A Non-Violent Solution?

[genkaus]

With people as ignorant and arrogant as you, I guess so.

With any person of moderate intelligence.

If you believe an axiom to be anything other than an unproven assumption that is used as the basis to begin to build a logical formalism, then not only are you spreading lies about what can or cannot be proven, but you are also spreading lies about logical formalism itself, and the very nature of axioms.

The axiom I stated is the basis of logical formalism itself. There can be no proof, no truth and no validity without assumption of that axiom. Tell me if this concept is too hard for you to understand.

You're really no different from a radical Christian Fundamentalists who spreads similar lies about ancient Hebrew mythologies.

Lies are lies. And spreading false information is wrong. Even when done innocently because of personal misunderstanding. I believe that you are indeed just grossly naive and that you have a gross misunderstanding of logic. Not unlike the radical Christian fundies, it's not doubt that you believe your own delusions. So you no doubt believe your own ignorance.

Get on a soap-box would you?

Here's another truth. You like to post walls upon walls of post, none of which address any of the arguments I made and simply reassert the same thing: you cannot know it because there are still gaps in knowledge about it.

But the truth is that no professional scientific, mathematical, or philosophical community would support your arrogant nonsense. Your personal opinions on this matter are absolutely not supported by any professional community.

First argumentum ad ignoratiam and now argumentum ad verecundiam.
Atleast you are consistent in the fallacies you use to justify yourself.

You're never going to sell your ignorance to me. I know better. You'll have to find ignorant uneducated people to sell your false logic to.

That would be a shame. Because that would mean that ignorant uneducated people are more intelligent than you.

It's truly a shame that people like you exist. All you do is cause innocent people to believe your misunderstandings.

And if your idea of primacy of consciousness had any bearing on truth, I wouldn't. Its proof positive that I'm right.

What you're spreading is lies. Whether intentional or just due to your own ignorance. Either way it's false information. You're no different from a radical fundamental religious extremest.

The fool who bases his beliefs on ignorance claims knowledge of the truth without knowing from whence the truth originates.

You're just spreading your own lame opinions as if they are the indisputable word of God.

No, they are the indisputable world of reason. Much more reliable that any word of god or your word of spiritual reality.

Hogwash.

That fact that anyone would even support your views, only shows that atheism can indeed by like a religion where people climb on board a faith-based agenda to support lies just because they feel like it.

Humanity to date, is simply not armed with sufficient information about the true nature of reality to even remotely be able to make any decisive claims about what may or may not be possible.

True nature of reality? Again? Seriously?

For someone who claims to be a scientist, you certainly are very resistant to self-correction.

Oh, now I get it. You are a scientist in the same way Deepak Chopra is a doctor.

Besides, we can and do make decisive claims about what this other reality is not all the time. You did so yourself. did you or did you not state that this reality would not be bound by spacetime? That's making quite a decisive claim about the nature of "true" reality.

You're faith-based belief in the power of your axiom of existence, is basically a faith-based religion on your part.

That fact that you can't see that, only shows that you don't have anymore ability to open your mind than a Christian fundamentalist.

Your axiom of existence has become your "God".

And you worship it like a dutiful servant.

You use your words the same way you use concepts. Without regard for their meaning and what they represent. Do you really believe that I hold this axiom in reverence? That I somehow honor it?

That axiom is simply the identification of nature of reality. I have no emotional connection to it.

In fact, not only does your axiom have no clout when considering the question of the true nature of reality, but our very system of "logic" has no clout.

Clout? Do you even care any more what words you use or are they all the same to you?

We have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the true nature of reality should even need to conform to ideas and concepts that we deem to be 'logical'.

No. But if there is to be any system of logic of any form whatsoever, then the acceptance of "primacy of existence" is inescapable.

On the contrary, observations in Quantum Mechanics has revealed to us that the quantum world most likely obeys laws that we would deem to be "illogical".

General Relativity shows us that the true nature of time (whatever that might even be) is most likely something that completely defies anything that we would deem to be logical.

And what we "deem" to be logical and what is logical are not the same things. What is logical does not depend what we "deem" to be logical. If primacy of consciousness were "true", then that would be the case. It is not. Another point for "primacy of existence".

In short, your very assumption that the true nature of reality even need to be 'logical' in terms of how a human brain makes sense of things has no merit.

If it is not logical, then it is illogical. In that case the true nature of reality is false at the same time and it is the same as the true nature of illusion.

This is the nature of reality you are proposing: illogical, irrational and self-contradictory.

If it can't even be determined that the true nature of reality must even adhere to what we deem to be 'logical', then that totally pull the rug out from under any axioms we may personally believe to be 'logical'.

You can't even demand that reality must be 'logical' much less demand that it must adhere to your favorite pet axioms.

Here you go again - equivocating between what we deem to be logical and what is logical. You seem to be adding fallacy of equivocation to your list.

Besides, axiom of existence if the basis for logic itself. It is not that "if actual reality is logical then it is possible for axiom of existence to apply", but "only if axiom of existence applies, can reality qualify for being logical".

All you're doing is displaying an extremely limited ability to even begin to think beyond "classical logic 101". And you clearly don't even understand how that simple subject works.

I'm curious. Did you even study logic? Did you even comprehend the fact that it starts with the law of identity, which is a corollary of axiom of existence?

So, yes, it is futile for me to try to talk to you intelligently, because you evidently aren't capable of comprehending real intelligence. All you're doing is hiding in a classical box of very simplistic logic and pretending that nothing can possibly exist beyond that.

Its interesting how a person who has done nothing other that repeatedly claiming his own ignorance knows what "real" intelligence is. But then, that has been the battle cry of religions rooted in your philosophy for centuries.

Make no mistake - every religion out there is the necessary consequence of accepting your philosophy. The principle involved is simple - garbage in, garbage out.