It's time to wake up!

a reply to: daskakik

You accused me of circular logic. Based on what I looked up, it is an assumption build on the premise that, what I am saying is true, just because I said it. Is this correct?
And you said, "I am not trying to convince anyone, therefore it doesn't apply to me."

You also have a hard time tying different posts together. Folowing the flow.

Please, I'm not the only one who had trouble following the "flow" of the discussion.

originally posted by: Andy1144
You accused me of circular logic. Based on what I looked up, it is an assumption build on the premise that, what I am saying is true, just because I said it. Is this correct?
And you said, "I am not trying to convince anyone, therefore it doesn't apply to me."

No, it could be other "proof" and not just because someone says something.

Please, I'm not the only one who had trouble following the "flow" of the discussion.

The segement of the thread that I joined in a single post shows what I am talking about.

a reply to: daskakik

No, it could be other "proof" and not just because someone says something.

So if I consider my proof true and assume it is because I consider it so, then that is circular logic right?

The segement of the thread that I joined in a single post shows what I am talking about.

Yes, in your head.

originally posted by: Andy1144
So if I consider my proof true and assume it is because I consider it so, then that is circular logic right?

No. consider and assume would be you making that call. Circular logic is when one piece of evidence proves another which in turn proves the first.

Yes, in your head.

No, it shows where you tripped up. No biggie.

a reply to: daskakik

No. consider and assume would be you making that call. Circular logic is when one piece of evidence proves another which in turn proves the first.

So I think this is the crux of our chaotic discussion. You accusing me of circular logic. Can you give an example where I was using this? Because if I am using circular logic then no wonder you don't want to answer anything I ask. Because no matter what you would say, I would dismiss it if it doesn't fit my idea of proof correct?

originally posted by: Andy1144
So I think this is the crux of our chaotic discussion. You accusing me of circular logic. Can you give an example where I was using this?

Not your exact words but:
Now is all we can experience because all we can experience is now.

This happened when you presented universal truths which were not proven to be universal or true.

Because if I am using circular logic then no wonder you don't want to answer anything I ask. Because no matter what you would say, I would dismiss it if it doesn't fit my idea of proof correct?

I actually answered why, because I'm not discussing the details of that particular concept.

Now, that said, I am not discussing the details because I disagree with your conlcusions but I con't show you why so, why go into it.

a reply to: daskakik

This happened when you presented universal truths which were not proven to be universal or true.

Proven by who? Can they be proven? What is a universal truth?

I am not discussing the details because I disagree with your conlcusions but I con't show you why so, why go into it.

And why can't you show me? Because you think I'll bash your idea immediately because it doesn't fit my own idea of what's right?

originally posted by: Andy1144
Proven by who? Can they be proven? What is a universal truth?

Why ask me? You introduced the term.

And why can't you show me? Because you think I'll bash your idea immediately because it doesn't fit my own idea of what's right?

I don't care what you think of it. I can't prove it to you so, unlike you, I'm not going to kid myself into thinking that I can.

a reply to: daskakik

Why ask me? You introduced the term.

You introduced "circular logic" earlier in the discussion, and accused me of doing it. I simply want to understand what you mean by what you say.

I don't care what you think of it. I can't prove it to you so, unlike you, I'm not going to kid myself into thinking that I can.

Is it ever possible to prove something to someone else? Does this mean that people can't change each others minds, ever?

originally posted by: Andy1144
You introduced "circular logic" earlier in the discussion, and accused me of doing it.

What does that have to do with the questions you posted?

Is it ever possible to prove something to someone else? Does this mean that people can't change each others minds, ever?

Makes no differenceto me. I'm just not going to get into it.

If I ask you why, the patterns will continue. You just wont get into it for some reason I dont understand.

So instead, why do you think we are going in circles? What is happening here and how can there be progress? What is keeping this discussion stagnant? Let's get to the root of it.

originally posted by: Andy1144
If I ask you why, the patterns will continue. You just wont get into it for some reason I dont understand.

I can't prove it. That is what I am accusing you of so, why would I do the same?

So instead, why do you think we are going in circles? What is happening here and how can there be progress? What is keeping this discussion stagnant? Let's get to the root of it.

You think you have found something that needs to be shared. You don't want to accept "We don't know" as a conclusion, even if it is just a place holder.

a reply to: daskakik

I can't prove it. That is what I am accusing you of so, why would I do the same?

You can't prove it unless I understand and agree with you. Then you would be able to prove it right?

You think you have found something that needs to be shared. You don't want to accept "We don't know" as a conclusion, even if it is just a place holder.

It depends. I can say I don't know to anything I can't verify, like something other then my existence in this moment. But when you have facts like it's impossible to be aware of being unaware, then we can know this for sure because it is fool proof. You're arguments are equivalent to saying, if you haven't experienced or found that you can be aware of being unaware, that doesn't mean it's impossible. See how that's wrong? But I feel we're deviating from the main issue again. So back to the first sentence.

See, I think the paradox is that you're trying to prove to me that you can't prove anything.

originally posted by: Andy1144
You can't prove it unless I understand and agree with you. Then you would be able to prove it right?

No, that isn't proof.

It depends. I can say I don't know to anything I can't verify, like something other then my existence in this moment. But when you have facts like it's impossible to be aware of being unaware, then we can know this for sure because it is fool proof.

It only appears to be true in words but has it been proven?

You're arguments are equivalent to saying, if you haven't experienced or found that you can be aware of being unaware, that doesn't mean it's impossible. See how that's wrong? But I feel we're deviating from the main issue again. So back to the first sentence.

That is actually the logical conclusion that you don't want to accept.

How easy it is to apply to different things varies. That is why it favors your argument when you use god as an example but it doesn't work with a secret government agency.

I can't prove that a secret government agency exists but does that mean that it is wrong to say, "that doesn't mean that it's impossible"?

a reply to: daskakik

No, that isn't proof.

Then what is? Can something be proven to someone? Can science prove things to someone?

It only appears to be true in words but has it been proven?

Proven by what?
By that standard I can only prove my knowingness that I am aware. That isn't an assumption, the rest is. So I don't know anything directly other then the fact that I am aware.

I can't prove that a secret government agency exists but does that mean that it is wrong to say, "that doesn't mean that it's impossible"?

That's a totally different example. It is like saying. "Just because we haven't experienced something other then this moment, doesn't mean it is impossible".

As I said earlier. It's a paradox how you say I can't prove anything to you, but your trying to prove that fact to me.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Then what is? Can something be proven to someone? Can science prove things to someone?

It's personal.

The commonly accepted world standard is science but anyone can dismiss it as well.

Proven by what?

One standard that can be shared is science but also something as simple as pics to prove it did happen might be enough.

By that standard I can only prove my knowingness that I am aware. That isn't an assumption, the rest is. So I don't know anything directly other then the fact that I am aware.

Even that is something proven only to you.

That's a totally different example.

Of course it is a differeent example, that is the point, to show that the logic behind it is not always sound.

It is like saying. "Just because we haven't experienced something other then this moment, doesn't mean it is impossible".

I have so, excuse me if I don't agree.

As I said earlier. It's a paradox how you say I can't prove anything to you, but your trying to prove that fact to me.

That isn't a paradox, besides, "you can't prove anything" means "any of the main claims" that you posted here. You have obviously proven that you read and write in the english language, that you are into DE, etc.

What is odd is that you have said that you agree a bunch of times and now you want to act like you have not to one up.

a reply to: daskakik

The commonly accepted world standard is science but anyone can dismiss it as well.

Then even science can't be proven since it's still all personal.

One standard that can be shared is science but also something as simple as pics to prove it did happen might be enough.

And that would be proof to you only.

Even that is something proven only to you.

Yes, it is.

I have so, excuse me if I don't agree.

So you've experienced anything other then what's happening in your experience now? You even agreed it's true we all can only experience this moment and now you say this.

I can't prove anything to you if your only standard is science.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Then even science can't be proven since it's still all personal.

Science isn't something to be proven. It is a bunch of data. Personally you can accept the data and even pick what you feel has been proven and what has not.

And that would be proof to you only.

The last call to accept something is personal. That doesn't mean that the data doesn't stand on it's own. Just like reality is what it is whether a person accepts it or not.

So you've experienced anything other then what's happening in your experience now? You even agreed it's true we all can only experience this moment and now you say this.

Yes but, I agreed to that as a commonality of the human experience for the sake of discussion.

I can't prove anything to you if your only standard is science.

No, you can't prove your claims because I have my own experiences and have come to my own conlusions.

Since they are currently outside of science, you can't use science to back them up.

a reply to: daskakik

Yes but, I agreed to that as a commonality of the human experience for the sake of discussion.

But you can only experience here and now, you can't experience differently.

No, you can't prove your claims because I have my own experiences and have come to my own conlusions.
Since they are currently outside of science, you can't use science to back them up.

Science has no way of talking about free will because it is in coherent. We can't map something like that onto reality because it doesn't make sense. I can't use science to back up the non existence of god either. I just try to apply honest logic.

So while I can't back it up scientifically (MRI scanners were actually a scientific proven test). But even if that wasn't true and had no science to back it up, I only have logic to back it up.

But if science is your only standard, then I can't prove anything to you.