Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8238199" data-attributes="member: 85555">If you find the syllogism persuasive, that is fine. Some people find arguments for the existence of god persuasive, some find arguments against persuasive. That is the nature of arguments and syllogisms. I pointed to where in the syllogism I have a problem accepting the conclusions. But can you at least accept the two following possibilities: 1) My experience of this isn't the same as yours: for me the living world is an attainable experience (not as a perfect thing mind you, but it is real enough for my purposes)2) That there may be a flaw in your present logic (where you reject living worlds) just as their was a law in your prior logic (when you embraced living worlds)Number 2 is one of the reasons why I come across as so stubborn in these threads. I have what I think is a pretty good grasp on the limits of persuasion and on my own limits. I would never suggest I am the smartest person in the room, or even all that smart. And it is largely because of that, I am always wary of accepting arguments that sound convincing, because in my experience it takes some time, but eventually you can find the flaws in the premises, you can find the unspoken assumptions that weren't visible and might disrupt a valid conclusion. For me to be persuaded of something, I need a good argument, I need time to digest that argument and not start to reject its points, and I need to see it first hand for myself. I have seen a lot of persuasive rhetoric and arguments here. I haven't encountered anything that actually changes my experience of play at the table</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8238199, member: 85555"] If you find the syllogism persuasive, that is fine. Some people find arguments for the existence of god persuasive, some find arguments against persuasive. That is the nature of arguments and syllogisms. I pointed to where in the syllogism I have a problem accepting the conclusions. But can you at least accept the two following possibilities: 1) My experience of this isn't the same as yours: for me the living world is an attainable experience (not as a perfect thing mind you, but it is real enough for my purposes) 2) That there may be a flaw in your present logic (where you reject living worlds) just as their was a law in your prior logic (when you embraced living worlds) Number 2 is one of the reasons why I come across as so stubborn in these threads. I have what I think is a pretty good grasp on the limits of persuasion and on my own limits. I would never suggest I am the smartest person in the room, or even all that smart. And it is largely because of that, I am always wary of accepting arguments that sound convincing, because in my experience it takes some time, but eventually you can find the flaws in the premises, you can find the unspoken assumptions that weren't visible and might disrupt a valid conclusion. For me to be persuaded of something, I need a good argument, I need time to digest that argument and not start to reject its points, and I need to see it first hand for myself. I have seen a lot of persuasive rhetoric and arguments here. I haven't encountered anything that actually changes my experience of play at the table [/QUOTE]

Verification