|
How in the fuck are you still arguing about this?! The thread was months ago and you're trying to revive it? You've got serious anger issues.
>>>>>>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?
Your statement is logically the same as saying A=B, but B is undefined except for the tacit colloquial assumption that B=A. So A=B was already known.
>>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.
Sure, and there are other definitions in philosophy arguments that can't be found in any dictionary. The dictionary is not specialized enough. How in the fuck are you still arguing about this?!
>>>>>>>>>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.
I'm surprised that you don't know Webster, you still have his dick in your mouth. How in the fuck are you still arguing about this?!
>>>>>>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 never said "me." I'm not into deconstruction. You're the one who's saying there's no such thing as logic here, only opinion.
>I just said we have a difference >in opinion. Do you really take offense to that?
No, but it's not just my opinion. This is the danger of reviving an argument from months in the past! You've forgotten the context. A "reason for living" might be considered a logical justification for you, yourself, to believe in God, but it's not a logical justification to make the statement "God exists," and treat it as an objective truth.
>>>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.
If you say "here is my opinion, take it or leave it," you're not adding anything to the debate either. You're saying that my arguments (at the moment) are irrelevant to the debate, but that's only because I'm responding to arguments which are irrelevant.
>All that this entire post consists of is the notion of >belief and reason. No one on here is trying to prove >anything.
Have you read InVerse's posts? You know . . . the guy I'm ACTUALLY here to debate.
|