[Overdog]

Now you're claiming that you somehow have this special ability to see god everywhere you look. Why can't we see him?

What makes you so special?

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by Overdog

Now you're claiming that you somehow have this special ability to see god everywhere you look. Why can't we see him?

What makes you so special?

Unfortunately we cannot see with our eyes closed.

So I am using logic and science to prove that you both have eyes and can see!

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

blue has the property of blue

gold has the properties of gold

the dead have the property of being dead

It's a logical tautology dear, deal with it.

It appears you are failing to understand the implications of epistemology to the mapping of logical systems onto epistemological constructs.

That you seem unwilling to address this issue would lead one either to the conclusion that you do not understand epistemology--which I sincerely doubt given your apparent intelligence--or that you are aware of this weakness in your proof and you wish to avoid discussing it.

C'mon, play the game here: discuss the validity of your logical formulae on the English equivalents you use with the instance "nothing."

An expert is a person who avoids small error as he sweeps on to the grand fallacy,
Buffy

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

Unfortunately we cannot see with our eyes closed.

So I am using logic and science to prove that you both have eyes and can see!

Please don't try to avoid the question. Why are you so special that you can see god everywhere you look?

You haven't proved anything. You are arguing for a fantasy, and claiming to be some kind of Shaman or Prophet, expecting us to just take your word for it.

I don't buy it. I would have to be a fool to buy it.

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by Buffy

It appears you are failing to understand the implications of epistemology to the mapping of logical systems onto epistemological constructs.

That you seem unwilling to address this issue would lead one either to the conclusion that you do not understand epistemology--which I sincerely doubt given your apparent intelligence--or that you are aware of this weakness in your proof and you wish to avoid discussing it.

C'mon, play the game here: discuss the validity of your logical formulae on the English equivalents you use with the instance "nothing."

An expert is a person who avoids small error as he sweeps on to the grand fallacy,
Buffy

I have noted that you have been taking some semantic issue with the word "thing" as if it has any sort of confusion inherent in it. lol

Your point bored me beyond measure and I was hoping to avoid it... but since I have destroyed everything else you had to say... carry on with this point... if you wish.

I will start by giving you my philosophy on epistemology since you feel epistemology is relevant;

Natural Rationalism; the epistemological belief that the imagination can comprehend and discover absolute truth (tautological propositions) and that (imaginary sensual input) reasoning (when used tautologically) should have primacy over belief and ethics. Natural Rationalism is also the belief that the real sensual inputs (physical senses, including extended measurement) are conditioned and limited by the imagination; therefore the real sensual inputs should only be used as a secondary reflection for belief and ethics or as a testing method for verifying empirical evidence of non tautological propositions (contingent or probable truth). Tautological propositions are isomorphic to the existence of empirical facts; therefore it is unnecessary to test the empirical evidence of a tautological fact. However, by seeking to experimentally verify a tautology the accuracy and scope of use of the real sensual inputs can be verified and expanded with respects to there use in perception; including evolving the scientific field of empirical evidence for contingent truth theorization and empirical evidence verification.

Now if you could so kindly express your argument as formally and coherently as possible I will respond promptly.

cheers

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by Overdog

Please don't try to avoid the question. Why are you so special that you can see god everywhere you look?

You haven't proved anything. You are arguing for a fantasy, and claiming to be some kind of Shaman or Prophet, expecting us to just take your word for it.

I don't buy it. I would have to be a fool to buy it.

Sell your cleverness and purchase bewilderment;
Cleverness is mere opinion, bewilderment intuition.

--Rumi

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

...
I will start by giving you my philosophy on epistemology since you feel epistemology is relevant;

Natural Rationalism; the epistemological belief that the imagination can comprehend and discover absolute truth (tautological propositions) and that (imaginary sensual input) reasoning (when used tautologically) should have primacy over belief and ethics.

Please explain how this is different from Fantasy.
And please answer my question, what makes you so special?

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

Sell your cleverness and purchase bewilderment;
Cleverness is mere opinion, bewilderment intuition.

--Rumi

You are still not answering my question.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

I have noted that you have been taking some semantic issue with the word "thing" as if it has any sort of confusion inherent in it. lol

That you think that this is trivial is quite enlightening as to your experience with epistemology.

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

Your point bored me beyond measure and I was hoping to avoid it... but since I have destroyed everything else you had to say... carry on with this point... if you wish.

If you want to declare victory, so be it, however the "boring" points are usually the most interesting ones!

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

I will start by giving you my philosophy on epistemology since you feel epistemology is relevant;

That's actually simply a definition and sheds no light whatsoever on your justification for the use of the word "nothing"--and note that your challenge here is to justify it as a proposition--nor your understanding or comprehension of its nuances and ambiguities.

Indeed you seem to be of the belief that any particular statement is true or false exclusively. With no notion that "judgment"--using the strict Natural Deduction meaning of the word--is relevant or meaningful.

Given that its easy to think that the reason you continue to avoid it is that you are aware that there is not justification for your argument.

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

Now if you could so kindly express your argument as formally and coherently as possible I will respond promptly.

I did, although you continue to pretend not to notice, so I will happily continue to repeat my questions. I'm really quite patient!

I will take the time to go through the logical portions of your proof, and in absence of any explanation from you as to why any of it is relevant to your conclusion, give you the benefit of the doubt that your string of tautologies is simply a mechanism for obfuscation!

The very first law in advertising is to avoid the concrete promise and cultivate the delightfully vague,
Buffy

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by Overdog

Please explain how this is different from Fantasy.
And please answer my question, what makes you so special?

Please explain to me how an automobile, or phone, or jet, or spaceship is not fantasy to the mind of one in the dark ages.

What makes me special? I don't know, a large frontal cortex. LOL