Echogem222

No, this is false, if they truly had free will, they would not be limited by your knowledge, after all, in their mind, they can react to things you sa...

Why do you choose to do anything? Why do you know what your answer is of what you will do before you do it? Because you have knowledge of what you sho...

Ah yes, because when the majority says something is true, they are always right, never could there be a situation where the majority is wrong. That wo...

With how vague you're being, can you truly blame me? I'm doing my best to understand what you're getting at, and yet the first time I mess up, you don...

You're assuming that all faith is blind faith, but you see, true blind faith is when you no longer think you have faith in something, but instead thin...

And why believe the brain even exists? Likely science, but why believe science is real? Evidence, I imagine, but why believe evidence is real? Etc. I ...

In other words, you're assuming that we're both using logic right now, but if logic doesn't actually exist, that would then just mean that you and I t...

Once logic doesn't work, that means all arguments for or against it shouldn't work... but no, that implies there is no other form of reasoning aside f...

Once you have faith in logic, it's consistent, but the system of logic itself is not logical, in that you can't prove it to be real with evidence, you...

I'm confused what you're talking about now.

If logic were truly like that, such absolute certainty, why am I able to doubt it? If it were truly so true, myself doubting it should not even be pos...

"Why not" is not logical reasoning, it's like saying that suddenly, we are able to use free will. Sure, that could be true, but why should I believe t...

What is the premise of logic? As I'm sure you know, logical arguments are dependent on premises and conclusions, therefore, what is the premise of log...

Since you're asking me this question after admitting that you had a hard time following my original post, you're essentially using the strawperson arg...

Why put effort into things? Well, based on the knowledge I have, I put effort into things because I understand the point in doing so (though knowledge...

Knowing what choice you should make, also requires knowledge, but if we gain knowledge, not because of our free will, then our "choice" is already set...

Descartes thought his awareness meant something of 100% certainty, but I don't see things as being that way, after all, our awareness might not truly ...

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191826719.001.0001/q-oro-ed4-00010264#:~:text=Socrates%20469%E2%80%93399%20bc&text=I%20know%...

You clearly didn't read my whole post, likely because you thought I would say things I didn't.

To clarify, I do actually believe in a religion, and the points I made do actually tie into my religion, so it would actually count as a philosophy of...

Thank you for your positive response, I went back and edited the original post a bit, the paragraphs that say "Edited" at the beginning are the only p...

I am not an idiot is obviously based on faith, as is everything else. In the context of knowing anything, I am neither certain or uncertain, in the co...

Socrates believed at one point that he knew that he knew nothing, if he did not have this belief, he would not ever seek knowledge. My claim is that h...

I agree that Socrates was wise in many ways, but as my post title stated, I disagree with part of his philosophy, and I have explained why, because ye...

I do not know if we know things, but I believe we know things though since I believe reality is real in the way it seems to be... Did you actually rea...

He claimed to not know anything at all, which is why he sought after "knowledge", however, many times he taught others they were ignorant with certain...

Thanks, I'll keep doing my best.

I actually improved it yet again, adding these two sections: "Application to the Sorites Paradox" and "Note" for added clarity, but nothing else chang...

Thank you.

Made a major edit, just for clarity though, so I would recommend re-reading the whole thing, since it's much better explained now.

I just made an "edit" section on my original post, which explains my argument in more depth. Perhaps it will help you understand what I'm getting at b...

Sorry, I misunderstood.

You're looking back at the value of outward logic and trying to compare it to the liar's paradox, but you can't do the opposite, saying that liar's pa...

So your argument is to use that reasoning to explain why logic and statements don't require faith? Or are you not actually arguing against my explanat...

And? Just what is your point?