You have succumbed to the level that you have critized repeatedly. By not offering a step by step argument to support your position, you have fully demonstrated that you are not equipped to do so. Sorry grapes is your answer. Oh well, not much I can say about that answer.
***What plagiarizing, Harv? The more we get into this discussion, the more it seems to me your memory is failing you (perhaps you're confusing this discussion for an entirely different one). I have not plagiarized anyone, nor can even imagine where in these posts you might have perceived plagiarism on my behalf.***
Do you not remember saying: "My arguments A1 through A5 may have been direct quotes from Jabberwocky, but the point was: Givens that ultimately cast doubts upon themselves are not givens after all."?? http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/21184.shtml
Luis, that's plagiarism regardless if the source is humorous or serious. You admitted using direct quotes without providing credit. Professors have been fired and students expelled from doctorate programs for that kind of behavior. I'm astonished that you have no recollection whatsoever about this.
For one so highly critical of Dick, I've not once seen him plagiarize. Shame, shame.
***L: "you're saying, 'there is no such thing as a non-metaphysical argument' (hence, it is left up to me to prove Metaphysics is an illusion)." H: "Nothing as complicated as that..." L: It's very simple. Proving a negative is virtually impossible.***
Oh come on. You don't have to prove a negative. All you have to do is construct your argument from your premises and show your work. I will accept premises that are consistent with your conclusion that we shouldn't accept metaphysical stipulations as part of our understanding of the world. If you cannot construct your argument by being consistent with that conclusion (which you can't), then citing sorry grapes is about as lame as I can imagine. All that is happening here is that you are being brought to the task of supporting your worldview, and you are demanding that we accept your worldview without this logical construction otherwise we are idiots if we cannot see it. If you are offended, then I am doubly offended. I require logical consistency in one's argument, and you can't provide it. Rather, you want me to see that my logic is wrong, but I provided my premises, I provided my logic, and I provided my effective defense. You on the other hand, plagiarized your premises, plagiarized your logic, and didn't provide an effective defense but ran and hid once the smoke and mirror system that you set up was all exposed.
***No matter how I build my argument, you see it (my argument) as a fundamentally metaphysical thing.***
No, if you don't rely on metaphysical assumptions then I have no problem accepting a non-metaphysical argument. To date, you haven't provided such an argument.
***Even the best argument against metaphysics will be considered by you to be a metaphysical thing.***
Not true at all. Give me a viable non-metaphysical argument against metaphysics, and I'll be more than happy to agree that you are the very first to do so. That would be quite a feat since all the great philosophers in the past who failed at that feat. But, I forget, I am dealing with pure brilliance here and we are idiots if we cannot see it (oh man, where have I heard that before?).
***You have quite literally admitted this.***
Where? I merely stipulated that your arguments against metaphysics cannot contradict itself by using metaphysical premises. That's more than reasonable. Likewise, my arguments for utilizing metaphysical premises cannot contradict itself by implying that metaphysics is faulty. Plus, I have met a higher standard by showing why metaphysical premises are necessary. I did not introduce a premise unless it was needed. I demonstrated that such a premise was necessary for science and by having sensible interaction with the world.
***This view is simply a barrier to the fair consideration of my stance, and instead of wasting more effort or time I must conclude that you are simply not perceptive enough for us to get any further.***
Oh, where have I heard that before? Maybe there should be a Members Only club for misunderstood and underappreciated geniuses.
***I could build a much more redundant argument, but frankly what I perceive to be the odds of you actually understanding it convince me that this would be yet another, only much larger, waste of time (it would require much more than the modest amount of time I spend in here each day).***
You wasted your time only because you cannot support your argument without resorted to fallacious reasoning. I consider it a waste of my time because I thought you were dedicated to understanding philosophy and sound views, but instead I can see that you are interested in propaganda and rhetoric. You are certainly not interested in rational discourse which requires that you cite your premises, logic, and conclusions using non-fallacious reasoning. If you still have interest in rational discourse, then be my guest and accept my challenge. Otherwise, I can only assume that you prefer rhetoric (albeit, psychologistic rhetoric).
By the way, I cannot even fathom what kind of argument that you could construct which would require more time than you spent already. How many premises and logical steps does it require to demonstrate the soundness of your argument? You are being rather ridiculous at this point.
***H: "You can't support your view." L: You can't grasp my view. (Nanny boo boo.)***
I expected more from you, but seeing how you slipped downward over the past couple of weeks, I can't say that this ending quote doesn't surprise me.
***Harv, you have wasted my time, but as you cannot escape your own barriers I do not blame you, as it were.***
Luis, if this last post is a reflection of how you mentally use your time ("Nanny boo boo"), then I don't your time is worth all that much.
***What angers me is your stupidity, and the time I've dedicated trying to break through it.***
And, all you needed to do was what any coherent argument must do, provide the premises and arguments to support it at the basic level. I tried to show you that the reason that you cannot do that is because you would contradict your conclusions in process, but for whatever reason your dedication to materialist dogma won out over your ability to reason at a rational level. In the end you wanted me to place faith in your psycho-materialist dogma, but when I failed to do that you ended by calling me stupid. Such is life.
Well, if that's it here, then I'm out of here. If Dick or Paul want to finish up, then let me know.
Take Care Folks, Harv