What Are the Limits of Logical Arguments in Ontology?

[Zero]

LMAO

You would dare bring up "logical consistancy"?!?

You had better either put up or shut up. Show us where Buddhism says anything that you have claimed. Find a quote from a holy book, an essay from a Buddhist, SOMETHING.

Then, you can back up your assertions with your own logic, laid out for everyone to see.

Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by protonman
In a world obeying cause and effect there can not be a third class like the one you describe.

Your minds are limited, my mind is limited. All we can rely upon is the testimony of those who have a greater clarity in their minds. Just as we see cars and tress and know they are real some people can see electro-magnetic fields and more subtle phenomena and understand them as obviously as we understand everyday objects. Until we reach the point where we can see all phenomena as easily as we see an apple in our hand we are no different than a blind person with a walking stick navigating a vast forest

I have two questions I'd like to ask you.

The first is, how can you be certain that "Buddhist" teachings are what the Buddha himself taught? My studies of "Buddhist" doctrine that developed after the Buddha have convinced me much of it has nothing to do with anything the Buddha taught.

For example, jump ahead a thousand years after the Buddha’s death and you find prolific temple building, sutra copying and chanting, relic veneration, pilgrimages to and circumambulation of commemorative monuments (the stupas), worship of semi-divine beings, along with a plentiful collection of stories, philosophic works, new “scriptures,” and beliefs—none of which had been taught or recommended by the Buddha.

My point is, without the presence of the realized Buddha to keep things of track, the religion of Buddhism may have wandered far from what the Buddha was really talking about. Your ideas about "Buddhist logic" particularly strike me that way.

As far as I can tell, there is only one logic, which is a thought system for describing how things are ordered. We can rely on logic because most of the observable world is ordered; if it weren't ordered, logic would be useless to us. So logic is how our mind "follows" the ordered aspects of reality.

I myself have extensively studied the conversations of the Buddha, and I have yet to find a single instance when he strayed from what is considered proper logic today. Study his dialogues, for instance, and in a very Socratic way (or was Socrates doing things in a Buddhist way), the Buddha leads his students to conclusions with brilliant logic. While his premises might not be considered suitable for an empirical setting, I cannot see how anyone today would view his logic as other than "normal."

My second question takes off from Ahrkron's point that, ". . . given your assertion that 'if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent,' you still need to prove . . . nature does not contain a third class of objects, that change some instants, while remain unchanged the rest of the time . . ."

My quesion is, why couldn't there be some aspect of existence which is both quite mutable and absolutely unmutable? I'm not trying to be mystical, but rather set up an explanation for something I know the Buddha taught.

He said, "“There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded.”

Hmmmm. A paradox? Not necessarily. The idea of a "plane" could be interpreted as a ground state of existence out of which all apparent reality arises. In that case, the "parts" we see are actually forms of this ground state. Since the way parts are raised out of the ground state is through order, that's why logic works when thinking about them.

However, while logic works with "forms" it does not work with the ground state. That is why the Buddha taught only a direct experience of the ground state (samadhi) could reveal anything about it.

I'll add this in case you might be interested, if I were to hypothesize about the problem you are having here, it is that you have all the Buddhist stuff mushed together into one big mess, and you are trying to show the irrelevance of physics when there is no need to. Physics is understood one way, and what the Buddha was pointing to is known another. Why try to mix the two?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
LMAO

You would dare bring up "logical consistancy"?!?

You had better either put up or shut up. Show us where Buddhism says anything that you have claimed. Find a quote from a holy book, an essay from a Buddhist, SOMETHING.

Then, you can back up your assertions with your own logic, laid out for everyone to see.

Otherwise, stop wasting our time.

In the teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos text it states that 'all phenomena that are produced from causes are impermanent.'

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
In the teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos text it states that 'all phenomena that are produced from causes are impermanent.'

Can you explain why, instead of stating that it is true?

 

[protonman]

I answered your question. Remember asking ...Show us where Buddhism says anything that you have claimed. Find a quote from a holy book, an essay from a Buddhist, SOMETHING.

 

[Zero]

Ok, that is step one...now, can you explain WHY this should be true?

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
In the teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos text it states that 'all phenomena that are produced from causes are impermanent.'

The point of asking for a source is to be able to find and read the material. Some people in the forums have access to quite good libraries for eastern literature. That way, we not only learn about where your statements come from, but we can also read the context in which they were written.

So, you say this comes from "Teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos"? Can you cite the author? editor? page?

 

[phoenixthoth]

who cares who originally wrote it?

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
who cares who originally wrote it?

The point is not to find out who wrote it, but to identify the writing to be able to get a copy of it.

Protonman has all along been saying that he has devoted years to study serious buddhist scholars (or some such). He should be able to at least show one well formed reference to the work of one of them, and a couple quotes that show the agreement between such scholar and protonman's ideas.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by ahrkron
The point of asking for a source is to be able to find and read the material. Some people in the forums have access to quite good libraries for eastern literature. That way, we not only learn about where your statements come from, but we can also read the context in which they were written.

So, you say this comes from "Teaching on the vase nature of the cosmos"? Can you cite the author? editor? page?

It comes from the Dolly Llama. It is in an essay about the mind. I don't understand what it has to do with quantum mechanics, physics, or anything else, though.

 

[Zero]

At this point, this isn't even about protonman's specific ideas, IMO. It is about proper uses of logic, and ways to compellingly present ideas.

 

[protonman]

First off, glad to see someone here is not an idiot.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I have two questions I'd like to ask you.

The first is, how can you be certain that "Buddhist" teachings are what the Buddha himself taught? My studies of "Buddhist" doctrine that developed after the Buddha have convinced me much of it has nothing to do with anything the Buddha taught.

In all honestly you need to either study more or you are studying the wrong topics.

For example, jump ahead a thousand years after the Buddha’s death and you find prolific temple building, sutra copying and chanting, relic veneration, pilgrimages to and circumambulation of commemorative monuments (the stupas), worship of semi-divine beings, along with a plentiful collection of stories, philosophic works, new “scriptures,” and beliefs—none of which had been taught or recommended by the Buddha.

My point is, without the presence of the realized Buddha to keep things of track, the religion of Buddhism may have wandered far from what the Buddha was really talking about. Your ideas about "Buddhist logic" particularly strike me that way.

I can't validate if Buddha taught this stuff or not. The Buddha was not anti-philsophical though. He predicted the appearance of Nagarjuna 600 years after his [the Buddha] passing into parinirvana. Nagarjuna wrote many texts explaining the Buddha's teachings through extensive reasoning. You need to understand that the abilities of people to understand the Buddha's teachings is increasing from the time the Buddha actually taught. In general, this is a time of degerated views which is why you get so many strange ideas comming out of physics like strings and such. So at the time Buddha taught he didn't need to use the same methods are people 600 years later or today. At the time of Buddha simply by him saying the word 'Ah' beings gained realizations. These were very advanced meditators. Today, because of the degeneration of view we need more extensive explanations and must rely more on logic.

In addition, there is a quote from one of the perfection of wisdom sutras where Buddha says 'as long as there is someone practicing the perfection of wisdom in this world I will abide, as long as there is someone practicing the perfection of wisdom in this world I will teach.'

As far as I can tell, there is only one logic, which is a thought system for describing how things are ordered. We can rely on logic because most of the observable world is ordered; if it weren't ordered, logic would be useless to us. So logic is how our mind "follows" the ordered aspects of reality.

I agree but logic does describe reality as it exists, not as we think it exists. This is the power of logic. It goes beyond preconceptions.

I myself have extensively studied the conversations of the Buddha, and I have yet to find a single instance when he strayed from what is considered proper logic today. Study his dialogues, for instance, and in a very Socratic way (or was Socrates doing things in a Buddhist way), the Buddha leads his students to conclusions with brilliant logic. While his premises might not be considered suitable for an empirical setting, I cannot see how anyone today would view his logic as other than "normal."

I don't know what you mean by 'logic today.' I don't think what Buddhists call logic is the same as formal modern logic. It may resemble, in some aspects, Greek logic. The main difference is in its application. The connection between reasoning and cognition is unique to Buddhism.

My second question takes off from Ahrkron's point that, ". . . given your assertion that 'if there were a moment it was not changing it would be permanent,' you still need to prove . . . nature does not contain a third class of objects, that change some instants, while remain unchanged the rest of the time . . ."

My quesion is, why couldn't there be some aspect of existence which is both quite mutable and absolutely unmutable? I'm not trying to be mystical, but rather set up an explanation for something I know the Buddha taught.

The two conditions you stated are mutually exclusive. How could there be something that was both?

He said, "“There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded.”

Hmmmm. A paradox? Not necessarily. The idea of a "plane" could be interpreted as a ground state of existence out of which all apparent reality arises. In that case, the "parts" we see are actually forms of this ground state. Since the way parts are raised out of the ground state is through order, that's why logic works when thinking about them.

However, while logic works with "forms" it does not work with the ground state. That is why the Buddha taught only a direct experience of the ground state (samadhi) could reveal anything about it.

I don't know enough about the Sutra you are commenting on. In most cases the quality of translations is quite poor.

I'll add this in case you might be interested, if I were to hypothesize about the problem you are having here, it is that you have all the Buddhist stuff mushed together into one big mess, and you are trying to show the irrelevance of physics when there is no need to. Physics is understood one way, and what the Buddha was pointing to is known another. Why try to mix the two?

Buddhism is a description of the world. In a sense it is a physics but is not so concerned with experimenting in the physical world in the same way scientists do. It is concerned with understanding the nature of the physical and non-physical world though. There is a reason why my arguments may seem clumped together. It is called giving the minimal needed response and continuing the discussion based on questions and criticisms. Unfortunatly, most of the folk her have no idea how to proceed in a debate. The first thing I would do when someone make a statement I disagree with is attack it. Pick it apart, not get upset and act like a baby.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
It comes from the Dolly Llama. It is in an essay about the mind. I don't understand what it has to do with quantum mechanics, physics, or anything else, though.

You have crossed the line and we are done.

As for the name of the text I made it up you idiot. I told you there is no point in me quoting a text because you couldn't validate it anyway. Akhron made an excellent point, you can't verify it by just my posting. What is more important, and what I have been saying all along, is that the reasoning behind the arguments is what is important for this exact reason.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
First off, glad to see someone here is not an idiot.

In all honestly you need to either study more or you are studying the wrong topics.

I can't validate if Buddha taught this stuff or not. The Buddha was not anti-philsophical though. He predicted the appearance of Nagarjuna 600 years after his [the Buddha] passing into parinirvana. Nagarjuna wrote many texts explaining the Buddha's teachings through extensive reasoning. You need to understand that the abilities of people to understand the Buddha's teachings is increasing from the time the Buddha actually taught. In general, this is a time of degerated views which is why you get so many strange ideas comming out of physics like strings and such. So at the time Buddha taught he didn't need to use the same methods are people 600 years later or today. At the time of Buddha simply by him saying the word 'Ah' beings gained realizations. These were very advanced meditators. Today, because of the degeneration of view we need more extensive explanations and must rely more on logic.

In addition, there is a quote from one of the perfection of wisdom sutras where Buddha says 'as long as there is someone practicing the perfection of wisdom in this world I will abide, as long as there is someone practicing the perfection of wisdom in this world I will teach.'

I agree but logic does describe reality as it exists, not as we think it exists. This is the power of logic. It goes beyond preconceptions.

I don't know what you mean by 'logic today.' I don't think what Buddhists call logic is the same as formal modern logic. It may resemble, in some aspects, Greek logic. The main difference is in its application. The connection between reasoning and cognition is unique to Buddhism.

The two conditions you stated are mutually exclusive. How could there be something that was both?

I don't know enough about the Sutra you are commenting on. In most cases the quality of translations is quite poor.

Buddhism is a description of the world. In a sense it is a physics but is not so concerned with experimenting in the physical world in the same way scientists do. It is concerned with understanding the nature of the physical and non-physical world though. There is a reason why my arguments may seem clumped together. It is called giving the minimal needed response and continuing the discussion based on questions and criticisms. Unfortunatly, most of the folk her have no idea how to proceed in a debate. The first thing I would do when someone make a statement I disagree with is attack it. Pick it apart, not get upset and act like a baby.

May I ask who you are calling an idiot? Who are you calling a baby?

And, of course, now we see much more clearly that this is a religious-based worldview, which has nothing to do with logic, reason, or science. Cool.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
The point is not to find out who wrote it, but to identify the writing to be able to get a copy of it.

Protonman has all along been saying that he has devoted years to study serious buddhist scholars (or some such). He should be able to at least show one well formed reference to the work of one of them, and a couple quotes that show the agreement between such scholar and protonman's ideas.

For the most part the texts I have studied do not exist in translation. There is one exception although it is not a very good one. It is a big text called 'Debate in Tibetan Buddhism' (I believe) by Daniel Purdue published by Snow Lion publications.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
For the most part the texts I have studied do not exist in translation. There is one exception although it is not a very good one. It is a big text called 'Debate in Tibetan Buddhism' (I believe) by Daniel Purdue published by Snow Lion publications.

Are you claiming to be able to translate Buddhist writings yourself, from the original Pali?

 

[phoenixthoth]

to one degree or another, i believe it is possible to understand something or some subject without knowing much about it. when michio kaku talks about science, i believe i can learn more about what science is rather than about science (although i learn about science as well).

 

[Fliption]

Has Logical Atheist turned Buddists?

Protonman, exactly why are you posting in this thread? Even if I concede that you know everything you say you do and everyone else just truly doesn't get it, then there is only one thing left to do. Help them get it! I perceive them to be asking probing questions, trying to get to something that they can understand. You don't seem to be helping much. Telling people they don't understand and insulting their education won't help them understand your position. They are even making it easy on you and asking for reference materials. Again, you aren't providing much. Maybe you think they just aren't capable of understanding? Well in that case, I have to ask again "Why are you posting in this thread?"

Either help them understand your position or don't post. Just stop the condescending tone, please.

 

[phoenixthoth]

words of wisdom, my friend. the same about condescending tones goes for us all. also realize that often when we read between the lines, we are blind.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
Today, because of the degeneration of view we need more extensive explanations and must rely more on logic.

(snip)

I agree but logic does describe reality as it exists, not as we think it exists. This is the power of logic. It goes beyond preconceptions.[/color]

Logic does not do any such thing. You keep ascribing to logic the power to not only prescribe valid forms of inference from one statement to another, but also to determine the truth or falsity of individual statements. Both of those elements would be required to do what you claim logic can do. But no such "superlogic" exists anywhere.

At least, you have never presented the rudiments of such a logic anywhere in these Forums.

I don't know what you mean by 'logic today.' I don't think what Buddhists call logic is the same as formal modern logic. It may resemble, in some aspects, Greek logic. The main difference is in its application.

Greek logic is independent of any applications. It can be applied to anything that is amenable to a two-valued logic.

The connection between reasoning and cognition is unique to Buddhism.

And that connection is...?

There is a reason why my arguments may seem clumped together.

Yeah, the reason is because you are trying to obfuscate your position as much as possible.

It is called giving the minimal needed response and continuing the discussion based on questions and criticisms. Unfortunatly, most of the folk her have no idea how to proceed in a debate.

Actually, most of us do know how to proceed in a debate. Furthermore, it is apparent that you do not. See, debates proceed by elucidating one's point. That way, the other person can try your point of view on for size and see if he likes it. 'Elucidating' is what we all have been doing (ok, maybe not Zero, j/k ). What you have been doing is emphatically denying our point of view with no justification whatsoever[/color], refusing to address our arguments or answer direct questions, and hiding behind a veneer of arrogance that I can only assume masks your ignorance of the subjects being discussed.

The first thing I would do when someone make a statement I disagree with is attack it. Pick it apart, not get upset and act like a baby.

Well, as Ahrkron correctly pointed out, your attacks so far have been "lousy".

 

[phoenixthoth]

"Yeah, the reason is because you are trying to obfuscate your position as much as possible."

maybe he's trying to elucidate it using obfuscation. that's like luke trying to lift an x-wing fighter.

tell us, protonman, what exactly is your position. also, if necessary, provide evidence for your position.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Fliption
Has Logical Atheist turned Buddists?

Protonman, exactly why are you posting in this thread? Even if I concede that you know everything you say you do and everyone else just truly doesn't get it, then there is only one thing left to do. Help them get it! I perceive them to be asking probing questions, trying to get to something that they can understand. You don't seem to be helping much. Telling people they don't understand and insulting their education won't help them understand your position. They are even making it easy on you and asking for reference materials. Again, you aren't providing much. Maybe you think they just aren't capable of understanding? Well in that case, I have to ask again "Why are you posting in this thread?"

Either help them understand your position or don't post. Just stop the condescending tone, please.

If you noticed my conversations with those who really are interested in an intelligent conversation is cordial. I am have decided to break off conversation with Zero though.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
"Yeah, the reason is because you are trying to obfuscate your position as much as possible."

maybe he's trying to elucidate it using obfuscation. that's like luke trying to lift an x-wing fighter.

tell us, protonman, what exactly is your position. also, if necessary, provide evidence for your position.

Position on what?

 

[protonman]

Logic does not do any such thing. You keep ascribing to logic the power to not only prescribe valid forms of inference from one statement to another, but also to determine the truth or falsity of individual statements. Both of those elements would be required to do what you claim logic can do. But no such "superlogic" exists anywhere.

I gave the example of from seeing smoke one can infer validly that there must be fire. The reason being that fire is the cause of smoke. Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement. If someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong. There must be fire because fire is the cause of smoke.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by protonman
Position on what?

let's start with what you know about God.

 

[Hurkyl]

I gave the example of from seeing smoke one can infer validly that there must be fire. The reason being that fire is the cause of smoke. Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement. If someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong. There must be fire because fire is the cause of smoke.

Odd, I saw smoke today and there was no fire.

 

[phoenixthoth]

there was a fire. otherwise, there'd be no smoke, right?

maybe it was coming from your sizzling brain... hmm... ponder that.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
If you noticed my conversations with those who really are interested in an intelligent conversation is cordial. I am have decided to break off conversation with Zero though.

Good call...hide from any questions. If you could answer a question, the conversation could move on...so, what other languages do you speak besides English and Pali?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I gave the example of from seeing smoke one can infer validly that there must be fire. The reason being that fire is the cause of smoke. Logic can determine the truth or falsity of a statement. If someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong. There must be fire because fire is the cause of smoke.

This is wrong. Other causes could be:

1) chemical reation, no fire.
2) dry ice "smoke" mistaken for smoke.
3) hallucination of smoke.

 

[phoenixthoth]

zero, imo, not only are you apt, you are articulate. but we're all articulate.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
let's start with what you know about God.

What do you mean by god?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Odd, I saw smoke today and there was no fire.

No you didn't.

 

[pallidin]

I have read this thread with much interest.
But I have also taken notice that most of the questions presented by Protonman are actually statements of personal belief disquised as "questions" in an effort to impose his view of reality through flowering rhetoric and subtley induced respondant contradictions leading to an internal confusion and thus a potential to adhere to his beliefs for "soothing".
I am not easily fooled, am I Protonman!
You are seeking followers, are you not? Is that not the actual purpose of your being here?
Of course it is.
That is your only purpose here.
You are dismissed.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
zero, imo, not only are you apt, you are articulate. but we're all articulate.

I will not respond directly to Zero but address the question for everyone else.

1. Chemical reactions count as buring.

2. I said if you perceive smoke. If you mistake something for smoke you have not perceived it.

3. See #2

 

[phoenixthoth]

didn't buddhists say everything is an illusion? if so, then the mind is an illusion. we can control our minds, can we not? then we can control illusions. then we can control the illusion.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
I will not respond directly to Zero but address the question for everyone else.

1. Chemical reactions count as buring.

2. I said if you perceive smoke. If you mistake something for smoke you have not perceived it.

3. See #2

What is "buring"?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
I will not respond directly to Zero but address the question for everyone else.

1. Chemical reactions count as buring.

2. I said if you perceive smoke. If you mistake something for smoke you have not perceived it.

3. See #2

What is 'buring'? Is it the same as 'burning'?

How can you tell if your perception of smoke is mistaken (without checking that there's a fire)?

For example, here is an image of something which looks like smoke.

If it isn't smoke, what is it? How does one use 'logic' to determine its nature?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
didn't buddhists say everything is an illusion? if so, then the mind is an illusion. we can control our minds, can we not? then we can control illusions. then we can control the illusion.

What do you mean by illusion?

 

[phoenixthoth]

zero, don't be so picky. you know darn well he meant burning.

Originally posted by protonman
What do you mean by illusion?

ah...

*ponders.

well, define illusion and maybe i'll answer that to your satisfaction.

edit: this picture is worth looking at:
http://www.storeitonline.nl/funny/funny/pictures/Toch_staat_alles_stil.gif

can you control the motion of the wheels?

i can to a degree. but i can't make it go away except when i stop looking at it.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nereid
What is 'buring'? Is it the same as 'burning'?

How can you tell if your perception of smoke is mistaken (without checking that there's a fire)?

For example, here is an image of something which looks like smoke.

If it isn't smoke, what is it? How does one use 'logic' to determine its nature?

That was exactly my point. If you can mistake other things for smoke, then the statement "if someone sees smoke and says there is no fire this statement is wrong". Someone can "see" something incorrectly.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman


2. I said if you perceive smoke. If you mistake something for smoke you have not perceived it.

3. See #2

This is illogical. We know absolutely for a fact that you can percieve something that is not there, and vice-versa.

Ahhh...I remember at the start of this thread, when protonman claimed that experimental evidence wasn't worth accepting because it was based on subjective perception, and now protonman puts all his faith in perception.

Still going to claim to be a physics teacher, too?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Nereid
What is 'buring'? Is it the same as 'burning'?

How can you tell if your perception of smoke is mistaken (without checking that there's a fire)?

For example, here is an image of something which looks like smoke.

If it isn't smoke, what is it? How does one use 'logic' to determine its nature?

Yes I meant to write burning.

How do you know your car is your car? Because you remember that it is yours and you paid for it. Understanding smoke is not profound. If you know what smoke is you see it and from your memory you know it is smoke. You have a valid perception of it. If someone saw that image you showed and thought it was smoke they would be wrong because it is not smoke. This is what I have been saying all along. A valid perception is valid because the way it understands an object and the way the objects exists are in conformity.

You would have to develop some reason that allows you to infer what it is. This is what scientists do all the time. Based on the images they see they can infer properties about the object.

 

[phoenixthoth]

in fight club, tyler asked the nameless one if he liked being clever?

-excuse me?

-DO YOU LIKE BEING CLEVER?

-well, yeah.

-then keep it up, way up.

-now, shall i show you the crotch or the rear end?

protonman, keep it up, way up.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
in fight club, tyler asked the nameless one if he liked being clever?

-excuse me?

-DO YOU LIKE BEING CLEVER?

-well, yeah.

-then keep it up, way up.

-now, shall i show you the crotch or the rear end?

protonman, keep it up, way up.

Keep what up?

 

[pallidin]

I must admit, protonman, you have a most incredibly bizarre way of twisting valid questions and comments to suit your invalidated position(s) in the interest of your own pressing thoughts.
This disturbs me a great deal, and I would hope it disturbs you.
But apparently not.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by pallidin I must admit, protonman, you have a most incredibly bizarre way of twisting valid questions and comments to suit your invalidated position(s) in the interest of your own pressing thoughts.

How?

This disturbs me a great deal, and I would hope it disturbs you.
But apparently not.

Good for you.

 

[phoenixthoth]

Originally posted by protonman
Keep what up?

*hits protonman with a stick.

i shouted my question at you. it was a thinly veiled compliment.

 

[Hurkyl]

No you didn't

Did too!

(If I hadn't seen smoke that day, I would've related a previous experience where I saw smoke without fire)

Electric stoves are nifty things; they can provide the heat to produce smoke without any fire being involved.


Anyways, have you cared to notice that "fire is the cause of smoke" is determined empirically?

 

[phoenixthoth]

touche.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Did too!

(If I hadn't seen smoke that day, I would've related a previous experience where I saw smoke without fire)

Electric stoves are nifty things; they can provide the heat to produce smoke without any fire being involved.


Anyways, have you cared to notice that "fire is the cause of smoke" is determined empirically?

Shhh! Empirical evidence only counts when protonman wants it to count...the rest of the time it is irrelevant. He must have learned something special when he was translating ancient Buddhist texts, studying physics in college, or while he was on his quest for the Holy Grail. Something "special" like how to use a double standard to make rational discussion impossible?