fine. to avoid clouding the real issue, i shall henceforth use the term "fundamental assumption from which one's worldview progresses"
yet you must live your life. each day you are faced with decisions, and ultimately, those decisions are made (even if they are not made, a decision not to make...
it is somewhat mind-numbing to repeat oneself ad infitum but it has become necessitated by the stubborn refusal to fully understand what it is that has already been written. regarding this 'atheism' or 'non-religious' society of which FZ+ speaks so highly there is this to say
(once again)...
the examples are flawed. firstly, 1+1 = 2 is not an axiom. the axiom employed is more general and is related to the closure of integers under addition as well as the definition of the number system. secondly, that the rationality of the square root of two is not an axiom depends not at all on...
again, your honor, relevance? i quote once more:
"Where is the morality in bringing an unwanted child into the world? It's like a toss-up between quick or slow death."
the issue is the cancer patient's life and quick/slow death juxtaposed against the child's life and quick/slow death, not...
i can't say that this is an imaginative solution to the problem. your modus operandus: when faced with a moral dilemna, simply state that morals do not exist and continue the killing.
likewise, as i plummet to my death, i can simply follow suit with wile-coyote and deny that gravity exists...
beautfully put FZ+. i couldn't agree with you more. and thus, when hseudens makes grand claims of transcending religion he only needs to look back some 60 years to see how well he is fooling himself.
besides, the implication is that religion has brought misery to no one. nay, the sole...
firstly, attributing to God a nature assumes his existence.
secondly, since the existence of God is assumptive, as you have stated explicitly, and since one's worldview is entirely shaped by acceptance/rejection of this assumption, it is axiomatic.
finally, as the existence of God as yet...
Allow me to reiterate the words of our esteemed colleague m. Royce:
"Objective reality is an assumption. You said this yourself, heusden."
this is correct in a magnitude as yet unparallelled in this discussion. i too believe that i exist OBJECTIVELY and INDEPENDANT of other's thoughts. but...
no. that is quite wrong. i have not missed the thrust of your argument. i have dealt with it head on by stating that there is some truth regarding God's existence and that regardless of the (in)consistencies of one's worldview, he either exists or doesn't, but not both. he cannot be relegated to...
the word is independent. note the 't'.
our assumption implies me and i have assumed no such thing. on the contrary, as has already been explicitly stated, i contend that awareness of the world through sensation is purely subjective and further, that there is no methodology which can elevate...
this is obviously inconsistent with the argument proposed in a previous correspondance, as i have acknowledged the fallacy of that reasoning in my most recent posting (see above)
"...you got it. And hence the existence of you is an axiom as it is an undisputed assumption, while God, being a...
----------------------------------------------
quote:
"You got it. And hence the existence of you is an axiom as it is an undisputed assumption, while God, being a disputed assumption can not be considered proven or absolutely existent - except with the belief system of the believer. QED."...
quote:
"We are evolving as a society. We are more and more open minded about new ideals every day that previous generations wouldn't have even considered...Progress is inevitable my friend, and there's nothing any of us can do to stop it."
not so fast. homosexuality has been accepted...