log·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ljk) n.1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.ex·pe·ri·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-spîr-ns) n.
1. The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind: a child's first experience of snow.
2.
a. Active participation in events or activities, leading to the accumulation of knowledge or skill: a lesson taught by experience; a carpenter with experience in roof repair.
b. The knowledge or skill so derived.
3.
a. An event or a series of events participated in or lived through.
b. The totality of such events in the past of an individual or group.
Again, materialism can provide no coherent, logical explanation for the reliability of our senses (nor the unified experience of consciousness itself for that matter).
I challenge you to logically explain how a materialist can assert with certainty that the molecules in his brain ("thoughts") correspond to an external reality.
This is not only an Assertion Without Proof, it is the Fallacy of 'Can't Prove a Negative.' YOU cannot prove that no such reliability exists, since, if it doesn't exist, it cannot be proven to exist. This statement PROVES that you don't know how to think, what thought is, or what logic is. I cannot take such an assertion seriously.
I CAN logically prove the reliability of the senses because without them nothing can be proven, or verified, to exist. Not Jesus, not justice, not courts, not altruism, not truth, not the Bible, not love, not the poor, nothing, none of it. Every single aspect, every single word, every single concept is utterly and completely dependent upon the reliability of the senses or it is all lies.
You read the Bible? You depend upon your senses. You know you must breathe? You depend upon the reliability of your senses. You think your senses are unreliable? Stop breathing. Stop eating. Stop sensing. Stop being.
You cannot. Being and sensing synonymous. You have NO OTHER MEANS to verify anything other than your senses. You cannot prove otherwise. The burden of proof is upon you.
The syllogism is:
To survive you must assume the reliability of the senses.
You survive. Therefore you assume the reliability of the senses.
If you don't then you make a fool out of every person who has ever starved to death. What, you think they didn't know they needed food? Because their senses told them they needed food and those senses were unreliable? This is so utterly foolish it hurts to even think somebody actually still thinks like this.
Every single person who chooses to survive depends upon the reliability of the senses, or they don't survive. You want to prove me wrong, go jump off a bridge or cliff or something and fly to a soft landing.
Otherwise, stop bothering me with nonsense,