> >As we only have Zick's word for it that there is any such as > >unconditional "absolute truth", if he wishes others to agree, he needs > >to convince them. > > Oh wouldn't you just love that, sport.
As Zick has shown no ability to convince anyone of anything, the issue is moot.
> > >>I merely maintain that contradiction is true of everything > >> because contradiction cannot be contradicted since the contradiction > >> of contradiction is self contradictory. > > > >Which statement is full of Zick's undemonstrated assumptions. > > Sez who?
It is full of claims, none of which are demonstrated, so it is either that or sheer nonsense. > > >> Now I realize this may seem like a very exotic line of reasoning but > >> it is true and universally so regardless of whether people disagree or > >> not. > > > >Now there is a huge and undemonstrable assumption.
> >Why should anyone bother to try and convince himself of what Zick cannot > >show is true? > > Beats the hell outta me.
Not thoroughly enough to let any light shine through. > > >> Ultimately one cannot > >> "convince" people of what's universally true than they can that 1+1=2. > > > >AS "1+1 = 2" is only demonstrably true in certain axiom systems, one can > >show that it is true relative to those systems, though it is often a > >long grind to do so. > > Yes, yes, "1+1=2" only in certain belief systems.
If that claim is a part of Zick's own belief system, it is a faulty system. > > >Outside of those systems, "1+1 = 2" may be false, if it has a meaning at > >all, or may simply have no meaning. > > Assumptions of truth rarely have the same meaning in all faith based > belief systems. This is not exactly news.
Zick's faith based system seems to be one without any redeeming qualities.
> >> The real difficulty nowadays is whole hosts of momumentally stupid > >> opinions are bruted about regarding modern mathematics and science in > >> general and their significance. > > > >Zick being one of those bruters. > > So now I'm a brute just because I'm opposed to faith based math?
You exemplify what you claim to oppose, and that is a bit brutish.