LogicWings said
I scrupulously, honestly (more than you can know) analyze my own thought processes - and I know you are wrong.
But hardly any person does that sort of thing nowadays.... Few people understand their own thinking. But then critical thinking is getting to be a lost art it seems.
Well see there, now we agree. Few people understand their own thinking and critical analysis does seem to increasingly become a lost art.
I am going to post this without much copy editing because I have to go. I will amend as necessary. But it is enough to get us going, I THINK.
I fear LogicWings indulges in premature self-exhaltation. He frequently calls most anything Begging the Question because of the (usually) necessary assumptions in the premises. In an effort to avoid that you will eventually end up with a grammatically and logically correct statement but a very stilted and dull conversation. It also amazes me that he can find such frequent fault with the statements of others while remaining sublimely confident in his ability to evaluate his own thinking, a particularly hard thing to do without making assumptions.
I am reminded of another occasional gadfly who prided himself in being able to "falsify" anything, as if that semantic trick had any value at all.
Concerning intuition, it is either knowledge from a realm outside our senses which is communicated to us in a yet to explain fashion or it is spirit as we commonly use the term, or it is a new association of previously learned knowledge, some of which itself may be new associations, which we make subconsciously.
As to multi-verses, there can be many multi-verses within a universe. Again, it is all semantics or labeling. Regardless God is outside and all-encompassing. As is said often, God said, I AM. So, if it is not God created then it AIN"T.
One last thing, the early discussion of the BEFORE as NO THING, meaning eliminating principles and laws along with things, I don't agree with that. I see all our scientific and spiritual laws existing with God as He looked out upon the void. As He created, He incorporated those principles within his creation but they existed with Him all the while. That is why I refer to it as the BEFORE rather than NOTHING.
What is it with you guys that when someone rationally challenges your illogically held views you invariably respond with adolescent insults? Oh, never mind, the question answers itself.
He frequently calls most anything Begging the Question because of the (usually) necessary assumptions in the premises.
Assumptions are never “necessary”, axioms are. When the existence of something is claimed where there is no evidence of that existence, it is Begging the Question. Just because most people assume (and you know what they say about those who 'assume', don't you?) things to be true that are not, is not my problem. It is theirs. But I am not going to let it pass simply to get along. That is a major factor of what is wrong in these discussions, the assumption that things that don't exist do. It is mistaking fantasy for reality. (The one necessary qualification is a thought exercise where the assumption is obliquely stated, such as: Imagine you are riding a beam of light.)
But this talk about assumptions reminds me of an old joke.
Three friends are hiking through a forest: an office manager, a truck driver and an economist. They all fall into a deep bear trap. The start pondering, “Now what are we going to do?” The office manager and the truck driver turn to the economist and say, “Hey, your the smart guy here, with all the degrees. How do we get out of here?” And the economist thinks a moment and says, “Well, first, assume a ladder . . .”
In an effort to avoid that you will eventually end up with a grammatically and logically correct statement but a very stilted and dull conversation.
As opposed to illogical, irrational, pedantic, ponderous and overblown as they are now?
It also amazes me that he can find such frequent fault with the statements of others while remaining sublimely confident in his ability to evaluate his own thinking, a particularly hard thing to do without making assumptions.
Easy to do when one bases one's thoughts and arguments upon axioms rather than assumptions and unfounded assertions.
Concerning intuition, it is either knowledge from a realm outside our senses which is communicated to us in a yet to explain fashion or it is spirit as we commonly use the term, or it is a new association of previously learned knowledge, some of which itself may be new associations, which we make subconsciously.
That you do not understand or are not carefully reading what I have written is revealed by this statement. I will parse:
Concerning intuition, it is either knowledge from a realm outside our senses which is communicated to us in a yet to explain fashion or it is spirit as we commonly use the term . . .
The phrase: knowledge from a realm outside our senses is precisely the type of conjecture that I term Begging the Question. By definition it assumes something that cannot be verified nor proven, therefore is not a true proposition. Period. Same goes for “spirit”. That your suppositions, or presuppositions as boop termed them are entirely illusory is exactly my point. They have no more meaning than 'Leprechauns plant all mushrooms' does.
The second part:
. . . or it is a new association of previously learned knowledge, some of which itself may be new associations, which we make subconsciously.
Which I already stipulated, to quote myself, I love to quote myself:
I will postulate that we receive information via the senses that is integrated in the subconscious mind and is then presented to the conscious mind in a symbolic form that needs to be interpreted by the conscious mind but this is not direct apprehension of the Universe via “intuition” but a process rooted in the sensory world first.
which is why I said you either aren't understanding what I said or not carefully reading it.
As to multi-verses, there can be many multi-verses within a universe.
Many ways to refute this, Begs the Question that there are multi-verses (unprovable by definition ) or Assertion Without Proof, but fallacious on the face of it either way.
Again, it is all semantics or labeling.
Or, more accurately, nonsense.
One last thing, the early discussion of the BEFORE as NO THING, meaning eliminating principles and laws along with things, I don't agree with that.
Of course not. This is where logic goes out the window. You make my point beautifully.