Originally Posted by deltawalkerl
1. And all the teachings of skepticism, are perfectly reasonable. But what can we make of it? Nothing but a dead-end
2. Skepticism leads nowhere
3. (You guessed right about my religious status).
Talk about paradox and twisting. By default, as an admitted atheist or agnostic yourself, you are skeptical about possibilities that cannot be explained by current science. All of those things that defy *normal* physics ("outlined items"), like super human strength in times of great stress, levitation, the possibility of their being a superior entity that created us, people walking on fire, Indian Yogi's slowing their heart rate to virtually nothing, Yogi's putting knives through their arms, removing it and no blood coming from the wound, etc. are things I bet *you* do not believe in. Therefore, once again, by default, you are a skeptic. If you can't see it and define it as a=b, or 1+1=2 then you do not accept it as truth. Sad.
Yet, as per your own words, "Skepticism is nothing but a dead end and leads nowhere."
How's that for twisting, oh great teacher?
Wasn't it you who wrote:
"...you cannot abstract logic from your sentences. You create sentences out of empirical knowlegde, and therefore your words sound right to yourself. But when someone puts the logic of your words in front of you, you do not recognize it."
OK, Delta, I've just put some logic in front of you. You're the skeptic - no doubt about it. Yet, I already know you will not accept this *logic* that has been placed before you, via your own words. I cannot wait to see what incredibly amazing response you will craft to get out of this one - as always you try very hard. Don't let me down, but just don't keep making a fool of yourself at the same time.
P.S., and with respect to your claims that assumptions MUST be made to allow humanity to progress, then let's ASSUME all of those outlined items above are *possible* (many of which have already been documented), even though man has yet to put into an explanation of non-disputable words and formulas. As per your words, if we make that assumption that they are possible, we will eventually progress and figure it out, even if through a few mistakes on the way. OK, so then, why are you a non-spiritual person?
Aren't you relying only on what is *proven* as logical, and not making any assumptions yourself about what you can't yet explain? Aren't you contradicting yourself there? I think so!
P.S.S. You also wrote:
|"EDR, I am trying to argue with very strict logic, inambiguous semantics and syntax. I realize that most people cannot argue in this way. I am used to arguing using well-defined statements that have only one intrepretation."
Seems like I interpreted your above statements very logically, but not how you expected, huh?
How was I able to do that with your choice of non-disputable language?
The earth is flat!