Because your view of how logic works appears to clouded by proximity to the God issue, I'm analogizing - using a mundane example to show the principle is sound.
This isn't a discussion on logic. You were the one who made the excuse that what you believe to be true, is not truth, but logic. Your attempt to give an example of how your position is to be described as purely logical, with no belief that what you trumpet is true, doesn't even reach the bar.
You then shroud it in the excuse of showing me a pointless deduction, (which doesn't even require formal logic training to conclude), which does nothing to explain how your seeming belief in the truth of what you believe, is nothing but logic.
You've provided an example of that cloudiness right here.
Whether one "gives a sh*t" about subject X has no impact on the fact that the logic applies to X equally well.
That's kind of the point of logic - it's generalized and universal.
That's not cloudiness, that's me telling you, in a round about way, that you're wasting time, by talking about stuff that does nothing to explain your position.
You're attempt to solve it by replacing
spade with God, and so on, is quite laughable.
Why don't you just come out with a straight answer, so we can advance?
What you really mean is: they don't progress your discussion.
If you can't grasp (or don't care) about how axioms are formed and rules are built when it comes to something as simple as cards, there's no way you'll be able to apply it to something as nuanced as the concept of God or truth.
You claim ''no one can know the truth''.
You claim it is because logic
acknowledges (wierd) that the deductions are based on limited senses.
You claim we have limited senses, and as such cannot know truth.
You claim no one has monopoly on the truth.
You claim that I sense God, therefore I believe.
You claim that it is human nature to fear the unseen.
You claim that the supernatural is the
ultimate unseen.
These are some of the many claims you make, yet you say you don't believe any of them, as they are all logic. When asked to show how it is possible to show how God could have entered into the human psyche, you provide me with the black and red spade gag, and start banging on about logical axioms.
Are you suggesting that God is an axiom? I'm not sure anymore. Please explain, if you can.
No, you haven't because
a] you appear to not understand how logic is formed and
b] you've misrepresented my position.
I understand how logic is formed. What I don't understand is why you use logic to define logic, and deny that you do, when it is in print for the whole world to see.
Don't be a hypocrite. It is you who started down the road of dismissal.
Not only are you in denial about your role in bringing this discussion to ad hominem fest, you fail to respond to both sentences, choosing to carry on with your evasion.
Here you are:
I made quite a few points earlier and didn't respond to them. Can you respond to them, then maybe we can get back on track?
Assertion: no human can know the "truth".
That's what you believe. It has nothing to do with logic.
All our senses are limited; they can be fooled. (This is demonstrable. We all agree; it can always be demonstrated to any remaining doubting Thomas')
How does that tie in with '' no one can ever know the truth''?
Because of this, we have no way of externally verifying that what we are sensing is "true". (Follows directly from above).
Again, are you devoid of mind and intelligence?
Or have you come to you person beliefs by other sources, meaning you don't have to apply them?
The above is internally-consistent logic.
Fine. Show it without changing the subject matter to red and black spades.
jan.
