On assumptions...

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:55 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:39 pm But if you recognize the means of debate as futile, why are you still here?
Good points above this, by the way.

Re why I'm still here, since I'm not in an academic environment any longer, and I don't have many friends or family members with much of an interest in philosophy (which is a bit of an understatement, maybe--some are even openly antagonistic about it and the vast majority are completely indifferent), I normally have little chance to keep up my interactive philosophy chops. Frequenting boards or chat rooms enables me to "stay in practice" a little bit. Unfortunately, places that tend to be more heavily moderated tend to have higher quality discussion, but they also tend to ban me, because I'm rather iconoclastic in many ways--including that I think that a majority of well-respected philosophers were horrible thinkers and even worse authors. Plus I don't at all get along well with control freak personalities, and those are the sorts persons who tend to be most attracted to being a moderator.

While the sorts of egos that boards on any sort of academic topic seem to attract exacerbate everyone digging in and "refusing to budge," I still think it's possible to have worthwhile discussions where people are interested in mutually exploring--comparing, contrasting, etc.--different positions because they're honestly interested in understanding for its own sake, and in the midst of that, it's possible to pose challenges back and forth that help each party develop their own views better. I think that's a very worthwhile endeavor. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen as often as I'd like,
This is because you only Truly like to engage with those who have the same or similar views as you do.

And, if they do not, then you would prefer to just ridicule them, or that view, correct?
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:55 pm and it's not the easiest thing to do on a message board at length, but it's happened often enough over the years that it's worth continuing to try . . . of course, I tend to be an "irrational optimist"--that is, I tend to be optimistic about stuff like this even when it's not particularly rational to expect good outcomes, but I can't help that. It's a disposition I have that I can't change.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:36 pm The assumption, where assumption being a proposition that is considered to be true, is necessary if you want to develop an argument.
But WHY can you NOT develop an argument from what is ACTUALLY True?
Because people don't know and are disagree with what the truth is.
But I did NOT ask what other people can or cannot do. I asked you WHY 'you' claim that can NOT do something here.

Now, if people do NOT know, and do disagree with, what the truth is, as you just claimed here, then this MEANS that 'you' ALSO "bahman" do NOT know what the truth is, correct?

By the way, although you, supposedly, can NOT develop an argument from what is ACTUALLY True, because 'you', "bahman", do NOT YET KNOW what the Truth is, then this in NO way infers NOR means that 'I' cannot develop an argument from what is ACTUALLY True.

But then again 'I' do KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, to begin with.
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am You have to start from somewhere to show that your whole world view as a whole is correct and coherent.
And, although you say that you can ONLY start from an 'assumption', which both your comment and ANY 'assumption' could obviously be, or be partly, Wrong, False, and/or Incorrect to begin with, because you do NOT know what the truth is, WHERE I start from is just from thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', instead
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm WHY can you develop an argument ONLY from just what is CONSIDERED true?
Well, if you know that then that is great since you at the end, when your whole world view is complete, has to prove everything that you assumed.
WHAT are you referring to, exactly, when you said and wrote; "if you know 'that' ..."? What is the 'that', which I supposedly and allegedly know here?

I just asked you a CLARIFYING QUESTION, which was; WHY can you develop an argument ONLY from just what is CONSIDERED true? So, what caused to respond the way you did, as though I was claiming some 'thing', instead of just answering the actual question I asked you?

Also, I am the one claiming that one can present an argument, which may or may not lead into presenting one's whole complete world, based on NOT what is just an 'assumption'. Therefore, if I 'have to', as you claim, 'at the end
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm WHY do some of you here BELIEVE that you cannot develop/start an argument from what is ACTUALLY True?
That is possible if you know that your premise is correct. But you have to prove your premise.
So, now you agree that it is possible, correct?

Also, you, again, did NOT answer the ACTUAL question that I asked.
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm WHY do the same ones INSIST that you have to develop/start an argument from only what MAY BE Wrong?
Wrong assumption normally leads to wrong conclusion. So the opposite must be true.
Again, you COMPLETELY MISSED answering the ACTUAL question asked.

Anyway, ALL assumptions lead to inconclusive conclusions. So, I suggest developing/starting ALL arguments with actual Truths, instead of 'assumptions'.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On assumptions...

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm
But WHY can you NOT develop an argument from what is ACTUALLY True?
Because people don't know and are disagree with what the truth is.
But I did NOT ask what other people can or cannot do. I asked you WHY 'you' claim that can NOT do something here.

Now, if people do NOT know, and do disagree with, what the truth is, as you just claimed here, then this MEANS that 'you' ALSO "bahman" do NOT know what the truth is, correct?

By the way, although you, supposedly, can NOT develop an argument from what is ACTUALLY True, because 'you', "bahman", do NOT YET KNOW what the Truth is, then this in NO way infers NOR means that 'I' cannot develop an argument from what is ACTUALLY True.

But then again 'I' do KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, to begin with.
I need assumption too when I enter a new area of thinking that I don't know.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am You have to start from somewhere to show that your whole world view as a whole is correct and coherent.
And, although you say that you can ONLY start from an 'assumption', which both your comment and ANY 'assumption' could obviously be, or be partly, Wrong, False, and/or Incorrect to begin with, because you do NOT know what the truth is, WHERE I start from is just from thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', instead
What is the truth? I think I have asked you this many times.
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm WHY can you develop an argument ONLY from just what is CONSIDERED true?
Well, if you know that then that is great since you at the end, when your whole world view is complete, has to prove everything that you assumed.
WHAT are you referring to, exactly, when you said and wrote; "if you know 'that' ..."? What is the 'that', which I supposedly and allegedly know here?

I just asked you a CLARIFYING QUESTION, which was; WHY can you develop an argument ONLY from just what is CONSIDERED true? So, what caused to respond the way you did, as though I was claiming some 'thing', instead of just answering the actual question I asked you?

Also, I am the one claiming that one can present an argument, which may or may not lead into presenting one's whole complete world, based on NOT what is just an 'assumption'. Therefore, if I 'have to', as you claim, 'at the end
Have you ever tried to develop an argument about a subject that you don't know well? Well, if you know everything then you won't try to develop anything.
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm WHY do some of you here BELIEVE that you cannot develop/start an argument from what is ACTUALLY True?
That is possible if you know that your premise is correct. But you have to prove your premise.
So, now you agree that it is possible, correct?

Also, you, again, did NOT answer the ACTUAL question that I asked.
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm WHY do the same ones INSIST that you have to develop/start an argument from only what MAY BE Wrong?
Wrong assumption normally leads to wrong conclusion. So the opposite must be true.
Again, you COMPLETELY MISSED answering the ACTUAL question asked.

Anyway, ALL assumptions lead to inconclusive conclusions. So, I suggest developing/starting ALL arguments with actual Truths, instead of 'assumptions'.
I mean you need to assume when you want to DEVELOP an argument.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:23 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am
Because people don't know and are disagree with what the truth is.
But I did NOT ask what other people can or cannot do. I asked you WHY 'you' claim that can NOT do something here.

Now, if people do NOT know, and do disagree with, what the truth is, as you just claimed here, then this MEANS that 'you' ALSO "bahman" do NOT know what the truth is, correct?

By the way, although you, supposedly, can NOT develop an argument from what is ACTUALLY True, because 'you', "bahman", do NOT YET KNOW what the Truth is, then this in NO way infers NOR means that 'I' cannot develop an argument from what is ACTUALLY True.

But then again 'I' do KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, to begin with.
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.

As for 'me' I NEVER 'need' assumption.
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:23 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am You have to start from somewhere to show that your whole world view as a whole is correct and coherent.
And, although you say that you can ONLY start from an 'assumption', which both your comment and ANY 'assumption' could obviously be, or be partly, Wrong, False, and/or Incorrect to begin with, because you do NOT know what the truth is, WHERE I start from is just from thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', instead
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?
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:23 pm
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am
Well, if you know that then that is great since you at the end, when your whole world view is complete, has to prove everything that you assumed.
WHAT are you referring to, exactly, when you said and wrote; "if you know 'that' ..."? What is the 'that', which I supposedly and allegedly know here?

I just asked you a CLARIFYING QUESTION, which was; WHY can you develop an argument ONLY from just what is CONSIDERED true? So, what caused to respond the way you did, as though I was claiming some 'thing', instead of just answering the actual question I asked you?

Also, I am the one claiming that one can present an argument, which may or may not lead into presenting one's whole complete world, based on NOT what is just an 'assumption'. Therefore, if I 'have to', as you claim, 'at the end
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?
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?
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:23 pm
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am
That is possible if you know that your premise is correct. But you have to prove your premise.
So, now you agree that it is possible, correct?

Also, you, again, did NOT answer the ACTUAL question that I asked.
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:05 am
Wrong assumption normally leads to wrong conclusion. So the opposite must be true.
Again, you COMPLETELY MISSED answering the ACTUAL question asked.

Anyway, ALL assumptions lead to inconclusive conclusions. So, I suggest developing/starting ALL arguments with actual Truths, instead of 'assumptions'.
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.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On assumptions...

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:20 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:23 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am But I did NOT ask what other people can or cannot do. I asked you WHY 'you' claim that can NOT do something here.

Now, if people do NOT know, and do disagree with, what the truth is, as you just claimed here, then this MEANS that 'you' ALSO "bahman" do NOT know what the truth is, correct?

By the way, although you, supposedly, can NOT develop an argument from what is ACTUALLY True, because 'you', "bahman", do NOT YET KNOW what the Truth is, then this in NO way infers NOR means that 'I' cannot develop an argument from what is ACTUALLY True.

But then again 'I' do KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, to begin with.
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.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am As for 'me' I NEVER 'need' assumption.
So you are omniscient?
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:23 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am And, although you say that you can ONLY start from an 'assumption', which both your comment and ANY 'assumption' could obviously be, or be partly, Wrong, False, and/or Incorrect to begin with, because you do NOT know what the truth is, WHERE I start from is just from thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', instead
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?
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:23 pm
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm WHAT are you referring to, exactly, when you said and wrote; "if you know 'that' ..."? What is the 'that', which I supposedly and allegedly know here?

I just asked you a CLARIFYING QUESTION, which was; WHY can you develop an argument ONLY from just what is CONSIDERED true? So, what caused to respond the way you did, as though I was claiming some 'thing', instead of just answering the actual question I asked you?

Also, I am the one claiming that one can present an argument, which may or may not lead into presenting one's whole complete world, based on NOT what is just an 'assumption'. Therefore, if I 'have to', as you claim, 'at the end
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?
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.
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:23 pm
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm So, now you agree that it is possible, correct?

Also, you, again, did NOT answer the ACTUAL question that I asked.



Again, you COMPLETELY MISSED answering the ACTUAL question asked.

Anyway, ALL assumptions lead to inconclusive conclusions. So, I suggest developing/starting ALL arguments with actual Truths, instead of 'assumptions'.
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? People are not omniscient like you. So they need to assume.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

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.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On assumptions...

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:20 pm

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?
No. We believe and see where it heads to, conclusion. We assume things to be correct.
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am So, to you, because 'you', people, are NOT omniscient, then to get ANY where then you HAVE TO assume EVERY thing, correct?
Unless we have a solid argument or fact, yes we have to assume things to be true.
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am 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?
I already address that. If you know something then you obviously start from there.
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am 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?
No.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
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.
So you are omniscient?
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
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?
By 'it' I mean reality.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am 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.
How do you define reality?

Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm

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
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?
When you are omniscient then you know all arguments too. There is nothing left to develop.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Scott Mayers »

Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:12 pm
WHY do 'you', human beings, keep ASSUMING and jumping the CONCLUSION, that I am "exploding"?

WHERE is this coming from?

WHAT is making 'you', people, ASSUME such a thing?
Then, as an example of your 'explosive' writing, you answer/quote/answer/quote/, etc, only to get to the same question:
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am I'm also not responding to your explosive tactics in responses.
WHAT do you mean by "explosive tactics" here?

All that is in front of you are words on a screen, so WHERE is this "explosive tactic in response" observation and view coming from, EXACTLY?

Is it possible that you are ASSUMING some 'thing', and so SEEING some 'thing', which really might NOT be there AT ALL?

Or, is this just NOT possible, from your perspective?
"Explosion" here defines how you take one SIMPLE statement by someone and make a response that 'explodes' into double the questions in the follow-up response. This is an 'exponential' behavior with you. If one says, for example,
ExampleScott wrote:I disagree to your position.
in some response to you, you might respond by saying:
ExampleAge wrote: You are free to disagree. But what is my 'position'? I didn't give one. 'You' humans can't seem to GET that I do not give any 'positions'.
Then if I responded with two sentences, you'd break it up in to 2 separate quotes. If I further responded to each using two or more sentences per quote, you'd split those up and have 4 separate quotes. This goes on as powers of 2 so that the next re-responses would be 8, then 16, then 32, etc.

THAT is 'explosion'. Maybe try only one particular question with quote (or reference to the whole) and respond without breaks? Then you won't forget later on down the mile long response that you already asked the same question before above many quotes before. You also respond to each sentence prior to finishing the 'block' (sentence, paragraph, or sets of paragraphs regarding one semantic idea.)

I do it too at times but with you it gets ridiculous. I'd rather read one longer unbroken up response from you than to have to go through each interpretation of many broken up blocks. For instance, the very next quote of me regarded all the same concern about 'exploding' and yet you split up all I said as in the following:
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am I don't have the time to care to read and respond to each and everything you write.
Then just do not do it. SIMPLE, REALLY.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am I gave you 'charity' and you are abusing it.
You, supposedly and allegedly, gave me "charity" in regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
The above two blocks are all related to the ONE concern that all the prior blocks from this post refer to. It suffices to quote the whole of what I said regarding "exploding' and my disapproval of it, BEGINNING with asking the definition BEFORE you respond to what you lack knowing of the meaning that confuses you.

And now, I just 'exploded' here in explaining this simple concern ABOUT your 'exploding' responses. Do you get it now? Or do I need to write another 10 pages to explain this further now? DON'T ANSWER. If you don't get it by now, then another 20 (= 2 x 10) won't clarify this for you.

-----
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am Question: If one is 'not assuming anything', are they nevertheless still assuming 'nothing'?
Not necessarily.

That would be like asking; If one is 'not thinking anything', then are they still 'thinking (of) nothing'?

See, I can be looking and observing without assuming absolutely any 'thing', which means I am also NOT assuming no thing either.

Let us look at this another way, one can, obviously, assume (or believe) some 'thing' is true but one does NOT 'have to'. Now, if one is NOT assuming (nor believing) some 'thing' is true, then this does NOT necessarily mean that they are assuming (nor believing) that 'thing' is false.

One can, instead, just remain OPEN, always. Neither assuming (nor believing) some 'thing' is true nor false.

Or, how about this way. One can either be 'not thinking (of) anything', or, 'thinking (of) nothing'. Does this help in thinking and seeing things differently, from another perspective? Although they both might appear to mean or be the same 'thing', they nevertheless are two completely very different 'things'.

One leads to PURE 'meditation', while the other leads to helping in recognizing just how much is being thought about.

There is even an exercise that can be done, which illustrates this further. This exercise is about the third step, if I recall correctly, in the nine steps to heaven program guide.

By the way, understanding all of this FULLY, leads to understanding HOW thee ACTUAL Truth can be, and is, KNOWN. Which, by they way also, when and if KNOWN, then NO assumptions AT ALL are 'needed'.
If I asked you to demonstrate or prove how you can argue without any 'assumptions', you'd require setting forth a position and argument. BUT you would then deny that you have a need to demonstrate, debate, argue, or have any 'position', leaving me to require reading another long post that won't improve this infinite endless discussion. Oh.....anticipating you responding to the first sentence in this paragraph with, "Why do 'you' humans not ask me first instead of 'assuming' that I WOULDN'T do what you asked? Thee TRUTH is so obvious. I was just asking for CLARITY. ..." :roll:
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
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?
No. We believe and see where it heads to, conclusion. We assume things to be correct.
When 'you' say 'we', who do 'you' MEAN, EXACTLY?

I ask this because if 'your' 'we' includes 'me', then 'you' are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY Wrong. Can 'you' comprehend this FACT?
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am So, to you, because 'you', people, are NOT omniscient, then to get ANY where then you HAVE TO assume EVERY thing, correct?
Unless we have a solid argument or fact, yes we have to assume things to be true.
Why do you BELIEVE that 'you', human beings, 'have to'?

What happens to 'you' if 'you' just do NOT assume things?

Also, you are, ONCE AGAIN, refuting your own argument and BELIEF here.

You are saying that if you have a solid argument or fact, then you do NOT have to assume things to be true. And, obviously, if you have a solid argument or fact ALREADY, then you can DEVELOP an argument from this FACT, instead of from an ASSUMPTION, correct?
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am 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?
I already address that. If you know something then you obviously start from there.
So, THIS MEANS; one does NOT 'have to' develop, start, nor form an argument from an ASSUMPTION, correct?

If this is correct, then WHY have 'you', people, been 'trying to' argue AGAINST what I have just been pointing out and saying here?
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am 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?
No.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
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.
So you are omniscient?
DID YOU JUST READ THE WORDS I WROTE?

I SAID; A 'you' could NEVER be omniscient.

This therefore MEANS that the 'you', from YOUR PERSPECTIVE, which is 'me' could NEVER be omniscient.

When, and if, 'you', "bahman", even come to KNOW the correct and proper answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', then this will make FAR MORE SENSE.
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
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?
By 'it' I mean reality.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am 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.
How do you define reality?
So, I ask you this same question FIRST, and you provide me with NO answer nor clarification AT ALL, BUT THEN you EXPECT me to answer the EXACT SAME question, when you ask it back to me, correct?

How I define the word 'Reality' is; just 'that' what is REALLY wanted by EVERY one, when 'it' is achieved and/or reached.

To me, 'Reality' is NOT to be confused with what is actually happening right now. For what is actually happening right now is REALLY HAPPENING, but what is REALLY HAPPENING right now is NOT what 'Reality' IS.

Now, to understand FULLY the differences here, then an understanding of what I have said so needs to have been done, and shown, and then CLARIFYING QUESTIONS need to be answered as well. Which I await, look forward to.

bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:44 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:41 pm
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
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?
When you are omniscient then you know all arguments too. There is nothing left to develop.
'you' constantly MISS the point.

Even if one was omniscient and knew all arguments too, then this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER in regards to that ONE developing ANY thing.

Look, it has ALREADY been PROVEN absolutely and irrefutably True, that even if one is SHOWN thee ACTUAL Truth of some thing, but they BELIEVE otherwise, then that one will NOT necessarily SEE nor AGREE with thee ACTUAL Truth of things, while they currently BELIEVE otherwise.

Also, this was NEVER about ANY one who is omniscient developing arguments. This was about some of 'you', human beings, CLAIMING that you could NOT develop an argument WITHOUT 'assumptions', which is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect. And which even you, now, have even agreed with.

Oh, and by the way, thee one and ONLY One who IS 'omniscient' ALREADY HAS the developed sound and valid arguments. BUT, 'you', adult human beings, are just NOT YET READY to RECOGNIZE them. 'you' are ALL still in the process of evolving until you have been PREPARED, and thus are READY, to SEE and UNDERSTAND thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

If you would like advice on how to speed up the process of learning and understanding thee ACTUAL Truth of
'things', then STOP ASSUMING and BELIEVING that you ALREADY KNOW the truth of some 'things'.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:03 pm
Age wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:12 pm
WHY do 'you', human beings, keep ASSUMING and jumping the CONCLUSION, that I am "exploding"?

WHERE is this coming from?

WHAT is making 'you', people, ASSUME such a thing?
Then, as an example of your 'explosive' writing, you answer/quote/answer/quote/, etc, only to get to the same question:
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am I'm also not responding to your explosive tactics in responses.
WHAT do you mean by "explosive tactics" here?

All that is in front of you are words on a screen, so WHERE is this "explosive tactic in response" observation and view coming from, EXACTLY?

Is it possible that you are ASSUMING some 'thing', and so SEEING some 'thing', which really might NOT be there AT ALL?

Or, is this just NOT possible, from your perspective?
"Explosion" here defines how you take one SIMPLE statement by someone and make a response that 'explodes' into double the questions in the follow-up response. This is an 'exponential' behavior with you. If one says, for example,
ExampleScott wrote:I disagree to your position.
in some response to you, you might respond by saying:
ExampleAge wrote: You are free to disagree. But what is my 'position'? I didn't give one. 'You' humans can't seem to GET that I do not give any 'positions'.
Then if I responded with two sentences, you'd break it up in to 2 separate quotes. If I further responded to each using two or more sentences per quote, you'd split those up and have 4 separate quotes. This goes on as powers of 2 so that the next re-responses would be 8, then 16, then 32, etc.

THAT is 'explosion'.
THANK YOU. FINALLY a clarifying answer to my clarifying question.

Now, do I "explode" EXACTLY in the way in which you have described here? Or, have I just done this this way on some occasions, but you have implied that I do this ALL the time?
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:03 pm Maybe try only one particular question with quote (or reference to the whole) and respond without breaks?
But this has been taking FAR TO LONG now, let alone slowing things down even further.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:03 pm Then you won't forget later on down the mile long response that you already asked the same question before above many quotes before.
If I got an ACTUAL OPEN and Honest answer to my CLARIFYING question the VERY FIRST time that I asked it, then the issue would NOT roll over into other further threads.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:03 pm You also respond to each sentence prior to finishing the 'block' (sentence, paragraph, or sets of paragraphs regarding one semantic idea.)
I also break sentences up into as many different parts as to what I want to point out and/or ask a clarifying question to.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:03 pm I do it too at times but with you it gets ridiculous.
Each to their own.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:03 pm I'd rather read one longer unbroken up response from you than to have to go through each interpretation of many broken up blocks. For instance, the very next quote of me regarded all the same concern about 'exploding' and yet you split up all I said as in the following:
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am I don't have the time to care to read and respond to each and everything you write.
Then just do not do it. SIMPLE, REALLY.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am I gave you 'charity' and you are abusing it.
You, supposedly and allegedly, gave me "charity" in regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
The above two blocks are all related to the ONE concern that all the prior blocks from this post refer to. It suffices to quote the whole of what I said regarding "exploding' and my disapproval of it, BEGINNING with asking the definition BEFORE you respond to what you lack knowing of the meaning that confuses you.
If you just ANSWERED my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS PREVIOUSLY, then we would NOT have gotten to this.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:03 pm And now, I just 'exploded' here in explaining this simple concern ABOUT your 'exploding' responses.
AGAIN, IF you ANSWERED my CLARIFYING QUESTION the FIRST TIME, then we would NOT have to even be talking about this STUFF.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:03 pm Do you get it now?
WHEN you explained what the term 'explosion' meant to you, then I GOT IT.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:03 pm Or do I need to write another 10 pages to explain this further now?
LOOK, WHEN you EXPLAINED what the word 'explosion' meant to you, then that was ALL that I was asking for.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:03 pm DON'T ANSWER. If you don't get it by now, then another 20 (= 2 x 10) won't clarify this for you.
But I GOT IT, nearer the beginning of this 'exploding' and unnecessarily longer than needed thread of YOURS here.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:03 pm -----
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:34 am Question: If one is 'not assuming anything', are they nevertheless still assuming 'nothing'?
Not necessarily.

That would be like asking; If one is 'not thinking anything', then are they still 'thinking (of) nothing'?

See, I can be looking and observing without assuming absolutely any 'thing', which means I am also NOT assuming no thing either.

Let us look at this another way, one can, obviously, assume (or believe) some 'thing' is true but one does NOT 'have to'. Now, if one is NOT assuming (nor believing) some 'thing' is true, then this does NOT necessarily mean that they are assuming (nor believing) that 'thing' is false.

One can, instead, just remain OPEN, always. Neither assuming (nor believing) some 'thing' is true nor false.

Or, how about this way. One can either be 'not thinking (of) anything', or, 'thinking (of) nothing'. Does this help in thinking and seeing things differently, from another perspective? Although they both might appear to mean or be the same 'thing', they nevertheless are two completely very different 'things'.

One leads to PURE 'meditation', while the other leads to helping in recognizing just how much is being thought about.

There is even an exercise that can be done, which illustrates this further. This exercise is about the third step, if I recall correctly, in the nine steps to heaven program guide.

By the way, understanding all of this FULLY, leads to understanding HOW thee ACTUAL Truth can be, and is, KNOWN. Which, by they way also, when and if KNOWN, then NO assumptions AT ALL are 'needed'.
If I asked you to demonstrate or prove how you can argue without any 'assumptions', you'd require setting forth a position and argument.
Correct.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:03 pm BUT you would then deny that you have a need to demonstrate, debate, argue, or have any 'position',
This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of an ASSUMPTION, which was and is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY, as well as being COMPLETELY and UTTERLY Wrong ALSO.

If you ASSUME and/or BELIEVE what you wrote here was even remotely true, then NO wonder it took you SO LONG to just answer my VERY SIMPLE CLARIFYING question, posed to 'you'.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 11:03 pm leaving me to require reading another long post that won't improve this infinite endless discussion. Oh.....anticipating you responding to the first sentence in this paragraph with, "Why do 'you' humans not ask me first instead of 'assuming' that I WOULDN'T do what you asked? Thee TRUTH is so obvious. I was just asking for CLARITY. ..." :roll:
AGAIN, ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, but this time called, and thus "justified" as, an ANTICIPATION. Either way 'your' ANTICIPATION/ASSUMPTION was COMPLETELY and UTTERLY Wrong and False AGAIN.

REALLY, have 'you' EVER even just STOPPED, and just considered, even just for a few seconds, what I have ACTUALLY BEEN SAYING and POINTING OUT here?

Also, 'you' even KNOW what to do, but you just can NOT bring "yourself" to do it, for the FEAR of what the outcome will SHOW and PROVE.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On assumptions...

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:57 am
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am
LOL If you BELIEVE so, then 'it' MUST BE so, correct?
No. We believe and see where it heads to, conclusion. We assume things to be correct.
When 'you' say 'we', who do 'you' MEAN, EXACTLY?

I ask this because if 'your' 'we' includes 'me', then 'you' are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY Wrong. Can 'you' comprehend this FACT?
I know that you are different.
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am So, to you, because 'you', people, are NOT omniscient, then to get ANY where then you HAVE TO assume EVERY thing, correct?
Unless we have a solid argument or fact, yes we have to assume things to be true.
Why do you BELIEVE that 'you', human beings, 'have to'?

What happens to 'you' if 'you' just do NOT assume things?

Also, you are, ONCE AGAIN, refuting your own argument and BELIEF here.

You are saying that if you have a solid argument or fact, then you do NOT have to assume things to be true. And, obviously, if you have a solid argument or fact ALREADY, then you can DEVELOP an argument from this FACT, instead of from an ASSUMPTION, correct?
Yes.
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am 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?
I already address that. If you know something then you obviously start from there.
So, THIS MEANS; one does NOT 'have to' develop, start, nor form an argument from an ASSUMPTION, correct?
No, it only means that if you know something then you don't need to assume. But people are not like you. So they have to assume since they don't know evverything.
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am 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?
No.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am

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.
So you are omniscient?
DID YOU JUST READ THE WORDS I WROTE?

I SAID; A 'you' could NEVER be omniscient.

This therefore MEANS that the 'you', from YOUR PERSPECTIVE, which is 'me' could NEVER be omniscient.

When, and if, 'you', "bahman", even come to KNOW the correct and proper answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', then this will make FAR MORE SENSE.
Then if you are not omniscient and trying to develop an argument you might need to assume depending on how much you know about the subject matter.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
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?
By 'it' I mean reality.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am 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.
How do you define reality?
So, I ask you this same question FIRST, and you provide me with NO answer nor clarification AT ALL, BUT THEN you EXPECT me to answer the EXACT SAME question, when you ask it back to me, correct?

How I define the word 'Reality' is; just 'that' what is REALLY wanted by EVERY one, when 'it' is achieved and/or reached.

To me, 'Reality' is NOT to be confused with what is actually happening right now. For what is actually happening right now is REALLY HAPPENING, but what is REALLY HAPPENING right now is NOT what 'Reality' IS.

Now, to understand FULLY the differences here, then an understanding of what I have said so needs to have been done, and shown, and then CLARIFYING QUESTIONS need to be answered as well. Which I await, look forward to.
What do you mean by the bold part? Can you define reality?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
Age wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:57 am
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
No. We believe and see where it heads to, conclusion. We assume things to be correct.
When 'you' say 'we', who do 'you' MEAN, EXACTLY?

I ask this because if 'your' 'we' includes 'me', then 'you' are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY Wrong. Can 'you' comprehend this FACT?
I know that you are different.
Do 'you' KNOW of ANY one who is the EXACT SAME as "another one"?

If yes, then who are 'they'?

But if no, then 'we' are ALL, naturally, different, ANYWAY, correct?

In fact, I thought this was a GIVEN and did NOT 'need' pointing out and saying.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
Unless we have a solid argument or fact, yes we have to assume things to be true.
Why do you BELIEVE that 'you', human beings, 'have to'?

What happens to 'you' if 'you' just do NOT assume things?

Also, you are, ONCE AGAIN, refuting your own argument and BELIEF here.

You are saying that if you have a solid argument or fact, then you do NOT have to assume things to be true. And, obviously, if you have a solid argument or fact ALREADY, then you can DEVELOP an argument from this FACT, instead of from an ASSUMPTION, correct?
Yes.
Great. Hopefully this has now been finally dealt with and is thus finished with.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
I already address that. If you know something then you obviously start from there.
So, THIS MEANS; one does NOT 'have to' develop, start, nor form an argument from an ASSUMPTION, correct?
No, it only means that if you know something then you don't need to assume.
WHAT?

I thought, and hoped, that this had ALREADY been settled.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm But people are not like you.
This is has NO bearing on the subject here, which is if 'assumptions' are NEEDED or NOT to start, develop, or form an 'argument'.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm So they have to assume since they don't know evverything.
Once again, you are conflating the issue here. Just because one human being does NOT know EVERY thing, this is NO way means that they do NOT know SOME thing. And, when a human being knows SOME thing, then they can start, develop, or form an 'argument' from 'that' which they KNOW is true and thus do NOT ASSUME is true.

Therefore, 'you', human beings, can start, develop, or form an argument WITH what you KNOW is true, and thus WITHOUT what you just ASSUME is true.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
No.


So you are omniscient?
DID YOU JUST READ THE WORDS I WROTE?

I SAID; A 'you' could NEVER be omniscient.

This therefore MEANS that the 'you', from YOUR PERSPECTIVE, which is 'me' could NEVER be omniscient.

When, and if, 'you', "bahman", even come to KNOW the correct and proper answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', then this will make FAR MORE SENSE.
Then if you are not omniscient and trying to develop an argument you might need to assume depending on how much you know about the subject matter.
OF COURSE. I have NEVER said otherwise. As can be SEEN and PROVEN above.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am
bahman wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:24 pm
By 'it' I mean reality.


How do you define reality?
So, I ask you this same question FIRST, and you provide me with NO answer nor clarification AT ALL, BUT THEN you EXPECT me to answer the EXACT SAME question, when you ask it back to me, correct?

How I define the word 'Reality' is; just 'that' what is REALLY wanted by EVERY one, when 'it' is achieved and/or reached.

To me, 'Reality' is NOT to be confused with what is actually happening right now. For what is actually happening right now is REALLY HAPPENING, but what is REALLY HAPPENING right now is NOT what 'Reality' IS.

Now, to understand FULLY the differences here, then an understanding of what I have said so needs to have been done, and shown, and then CLARIFYING QUESTIONS need to be answered as well. Which I await, look forward to.
What do you mean by the bold part? Can you define reality?
Look, defining words CAN be done.

But how I define a word may NOT be the same way you do.

Do you agree that 'you' live in a world, in the here and now?

If yes, then in that world people might burn and kill other people because they are, so called, "witches". This might be REALLY HAPPENING, right now, for 'you'. So, what is REALLY HAPPENING can APPEAR to be A 'reality', but is this 'Reality', Itself?

See, people in another time and another place, living in another world, from 'you' in that world, do NOT see burning and killing people just because they are called "witches" 'Reality', Itself, or even a 'reality'. They see this has just cruel and barbaric. So, what is REALLY HAPPENING to one group of people, in one particular place or time, is NOT necessarily 'Reality', nor a 'reality' AT ALL to other people in another particular time nor place.

Is this FULLY understood now, BETTER understood now, or LESS understood, and thus MORE confusing, now?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On assumptions...

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:49 am
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
Age wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:57 am

When 'you' say 'we', who do 'you' MEAN, EXACTLY?

I ask this because if 'your' 'we' includes 'me', then 'you' are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY Wrong. Can 'you' comprehend this FACT?
I know that you are different.
Do 'you' KNOW of ANY one who is the EXACT SAME as "another one"?

If yes, then who are 'they'?

But if no, then 'we' are ALL, naturally, different, ANYWAY, correct?

In fact, I thought this was a GIVEN and did NOT 'need' pointing out and saying.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am

Why do you BELIEVE that 'you', human beings, 'have to'?

What happens to 'you' if 'you' just do NOT assume things?

Also, you are, ONCE AGAIN, refuting your own argument and BELIEF here.

You are saying that if you have a solid argument or fact, then you do NOT have to assume things to be true. And, obviously, if you have a solid argument or fact ALREADY, then you can DEVELOP an argument from this FACT, instead of from an ASSUMPTION, correct?
Yes.
Great. Hopefully this has now been finally dealt with and is thus finished with.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am

So, THIS MEANS; one does NOT 'have to' develop, start, nor form an argument from an ASSUMPTION, correct?
No, it only means that if you know something then you don't need to assume.
WHAT?

I thought, and hoped, that this had ALREADY been settled.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm But people are not like you.
This is has NO bearing on the subject here, which is if 'assumptions' are NEEDED or NOT to start, develop, or form an 'argument'.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm So they have to assume since they don't know evverything.
Once again, you are conflating the issue here. Just because one human being does NOT know EVERY thing, this is NO way means that they do NOT know SOME thing. And, when a human being knows SOME thing, then they can start, develop, or form an 'argument' from 'that' which they KNOW is true and thus do NOT ASSUME is true.

Therefore, 'you', human beings, can start, develop, or form an argument WITH what you KNOW is true, and thus WITHOUT what you just ASSUME is true.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
Age wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:49 am

DID YOU JUST READ THE WORDS I WROTE?

I SAID; A 'you' could NEVER be omniscient.

This therefore MEANS that the 'you', from YOUR PERSPECTIVE, which is 'me' could NEVER be omniscient.

When, and if, 'you', "bahman", even come to KNOW the correct and proper answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', then this will make FAR MORE SENSE.
Then if you are not omniscient and trying to develop an argument you might need to assume depending on how much you know about the subject matter.
OF COURSE. I have NEVER said otherwise. As can be SEEN and PROVEN above.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:19 am

So, I ask you this same question FIRST, and you provide me with NO answer nor clarification AT ALL, BUT THEN you EXPECT me to answer the EXACT SAME question, when you ask it back to me, correct?

How I define the word 'Reality' is; just 'that' what is REALLY wanted by EVERY one, when 'it' is achieved and/or reached.

To me, 'Reality' is NOT to be confused with what is actually happening right now. For what is actually happening right now is REALLY HAPPENING, but what is REALLY HAPPENING right now is NOT what 'Reality' IS.

Now, to understand FULLY the differences here, then an understanding of what I have said so needs to have been done, and shown, and then CLARIFYING QUESTIONS need to be answered as well. Which I await, look forward to.
What do you mean by the bold part? Can you define reality?
Look, defining words CAN be done.

But how I define a word may NOT be the same way you do.

Do you agree that 'you' live in a world, in the here and now?

If yes, then in that world people might burn and kill other people because they are, so called, "witches". This might be REALLY HAPPENING, right now, for 'you'. So, what is REALLY HAPPENING can APPEAR to be A 'reality', but is this 'Reality', Itself?

See, people in another time and another place, living in another world, from 'you' in that world, do NOT see burning and killing people just because they are called "witches" 'Reality', Itself, or even a 'reality'. They see this has just cruel and barbaric. So, what is REALLY HAPPENING to one group of people, in one particular place or time, is NOT necessarily 'Reality', nor a 'reality' AT ALL to other people in another particular time nor place.

Is this FULLY understood now, BETTER understood now, or LESS understood, and thus MORE confusing, now?
Let me make it simple for you. You either have solid proof or evidence for a premise or not. In the first case, you can easily make a proof. But you might want to know what is the result of a premise when you don't have proof or evidence for it. Your argument is not proof in the second case though.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On assumptions...

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:56 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:49 am
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
I know that you are different.
Do 'you' KNOW of ANY one who is the EXACT SAME as "another one"?

If yes, then who are 'they'?

But if no, then 'we' are ALL, naturally, different, ANYWAY, correct?

In fact, I thought this was a GIVEN and did NOT 'need' pointing out and saying.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
Yes.
Great. Hopefully this has now been finally dealt with and is thus finished with.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
No, it only means that if you know something then you don't need to assume.
WHAT?

I thought, and hoped, that this had ALREADY been settled.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm But people are not like you.
This is has NO bearing on the subject here, which is if 'assumptions' are NEEDED or NOT to start, develop, or form an 'argument'.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm So they have to assume since they don't know evverything.
Once again, you are conflating the issue here. Just because one human being does NOT know EVERY thing, this is NO way means that they do NOT know SOME thing. And, when a human being knows SOME thing, then they can start, develop, or form an 'argument' from 'that' which they KNOW is true and thus do NOT ASSUME is true.

Therefore, 'you', human beings, can start, develop, or form an argument WITH what you KNOW is true, and thus WITHOUT what you just ASSUME is true.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
Then if you are not omniscient and trying to develop an argument you might need to assume depending on how much you know about the subject matter.
OF COURSE. I have NEVER said otherwise. As can be SEEN and PROVEN above.
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:52 pm
What do you mean by the bold part? Can you define reality?
Look, defining words CAN be done.

But how I define a word may NOT be the same way you do.

Do you agree that 'you' live in a world, in the here and now?

If yes, then in that world people might burn and kill other people because they are, so called, "witches". This might be REALLY HAPPENING, right now, for 'you'. So, what is REALLY HAPPENING can APPEAR to be A 'reality', but is this 'Reality', Itself?

See, people in another time and another place, living in another world, from 'you' in that world, do NOT see burning and killing people just because they are called "witches" 'Reality', Itself, or even a 'reality'. They see this has just cruel and barbaric. So, what is REALLY HAPPENING to one group of people, in one particular place or time, is NOT necessarily 'Reality', nor a 'reality' AT ALL to other people in another particular time nor place.

Is this FULLY understood now, BETTER understood now, or LESS understood, and thus MORE confusing, now?
Let me make it simple for you. You either have solid proof or evidence for a premise or not. In the first case, you can easily make a proof. But you might want to know what is the result of a premise when you don't have proof or evidence for it. Your argument is not proof in the second case though.
So, once again, you agree exactly with what I have been saying and pointing out here, correct?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On assumptions...

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 11:36 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:56 pm
Age wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:49 am

Do 'you' KNOW of ANY one who is the EXACT SAME as "another one"?

If yes, then who are 'they'?

But if no, then 'we' are ALL, naturally, different, ANYWAY, correct?

In fact, I thought this was a GIVEN and did NOT 'need' pointing out and saying.



Great. Hopefully this has now been finally dealt with and is thus finished with.



WHAT?

I thought, and hoped, that this had ALREADY been settled.



This is has NO bearing on the subject here, which is if 'assumptions' are NEEDED or NOT to start, develop, or form an 'argument'.



Once again, you are conflating the issue here. Just because one human being does NOT know EVERY thing, this is NO way means that they do NOT know SOME thing. And, when a human being knows SOME thing, then they can start, develop, or form an 'argument' from 'that' which they KNOW is true and thus do NOT ASSUME is true.

Therefore, 'you', human beings, can start, develop, or form an argument WITH what you KNOW is true, and thus WITHOUT what you just ASSUME is true.



OF COURSE. I have NEVER said otherwise. As can be SEEN and PROVEN above.



Look, defining words CAN be done.

But how I define a word may NOT be the same way you do.

Do you agree that 'you' live in a world, in the here and now?

If yes, then in that world people might burn and kill other people because they are, so called, "witches". This might be REALLY HAPPENING, right now, for 'you'. So, what is REALLY HAPPENING can APPEAR to be A 'reality', but is this 'Reality', Itself?

See, people in another time and another place, living in another world, from 'you' in that world, do NOT see burning and killing people just because they are called "witches" 'Reality', Itself, or even a 'reality'. They see this has just cruel and barbaric. So, what is REALLY HAPPENING to one group of people, in one particular place or time, is NOT necessarily 'Reality', nor a 'reality' AT ALL to other people in another particular time nor place.

Is this FULLY understood now, BETTER understood now, or LESS understood, and thus MORE confusing, now?
Let me make it simple for you. You either have solid proof or evidence for a premise or not. In the first case, you can easily make a proof. But you might want to know what is the result of a premise when you don't have proof or evidence for it. Your argument is not proof in the second case though.
So, once again, you agree exactly with what I have been saying and pointing out here, correct?
No, you totally were against the idea of assuming.
Post Reply