RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
December 26, 2016 at 1:35 pm
(This post was last modified: December 26, 2016 at 1:38 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
If the matrix or the mind of god is constantly feeding us those things you mentioned, it's constantly feeding us what we call evidence. That's an objection that objects to nothing in context.
References to what you don't or can't know don't lead to anything you can or do know. From nothing, nothing follows.
Long story short, we have limitations...and sure, we've come up with systems to help overcome those limitations but they have limitations as well. If a person answers the question "can we know x" with yes.....no amount of "but can we really know that we know x" will yield a functionally different answer, and for a person that answers any question in that infinite chain of non-objections with "no" - no further comment can be made about anything without the liberal use of contradictory and stolen concepts. If a person knows that we can't really know x, then they know something - but how? If a person points to evidence that they can't trust evidence, how can they trust that evidence?
Ultimately, the evidentiary question is axiomatic. Either you refer to what is evident as the locus of all claims or you do not. Good luck not referring to it, good luck not accepting the evidentiary axiom. I doubt that human beings are capable.
References to what you don't or can't know don't lead to anything you can or do know. From nothing, nothing follows.
Long story short, we have limitations...and sure, we've come up with systems to help overcome those limitations but they have limitations as well. If a person answers the question "can we know x" with yes.....no amount of "but can we really know that we know x" will yield a functionally different answer, and for a person that answers any question in that infinite chain of non-objections with "no" - no further comment can be made about anything without the liberal use of contradictory and stolen concepts. If a person knows that we can't really know x, then they know something - but how? If a person points to evidence that they can't trust evidence, how can they trust that evidence?
Ultimately, the evidentiary question is axiomatic. Either you refer to what is evident as the locus of all claims or you do not. Good luck not referring to it, good luck not accepting the evidentiary axiom. I doubt that human beings are capable.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
