make truth?

[Skepdick]

You've been arbitrarily discriminating against other people's specifications but you refuse to tell us why.

To "discriminate" means "to know the difference." So yes, I "discriminate" between your mere sophistry and a valuable conversation, and I reject the former out of preference for the latter.

When it comes to discriminating between a conversations and monologues you sure seem to prefer the latter.

All this time I've been trying to get you to converse with me by asking you a simple question. Which continue to avoid with your monologues.

The least you could do when you don't know why you prefer one description over another is to shut up.

[Immanuel Can]

When it comes to discriminating between a conversations and monologues you sure seem to prefer the latter.

No. I prefer a sincere interest in facts, and don't much care for mere sophistry. One can never make progress with a sophist...progress is never the point for them.

[Lacewing]

She must be speaking merely of her own "needs," or "perspective" or even just her wishes...for if what she says IS objectively true, she falsifies her own claim.

Why does someone need to believe as you do for you to demonstrate what you know/claim about objective truth? That would require no ability (or even truth on your part) if they already believe it. What is the point of claiming there is objective truth (or claiming anything) if you are so incapable of speaking about it when questioned? Is it because you cannot show any reason or evidence for it except in the bible?

How would you function or know anything without a bible?

Why would a god be taught from a book?

Why wouldn't awareness be pulsing throughout all naturally -- and in varying forms as a demonstration of creative potential?

Are you just here to make claims of knowing based on a certain set of parameters and stories that you claim defines a god? Why would a god be limited to that? Why would a god even need to be separately "known" somehow? (Who does that really serve?) Don't you care enough about truth to want to explore such questions and concepts that have been dispersed by men? Or do such ideas serve you the way you like?

[DPMartin]

so if its what you think then its in error, if its what God thinks its not, and man's judgements of what truth is is in error.

That, of course, would imply there IS a truth. Namely, it's what God knows is true.

It's not hard to make the case that mankind does not know everything that God knows. For example, God must know the present size of the universe, which is also a thing that no person knows. Or God must be able to resolve pi to any number of digits...

But what is our grounds for saying that mankind doesn't know anything that God knows? If God knows that, say, the height of Everest is presently 8,848 meters, or that salt can be dissolved in water, why can't a human being know the same?

how does man come to know what God already knows? it simply experience or revelation, depending on what it is that is to be known. you don't need a special revelation from on High to experience fire is hot and can burn and ice is cold, therefore come to know what God already knows.

[Immanuel Can]

She must be speaking merely of her own "needs," or "perspective" or even just her wishes...for if what she says IS objectively true, she falsifies her own claim.

Why does someone need to believe as you do...about objective truth?

They don't. LW can believe what she wants, be it rational or irrational. To be reasonable, LW only needs to act rationally consistently with what she, herself declares.

If LW believes there's no truth, then she also has to believe that what she says is not true. If what LW says is true, then her claim that there's no truth is false.

Logic irrefutably demonstrates that it's so. It has nothing to do with what I want...or what LW wants, either. It's just how it is. Anybody can see it.

You asked for a proof: there it is.

[Immanuel Can]

how does man come to know what God already knows?

Many ways.

God knows at water turns to ice at 0c or 32F. I also know that. But the Bible didn't have to tell me that. Science did.

God knows that 2+2 = 4. But God didn't tell me that directly; deduction showed me that, and before that, my maths teachers taught me that.

But God knows that Jesus Christ came to save me. He knows that, and now I know that. I did indeed learn that by revelation from God...written revelation.

God knows He loves me. He told me so by revelation, of course; but I've also learned the truth of it through life, through my experience with Him.

In all these ways, I know what God knows. So can anyone.

you don't need a special revelation from on High to experience fire is hot and can burn and ice is cold, therefore come to know what God already knows.

Now you see it.

Special revelation is but one way of knowing what God knows. But there are various others, as above. There is the general revelation of Creation. There is science. There is morality. There is mathematics. There is logic. There is experience. There is history. And so on. There are many ways: but different ways suit different kinds of information.

[Skepdick]

When it comes to discriminating between a conversations and monologues you sure seem to prefer the latter.

No. I prefer a sincere interest in facts, and don't much care for mere sophistry. One can never make progress with a sophist...progress is never the point for them.

Is that why we can't progress towards you telling me why you prefer some wrong descriptions over other wrong descriptions?

Well, at least you are owning your sophistry.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, at least you are owning your sophistry.

Yeah, that rejoinder falls to the level of the "I know you are, but what am I?" singsong of the schoolyard.

Time to get beyond that.

[Skepdick]

Yeah, that rejoinder falls to the level of the "I know you are, but what am I?" singsong of the schoolyard.

What you are and what I am were never in scope of our conversation (or your monologue).

Nice attempt at further derailment, though.

Time to get beyond that.

Yeah! About that.

Is it yet time to telling me why you prefer some wrong descriptions over other wrong descriptions? I've been asking you for days.

[Immanuel Can]

Is it yet time to telling me why you prefer some wrong descriptions over other wrong descriptions?

Premise wrong. Not accepted.

[DPMartin]

how does man come to know what God already knows?

Many ways.

God knows at water turns to ice at 0c or 32F. I also know that. But the Bible didn't have to tell me that. Science did.

God knows that 2+2 = 4. But God didn't tell me that directly; deduction showed me that, and before that, my maths teachers taught me that.

But God knows that Jesus Christ came to save me. He knows that, and now I know that. I did indeed learn that by revelation from God...written revelation.

God knows He loves me. He told me so by revelation, of course; but I've also learned the truth of it through life, through my experience with Him.

In all these ways, I know what God knows. So can anyone.

you don't need a special revelation from on High to experience fire is hot and can burn and ice is cold, therefore come to know what God already knows.

Now you see it.

Special revelation is but one way of knowing what God knows. But there are various others, as above. There is the general revelation of Creation. There is science. There is morality. There is mathematics. There is logic. There is experience. There is history. And so on. There are many ways: but different ways suit different kinds of information.

the question was rhetorical, this isn't kindergarten is it? and what's with the yackety bla about math and science?

its off subject
FYI: Jesus is a revelation of God in the flesh as in "Word of God made flesh" and is of God therefore a revelation of God, which a born again (John chapter 3) comes to know, hence experience.

Joh 14:15  If ye love me, keep my commandments. 
Joh 14:16  And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 
Joh 14:17  Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 
Joh 14:18  I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 
Joh 14:19  Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 
Joh 14:20  At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 
Joh 14:21  He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 

there's no doubt the scriptures help, but it isn't the scriptures that raises one from the dead. its the power in the presence of God that is experienced as Jesus says "but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."

[Lacewing]

...

So you're still unable to demonstrate anything about what you claim. So if demonstrating your claims isn't the goal, what other purpose might you be serving?

[Immanuel Can]

the question was rhetorical,

Well, rhetorical questions are difficult to mark in this format.

[Immanuel Can]

...

So you're still unable to demonstrate anything about what you claim.

It's you who has the issue, not me. I don't have to prove that truth exists, nor do you have to prove that it doesn't.

But IF it doesn't, you need to show why you keep speaking AS IF it does....i.e. in categorical claims.

You're not rationally consistent. It's yourself you're contradicting, not me.

[Skepdick]

But IF it doesn't, you need to show why you keep speaking AS IF it does....i.e. in categorical claims.

You're not rationally consistent. It's yourself you're contradicting, not me.

Categorical claims don't imply truth. They imply categories. Some bullshit and other bullshit.

You can't even define consistency let alone assert it about others.

If I am consistently inconsistent does that make me consistent or inconsistent?

Nonfirstorderizability is a mouthful.