On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:55:27 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:34:30 -0600, Virgil <email@example.com> wrote: >> >> >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, >> > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > > >> >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.
Why don't you moot this, sport.
>> >>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.
Is this claim demonstrated or a mere faith based assumption of truth?
>> >> 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.
Whereas you are a faultless 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.
No doubt to other faith based systems.
>> >> 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.
How can you tell what I exemplify? Art thou now an empiric as well as a faith healer?