Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:

appolose said:
1.  If you take your conclusion of one argument and use it as a premise in another, that doesn't change the explanation I gave.  If your conclusion statement changed, then so would the memory of your premesis for it, or you'd notice it wouldn't fit.

2.  Yes, of course if you assumed they worked in the first place, then you'd be able prove things.  I've already said that there's no problem assuming our judgements of sense data is correct or even generally correct.  My contention is there is absolutey no good reason to assume them, like any other method of truth one could have or use, and thus the empiricist is as unfounded as a theist.

1.  How would you notice without relying on memory?  Look at it this way:  Let's say you're doing a math problem.  Did you accidentally divide by zero five steps back?

2.  So you concede that argument but not that it affects your original point? 

The reason to do so is that if you do not accept any input as useful, then what are you left with?

1.  For your example; If I had divided by zero, that would have been an error of my use of logic, not memory, so that doesnt relate to this example.   And I don't need to not rely on memory; if my memory has different premesis remembered, then 'd notice that they wouldn't fit my conclusion, and would have to change accordingly.

2. That's my contention this entire time; "Concluding that the moon is made of rock is just as much a fantasy as concluding it's cheese", that conclusion is a fantasy, an assumption.  I think you went of track with your last post.  And your left with assumption if no input (input here, I take it, is any method of truth) is useful (true). You can only assume your method is correct.

BUT HOW WOULD YOU NOTICE?