Come on khaled, stop playing the 'I don't know what you mean game', you know the deal. Thank you for the conversation, I take my leave at this point.

It is self-explanatory, but since you don't want to acknowledge what I 'm saying, let's regress to a lower stage. A noun needs an adjective to have an active life. That is saying if the noun can never clarify its meaning, it is as the salt in the dead sea. The adjective is therefore noun's substance for it gives the noun size, shape, age, color, origin or material. What is the adjective for nihilism? Please elaborate!

It can not only not be the main point of nihilism, there can be no point for nihilism to be objectified for an object needs a subject, and nihilism has none.

There is no logic for existence, and so, there can be no logic for nihilistic relativism.

There can be no logic to nihilistic relativism, for nihilism cannot exist when everything is a continuation of The Oneness which constitute not only the eternality of thinking, but also the infinity of life and being. Surrounded by the continuum of The Living One (you), and life indwelling all within and without the surround of that living one, the thought of nihilism can't be anything but nothinglessness, and, therefore, nihilistic relativism can't be anything but a misnomer in the mind which entertain such a thought, or utter it from windpipe. But this is typical of a metaphoric thinking intellect. It is no different than fishing in a dead sea. What is the logic for fishing in a dead sea?

In reading through this topic I stepped into a void of nothingness. This is what nihilistic thinking is, it has no value whether secular or spiritual inclined. How can value be placed upon assertion which project life has no distinct meaning or purpose when this topic is meaningful to its participant's expressions? What is the logic for nihilism? Does it matter what nihilism state or not when all thinkers who enter this 4square circle of human living are on a mission of nihilism? What philosophy, religion, socialistic moral, or religious consciousness will seed words and usher mankind beyond the reciprocal dialog here, when these elements of the human race has not changed relativism to Oneness of Consciousness which constitute the activity of eternal meaning for all who live?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

"A rose by any other name is still a rose."

A deductive or Inductive argument, whether claimed to be what one knows or expressing what they have experience, has no strength when the premise of their knowing is not exposed. And irrespective of what you state to be your inductive argument it is reasoning, and reasoning flat line is conceptual. And not only that, no man has ever found anything which would allow him to open a door into his invisible foundation, which cannot be verified by his sense mind. Why? Because men climb the backs, and ride the thought wave of other men, and advance those thoughts according to their human indoctrination, teachings, and beliefs, and intellect. What you state you know does not belong to you.

Now you keep saying I have not presented a a specific premise of argument, but when I tell you

You cannot say testimonial evidence is not testimonial evidence when given as a testimony.

and you do not refute it, then your lack of response says you have ran into a dead end, and you have no other recourse by to say I have not presented myself specific in context. Oh well!

Sam26, I have gave my opposition. You cannot say testimonial evidence is not testimonial evidence when given as a testimony.

What are discussions, or debates but differentiating opinions. Is not your topic an opinion?

I have responded to what you have presented in points, and irrespective of what you state

I've clearly distinguished between testimonial evidence that's hearsay, and testimonial evidence that has an objective basis

. No matter what argument you present you cannot separate the object from the subject.

Hello, I am a new member of this forum, and after reading some of the comments here, and skimping others, to me what is called valid testimonial evidence fits into the system of 'hearsay' because of relativism, not precision. Relativism is an assumptive meaning, so out of the gate it's strength is weak for a testimony produces a multi-variety is images which does not bare witness with the experiential experience testified to.

Testimonial evidence is nothing new, abstract, or even mystical, it is the common language of people the world over in communicating issues of relativism.

All language is metaphysical for language express thoughts relative to what is understood by individuals, or a society for recognition of accepted images, or stories presented to individuals or a society. But language is not mystical. Mystical language cannot be expressed, only conceptualized relatively metaphysical, for mystical language is beyond the reach of another's interpretation, or mass idealism.


Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa