A Brute Fact ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
When you have to load questions, you know you have lost. 🙂

Have you yet been able to convince sonship that he isn't true?

When you have to say "as you well know" you know you have lost.

Originally posted by sonship
When you have to say "as you well know" you know you have lost.

In what way have I lost? Are you suggesting that he was not aware of the context in which the Bible quote was brought up?
Seriously, if you are going to try and copy me, at lest get it right.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You said my source "sucked" and quoted your own source to try and support your argument. In that context you were wrong because your text supported my argument and not yours.

No, actually, my text did not support your argument. The only reason you think it does is that you insist on quoting only part of it out of context. Which is my point with the Bible verse. If I quote just the verse then it would appear that you are part of the assembly that must do the stoning, but you have denied this. Thus my point is demonstrated.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
His existence is a fact and it is true.

But is he true?

This supports my argument that facts are true.
Of course it does because you changed it to fit your argument. It is not what I asked you, nor is it what sonship maintains to be the case. Either you, or sonship is wrong. Shall I be the neutral third party that decides which of you is wrong?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But is he true?

[b]This supports my argument that facts are true.
Of course it does because you changed it to fit your argument. It is not what I asked you, nor is it what sonship maintains to be the case. Either you, or sonship is wrong. Shall I be the neutral third party that decides which of you is wrong?[/b]

On page 12 of this thread you said, "... there is no such thing as a 'neutral 3rd party'."

Now you want to be "a no such thing?" 😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
But is he true?

[b]This supports my argument that facts are true.
Of course it does because you changed it to fit your argument. It is not what I asked you, nor is it what sonship maintains to be the case. Either you, or sonship is wrong. Shall I be the neutral third party that decides which of you is wrong?[/b]

But is he true?

Have you stopped beating your wife? 😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, actually, my text did not support your argument. The only reason you think it does is that you insist on quoting only part of it out of context. Which is my point with the Bible verse. If I quote just the verse then it would appear that you are part of the assembly that must do the stoning, but you have denied this. Thus my point is demonstrated.

So in which context should

* something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
* a true piece of information
* A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

be taken to mean "facts are not true"?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
But is he true?

Have you stopped beating your wife? 😵

As with sonship, when you copy people try and get it right.

The question 'is he true' is not a loaded question.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So in which context should

* something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
* a true piece of information
* A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

be taken to mean "facts are not true"?

The context in which I presented them.

Does sonship have actual existence? Does he truly exist? Does he match the first bullet in your quote? If so, then is he a fact and is he true?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk

something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

Twhtehead is waiting for me to realize that:
I do not truly exist,
I did not happen,
and I do not have actual existence
and hence am not true.

Why I was clear that I am true ever since I read Hortan Hatches a Who by Dr. Seuss.

Originally posted by sonship
Twhtehead is waiting for me to realize that:
I do not truly exist,
I did not happen,
and I do not have actual existence
and hence am not true.

No, twhitehead is waiting for you to realise that your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Hence you are less logical than I am. Or just just have poor English. I am still waiting for you to provide a single reference to your usage of 'true' that you invented for the sole purpose of trying to prove me wrong, but which incidentally Fetchmyjunk disagrees with but neither or you will address the fact that you disagree with one another.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, twhitehead is waiting for you to realise that your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Hence you are less logical than I am. Or just just have poor English. I am still waiting for you to provide a single reference to your usage of 'true' that you invented for the sole purpose of trying to prove me wrong, but which incidentally Fetchmyjunk disagrees with but neither or you will address the fact that you disagree with one another.

If your question "Is Sonship true?" is a logical question, surely a "yes" or "no" answer should suffice? Surely of all people Sonship would be in the best position to answer it. Why do you reject his answer? Doesn't your question assume that 'Sonship' is a fact?

Originally posted by twhitehead
As with sonship, when you copy people try and get it right.

The question 'is he true' is not a loaded question.

Is it logical?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The context in which I presented them.

Does sonship have actual existence? Does he truly exist? Does he match the first bullet in your quote? If so, then is he a fact and is he true?

The answer is yes he truly exists. Therefore his existence is true.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If your question "Is Sonship true?" is a logical question, surely a "yes" or "no" answer should suffice?

Then why have you repeatedly failed to give a 'yes' or 'no', and instead tried to change the question or pretend that it is a loaded question?

Surely of all people Sonship would be in the best position to answer it.
Why? I don't think so.

Why do you reject his answer?
Because he is wrong.

Why do you reject his answer? (yes, despite refusing to answer the question, you have strongly implied that he is wrong.

Doesn't your question assume that 'Sonship' is a fact?
No, it doesn't. It makes no assumptions whatsoever.