What are the conclusion(s)?
Sorry. I suggested that the Buddha might have learned something from his enlightenment. Sheldon required peer reviewed journals to give any credence to any claim made by the Buddha.
I’m am not trolling Sheldon.
Simple.
1A) when sense object and sense faculty meet there is sense consciousness.
1B) when sense object and sense faculty meet that is also called “contact”
2A) When sense object and sense faculty exist relative to each other, however there is no sense consciousness - then there is no contact.
2B) in the absence of contact, the state is called “the cessation of perception and feeling”.
Since I’ve repeated my self for what seems like the fifth time - Nyar? Would you please explain to me where my Philosophical fallacy lies in these conclusions and axioms.
Sheldon is very happy to explain that he’s already dismissed them according to a fallacy, but (of course) even though I do him the honour of repeating my self, he will simply state that he has already dismissed me - without any further explanation.
That, IMO, is actual “trolling”.
Nyar, you are a gentle soul. If there is a philosophical fallacy in my argument, please point it out and I will discontinue my forwarding of it.
Thank you 
@rat_spit Re: "My axioms were this:
- There are sense faculties
- There are sense objects
- There is sense consciousness"
Okay, cool. Soooo… What if I combine 1/2 Sense Objects with 3/4 Sense Faculties and just a pinch of Sense Consciousness? What would that give me?
OR! Maybe just 2/7 Faculties with 3/32 of Objects and a SHIT-TON of consciousness? Oh, wow! The combinations are endless! 
Your conclusions are supposed to be guaranteed by the postulates and logic. Instead, your conclusion “1A” seems to be just another definition; in other words, it seems that it is another postulate (that you have mislabeled as a conclusion). It seems all of your “conclusions” have this property.
IMO, Sheldon is being generous by labeling what you have done as a fallacy. It would be like calling a pile of flour a “poorly made cake”. IMO: without any conclusions, you don’t have an argument.
1 Like
Okay. Thread’s over. If I don’t have an argument perhaps I wasn’t attempting to argue anything.
If it’s just a postulate, then fine. I really don’t benefit from anyone’s belief in any event.
P1) All dogs like mustard.
P2) Joe has a dog.
C1) Joe’s dog likes mustard.
See how the conclusion(C1) is guaranteed by the 2 postulates(P1, P2)? You should formulate your argument to have this feature.
Oh, cool! Let me try one! 
P1) Bananas are yummy
P2) Cog likes bananas
C1) Cog flings banana poo
Hmmm… 
… Dammit, I guess I need to work on this a bit. It’s harder than it looks.
1 Like
The secret is to hide all your non-sense in the postulates! Then you can be a legit philosopher!
1 Like
Aw, hell! In that case, I’m an EXPERT in nonsense! 
1 Like
Hmm. Is it really worth it to even try?
P1) Sense consciousness is necessary for sense objects to make contact with sense faculties
P2) All perception and feeling arises from contact.
C1) Without contact there is a cessation of perception and feeling
rat_spit
How do you know the Buddha was enlightened, how is it different from any other brain state. Do you really think an enlightened person would run about believing in karma, rebirth, four noble truths, the eight-fold path, (right views, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration).
You have missed the importance of the story of the old man walking down the street laden with a heavy load. The young monk walks up to him and asks, “what is it like to attain enlightenment?” The old man sets down his pack and stretches. “Ahhh, I see,” says the young man. “And after enlightenment, what then?” The old man picks up his pack again and heads down the road.
You understand Buddhism as well as a caterpillar understands physics.
1 Like
P2) All perception and feeling arises from contact.
Once again you demonstrate your utter and complete ignorance. Contact is not required in any way shape or form for perception or feeling. Shove someone into an isolation chamber, take away all their senses, and within minutes they will begin hallucinating. You don’t know what you are talking about. I have a psych ward full of inmates sensing shit that just isn’t there. Just like the shit you hallucinate when you meditate and pretend you have discovered some magical miracle on the road to enlightenment. All you have done is fool yourself into believing foolishness.
1 Like
Not helping, monkey man.
I have always wanted to try an isolation chamber. Sounds like a really cool experience. 
Wait. Are you a psychiatrist at a Forensic Prison? That might explain why you’re such a cranky monkey.
On the other hand, what is that like? 
Raised as a Christian believing that HeyZues was the one guy that got it right, I like to hang on to the romaticism that through out all of the suffering and searching the Buddha finally got it right.
Of course, I am a voice hearing person and I’ve conversed extensively with the Buddha. He happens to be the most enigmatic man you will ever come across. Unbelievably out of this world. The most interesting personality I’ve conversed with by far (and I’ve conversed with thousands).
Apart from being totally free of the enchantment of sensual pleasures he is an insanely funny and compassionate guy. His penis is also very large and unusually attractive (especially the “glans penis”). But that’s another story altogether 
When presenting an argument the urge to run away, out of frustration at being confronted with a rational refutation, should give reasonable rational people some pause.
You seem to want to tell me how I will respond now as well, whilst ignoring my posts. I’m not sure what reaction you expect to unevidenced claims, but you must do as you are minded to, as will I.
Your analogy compared an accepted mathematical theorem, with your unevidenced woo woo claims, for your Buddhist religion. I think enough people have pointed out now that this was a ludicrous and irrational false equivalence fallacy. Blaming me for pointing it out is as absurd an example of shooting the messenger as one can imagine.
You also claimed that the teaching of your religion held some credence, citing Buddha’s authority as a teacher, and again this has been demonstrated to be an appeal to authority fallacy.
You have been asked for objective evidence for your claims, and initially simply repeated them, as if the claims themselves were evidence, then finally making the bizarre declaration you didn’t need objective evidence, as if this somehow magically rendered the request redundant to the debate. I can only repeat my response here, and ask again, what is your criteria for disbelief, if you can accept any claim without any objective evidence?
The fact you mix accepted axioms, with things you accept as axioms, as if they are epistemologically the same, is a clue as to why your debate is floundering, against the critical thinking faculties of posters here who have raised valid objections.
FWIW, try to remain calm, above all, don’t respond to criticisms of your beliefs as if they represent a personal attack. If you can’t do that, then every debate will end in you angrily attacking the person rather than their arguement, as you have started to do here, yet again. Threatening to ignore those who offer cogent objections to your beliefs is not debate, and I think I can allow that my posts are at least honest, strive to be rational, and never initiate trolling. So ignore them if you have no cogent answers, but please, don’t even try and pretend this is any fault of mine or what I have posted. I didn’t invent logic after all.
1 Like
This is a lie, do you really suppose embellishing what I said with sophistry will go unnoticed or unanswered?
The original context FWIW, was you using an appeal to authority fallacy, citing Buddha as an authority on his own teachings, in place of objective evidence for the same.
I asked if you could provide any objective evidence that Buddha’s teachings were valid, and asked, as one example if his work had been peer reviewed, I never mentioned scientific journals. The rest you have added dishonestly, to misrepresent the meaning, and context of the original post.
Ok, then please take more care when making claims about what others have posted. This new site offers a multitude of options to find, track, and quote posts as never before. If you want to know how, then ask the posters here, as they’ll happily help if they can.
Another dishonest misrepresentation of fact and context.
And please, your anger and frustration are your own doing, and not deliberately provoked by me, that’s an absurdly silly claim. Why do theists think they can come here and peddle their superstitious wares with impunity, then cry foul when somebody points out they’re offering naught but irrational assumptions?