\"Writing.Com
*Magnify*
SPONSORED LINKS
BY ONLINE AUTHORS
Printed from https://shop.writing.com/main/profile/reviews/aksiegel
Review Requests: OFF
6 Public Reviews Given
32 Total Reviews Given
Public Reviews
1
1
Review by Adeptop Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (5.0)
To address the first question you proposed, (the one you presented in the first 4 paragraphs)
I think your atheist friend has forgotten a very important principle of logic namely: absence of proof is not proof of absence. The scientific method is not a litmus test of truth, but rather an extremely valuable tool for exposing the truth through a process of observation, calculation and experimentation.
In your 5th paragraph I would warn you not to set up straw-man arguments, just to rip them down in the attempt to make a point. If you are smart enough to know what is true a priori as opposed to posteriori then you are smart enough to know that things which can not be measured do in fact exist i.e. Most scientist will not argue that love does not exist, nor will they tell you that it can be measured.
Then, later in the 5th paragraph I was trying to follow your train of thought until I hit a block. I don’t think you’ve defined your causality argument fully. I was with you right up until I read

“All things and events similarly exist, and are thus provable using the principles we logically derive from observing this interlocking system of “Nature”. It is a closed system: to the Naturalist, there are no foreigners to land on Nature's shores.”
I think you made an intuitive leap somewhere in that process and forgot to write it down. Or maybe I just missed something.

Paragraph 6 and 7 express a logical well-formed idea; however, in my point of view this could be true of anything. Suppose I tell you that gremlins live on an asteroid belt in the Vega star system. I have no way to prove that; you have no way to disprove that, but just because you cannot disprove my assertion that such gremlins exist, I seriously doubt that you will be inclined, on that basis alone, to take my proposition at face value.
The 8th and 9th paragraphs expresses a logical corollary of your proposition in the previous two paragraphs. I cannot address this issue because the premise it is based on is itself unresolved.
The last few paragraphs before the break you seemed to be traveling down the same road that Descartes did, not 'cogito ergo sum' per say; but from what I could tell it went in the same vein. How can we know anything? We can’t prove logic is true thus all arguments reached by logic are suspect and then we tack on a “God fix”, that “makes” logic work, thus tidily negating nihilism. It is tempting, but again, it falls prey to the same problem discussed in 6 and 7.


Overall an excellent read. I always enjoy a well thought out argument. Even if I don't agree with it, especially if I don't agree with it. God created me to be an atheist. And who am I to question Him.
Great stuff, write on!
2
2
Review of Wordsmith  Open in new Window.
Review by Adeptop Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (4.5)
Awesome point. My suggestion is more word economy. Your poem expresses a fundamental truth of poetry but most of that is stated in your title. Well done :)
3
3
Review by Adeptop Author IconMail Icon
Rated: 18+ | (3.5)
Wow, there is a lot to digest in this piece:
Love, heartbreak, agony, dissapointment to name a few. I will offer this, although the piece as a whole is incongruent it is very powerfull at times in evoking emotion if nothing else. The trouble is this. Does it invoke thought? Identification? It looks very much like a combination of flow-of-conciousness and at times, very promising poetry. One of the most distracting part of the piece is the haphazard transitions from prose to poetry, not that this can't be accomplished, but it seems to come abrubtly and is kind of jarring. The only other thing that bothered me was the loss of metre in the poem. At times it was even, and smooth; then, without warning, it streamed off into free-thought. I admire the piece for it's power in conveying emotion, but I think it needs more structure. You might try rewriting the quatrains to give it an even metre and having the interjecting prose come at more dramatic intervals. All in all this is a very interesting piece and I am anxious to see how it turns out if you choose to improve upon it. I think you have a lot to say, and enough talent to say it eloquently. Keep on writing!
3 Reviews · *Magnify*
Page of 1 · 25 per page   < >
Printed from https://shop.writing.com/main/profile/reviews/aksiegel