bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:20 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:23 pm
I need assumption too when I enter a new area of thinking that I don't know.
WHY did you write and use the word 'too' here?
Who else are you saying 'needs' assumptions, as well as you, when they enter a new area of thinking that they do not know, or, when else do you, supposedly, 'need' assumptions.
Because that is needed if you are not omniscient. People are not omniscient therefore they have to assume to get somewhere.
LOL If you BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST BE so, correct?
So, to you, because 'you', people, are NOT omniscient, then to get ANY where then you HAVE TO assume EVERY thing, correct?
It is because of some of things that 'you', "bahman", say and write WHY I say 'your' "logic" sometimes is VERY ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL.
Are you aware that people not being omniscient can still mean that they KNOW some things, AND, because they CAN KNOW some things, then they COULD develop their arguments from what they KNOW, instead of from ASSUMPTIONS?
Or, because this does NOT align with your CURRENT BELIEFS as well, then you are NOT able to SEE this, and/or do NOT want to ACCEPT this, irrefutable Truth?
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
As for 'me' I NEVER 'need' assumption.
So you are omniscient?
The two do NOT 'have to' go together. One can not assume and not be omniscient at the exact same time.
By the way, a 'you' could NEVER be omniscient. Only One Thing could be omniscient.
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:23 pm
What is the truth? I think I have asked you this many times.
And I think I have asked you, many times also, to CLARIFY in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?
Are you asking me what is the definition of the phrase/term 'the truth' here?
Or, are you asking me what is 'the truth' in reference to some particular 'thing'?
Or, are you asking me something else?
If I, for example, asked you, 'What is the truth?', then what answer would you give me?
I mean what is the truth when you reflect on reality. How do you see it?
Because I CURIOUS and because I do NOT like to assume ANY thing, you adding the word 'it' here leaves me in no other position but to ask you the CLARIFYING QUESTION what does the word 'it' here refer to, EXACTLY?
Now, to respond to your first sentence; How do you define the word 'reality'?
Because how I define the word 'reality' here will be a LOT DIFFERENT than how you define the word 'reality'. Therefore, the response I give you will NOT make much if any sense at all, to you.
See, to FULLY understand my points of view, of the words I use, you will have to FULLY understand my whole complete world view, which the way you going now you NEVER will.
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:23 pm
Have you ever tried to develop an argument about a subject that you don't know well?
No. Why would I or ANY one else do this?
So, you are omniscient?
That is a VERY STRANGE response from you, from my perspective.
I asked you, WHY would ANY one want to develop an argument about a subject that they do NOT know well?
And then you came back with, "You are omniscient?"
Which, by the way, I will point out, ONCE AGAIN, is a statement but with a question mark at the end, and thus is, literally, a self-contradiction of terms.
Now, if 'you', people, have 'tried to' develop arguments about subjects that you do NOT know well, then WHY do you do this?
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:23 pm
Well, if you know everything then you won't try to develop anything.
If you say and believe so, then it must be true and so, correct?
That is a correct statement.
But what happens if someone knows everything, and they want "another" to know some 'thing', then WHY do you CLAIM TO KNOW that that ALL knowing One will NOT try to develop ANY thing.
For all 'you' know that One might try to develop an argument so SHOW and REVEAL some 'thing' to some 'one' "else". Or, is this just NOT possible, in 'your' view of 'things'?
By the way, 'you' appear STUCK in this BELIEF that if one does NOT know absolutely EVERY thing, then they can NOT know just ONE thing, and therefore they HAVE TO ASSUME absolutely EVERY thing, correct?
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:23 pm
I mean you need to assume when you want to DEVELOP an argument.
I KNOW that this is what you MEAN. You have been TRYING TO argue for this position from the outset. You, however, are FAILING.
Even you just admitted that it is POSSIBLE to DEVELOP an argument from a premise, which you KNOW is correct, and therefore is NOT an assumption.
But, because this CONTRADICTS with your current BELIEF, you are now left in a PREDICAMENT.
Failing in what?
You are FAILING to PROVE that to DEVELOP ANY argument one MUST start and being with an ASSUMPTION.
Could you REALLY NOT SEE this before?
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
But a 'you' could NEVER be omniscient.
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
But people do NOT 'need' to ASSUME.
This is just a BELIEF that you currently have, and can NOT shake. Even though you have absolutely NO actual proof whatsoever to back up and support this BELIEF of 'yours', you just want to carry on sustaining it.
But this is what 'you', adult human beings, tend to do with what you have just be told, and BELIEVE, is true.
Also, and by the way, your three sentences here did NOT logically follow at all.
Failing in what?
People are not omniscient like you.
So they need to assume.