(July 26, 2012 at 7:46 pm)genkaus Wrote:(July 26, 2012 at 7:29 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: Unfortunately your 'plain' logic consists of I am right as I am right. People who want some form of credibility commonly outline their position.
Read again. The logic behind why your position is self-defeating is clearly outlined.
Sadly it's not. You make the assumption that whatever you say to be true, and feel no requirement to justify or rationalise your perspective in any way. Your claim of being unable to measure reality was purely a subjective judgement to which you then hide behind your tautology
(July 26, 2012 at 7:29 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: This statement admits you don't consider what I say, so I wonder why you're responding at all. How you claim to address any points or questions I have made, will remain a mystery inside your own head. Even if they do come out they still will remain a mystery.
Quote:No mystery to anyone with cognitive faculties. If you actually read the posts, you'd find that your points and questions have been addressed. That you failed to understand the response is not ground for asserting that they weren't addressed.
That you believed you addressed my points/questions illustrates that you did not comprehend the points and/or questions in the first place. Please feel welcome to cut and paste my reponse, unless of course, it takes more brain cells to do this than what you intend to write.
(July 26, 2012 at 7:29 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: Comprehension fail and strawman. Where did I say science can "only" measure?
Quote:Here:
"If you claim that only science can determine what reality is, and science measures, then...."
By concluding from the given premises that "science can measure reality", you have made the assumption that the only way science can determine something is by measurement. A comparative statement would be using "criminals do bad things" and "a criminal takes care of his parents" to conclude taking care of one's parents is a bad thing.
Ok that's a really poor comparison, and exposes your limited understanding of what is being said. You claimed to understand what reality is, and all that it entails. You have so far failed to provide any evidence, beyond countlessly repititions, of that this is correct.
If you propose that you understand reality it is logical that you have some idea of all that it is (its size would be logical included in this) . For example, I understand football and the dimensions of the field, ball etc. You understand reality (without requiring any need to define it further) and then class it's size as immeasurable. Or is this due to your self-proclaimed understanding of reality to then state the ability to measure its size is non-sensical. But you failed to offer any reason why it would be non-sensical, other than that you udnerstand reality. Do you see where you tripped yourself up? There are limitations on being self-assured as you eventually need some form of evidence/proof to back up what you state. Feel free to outline why you understand reality and why it's immeasurable now.
(July 26, 2012 at 7:29 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: You claimed the ability to measure is non-sensical. If you have a point I would suggest making it.
Quote:No, I've said that the idea of measuring reality is nonsensical. And that establishes my point regarding comprehension failure on your part.
Yes, this is implicit in this conversation. I would have hoped I didn't need to re-state everything over and over due your daily struggle with recall.
If you have a point I would suggest making it.
(July 26, 2012 at 7:29 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: You have written several posts all of which say very little. It you feel one of these posts perfectly illustrates your position, that's up to you to highlight and not for me to assume.
Quote:You mean this one?
https://atheistforums.org/thread-13879-p...#pid315103
No I didn't mean any post, as you have not actually stated your position in this post or anywhere else. You're incapable of outlining what you believe, perfectly illustrated by the quote in the post you linked to above:
"I don't have to know what all of reality is to know what reality is" and yet you accuse me of using a tautology? I don't know what reality is, yet you seem to convinced based on what you perceive it to be? I just hope for your sake you're a troll.
If you can, rationalise your position. Otherwise I can't see the point in wasting my time with someone like you.
