Originally posted by Garyj
"The thought that consistency is a sine qua non for central notions such as validity, truth, meaningfulness, rationality, is deeply ingrained into its (Western philosophy's) psyche. One thing that has come out of the modern investigations into dialetheism appears to be how superficial such a thought is. If consistency is, indeed, a necessary condition for any of these notions it would seem to be for reasons much deeper than anyone has yet succeeded in articulating. And if it is not, then the way is open for the exploration of all kinds of avenues and questions in philosophy and the sciences that have traditionally been closed off." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I'll answer a few of these.

As to your comment about not writing a magnum opus: You've contradicted yourself by saying that your faith can be disproved and that faith cannot be disproved. Please be mature enough to acknowledge the contradiction, or admit that you made a mistake and correct it, or be quiet.

As to finding mistakes I've made: Neither you nor anyone else here will find in my posts a direct contradiction such as I found in your posts.

As to your "backing off": without context, you're right, saying you believe something may not be backing off from saying it's a fact. In context, I asked you why consistency in Nature must be true, and your response was simply that you believe it.

As to maturity: I just covered that.

As to my question about accuracy: You have stated more than once that you don't want others here speaking for you, although you've spoken for others (for me, specifically). I prefaced my comment about the type of proof you'd accept by acknowledging that I oughtn't speak for you, and I was simply trying to make sure that you would agree with my assessment that you would only accept scientific proof. I can think of no more succinct way to invite your concurrence or your correction than to ask you if I were accurate.

Broadening this just a bit, many times your posts have been explicitly condescending and patronizing. Attack the argument, if you can, but don't attack the arguer. You are clearly well-read, and intelligent, and it's clear that you have given your position a lot of careful thought. To employ condescention should be beneath you. I've succombed myself, and was adult enough to apologize when I did. Please try to find it in yourself to apologize when you do.

Finally, I applaud your effort to complement people when thay make a good point, whether it supports your position or not. You've done it with me and with others in this discussion. Thank you for your honesty and for your complements.