It's OK, nothing to be ashamed of... but you will now forgive me if I don't believe you have any direct pipeline into the thinking of Nature and 'Natural Law', and consequently, your 'observations' on the teachings of the Universe may safely be disregarded.
"Fine, but simply disregarding the fact that is in your own flesh on the basis of my poor credentials is no fitting argument. And it still does not remove the truth."
>>> I do not 'disregard' it... I wait to be convinced.
I didn't ask for all of it... just the least little part!
"And that is precisely what I have given - the least little part, precious little, so little that even you should be able to understand it. But it seems I must give even less."
>>> No comment.
Logic, too, can be expressed formally. Have at it, I'm listening.
"Indeed, and I am certainly not "illiterate" in formal logic. But even here, the use of formal logic to transmit so broad an idea as human character and existence would consume the entire forum. You first understand and accept in your bones the broad ideas, and I will certainly make an attempt to formalize sections of them for you. In fact I do this all the time."
>>> I generally start working with the 'small', the 'mundane', before working up to the divine mind of the Universe... perhaps you work in the opposite direction?
R-I-G-H-T.... you don't want to scare off the poor, ill-educated natives here with your fountains of wisdom. I get it.....
"It is not a matter of scaring off anyone, Buddy. But to get involved with formal symbolic logic here is just foolish."
>>> Logic is never 'foolish', if it is valid.
"Surely you understand this. We are just too broad at this point. I am trying to make a very large argument and have you (or anyone) see the biggest picture. If that happens and you can pick apart the big picture, show its flaws, allow me to retool it, we can certainly formalize and then hash it out in detail. I do have that ability - at least some of it."
>>> See previous (or consider 'scientific method').
Part 4 |
