The "Axioms" Of Nature

Straggler writes:Therein lies your problem, you are trying to take abstract concepts and imply that these constitute the only concepts or reality of the nature of an axiom. True axioms will equate to a physical properties or reality. Reality drives the axiomatic principle not vis versa.D Bertot

Ned writes:Here is a simple question for yourself. Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that I have done this over and over and you and others simply disagree that they are axioms or give them another name. The latest is Rrhains attempts to classify them as Tautologies.Here is another question. If I am not presenting any how in the world can you have disagreement with the fact that they are NOT, axioms, or that you are trying to reclassify them as something else. In other words I AM presenting them and you are simply disageeing that they are such, even though I have demonstrated them and it over and over. You do understand that disagreement and reclassification are not an actual argument to the ones I am presenting, correct.D Bertot

Agobot writesThis statement is both accurtate and unfortunate. Now we see the objectivity that so many have been saying was missing by both sides. Without even thinking about it and not being deluded by a bunch of nonsense about we cant know his or that or why worry about it anyway. Here we have a somewhat nuteral person in Agobot pointing out the obvious, that one can indeed KNOW simple truths and that All information is not required to achive this goal. Look at his obvious surprise at the way you fellas avoid realityIts unfortunate that it is viewed as a sillly discussion however, due to the fact that the correlation between the simple truth Agobot points out about life ending in death (an obvious axiomatic truth) and the possibilites for the only solutions to the existence of things is perhaps missed. It is. These fellas have deluded themselves and are trying the same with everybody else to convince or make people believe that nothing is KNOWABLE or that NOTHING is for certain. Now watch this point Agobot, reality, truth and the obvious nature of things (axioms) are apparent to you without even trying to reason it out, it "requires no proof" due to it self evident proporties, which is proof in and of itself. Its not until these fellas come along and super inflate the idea of empericism (which is wonderful in and of itself) to the point of nonsense telling people that what you actually see is not what you actually see and things are not what you tink they. Self-evident doesnt really mean self-evident, etc, etc, etc. They then try and twist this lie with rehetoric and silliness to the point that people start asking questions about realites like yours above. You right just stick to your guns and battle thier nonsense like I have been doing for nearly 40 years now.
Heres a good debate to help you TheBible.net The Warren-Flew debate on the existence of God.. Scroll all the way down the page and its at the bottom and you can listen or watch it. Dr. Warren a logician, Philosoher, theologian and experienced apologist puts on a clinic on how one can know the truth verses subjective nonsense.Percy writes:Thanks for the example but I suppose you missed the post where I pointed out that explanations, understanding and things involving physical properties have nothing to do with the existence of things outright. It does not matter (no pun intended) what thier nature or make-up are or are not. That they exist at all is the point. Nothing about them, if they are different or not, etc, etc, will change the truth (axiom) that they themselves will have only one of two choices in the axiom of how they are in existence in the first place. Ofcourse I am still waiting for an alternate explanation besides the only two possible conclusions the axiom will allow. I suppose I am just uninformed and unrealistic about reality correct, give me abreak.Your example while valid really offers nothing to the situation or the elimination of the axiom as an axiom that I presented in this context.Bluejay writes:Willful subborness (stupidity) if you will does not replace reality and obvious truths. Theories dont characterize knowable, demonstratable truth. There is no need to fix (problem solving) things that are not broken, in this instance axiomatic truths in reality and nature. Talk about your double talk.
Ya think. But this is not what Agobot said. "Life" is not the same as "Life Ends". The point is not whether you can state the obvious, it is whether the obvious is real, actual, demonstratable and irrefutable and free of contradiction. You have simply side stepped the axiom in this instance by pointing out that the obvious exists and reaaranging the axioms truths. What in the world does that have to do with the reality and irrefutable truth of its reality. This excally why axioms involve tautologies but have nothing to do with the what makes them real in the first place. Herein lies the problem. So may lines have been drawn in the sand in these places that it is not even understandable that these sciences are sciences or that they cpmpliment eachother and are apart of eachother. In this way the they can remove the possibility of knowing things to the realm of philosophy and say that from a scientific standpoint you cant really know anything. When in reality and based on scientific principles other than just thie methods you actually can.
Axioms are Obvious truths that involve but do not need extrapolation of thought but is there should one require it. These fellas are so caught up in the scienific model that they think everything requires a test of some sort, some things dont. However, if one wishes this it is simply accomplished with axioms as well.
Axioms are the realm of reality and truth even if they are used in maths and logic. Besides this Science involves all methods of reasoning and understanding.
Noseyned writes: Only an over application of the word will allow such conclusions as I have now demonstrated in several posts. Its root meaning is what it is regardless of the science you chosse to involve it in. In these instances I have pointed out the clear distinctions between tautologies and axioms. The "scientific method" does not have a monopoly on the words, reality and primary definitons have this monoploy.Bailey writes:Ofcourse it can be demonstrated in a testable fashion, by reality and nature itself. What other test do you need to demonstrate its reliability? But notice this, if you could and will be proven wrong about an axioms nature, you immediatley follow up with a safegard to your position that says, will it matter anyway. Where is the rational and objectivity in either of these instances. Since both parties ended up winners and not losers, they most certainly do fall squarely within the two. Since this example clearly fails from all angles, you go right ahead and present the "many other possibiltes that could be Posited". This should be fun to watch. Now remember you made the claim that you could? Hop to it* Your just repeating yourself Bailey, get the task that does not include the two or a combination of them.
.D Bertot

Rrhain writes: Thats point I was making earlier Rrhain and that Agobot is making now. Every example he uses in reality you take and equate it to math or logic. Reality is not a THEORY it is real an actual, certain demonstratable conclusions follow from it that are not tenative or subjective like equations in math or logic. Reality, nature and demonstratable truths are what make the axiom what it is or is not. Existence is however a PERFECT example of reality, even if we dont understand all its parts or functions. The axiom is the reality of existence, this is what he is trying to communicate. That existence is what the axiom is composed of. The only way anyone could ignore the force of the conclusions that flow from this reality is to imagine that things dont really exist at all or say the are the imagination of another thing or a dream of something else, which only removes it form one place to another. To do this however one would need to avoid or discard all the evidence of existence in the first place.Para writes:Ah, a puzzle to stump the Bertot. My friend your question is not a bad question it is simply an irrelevent one. There is no answer to your question because numbers are not a real thing. Numbers or any conbination of numbers are only concepts of reality to assist in dealing with reality. Two things are just things, if you wish to ascribe the designation 2 to them then fine, but that does not make them what they are, reality makes the individual things what they are, get the point. So multiplying or not multiplying numbers at all is irrelevent because reality is not comprised of contrived ideas or concepts from which numbers themselve are derived and thier conclusions. Yours is one of an imaginary process and not reality. If one and one is two, its still does not define the reality of the items themself. Next.It would be like imagining numbers to infinity, you may be able to do this, actually write it out or whatever but its still only imagination, they are not real. Its also like the ole question can God make a rock bigger than he can lift. Its not a bad question just irrelevent. The terms "bigger"and "than he can" have no meaning in ETERNALITY, therfore the question is irrelevent, therefore usless for all intents and purposes.See ya this evening got to go to work.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Strg writes:This is the closest to an admission of anything I have seen to this point. When you say the truths of reality exist what do you mean?
One can always contemplate that something may or may not be true, heck one may even contemplate that existence is not real, but to imagine something is not the same as demonstrating that it is not, in this instance existence. By this method of deduction one can easily ascertain a truth in fact. Non-existence is the only conclusion or possibility of existence itself. "seemingly axiomatic conclusions", are not axioms.
There are no seemingly axiomatic conclusions They ethier are or they are not.. Also, nothing in reality especially axioms can be proven wrong. Reality can only be demonstrated things correctly, even if we get it wrong. In the matter of existence and properties there are no OTHER conclusions or posibilites. I have both made my assertion and defended it by reality itself and the examples, illustrations and definitions that support it. You should be clued into the fact that where even a mental attempt to theorize another possibility will not allow you to do so, you are looking at reality. Consider your following statement. Give me an example of a truth of nature that exists, that you yourself claim does. then you will have your answer. There are ofcourse some axioms that are irretriavably demonstratable, that to ignore there reality boarders on stupidity or is stupidity. All reality is an axiom, discovered or undiscovered. The things you can see, think, feel and know for certain are in you face. Limited possibilites even by the imagination is one of those realities. Provide even the remotest example of a counterfactual possibility, when you cant you have your answer. This is a nonsensical statement, they cant be disproven. Reality cant be disproven, its PROOF of itself.My funny little person, I dont need to provide evidence where there is the best of evidence already and no more evidence could be offered otherwise. Think about the fact again that you cannot provide even a hypthetical solution, this should clue you in. Simply saying I am wrong and no eveidence exists is not a response or answer to my argument. Proclaiming youself a victor does not circumvent the REALITY of the situation.Ill ask you this quetion. If you know that certain axioms exist, then what are they and how do you know they are real?Bailey writesSince I do not claim that they have not been proven true, this would not be applicable. They are true. If we could not demontstrate something true, there would be no reality. Exisistence and thngs in reality are proof of axioms in the first place. I exist is an axiom that is both true and demonstratable and irrefutablly correct.. Therfore you conclusion that they cannot be demonstrated true is incorrect. Your illustration takes it out of the actual situation. Think about it, if they got reduced to ashes, then they did not FINISH the game, which amounts to them not playing, therefore the categories dont apply. Surely even YOU can see this simple point. True. but realites axioms do not. True again here except for the distruction part. A tie however goes down as both a win and not a loss, it therefore is simply a rearranging of the axiom to its parts. There is simply no way to avoid this reality. I defy you to demmonstrate it otherwise. A tie will allow that certain team to advance verses a team with more losses than themselves due to the tie and not another loss correct. Go Bertot, go Bertot, go Bertot. I agree that you are not closed minded, its just that your a knothead, IM JUST KIDDING. Reality exists, I exist, things exist. There is your axiom of nature or reality. There are only certain conclusions that proceed form these axioms, that are in NO FEAR OF CONTRADICTION WHATSOEVER. Heres your chance demonstrate it PLEASEEEEEEEE.Para writes:The answer to your question is not only numerical it is subjective nonsense with no basis in reality. Again to the argument I made and to which you gave no attention. Numbers and thier conclusions are not reality they are man made concepts, like logic itself. Your question needs to be applicable to material properties for it to have application and relaity. It therefore does not matter what answer I get from your problem it is subjective and not reality. Multiplying imaginary numbers will only get you an imaginary answer.Onifre writes: Reality is never wrong. On the other hand I can remember only one time I was and I am not sure about that instance either. I thought you werent talking to me anymore jerkweed, ha ha.The scholar RAZD writes:Did you ever figure out the difference between dead and alive, ha ha.Rrhain writes: Educated guesses dont describe reality and its only possible conclusions. Further, the word has a root meaning and that is its proper use. You are trying to set the rules for reality here. A framework of reality dictates what an axioms isor is not ,not rehetoric or logic. Reality, logic (if you will) and rehtoric ALL play a part inthe process. Stop tryiing to set up the rules for reality,PLEASE. you do this so you can fit in your theory or ideologies. As I stated before to which you payed not attention. The use of a tautology here is correct the way both of us are presenting it. The axiom here however, is the reality of existence, reality of both the candidates and the ONLY possibilites that will flow from that situation, NOT how one describes it or what term you apply it. Now do you understand? I agree 100%. Like numbers terms are not actual things. Hence T an A (thats Tautology and Axiom) so to clarify if your thinking of something else, are not real. Reality is real, the terms we apply are irrelevant. You yourself believe in axioms as you have stated. How can you both believe in thier reality yet deny the reality of thier existence at the same time, as you seem to be doing. So things derived from numbers, terms, logic can be subjective. Reality however cannot be and it will allow only certain conlusions. Go Bertot. Try real hard to understand that reality is different from terms or ideas that we can apply to it. Axioms my friend do not imply a logical construction, they are what they are regardless. Our application of deductive reasoning to reality, whether you call it logic, tautology or whatever will only allow certain conclusions to certain axiomatic realites. Your use of word play and terms does not change this fact. I exist, things exist. No amount of logic or any other term will unsettle this principle. Equivocation is only involved because you are taking SUBJECTIVE terms and ideas an forcing them into realities, I on the other hand am letting reality be what it is and what it will allow. That is the only realistic approach. I still do not disagree with the your explanation of tautology, it is however a human expression twords a reality or axiom. My friend, the COMPONENTS of these specific terms are reality or what we choose to call axioms at bare minimum the are reality. The terms of willing and able are expressions of reality (holmes), they are not reality, they are simply the only possible conclusions in reality. Get with it man, ha ha. I exist, things exist, etc, etc. Your a funny dude. Reality is reality. An axiom is the closest thing besides reality that we choose to desribe it. Hence the definition. Self-evident truth, requiring no proof that is free from contradiction. Honestly I could think of no other words to use for a better definition. These very words are almost axiomatic. I agree 100%. You are simply ignoring the fact that the components of a tautology are reality and the application of its terms and conclusions are not. you want it to be one and the same. The components of the tautology are reality. The terms unwilling and unable describe that reality. I EXIST, THINGS EXIST. Does this suffice for an example of an axiom. The choices that flow from these axiomS are, I either exist or I do not. Can you think of anyother? Remember not possibilites within the axiom, but examples aside from it or outside of it. There are no other choices. That is an axiom and reality. Its not only an axiom but the choices that flow from it will only allow certain chloices and conclusions. To maintain that you exist and then say there is question as to whether you exis is the height of stupidity and the abandonment of reason and reality. The only choices are you either exist or you do not, you clearly do, to ignore this is to abandon all reason and hope of discussion in a rational sense. If this is your positon it is becoming clear why you are having trouble with reason and reality. WoW. The components that a tautology has application twords describe the parts of reaality that apply. Again terms such as unwilling and unable also describe the parts of reality that apply to the scenario itself. You are for all intents and puposes making the tautology itself reality (that is the term itself)A tautology regardless of its application in logic, rehtoric or any other use of it will only assist in the explanation of relaity. Axiom is another term that is applied to the reality of things that more closely desribes reality. My use of the definiton and yours has application. But to maintain that what I am describing is a tautology is umwarrented because the term ands its definiton are not reality itself. Like numbers themself, terms assist in explaining it, they are and can be tenative, unlike reality itself. Does that heplp?All of these terms and ideas have thier correlation with eacother at some point, therefore they have application to eachother. Reality is what matters. Disagreeing on terms is a minor problem to the problem of someone ignoring reality. If this is your problem discussion may be even greater than I imagined.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Rrhain writes:Sounds like atleast some objectivity. Other than that is also sounds like someone saying "I see my car in front of me but I am having trouble locating it. There is absolutely no equivocation in the fact that reality is not theory, regardless of how you choose to define the word theory. This is like saying, I know reality exists but Im not sure it does. Which is not reasonable or sain at all. "there is actually some use to it." Gee thanks. And ofcourse the rest of your statement is a careful dodge of rehtoric and eloquence to avoid that things simply do exist. It does not matter if it is a simulation or something else, only that its SOMETHING actually. All arounnd the mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel. Like I said the ONLY way to ignore the reality of existence is to imagine fanciful nonsense as this and it is still reality nonetheless.
Rrhain writes: Then he states:.Straggler writes: Besides the above statement being riddled with nonsensical and contradictory phrases, it is also completlely silly.. You never answered my question from before. What are the "truths of reality", since you seem ot agree that they exist?. As I stated before time is not nor ever was an actual thing. In fact that which we measure "Time" against is physical properties. You contrive the idea of time against changing properties. The actual axiom in these instances is again the reality of the existence of things in the first place, so the axiom that time is constant is atually true, since it is RELATIVE or not actual and you only choose to measure that concept against THINGS, that clearly do exist. Time is relative because it is not real, existence is real because it is reality and you can observe its changes and movements. True. But stating that existence is reality does make them true and the term axiom is the one that assists in demonstrating that truth. Except reality, duh. Reality. But it should be noted that you dont differentiate between truth and axioms, they are one and the same.Bailey writesOfcourse this is only have true. Since axioms are demonstrated true by reality itself. Assuming that it may be true only because it has not been demonstrated false is only half of reality. Sorry that just how reality works. You wont even get out of the starting gate. Wrong. I would never refer to an axiom in any hypothetical situation It is either reality or it is not. Postulates are not reality or axioms. Actual axioms can only have application to physical properties.. If he was reduce to ashes by the other fighter, I believe he LOST correct. If the building and ring are reduced to ashes by a fire, then they didnt finish the fight and therefore didnt play, duh. Is this a stall for time to think up a response.?Percy writes:Percy this I must admit is one of the silliest smoke screens and dodges that I have ever seen. Your response works within the framework of the bacteria itself . This would be like sayingif I found a way to clone myself that because I was still here I wont die. You example only includes the bacteria and not outside forces working on and against those bacteria tobring about its demise. Are the bacterial invonerable to any outside force that would kill them, ofcourse not.D Bertot

Rrhain writes:Then he states:Are you borrowing some of Onifre's weed?D Bertot

Straggler writes:Then he states:Whaaaat? Please tell us what the truths of reality are that do exists as you assert. Or are you not sure of even your assertion.D Bertot

Srtaggler writesHey rocket scientist, these are two different categoriies. Tenative approximations and truths of reality are clearly distinquishable. I did not ask you to provide me an exampleof an axiom since you dont like that word. I asked you to provide me with an example of a truth of reality, since you made that assertion. You must be STUPID if you cannot see the difference. For about the third or fourth time now,I exist, things exist. Willing and Able, etc etc etc. Hardly, Reality does a fine job of presenting me with complete evidence. Your moronic tactics and evasions will not help and will go counter factual to reason and REALITY. But thanks for the offer though, even if it was given in sarcasm, junior.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Rrhain writesYou aint the sharpest crayon in the box are you son. Do you need the 'stage lights' at the theater to fall on your head. ha ha Yeeees?D Bertot

You do realize that word usage is not reality correct, the existence of physical properties is reality. Since we will not agree on some word usage, lets say that the definition of axiom best desribes reality, or the reality of existence itself, by its definition. I certainly believe that any definition of tautology or axiom will not affect realities properties or existence, they are what they are. Philosophers or philosophising at reality will not reduce the actuality of reality. Imaginations, simulations, minds plauged by demons (whatever that means) and "I think therefore I am" are all simply, speculative and imaginative nonsense. I agree, even the expression I think therefore I am, falls way short of demonstrating the actuality of reality because it does not decribe what makes reality reality. It does not use physical properties for and to its conclusion. "Things exist" does. Since the existence of reality is independent of each mind, reality established itself in properties.The only way to avoid the reality of existence and things is to "imagine" it otherwise, this ofcourse is neither an argument or reasonable. Certainly anyone can imagine anything to the contrary, demonstrating that point in actuality with the assistance of physical properties would be nonsensical since they clearly exist. Imagining it as a simulation, dream, plauge or whatever else only push the problem backwards. Yet more that that it should be noted that IMAGINATIONS do not constitute reality or the dismantlling of its reality and that what counts, removing its obvious reality. I do not agree that this is not axiomatic given what an axioms definition is. An axiom simply best desribes reality by its definition. A derived conclusion and axiomatic definitions certainly can be be intertwined due to the fact that thier methodologies are closely related, yet seperate.Hence the expression, I think therefore I am is a conclusion based upon ones own perspective. The reality of "things existing" is independent of each individuals concept or imaginations, it does not require the mind for its existence. For this not to be true each individual in existence would be producing thier own perception of reality, or the source would be presenting the concept of the perception of reality, yet there would be a source nonetheless of and for reality itself, even if it is imagined by someone or something else.Again and more importantly IMAGINING something based on no physical evidence or properties is not evidence, therefore not even reasonable and this is what one has to do and its is the only way to discard the REALITY that things do exist. It is therefore not even a consideration.Things exist, that is a reality no matter how any philosopher wishes to twist it up. Put that in your smipe and poke it.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Rueh writes:You appearently missed my argument. The reality of existence is clearly more appearent than it is not. As I said the only way you could disregard this fact is to imagine it otherwise, which is not the same as removing the obvious existence of things. Imagining numbers to infinity is not the same as demonstrating that they are an actual thing. Things are real, to remove this fact you would have to DEMONSTRATE it otherwise. If you did we and things would not be here and it would not matter. Contemplation and imagination as in your instance does not relate itself to reality or things, it therefore has no application other than imagination.Even ones perspective would need to be removed completley as only imagination before you could even get started demonstrating that things exist is only a perception. There is a source of reality even if it is someones imagination somewhere else. Your task is insurmountable to tsay the least.
D Bertot

Rueh writes:In a previous post you stated that it is more forthcoming to say that things may or may not eixst. So Ill address both that and this here. May or may not is SIMPLY another way of saying they either do or do not. Since "something" atleast appears to exist from our perspective as you put it WHAT MIGHT IT BE. Also, regardless of what it is, would it constitute something or nothing.? My simple friend there is no problem to overcome. When you start with the conclusion as Straggler and yourself have that incomplete evidence exists that things exists it demonstrates that that or those person have intentions of being objective. Even if it is a dream or simulation something exists. You cannot start witha false premise and assume it is correct for argument sake. Question what is it that "appears" to exist?
Having incomplete knowledge about the NATURE of things is not the same as saying things dont exist. You are mencing words to find an answer. The examples you use above are just this. They didnt deny the earth existed, they only percieved it as flat. Now since your implication is that we might discover that things really might not exist at some point, how would you begin to go about demonstrating they dont exist, since it is obvious they clearly do. The ASSERTION that they may not is simply your imaginaion working on over time. It is not rational, reasonable, demonstratble, not evidential, not practical. Asserting that they may not is like saying, I see my car in fornt of me but I am having trouble locating it.
Your position is one of extreme imagination and nothing else. If it is not simply contemplation and imagination, then give me some facts to demonstrate that things that clearly do not exist actually do not exist.How? Exactly. Please do not ignore this question as you have done so many others. Straggler all you have to do to circumvent that reality is not actual and ONLY tenative, is simply provide evidence to the contrary. Since something clearly, obviously exists, regardless of what it actually is or is not, my positon is established. Demonstrate that SOMETHING is actually NOTHING, even if you believe it came form nothing, then demonstrate that relality is only tenative. How in the world will you get started with this overwhelming task?
Remember that the reality of things must be demonstrated to be only tenative with a process other than IMAGINATION and ASSERTION. My prediction is that you cant even get started other than to complain that there is a lack of evidence, which is both silly and nonsense. My position is is establishded by the reality or even appearent existence of things. Since things even appear to exist, WHAT MIGHT THEY BE? Perhaps you could answer that simple query? HAVE FUN.Wrailey bites* Reality is real. All you have to do OTHER THAN ASSERTION is simply demonstrate from any practical or evidental standpoint that it is not. Why do you work so hard with imagination and disregard your responsibility with actual evidence to the contrary. Do you think people cant notice the difference between imagening reality away versus simply demonstrating it otherwise. Ah I think I know why you dont, its because you cant. Imgining numbers to infinity or at all, does not make them a real thing. Imagining that things DONT or MAY not exist is not the same as ACTUALLY demonstrating they dont. Hop to IT. If you mean by using your over active imagination then yes. But then you could lap anyone in your imagination correct? You make reality anything you choose my friend and we will ofcourse all support you on your way to the shrink. Now why do you think this might be my simple friend. Because the only way you can dismiss the reality of the existence of things is to imagine this reality away, even if we dont understand it complete nature, it has nothing to do with the reality of its existence. "Many realites are impenetrable"? Ya think? Yet you think you can accomplish this task with your over active imagination. Hey Pal, mumbers are not real and neither are your assertions and imaginations to the contrary. Having taken place in a contest, then suddenly stopped for someother reason, does not consistute having finished the game, therefore by anyones rules appearently but yours, they did not play to finish the contest or declare a winner. Wow. Now that has to be the mother of all ironic statements, you accusing me of not being able to GRASP reality, now that rich beyond belief. Hey Reuh if you car is right in front of you and you can see it, is it there and are you having trouble locating it, even if you dont know what it properties are or are not?
I cant grasp reality, now that funny.Rrhain writes: What dont you understand about the word YES?. For the fourth or fifth time now YEEEEES. It would be more advantagous for you to argue the point instead of repeating it. Oh I see your the only one that realizes you cant produce a practical example other than imagination to demonstrate that reality does not exist. OK I will accept your answer then. If you can then simply provide it, remember though numbers and imagination are not examples or evidence.Percy writes:I didnt invent reality. Perhaps you would like to make another attempt like the bacteria one. We see how easily that fell to the ground. Since you fellas are being clearly evasive, here is a simple question for you Is reality and the existence of things closer to something or nothing? If its nothing or you are not sure what it is then all you have to do is simply demonstrate it other wise. This should be fun to watch.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Straggler writes:What part of the reality of existence is not described in an axiom? What part of the definition of axiom is NOT described by reality itself. If you contend that reality exists, then what part is not desribed by an axiom's definition. We KNOW that it exists and if no one is disputing THIS, then it would follow that it is axiomatic as anything could possibly be. Now unless you are willing to back track on your above statement it is irrelevant what we know about it, to KNOW that it atleast exists, correct? Hence a self evident truth. Thanks for atleast this admission. Your showing some progress. We now have you on record stating that both yourself and all others do not deny the REALITY of existence. How would one overturn this clear and obvious complete evidence? As I have stated before, not even imagination can produce a solution to the reality of the existence of things, other than to say it may not exists, which is clearly false. Physical evidence would be required to overturn the reality of existence and no such nonsensical evidence exist, even in the imagination, thus it is free of any contrary conclusions or contradictions. Wrong, reality is that sort objectivity. Sorry if this upsets your apple cart. This has been your assertion since we have started, yet you cannot produce any solutions to the contrary even by application, imagination or contemplation. Percys comments notwithstanding, these are not delarations of victory by myself, they are just reality. Ill leave the delarations of victory and defeat to you, since you mention it and state it in every single post of yours and Percy seems to pay little or no attention to that, in you, but only accuses me of such.Demonstrating that something that clearly does exists is NOT one discovery away from being discovered as not existing , nor will it ever. Again, this is not a declaration of victory but realityRrhain writesEvidently not, as indicated by Straggler. Perhaps you are one of the ones that does not agree with him and does deny the existence of reality. Maybe you should debate with him also. Rrhain, you do realize that any fact, truth, axiom or even reality itself can be questioned correct? Yet this is not the same as presenting intelligent rational and evidential support to its demise, right? Besides repeating your questions to me about what my axioms might be, you seem also to confuse doubt and speculation with evidence to the contrary. Because yours is not the only perspective in the world Rrhain. Failure according to who? I was talking to myself yesterday and I said your doing just fine Bertot, hang in there. Good job Bertot, keep up he good work. Also, when commrades like ICANT get thrown out I have to pick up the pace for Bertot. Bertot has been involved in this game for several years now and has some pretty good insights. Ill be right back he's calling me and asking me a question. Be right back.Im sorry Bertot what did you say? Well not right now Im talking with the quaint little fellas on the discussion board Ok.? Im not sure what "agreeing to me" means and I am not sure I know what you meant by the whole paragraph. But let me assure I have a darn good sense of humor, just ask Onifre he will tell you. If you cant see me now understand I am using dactology at this moment and saying YEEEEEEES, I believe that the statement "Things exists" is an axiom, in all of its parts shapes and forms Any conclusion can be a part of an imagination process as this fellas ideas and conclusions are. Anyone can be in opposition to a reality, they simply need to present it form a evidential standpoint not simply disagreement or imagination and that is all you are presenting. Wheres the beef?I have already told you and you paid no attention. I agree with you that his statement. I think therefore I am, is not a valid response to establish the existence of reality, it does not connect itself with physical properties. In this instance you are setting up your own straw man and knockin him down. Simply provide me physical evidence that things dont exist. What say ye thespian. Shut up Bertot, you idiot. Im sorry I thought it would be funny. Well it wasnt alright. Sorry.Percival writes:How dare you talk behind my back, you worthless sack of cr...... Ofcourse I am just idding there dork. Be back with you this evening, got to go change a thermostat on a vehicle, Thats if I can locate the vehicle, even though I know where it is,now thats reality dude.Remember fellas physical evidence not imagination.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.