3RU7AL

A claim isn't a claim if it's true. So why must one demonstrate its "truth"?

Because when all arguments are reduced, what's left is an indication of value. I press on to test the consistency of my points, not to necessarily win any converts. I suspect the same is true for 3RU7AL. As for secularmerlin and zedvictor, they're just incorrigible heretics...

Because continuing debate shows us that one persons logic is another persons illogic.

1. Athias claims his shoes are red. (This requires no proof because it's a claim. Claims by definition bear no proof.)

2. Athias's shoes being red can be proven (this requires proof because it's an affirmation of evidentiary information.)

In other words, claims aren't real-true-fact. Once they require proof, they are no longer claims. Real-true-fact require proof because they're proven.

Do you remember every single word you've written?

So even when you state that one page bears more information than another, this always bears the implicit reference on the maximum information that can be put on that page. Like numbers on a scale.

Logical necessity.

Logical necessity isn't purely conceptual?

Listen 7:30 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP0K-hyK40s

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

My claim (GNOSIS is functionally indistinguishable from opinion) IS LOGICALLY NECESSARY (TAUTOLOGY).

Please reference and/or demonstrate the tautology which indicates that gnosis is functionally indistinguishable from opinion.

but empirical verification =/= real true fact necessarily. Real true fact is an expression of logical consistency.

That begs the question: why is individual identification and ontological division necessary?

The only possible counter-claim would be "we DO know everything" (which is provably false).

Please demonstrate or reference this proof of falsehood.

Presuming of course there is a "scope." And please demonstrate that we don't known everything.

Tautologically, we don't know what we don't know. It serves no utility in any expression of a relation. Past experience may indicate that we've made "discoveries," but the unknown with respect to what we do know has never changed.

How does one gauge this without considering a fixed amount? Using your example, would one consider the amount of words, or the subjects broached? What would "more" mean?

How do you distinguish the purely conceptual from the the not purely conceptual?

...but it must be a test before we can claim it exists otherwise we are making an assumption, and argument from ignorance.

First, claims don't require proof.

In order for the claim to be qualified as "true" it necessitates logical substantiation.

Second, my question was: why does existence need to be tested for?

(And consider that you both pretty much admitted that existence precedes your tests.)

Not, "why does empirical verification require tests?"

"Science is necessary for Science." And I don't deny that.

Yes, but its qualification under empirical demonstration did not affect its existence, only our "considerations."

Yes, it is necessarily one of Gnosis, but its being "functionally indistinguishable from opinion" is opinion.

"flying fettuccine monster,"

And you have yet to substantiate the necessity of tests as it pertains to existence. Why must existence be tested for?

It is useless to differentiate the material and the immaterial, especially given that former is fundamentally informed by the latter.

How do we test for the existence of some "wholly or partly not material thing"?

Why does it need to be tested?

You're claiming that you acknowledge things can exist without being tested for, while simultaneously arguing those things cannot be claimed to exist or "expressed" as existent without being tested.

Now if we apply your standard, how are you able to substantiate your first claim without conducting any tests?

In your own words (in the absence of tests): "Otherwise, how do we know it exists?" Your statements contradict. Your standard through your own tacit admission is limited.

Nothing can come from nothing, there must be an eternal entity that exists and can generate other entities.

...you stated you have confidence in the scientific method.

Proving that something doesn't exist is unnecessary, if said something cannot be proven to exist in the first place.

Is noumenon not that which is independent of the senses or perception? What function does the mind bear under that condition?

If there's a necessary mutual [inter]dependence, then logic could not be merely an "aspect" of the mind.

The ontological fallacy does not magically "make real" any concept that can be defined and imagined (saying "gods" does not make "gods" exist).

Why not?

Why is variation necessary?

Would this not render "everything" in your argument as conception?

You mentioned that some people know more and some people know less.

This relation could only be made with respect to a fixed quantity or quality.

If "we don't know everything," then any amount we relate automatically would be dictated by the domain of possibilities we  conceive (not this metaphysical "everything.")

Therefore, the statement "we don't know everything" (of course, in place of "I don't know everything") would be contradicted since the domain of "everything" is necessarily informed, at least for our epistemological purposes, by everything we do know.

Can you make independent a political ideology?  I think it used to be there.

absolutely, rarely should that ever happen, some kind of hostage or suicide situation MIGHT be appropriate for them having to enter in such a manner.

Or at least reform the act itself. The act shouldn't apply to local cops but to SWAT team members

And not a single word about the loss of the life of his TEN! dear children who were also "innocent".

However, any FUNCTIONAL CODE OF LAWS MUST BE LOGICALLY-COHERENT, EXPLICIT, UNAMBIGUOUS AND BASED ON QUANTIFIABLE DATA.

That sounds like too many laws.

Some words, it's not a bother if contradictions or logical fallacies are found.

Humans are different, by substance and action.

Thus different laws for different humans.

...unable to do their job...

Natural-born-citizen clause

If a person is seen as corrupt, people are often going to vote against him, rather than have him elected.

All I'm saying, is that a blanket statement such as all humans are equal, is a rule of thumb, of direction.

That people are different, and there is reason for their being treated differently.

Laws apply to people differently, based upon who they are.

And certain positions of office, discriminate based upon requirements.

I'm just talking about humans in this case.

There's still going to be qualities about different people, that result in different treatment.