Search results

Did you answer my A or B question?

Again, completely wrong. And I will not allow you to say it loosely as mystics assert epistemological limits due to logic and language. The reverse is true. Proper language usage and proper use of language are, along with proper definitions, epistemological guardians of falsehood. You say that...

Nonsense. Most religious and philosphical people hold to absolute truth. The political Left reject it as does our Adversary. Absolute truth is a fundamental starting point. "In the beginning" informs us there was a beginning, an absolute beginning in our story.

Completely wrong. 1st, objectective reality is primary over a consciousness to perceive and conceptualize it. 2nd, objective reality does not depend on subjective word games or mental illness.

I already proves it multiple times but you are in denial of it. See my A or B question.

All truth is absolute. Changing the frame of reference of what is true, like the woman being a life form, an air breather, etc, does not change the truth that she is a woman. And, in fact, your attempt to change the frame of reference is only itereating the details of what it means to be a...

Oh boy! You're introducing politics now, rather than abstract reasoning to make your case. You're all over the place. :D My daughter asserted there is a difference between sex and gender. Our adversary is a liar and his 1st goal is to blurr the truth. Playing word games does not change reality.

Did you ever answer my A or B question regarding inherently contradictory statements?

No one is doing that. And this offends you, because?

How very petulant of you! This is not a debate thread and you seem to want to debate and control the direction of the study of the OP. Sad. Now you sit in judgment. Bless your heart!

<4th century man-made invention of 3-is-1, not in the Word of God> He sure is. Can hardly be further away than cite idols AS the Word of God. He does that but does not realize it. Quoting the word of God is straying from the word of God, in his indolatrous thinking. Wow! So, far your...

Agreed. Very wise.

That's not true. The contradictions are emerging now. Why does it matter to you that experts disagree? They might disagree about nuance but seldom the basics. Surivival experts will tell you priorities are shelter, water and fire over food. Health experts will tell diet (environmental...

So what? The test for humans is to act despite not knowing everything. To walk in faith.

You are playing a mind game with yourself. Being intellectually lazy is not a virtue. And you contradict yourself again. If there is absolute certainty, then there are absolutes. It is clear that you are relying on epistemological quicksand as a fire wall against righteous action. Make a...

I figured you would retreat to abstractions to make your case rather than practical knowledge, one's own experience. I think, therefore, I am.

Do you mean ADMITTING you do not know is often the best option? How can you know what is the best option if you do not know? See the epistemological quicksand you are in, preventing the basis for rational action?

@Romanov2243, did you answer my A or B question?

In denying absolutes, you have to assert them (there is no end to mind games). Hence, that absolutes exist is axiomatic. Just because the mind is capable of error does not mean it is not capable of arriving at a valid conclusion.

I have no idea what you are saying but it sounds like an article of faith, that despite your mind and language leading you to a conclusion, you reject it in favor of this belief.