When I sat and thought, as he asked, then I could understand his intention. He simply tried, I should give one sided reply. But one sided reply can never be possible unless A&F. One can be modification/manifestation of Prime/basic other of some secondary/gross. Eg. Eating natural fruits vs cooked food, walking vs vehicles....so on.
However, I should thankful to Jay for putting this question intentionally but with unintentional outcome. As I gave Dict def. of Natural as "Inherent sense of wrong and right" but since we are evolved to cooking, it should had become natural to us, may be to secondary level but still we should have its inherent sense of right or wrong. If so, how it is not at par to natural at primary level? It made me to re-think about real meaning of "Inherent", if relate to natural at primary level or also to secondary level. ?
You and your "A&F. " This is, as it happens a distinct example. The question was not what is natural, what is good, what is right, or anything else. When a question is asked, you're not being asked to guess someone's inner feelings or goals or intentions. You're being asked a question. After you've answered the question, then is the time to discuss all else. Do one thing at a time.
The question before us is "Is a story to be considered true simply because it has been written?" This is a relevant question even if you believe the story you have been speaking of is true. The truth of the story itself is not the question being asked. You are being asked to think systematically about one thing only, a first step toward discussing other things.
So, if you are trying to discuss and not to sermonize, you think, for a moment, and think to yourself "Has anyone ever written an untruth?"
If the answer to that second question is "yes" as any person who thinks for a moment pretty much has to say, then the answer to the first question must ABSOLUTELY AND FINALLY, be "no." If this were not so, then you would be saying that truth and untruth are the same thing, because an untrue story is, by your very statement, true because it was written. That is absurd and wrong. If you do not understand this, stop a moment and think again about it until you do. If you still do not believe this, then post back. I will happily write an untruth about you, and you will, by your own statement, be obliged to accept that it is true!
Your posts here suggest that it is difficult for you to think about one thing at a time, and that can be a fatal error. Confusion and miscommunication occur inevitably if you cannot think of one thing at a time. If someone asks you if you believe black is green, the question is not answered with a discussion of nature and the universe. It does not matter whether you are right or wrong about nature and the universe. It's a bad answer, and symptomatic of a bad way of thinking about everything. If you can't give a simple answer to a simple question, it provides a ready license to any and all to presume you are incapable of saying anything well. If you should, by some chance, have some wise ideas to impart, you kill those ideas with careless expression and defective argument.
for your specific achievements & living under such environment for nation. If I shall need, I may request you to reply my questions on this topic. Btw, whether cosmic rays other than sun-rays really affect us--harm or benefit? Just curious due to mine astrological interests.
