dunscot:
I am sure glad that you did not try to prove (apodictically) that I actually typed the email you responded to, in my waking (or sleeping) hours.
Me too. I don't usually try to prove the unproven to the unprovable.
Descartes aptly writes that I cannot establish with any certainty that I am either awake or asleep.
No, technically you cannot prove that you are anything but the sum of total perceptions.
The only thing that one can declare with any certainty is [ego] cogito ergo sum.
Actually you can declare anything you want to. Certainty is measured by the amount of "sureness" one feels for said subject.
My point is that while I may not be able to convince you that the Witnesses have the truth by means of logical argumentation or reasoning from the Scriptures, this fact does not mean that my argument is invalid, unsound or uncompelling.
That's correct. You could have the dumbest idea in the world, and if your motives are to press your dumb idea (having not thought it through), then there will be at least one who buys it. One wonders whether your true motives are to "gain converts" over to something you feel yourself capable of arguing, or if you really believe all the bullshit you likely spout daily and are actually trying to help somebody.
I cannot apodictically prove that there are other minds besides my own.
Nor can you prove that YOU have a mind at all. (sorry, I couldn't resist).
This fact does not mean that my conviction or belief in other minds is erroneous.
One man's error is another's success. It's all a matter of perceptions and perspectives.
Nor is my assured conviction that 2 + 2 = 4 wrong because I cannot irrefutably "prove" the aforesaid proposition.
If you believe it, then you are right, according to you. That doesn't mean you are right, according to others.
The same principle applies to Witness teaching.
The same principle applies to anything you chose to believe since biblical doctrine is based upon mental interpretation (sorry don't have big pooty words for you) however, another's perception and interpretation may determine for that particular one that you are indeed making full use of faulty logic by their own standards. This makes your whole pursuit of witness teachings fruitless, as you will never attain absolute truth, as another will always disagree with your perceived reality, making your convictions mere opinion rather than utter truth.
Dunscot, please do me a favor.
While I enjoy a good joke every once in awhile, it does get old after some time. PLEASE get to the frigging point in your next point to me, otherwise, don't post at all. Thank you.
BTW: You make for an interesting JW apologist. I must admit that once people start conferring with you they have to wede through all of the utter bullshit to get to what you are actually saying. It's a pretty interesting tactic actually. Bore the listeners to death so they don't hear any real arguments, hoping that other JWs will hear/see your argumentation and assume that you are correct since nobody can shut your ass up.
Pretty cool. (I guess).
-ianao
(Watching the trolls eat class)
