|
>>>>>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. >>> >>>No.. the only thing I have claimed, ever, is that A=A, but >I >>>cannot prove--only believe--what A actually is. >> >>Ah, so you're finally admitting that your definition was >>logically empty. I'd be refreshed by that candor, IF YOU'D >>HAD IT ALL THOSE MONTHS AGO, WHEN SOMEBODY CARED. > >If logic only equates to naturalism, pretty much everything >you and I say is empty.
Are you saying you don't know what logic is? Check Webster for a start.
>However, if we recognize that >naturalism is only our limited perception,
I agree with you on that one.
>then logic really >has no basis to begin with,
No basis for what? What does it need a basis for, and why?
>other than that of a hypothetical >one (which I consider valid). > >>>>>>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?! >>> >>>Name one. >> >>I've already asked you how Webster defines >>"symplectomorphism," and you haven't told us. > >Webster was dead before that,
Oh come on! The issue is the dictionary, not the man.
>and the context in the lines >above were from a philosophy textbook.
Mathematics is philosophy.
>>>>>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. >>> >>>Everything we consider true is treated as such. >> >>You treat every belief you hold to be an obective truth?! >>Shit, man, I guess I see why you hold so much disdain for >>scientists. > >Actually, God/morality is the only thing I consider to be >objective truth. And I hold zero disdain for scientists. You >all do wonderful things all the time. What I hold disdain for >are assholes.
You and I probably have different opinions on who is being the asshole here.
I just hope you can get over this argument to the extent that you aren't angrily reviving it out of the blue sometime in 2006.
>>>I consider >>>the existence of God to be real, so yes, I treat it as >such. >> >>>Therefore, it is a logical justification for me to believe >>in >>>God. >> >>I'll say it again, and hope it sinks in. The fact that you >>"believe" in "God" (and good for you on that one) does not >>count as a logically rigorous proof that such a being >exists. > >No, and that would be a ridiculous equation, logically. >However, the fact that morality exists, in my opinion, is >logically rigorous proof that God exists.
1.) That's an entirely separate question. 2.) I wish you were aware of the absurdity of this sequence of words: "in my opinion, is logically rigorous proof."
>Therefore, I >believe in God.
Good for you. Nobody asked.
|