The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[ZAKtheGeek]

As I've explained to you before, what I'm really emphasizing is that assumptions in general are necessary, which Sithdarth seems to disagree with. I show this through examples of necessary assumptions, which in turn must be satisfactorily validated as necessary in assumption form (as opposed to in proof or at all).

Logic is fun!

[Archbio]

[W]hat I'm really emphasizing is that assumptions in general are necessary, which Sithdarth seems to disagree with[...]

That really just doesn't follow from the fact that some total bullshit statements are unprovable. Unless "in general" is taken in another sense than usual.

But have fun with that.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Well, there's reason he has to prove some things impossible: because his proof has no argument for them. He's trying to prove that something is possible in all cases, and I'm pointing out cases where it isn't possible. He then is forced to show how that case is not to be considered because it couldn't ever happen.

Have I mentioned how fun logic is?

[Demetrius]

Dude logic need not apply when dealing with the supernatural. Just something for you to think on, especially considering the thread you are posting in.

[Sithdarth]

I'm just not going to go any further with this. If ZAK can't accept the simple fact that senses capable of lying to us, even if only a possibility, utterly destroys physical reality then I can't argue anything.

I will however restate my reasoning again.

Reality is real and apart from human observation. At the same time everything we observe has to be a subset of that reality. Therefore, if we observed something wrong actual reality independent of our observations would be changed by our observations. Thus, humans would be capable of bending reality to their wills and reality would have no meaning. Since this isn't true the converse of this must be true. Therefore, our senses are limited but do not lie.

Hallucinations and optical illusions are not a lie by our senses. They are a misinterpretation by our brain of the limited information our senses can provide and nothing more.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

Dude logic need not apply when dealing with the supernatural. Just something for you to think on, especially considering the thread you are posting in.

Under the assumption you believe in anything supernatural, which I and probably many others don't. If you believe in, say, a rational universe.

[ZAKtheGeek]

I will however restate my reasoning again.

Reality is real and apart from human observation. At the same time everything we observe has to be a subset of that reality. Therefore, if we observed something wrong actual reality independent of our observations would be changed by our observations. Thus, humans would be capable of bending reality to their wills and reality would have no meaning. Since this isn't true the converse of this must be true. Therefore, our senses are limited but do not lie.

You prove nothing because you assume the opposite of what you're arguing against. Namely, right here:

At the same time everything we observe has to be a subset of that reality.

By making that assumption, you in fact prove my point.

There are also some more problems with your reasoning, but I'm not going to bother with those, because you're not going any further, and also because I've already addressed them all at least once before.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

You prove nothing because you assume the opposite of what you're arguing against. Namely, right here:

It is not an assumption it is a conclusion. Here is were it comes from:
Whatever we sense is real by definition because that's the only definition there can be.
Then further there was reality before human observation therefore what we sense is only a subset of reality.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

By making that assumption, you in fact prove my point.

NOT an assumption and stop trying to make it one. In fact don't even comment further because its clear neither of us in going to give in on any point. Any further comments on this will prove nothing but the fact that we're so petty we can't even concede that it is ok for someone to disagree.

And also to clarify my position for the last time, we have two options. Everyone admits that one option leads down a deadend path that forces us to admit we know nothing. The other leads us to were we are today. So if we can't choose one then we must choose the other. SINCE we are forced to choose the other than it must be true.

This "discussion" has boiled down to an argument of semantics and you can't ever win an argument of semantics. My definition of assumption is different but no less valid than yours. So leave it be and move on because this is never going to resolve short of one of us physically rewiring the others brain so we think alike.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Whatever, dude. I did concede that you showed some cases where sensory information can definitely be trusted, though.

Oh, and also, like those logical rules I referenced, I'm fairly sure assumptions have a formal definition to them.

Okay. So. Reset.

In order to deduce anything, we need assumptions. Anyone else disagree?

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Oh, and also, like those logical rules I referenced, I'm fairly sure assumptions have a formal definition to them.

I was using a formal definition with an interpretation on top of it. My interpretation. You were doing the same thing. That's what humans do. Your interpretation is no better than mine.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Okay. So. Reset.

In order to deduce anything, we need assumptions. Anyone else disagree?

Please don't do that because nothing has been proven except that we have differing interpretations of the definition of assumption. People agreeing with you means nothing as well as disagreeing and any argument on this front is going to once again come down to interpretations.