AstroAg17 said:

---

No, they are the same thing stated in different ways.

---

Three things. Anything else? Evolution isn't true. God created the world and everything in it in 6 days.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

No, they are the same thing stated in different ways.

---

Three things. Anything else? Evolution isn't true. God created the world and everything in it in 6 days.

---

How do you ground and defend these "truths"?

AstroAg17 said:

---

Why would you even respond to that? It's an obvious troll and this was a good thread.

---

4. It's an obvious troll.
5. This was a good thread.

Are you going to admit that "I am" is not the only thing you know is true?

Dr. Watson said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

No, they are the same thing stated in different ways.

---

Three things. Anything else? Evolution isn't true. God created the world and everything in it in 6 days.

---

How do you ground and defend these "truths"?

---

I was waiting for you to come back. So is "you have to base your conclusion on some form of logic" common sense, or what?

#6

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

No, they are the same thing stated in different ways.

---

Three things. Anything else? Evolution isn't true. God created the world and everything in it in 6 days.

---

How do you ground and defend these "truths"?

---

I was waiting for you to come back. So is "you have to base your conclusion on some form of logic" common sense, or what?

---

If you are attempting to establish a truth, there must be a defensible position taken that can affirmatively contest any counter arguments. That's not "common sense." That's an active use of logic.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

No, they are the same thing stated in different ways.

---

Three things. Anything else? Evolution isn't true. God created the world and everything in it in 6 days.

---

How do you ground and defend these "truths"?

---

I was waiting for you to come back. So is "you have to base your conclusion on some form of logic" common sense, or what?

---

If you are attempting to establish a truth, there must be a defensible position taken that can affirmatively contest any counter arguments. That's not "common sense." That's an active use of logic.

---

You just restated your premise...which is in question.

I established the difference between reasonable assumption of a knowledge of truth and a mere belief of truth. Which is what you appear to rely on.

Quote:

---

reasonable assumption of a knowledge of truth

---

Sounds made up.

I think at some point inconsistent or paraconsistent logic is a necessity.

Edit - for example, early calculus required inconsistent mathematics but was used for actual concrete scientific benefit. And an inconsistent geometry is required to describe what we see when we look at something like Escher - but what we're looking at is real.

This is where philosophy discussions always go. Whatever. This thread probably isn't even happening. I can't prove it without a doubt.

Frok said:

---

This is where philosophy discussions always go. Whatever. This thread probably isn't even happening. I can't prove it without a doubt.

---

You don't actually exist. You are merely a construct to entertain me.

As far as what can be known as absolute universal fact, I think the deduction and methodology is pretty solid. Outside of our own thought, there is nothing truly that can be known as indisputable fact, as it just becomes a matter of subjective perception.