“It is not my personal opinion, it is empirical fact, but in your sheer stubborness you refuse to admit that. And sorry, you have proven nothing.”
Don’t be sorry its not an empirical fact either and you represent this forum badly. Don’t be sorry I understand it must be hard for you to think outside the box you remind me of those indoctrinated people in speakers corner at Hyde park.
“Instinct is not the use of reason. Try again.”
No but for you to suggest that the reason was instinct, was through logic, ive just tried.
“What do you mean by 'reason for the event'”
the action that took place,you gave it a reason called instinct, but you say instinct is not with the use of logic only the action of instinct is, so therefore instinct requires no logic and logic is not an absolute.
“Really? Well atheists are not spiritual. What happens if someone does irrational behavior in front of an atheist. The atheist can not resort to some mysterious spiritual conscience to reject the behavior. And according to you he can't reject it on the grounds of logic. So I guess he has to allow his things to be stolen and his head to be beaten!!”
this does not have anything to do with the idea of conscience you sneakily avoided that and dropped another scenario, which seems to change, and then when I change my reaction to you’re scenario to prove the possibility of acting without logic, I get branded as trying to escape. Do you want a debate or do you want me to accept youre word as a given
“You discredit yourself with your profanity (at least moreso than with your rejection of logic and reason!). “
no profanity there, it was blotted out and other members have done the same yet they just change their names and continue on the forum under another alias, no one bothers them though cos their muslims, youre lucky that you can do this and retain youre autonomy.
“Saying so does not make it so. I have provided irrefutable practicle examples to establish what I have said. I thought you might be an openminded person and understand the arguments with some basic simple examples in plain english. I was sadly mistaken.”
Saying so does not make it so especially after all youre scenarios have still not proven youre case sooner or later youll just block the discussion and get your mods to add a little damning message about me, I know how this intellectual story ends and I know how the historical story ends, ultimately you have always been beaten, then comes the pride oooooh!!!.
“Yes he was not reasoning to do an action. That doesn't negate the fact that everything must be in accordance with logic.”
It does cos the fact that he did not use logic to instaneaously act proves there is a gap which is not in accordance with logic.
“ A stone doesn't even have the capacity to reason. Does that mean stones are illogical? No, of course not. They have properties that are in accordance with logic.”
In my religion there is a man called dhanna bhagat and a stone talked to him have a look:
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Bhagat_Dhanna
is this illogical?
“Yes they are. Miracles are a suspension of the natural laws of science which govern the universe. They are still in accordance with logic. For example, there is no such miracle of a circle with four sides - it is illogical and self-contradictory.”
But a stone which eats? Is that illogical or a suspension of laws? And anyways a hologram can be a sqare-like circle depends on your perception the self-contradictory nature of a hologram, that it is and is not.
“Too bad - he uses the excuse that it is okay for him to be illogical and so he throws you out the window anyway.”
That would have to be pretty spontaneous therefore not logical or illogical. logically I would fall to the floor yet I flew back to the forum and answered all youre questions.
“If they did it, intending to fly then they were being illogical. If they did it intending to commit suicide then they were not. This is so easy to understand, even a child could grasp such a simple concept. Which makes it even more suspicious when you choose not to.”
The simple fact is that you didn’t know why?, youre logic will never be able to conclude the true reality of why?
“You said it was okay, i.e. permissable, alright. If you have changed your opinion then don't be afraid. Come out and admit it; you will earn a lot mroe respect that way then playing these silly games to justify your erroneous comments.”
I don’t want youre respect or disrespect, I still am, without both. However when I say you can do this and thats okay, I mean possible too, not its alright get with the modern lingo ansar.
“I made the scenario where the person is doing something illogical, and you keep changing it (eg. saying the person actually does like to be hit) to make it logical instead of answering the scenario as it is. The only explanation for this is that you don't have an answer. If you do, here is the scenario is simple representative terms:”
not at all the whole idea is to show you how you can behave without being logical or illogical what would be the point in saying yeah I would do that when there is transcendental alternative, I wouldn’t want you to miss anything.
“Let X represent an illogical action. Person A performs X, to the detriment of Person B. Can person B object to action X on logical grounds - yes or no?”
yes they can is the answer you would like but they could also react spontaneously and break into song or dance the can can, but this was not illogical just spontaneous.
“This is circular reasoning. I DEFINED the thief to be providing an illogical explanation and then you started arguing that he was insane. No he is not insane, he is a SIKH who believes that he can act outside the bounds of logic. Answer that.”
Being a sikh would mean he could never be a thief so the argument is self-refuting its not possible for someone to be something they inherently are not. You will have to use another example.
“So you deny the dictionary definitions. It is amazing to see the lengths to which you will go to maintain your manifest error.”
Your words have become noises too.
“This forum is not for people who can't read books and refer to academic references. If you are unable to engage in scientific discussion, so be it. Don't criticise the forum because of your own incompetence.”
I am not criticising the forum I am criticising you, a person with the use of the internet in the sahara desert without any books is not able to have a genuine debate with you because you could do anything and they could only scratch at the grain of sand beneath them. In future please provide all electronic references, if you have to scrape the barrel then you might aswell concede defeat rather than drawing a definition out of thin space to save yourself this growing humiliation.
“Good. So you admit that the irrational, unreasonable, and illogical behavior is the characteristic of insanity in the case of the thief. So on what gorunds do you object to his behavior? “
no you are twisting my words I have never said that the definition in the dictionary is the sum total of what it means to be insane, it was one of many facets of an insane person, to lose youre mind is neither acting logical or illogical you need youre mind to do both, the thief would simply in this case be mad or insane but not logical or illogical. Althought the post-descriptive analysis of the situation would suggest that logically he is acting in accordance to irrational behaviour but the spontaneity is neither. This is not hard even my little brother gets it.
“ you would have no grounds to object to his behavior and you would have to let him go because you believe that it is okay for creation to act outside the bounds of logic and reason.”
One problem with youre conclusion, I can choose to draw a conclusion but youre problem is that you deny the possibility in life where one does not make an instantaneous decision, and conveniently you label the action in accordance with logic but fail to define the precursor.
“LOOK HOW MANY WORDS YOU ARE TWISTING! Now you are denying that illogical = not logical !! What else is illogical if it does not mean 'not logical' ?? YOU define illogical for me, please.”
Please explain, and you don’t have a leg to stand on cos transcending rationale is the same as no logic yet the dictionary disagrees with you how about admitting that one instead of tucking it away in the archives.
“I never said that the thief had a mental disorder. That was your claim in order to sneak out of the scenario! Please show me where I said the thief had a mental disorder that prevented him from reasoning. I challenge you!.”
“illogical behavior is the characteristic of insanity in the case of the thief”
– challenge accepted.
“I seperated them because you tried to bring in an issue that was not related.”
Yet it was relevant enough for you to bring it into the discussion lol, but seriously if you say that transcending rationale amounts to illogical then you have to show how, because you redefined the word I in my humility are accepting youre case temporarily and finding stuff in this world which does not involve logic or illogical, even though youre definition of transcending rationale becoming illogical is a big no no.
“-person A does not have a mental disorder
-person A believes that he can act outside the bounds of logic
-person A comes to you and claims that your house belongs to him because of illogical reason Z”
Then I would reason with him but this does not prove that his reality is still not his, it also does not amount to him being illogical because in his culture it maybe the thing to do, who is the judge of all that acceptable why is logical being equated with good, moral and true? And if the above is what you have been trying to say then you cant say my English is poor.
“-conclusion: creation can NOT act outside the bounds of logic and reason”
yet they still do where spontaneity is concerned. look:
“Instinct is not the use of reason. Try again.”
“-conclusion: everything must be in accordance with logic and reason to be valid”
a definition which does not apply to god.
Please advise,:thankyou:
ISDhillon
kay:
PS i love this quote thingy its brill:thumbs_up
