Quote Originally Posted by Prodromos View Post
Of course, but these are still beliefs, we just don't require any proof of them, like Aristotle said:

"Some people expect even this [the law of noncontradiction] to be demonstrated, but on account of lack of education, for it is a lack of education not to know of what one ought to seek a demonstration and of what one ought not. For it is impossible that there be a demonstration of absolutely everything (since one would go on to infinity, so that not even so would there be a demonstration), and if there are certain things of which one ought not to seek a demonstration, these people are not able to say what they think would be of that kind more than would such a principle."

Since we can't reasonably reject a belief except on the ground of some other belief, then we take some beliefs to be true without proof, and we accept or reject all other beliefs on the basis of these unproven beliefs. Knowledge is all faith, ultimately.

I draw upon the power of necromancy to breathe unholy life into this topic. Its target may have died, but the discussion has not.

As someone who does not find creationism plausible, I agree. As convenient as it is to portray facts as static essence of reality, the reality is that facts are as solid as we individually and collectively make them. We could be wrong if we are introduced to new things that appeal to our sense of logic and break the old assumption. We dismiss details that do not fit in or come across as patiently nonsense. We consider our personal belief to be better (or at least, our own with low chance to change) because we have learned to see the world a particular way and we have not been exposed to logic that counters it.

I would say the problem in this discussion and the issue a rematch should address is this basic divergence in how reality is seen. If a discussion boils down to quoting the Bible and the other party thinks the Bible is hogwash, the issue is automatically something deeper and cannot be resolved except by the parties talking each other into submission. It raises a foundational problem, where true understanding and discourse - or digression - should be achieved by looking at the simplest blocks of logic the other party uses, and attempting to change how those blocks are formed with deeply hitting examples or introducing perspective that forces those blocks to evolve or break to consider a plausible alternative. It is not an argument that can be won with source, facts, even sheer logic itself. Logic is presented by you as you know it. The path to understanding is not to sway the other party with your logic, which may or may not have results. Rather it is to use whatever tool necessary to invoke and challenge their sense of logic. At least as far as a pure persuasion based argument is concerned, not to consider posturing, convincing the mass behind the party who you're arguing, going off to feel good and other behaviors that are the true motivation of much discourse on the internet.

Don't ask why I bothered to post here and right now, I guess I was bored and didn't want to just passively read things.