Sorry! I meant, your presentation involves a number of appeals to logic that were mostly first espoused in Germany in the 19th century, and I led with that thought in answer to your question of what it "sounds like" to me. My larger point is that we don't determine it by what it sounds like, and thus having an agreement on a way to resolve differing sounds seems to me more essential than you suggested.
I don't want to sound standoffish or anything; you've taken it on yourself to seek to give me a clearer view of things than the one I profess, and I'm interested in whether I'm wrong or not. If you wish to teach me what satan is and I don't find it convincing, my general question was how we could resolve such an impasse. For instance, we could appeal to common external revelation, or to a common external Spirit speaking to us both, or to common objective logic, definitions, historical facts, etc. You appeal to "critical thinking" but I've used that and gotten different conclusions, so it seems we need to be clearer on how we use critical thinking (or anything else) to arrive at the same answer. In math everyone gets the same answer with the same start, and it'd be nice for the same to happen in informal logic.
Now, I totally lost you. I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not buying anything????
I haven't read you full message I stopped at this, because it doesn't make any sense to me.
Sorry! I meant, your presentation involves a number of appeals to logic that were mostly first espoused in Germany in the 19th century, and I led with that thought in answer to your question of what it "sounds like" to me. My larger point is that we don't determine it by what it sounds like, and thus having an agreement on a way to resolve differing sounds seems to me more essential than you suggested.
I don't want to sound standoffish or anything; you've taken it on yourself to seek to give me a clearer view of things than the one I profess, and I'm interested in whether I'm wrong or not. If you wish to teach me what satan is and I don't find it convincing, my general question was how we could resolve such an impasse. For instance, we could appeal to common external revelation, or to a common external Spirit speaking to us both, or to common objective logic, definitions, historical facts, etc. You appeal to "critical thinking" but I've used that and gotten different conclusions, so it seems we need to be clearer on how we use critical thinking (or anything else) to arrive at the same answer. In math everyone gets the same answer with the same start, and it'd be nice for the same to happen in informal logic.