Molly:
You stated that people's philosophies are their philosophies because they believe them to be absolutely true. But see subjectivists don't. They believe that what they believe is just as equally as wrong as everyone else's belief system. Hence why they can say that I'm wrong, and have no proof for it and believe that it's justified in saying it, because they have made the assumption that all humans will always be wrong, because we don’t ever have the facility to be right because we're just dumb animals with 5 senses and can be nothing more and thus are a slave to those 5 senses and they cloud us and always will result in skewed results because we can't possibly reach an "objective" position because perspective will always interfere. That is the key to their philosophy, it is the basis for all of this. It is why they make the statement "you're wrong" and don't feel they need to prove it. It's self-evident to them. This key point is also why I use the world evil in relation to subjectivists. Because the assumption of being wrong necessarily requires that the next logical step (unless you're a hypocrite) which is that there is no point in learning anything because it will be wrong anyhow, thus embracing ignorance.
Thank you for being the only one that has actually contributed and asked questions and pointed out things that you didn’t understand or agree with and ask me to defend my position or clarify it. It is for people like you that I write, because it is people like you that I can learn from, refine my position, and in the process, perhaps, provide in trade, thoughts that you might not have considered.
Everyone else:
1. Philosophy is the first science. Thus science and philosophy go hand in hand. If physics is the root of all other sciences (which it is) then philosophy is the root of all physics. Why? Because philosophy is the study of our understanding of the universe and why we believe what we believe. Further, it is the study (Epistemology, a sub-sect of philosophy) of how we learn and why we learn what we do. It is the very thing that allows us objectivity through the study of our perspective so that we can use that point of reference to calculate any position from any perspective. (i.e. This is why we could tell exactly where we are in the known universe from any point in the universe at any time so long as we had star charts from earth and knew exactly what time it is. This is proof that point of view can be overcome and subjectivity is wrong.) Of key note here: Philosophy is philosophy because of the use of logic and science. If neither of these two things are used, then it ceases to be philosophy and becomes theology because then you are dealing with statements without proof and without logic and ask people to believe you simply because you said so. (Otherwise called asking people to be stupid.)
2. Read my articles again. I don't engage in limiting those who can participate in society. In fact, I enjoin everyone regardless of race, color, sex or parentage and put them on a level playing field that only changes as a result of the choices in their lives. Ignorance and logical fallacies including contradiction such as BakerStreet’s is simply a choice, one that can be and should be judged. What I do say, is that if an action (intended or otherwise) is anti-life, that it is evil, and all evil must be ruthlessly destroyed, or evil will win and death will be the result. Since this concept of always fighting evil and destroying it is the basis of every belief system, either philosophical, or theological on the entire earth (well the 200+ variations that I have read including the big 5 religions (Yes, I've read the bible (most of the currently accepted variations), Torah, the Koran, the writings of Buddha, and those of the Hindi faith)) then only a hypocrite (or someone from one of the other variations that I haven't read that embraces death) can condemn me for suggesting that we need to fight evil and destroy it. The only thing that BakerStreet doesn't like is that I suggest that his entire belief system is evil, and then give PROOF of my position that is unassailable and non-contradictory. People tend to take it badly when you call their belief system evil because you are essentially saying that they are evil. (which is what I am saying btw.) That's what we call human nature. Or to put it more precisely, Passion rules Reason.
3. ParaTed2k: The concept of God (and his powers of omnipotence) violates the laws of the universe. Thus god can't exist in reality (he might exist in unreality, but as I said, it can't possibly affect reality, see above, and thus is irrelevant. Nor could the energy of the universe be created by unreality because that would also be a contradiction of terms and thus cause the annihilation (at the moment of creation) of the energy and thus reality. This is the circular nature of the illogic of the concept of god that proves that God cannot exist in any meaningful way in reality. (more proof to follow later in a future article, which I have to write very carefully to get all of my thoughts in order without contradiction.)
4. I am not telling anyone anything outside my ability to observe when observation actually matters and is required. The point is that what I have done is present contradictions in the current positions thus proving them wrong. That doesn't require observation, it only requires a contradiction in logic (i.e. if you can find one case where the formula is not true in the space of real numbers, then the formula is wrong, this is the fundamental principle of all mathematics and all logic). Further, my statements about the universe and energy always existing is borne out by observation, and is non-contradictory, whereas the other 200+ variations I have read including the big 5 religions are all contradictory. And of course as Molly pointed out, you don't put out a theory and then state "I'm probably wrong..." You put out your theory, and you defend it until someone shows a contradiction in your theory. Again, no one has done so here.
5. The only assumption that I make is that the universe is a synonym for "reality". That everything inside this universe will work according to the rules of this universe. If that were not the case, then the universe would self-destruct as a result of the paradox (contradiction). Thus this assumption is correct my the nature of the definition. As for stuff that isn't part of "reality", it's irrelevant to reality, and thus humans because it can never affect us without instantly annihilating the universe in the process, and then we still wouldn't give a damn either. If it exists in reality, then it cannot exist in "unreality" (i.e. everything not in reality... you remember this from high school math with real numbers and unreal numbers right?) This is the same principle stated in reverse as the previous statement. So please, prove me wrong. Demonstrate, in any way, shape or form, anything from unreality affecting reality. Show me one case in history with a reproducible experiment that will disprove my statements. You can't. Hell a guy has been offering $1 million for more than 40 years if someone can provide a reproducible experiment to demonstrate this, and in 40 years, no one ever has and hasn't even been able to do that for anything in the past, burning bushes included. If you do, you can be rich, so go for it, please! Until then, shut up and learn, because you're wrong.
6. Stating that no one can ever be right is a contradiction in and of itself. Because if no one can ever be right, then the statement "no one can ever be right" can't be right. And to hedge your bets and say that the only universal truth is that there is no universal truth, is hypocrisy and circular in nature. (AND THUS WRONG)
7. Messybuu: Show me where you have shown any contradiction in anything I have said. I must have missed it between all of the "you're wrong, so there!" I would be happy to address it. I have proven my arguments with logical proofs and examples that support my statements. I have demonstrated the edge cases and the center cases and demonstrated how in every case without exception my position holds. Thus (as you say you should never believe anything until you have proof of it, thus you must be an atheist because if you were religious or believed in God you would be a hypocrite) I have fulfilled my obligation in daring to speak. Fallibility is the result of passion ruling reason. And yes, I might be wrong, hence why I put my ideas out so that others may prove me wrong, and I may grow in the process of finding the non-contradictory path. Instead I get people like Bakerstreet that say "you're wrong, so there!" and provide me with nothing to grow with. This is a trade. For fair trade to happen, both parties must provide equal value. I have obviously made you think, even if it was a knee jerk reaction. However, I have not yet seen anything that requires me to refine my position, or retract it. There is no equal trade, only people attacking me because I dare to say that I'm right until you prove me wrong. But this is the nature of our society now. Everything is for free. We love lotteries and gifts and freebies for this very reason. It's about getting something for nothing and it's sickening. Not the least of which because if you're getting something for nothing, it's your nothing that was provided, but that something was created by someone that worked damn hard to created it and you're essentially stealing it.
8. All of the rest of BakerStreet's arguments all come down to "How dare he make a statement and actually believe it's true! How Arrogant!" Which of course goes to my point about subjectivism and the root of the evil in subjectivism. So if you believe in subjectivism, you'll keep on believing in it and if you do, and are not a hypocrite, you will go back to living in a cave and living to the age of 20 years old with a pit out back for your faeces. I like indoor plumbing, I like cell phones, and I like the rest of the products of science. And guess what? For there to be any science at all, the people doing the science have to dare to stand up and say "I am right. Prove me wrong!"
9. I am right. Prove me wrong. If you are going to belittle me without proof that I'm wrong, then you don't get to speak, because that's called bigotry. It's what racism and women as property, and the holocaust was created on, and I will not participate. But again, you still haven't provided any evidence that I am wrong, other than your assumption that no one can be right, which is wrong because it has a contradiction in it. (see above)
10. I have given proof to every one of my arguments. Further, I have addressed every single point from everyone that has ever said I was wrong with any basis provided, and proven them wrong (if they actually said anything other than "you're wrong! So there!")
That you don’t like my position doesn’t really matter. What matters is that it has no contradiction. Until you have something to contribute that either requires me to be clearer or shows a contradiction that requires me to adjust my position, be quiet, or if you must speak, don’t speak in response to me, do so in the subjectivist forums, or CNN or whatever other liberal (wrong use of the word liberal, but you get the point based on the definition used by western society) brainwashing organization you came from that will validate your opionion and provide nothing other than other lemmings nodding their heads in synchronisity with your own. (and do it on the highway too so that I get all of those great lanes to myself because you've all lined up behind eachother!)
