "truth" that you have no way to verify or share.I hear you, man, I feel you. But when you come to know a truth, you know, and it would be dishonest to appease.
History is also full of people imagining things that are not real.History is full of new discoveries that demonstrate this to be so. And the new horizons are not getting smaller, they're getting bigger.
My facts... conjecture, well, basically yes. A little more than that: we humans have worked hard to find ways to make it more that pure guessing.As far as your side of this goes, yes, we have little more than the ability to "talk" about all this. My facts, I can't show you. Your facts...well, I live here too, and it's all a house of cards put together with conjecture.
So, sure, we can "talk."
If there is any hope that all of these testimonies are more than meets the eye, calling them "guesses" is probably a bad idea. The term is incorrect. When you are an eyewitness, you don't "guess" what you saw, nor do you step up if you are not absolutely sure.
True, the world is full of counterfeits. The pea is not under every nut.
No, sorry, but when one has greater knowledge that supersedes other testimony, the only fair and considerate position to take, is to be honest. The testimony of science is not all wrong...it is just missing the Source and examining the products, and that mountain is a mole hill in comparison.
It is only valid if you connect the dots of all history, of all life...which can only be part, if one is not equipped with the gift of spiritual knowledge. By which I do not mean, one must "be" gifted, but must have "received" the gift...which is free for the asking, by the way.
It was just, like, Noah's opinion, man. Don't harsh on the dude's vibes.Wrong. You are not very good at that mind-treading trick, are you?
So, how do you resolve the Noah story with observations of reality?
Yes, that would work for me. But only because the "world" and "state of things as they actually exist" are in what you gave, not defined. That leaves reality wide open to ones life experiences, just as reality actually operates.I have it as a noun, meaning "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."
Reality is not how things actually are? What word would you use then for how things actually are?No, and it's not a true representation of the world.
Not really. Definitions are descriptive of how we use words, not prescriptive. You can debate with me the use of the word "gay", and convince me that its proper use would be as an equivalent to 'happy', but should you announce to the next group of strangers how gay you are, I suspect that their interpretation will be otherwise.The point here, is that the definition of reality, is debatable. <snip resulting word salad>
No, wrong again. I think you have some wires crossed on that fancy hat of yours.You, I presume, only believing what you see, <snip>
You are contradicting yourself. You cannot live in a different reality if you agree that there is only one.Yes, that would work for me. But only because the "world" and "state of things as they actually exist" are in what you gave, not defined. That leaves reality wide open to ones life experiences, just as reality actually operates.
For instance, I'm quite sure that for folks like the Shaman's who would "experience" the world AND state of things as they actually exist "to them" is quite different than for you. They live in a different reality. That's just one example.
.
It is... well, not dishonest, but... unreasonable, when you insist on a "truth" that you have no way to verify or share.
What would we come to, if we all adhere to this "standard"?
History is also full of people imagining things that are not real.
My facts... conjecture, well, basically yes. A little more than that: we humans have worked hard to find ways to make it more that pure guessing.
Your facts... be aware that they are conjecture as well, and because you "can't show" me, they are a lot weaker than others.
So let's talk. I would really like to know just what kind of people you think are these "few hundred wackos" that you mentioned earlier.
And with no way to tell which is real and which isn't, the most reasonable choice is to treat them all the same. That is, until someone can give good reasons that their claims are true it is best to treat them with a healthy dose of skepticism.
I made no such agreement.You are contradicting yourself. You cannot live in a different reality if you agree that there is only one.
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?