|
>>>>>No, I was asking you to clarify what you *meant* by the >>>term. >>>> >>>>>To define it, in a logical context, not a colloquial >>>context. >>>> >>>> >>>>No, actually you asked me to define it. If your >>terminology >>>>isn't correct, that's your problem. >>> >>>Context, muhfucka, context. When you're asked to define >>>something within the context of a logical debate, it's >>>expected that your definition helps clarify the issues at >>>hand. >> >>Again... tell me how mine didn't. I obviously don't know >what >>the hell you are talking about. > >You defined "truth" as "that which is." "Is" what? "Is" >true? If you actually meant "that which is true," then your >definition is empty.
How can it be empty if what is true cannot be proven?
>A dictionary can depend on a certain colloquialized context, >and replace definitions with synonyms. That's why >dictionaries aren't used as philosophy textbooks.
But there are definitions in philosophy textbooks, straight from the dictionary.
> >>>>>>>>All that was concluded is that existence corresponds, >>>>>>>exactly, >>>>>>>>to "that which is". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That was most certainly not "concluded"! That's where >>>you >>>>>>>began, and apparently where you remain, but it's been a >>>>>>>tautology all along. >>>>>> >>>>>>how? It can be relavant on a physiological or >>metaphysical >>>>>>realm, so how can you call it a tautology? >>>>> >>>>>Jesus Christ! How can you still be arguing about this?! >>>>You >>>>>defined "truth" as "that which is." That's no different >>>>than >>>>>saying 1+1=2 because 2=2. >>>> >>>>No, what I was saying is that 1+1=2 in whatever place >1+1=2 >>>>because, at some point, somewhere, 1+1=2, just as we can >>>>conclude that something, somewhere, exists. >>> >>>Hehe, whatever you say. But I thought you Christians >>weren't >>>allowed to smoke that shit. >> >>Yeah, that "understanding the English language" shit will >fuck >>you up. > >Apparently by "understanding the English language," you mean >"bringing it into direct correspondence with evangelical >catchphrases."
Nope, just the dictionary... I don't know webster, his associates, or any of their motives.
> >>>>>If you're just willing to be naive about the details, go >>>>>ahead, you're not alone among the evangelical community. >>>>Just >>>>>don't turn around and pretend to have a logical >>>>justification >>>>>for your faith. >>>> >>>>If a purpose for living isn't logical justification... >then >>>I >>>>concede. >>> >>>1.) No, it isn't. >> >>That's your opinion (and, yes, you are absolutely entitled >to >>it), but you've given me no reason to think otherwise. > >Oh, it's only my opinion! It's funny how evangelicals hold >such deep hatred for deconstructionism except when they can >use it for their own aims.
Where is my hatred for you? I just said we have a difference in opinion. Do you really take offense to that?
>>All >>you've really done on the morality topic is pile on more >>questions. > >What's so dangerous about questions?
Nothing, except they do nothing for the sake of debate. If I say I believe something is this way, and you say "well, maybe it isn't," you have done nothing for the debate because I never claimed to have anything more than belief in the first place. All that this entire post consists of is the notion of belief and reason. No one on here is trying to prove anything.
>>>2.) You aren't the only one who considers himself to have a >>>reason for living. >> >>I am aware of this, but that is my personal reason for my >>faith. > >Good for you. But this isn't about you, it's about "truth."
I agree.
>>What's your reason for living? > >Afraid I can't be summed up so quickly.
OK.
***I'm a Child of Production***
|