Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The discussion of whether or not 'nothing' preceded existence has been going in since pre enlightenment and has not been figured out scientifically nor philosophically.
So, good luck writing that off windbag and bloviator.
No dummy.The discussion of whether or not 'nothing' preceded existence has been going in since pre enlightenment and has not been figured out scientifically nor philosophically.
So, good luck writing that off windbag and bloviator.
I don't recall saying anything about nothing, oh he who constantly bloviates. I said that, if the singularity was eternal, we wouldn't be here.
Maybe if you were half as smart as the village idiot you wouldn't have said something so stupid in response to evidence that directly contradicts your misguided view of the universe.
And for the record, I did not offer the deduction you're assigning to me.
You ASKED ME if there's knowledge without a knower, I didn't say "this is my proof of knowledge without god, there is no knowledge without a knower."
So I don't know why you're NOW inserting that, instead of the actual knowledge I presented, which is absolute and is a fact independent of god because of the impossibility of the contrary: I am not all knowing.
That is knowledge and fact with or without god as its basis, the contrary is impossible.
Also....there are absolutes with or without god, for example a knower absolutely knows that it is not all knowing, or is all knowing.
The contrary is impossible.
This post....And for the record, I did not offer the deduction you're assigning to me.
You ASKED ME if there's knowledge without a knower, I didn't say "this is my proof of knowledge without god, there is no knowledge without a knower."
So I don't know why you're NOW inserting that, instead of the actual knowledge I presented, which is absolute and is a fact independent of god because of the impossibility of the contrary: I am not all knowing.
That is knowledge and fact with or without god as its basis, the contrary is impossible.
Seriously? You poor thing. How does anything exist if in fact God is the necessary uncaused cause? Dude!
Knowledge can be known by finite minds ≠ Knowledge can exist independent of and/or without God.
And:
Facts can exist without a finite mind knowing them ≠ Facts can exist independent of and/or without God.
The emboldened in your post, a step or two in logic = God does not exist.
Prove it, not all-knowing one. LOL!
But never mind. Moving on. Everybody else gets it except the mindless atheists, materialists or hard methodological naturalists who can't objectively separate themselves from their personal biases long enough to grasp the obvious.
Good luck asserting the contrary. I'll watch closely. Mr bloviator.Also....there are absolutes with or without god, for example a knower absolutely knows that it is not all knowing, or is all knowing.
The contrary is impossible.
No dummy.
Md said something about nothing.
You were thrown in because you're merely distasteful, to me. Mmkay? That gunna be OK, or naw?
Do you feel better now?No dummy.
Md said something about nothing.
You were thrown in because you're merely distasteful, to me. Mmkay? That gunna be OK, or naw?
I thought you weren't going to respond to my posts because you were tired of getting bitch slapped, did your masochistic side assert itself again?
One, the story above about the Marine is not true.
Two, vigi has a perverted fascination with using violence to protect his idea of religion.
Three, so does ISIL ISIS.
"On the contrary, it is completely empirical. The mere fact that people can look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion from it does not mean it is not evidence, it just proves people can think for themselves" is a statement means I arrived at a different conclusion from what the evidence may suggest.
That conclusion is wrong. Replicate the "proof" for your conclusion. If you can't, you can only suggest.
The atheists inherit the same issue with empirical proof: they don't have it.
The above fails on many levels. "Looking at the evidence" is fine but in connections with gods, there is no evidence. Further, which gods are we going to be receiving evidence for? Is there competing evidence that adds plausibility to the Hindu gods vs. some other gods?"On the contrary, it is completely empirical. The mere fact that people can look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion from it does not mean it is not evidence, it just proves people can think for themselves" is a statement means I arrived at a different conclusion from what the evidence may suggest.
That conclusion is wrong. Replicate the "proof" for your conclusion. If you can't, you can only suggest.
The atheists inherit the same issue with empirical proof: they don't have it.
The main premise is not demonstrably true, either.
That's what I keep saying 'bloviation' for, because that's all that that is.
A syllogism is a logical argument made up of two statements with a conclusion. The conclusion is true if the two statements are true. That is what is being forgotten here, the two statements must be true. This is a syllogistic argument:
All human beings can flap their arms and fly.
My dog is a human being.
Therefore my dog can flaps its arms and fly.
This is pretty much the argument being presented. What is added is that I don't need to prove my two statements are true. I claim they are axiomatic and anyone who actually wants me to support them is mentally deficient. Garbage in.... garbage out.
Not at all. As we KNOW that it is probable beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings cannot flap their arms and fly based on our empirical and scientific knowledge, your syllogism starts out with a premise that you KNOW is false.
A better analogy of a syllogism we can conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, is true would be as an example:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is a mammal.
Therefore my dog is warm blooded.
No problem with the logic or facts there IF you accept the premise that mammals are warm blooded..
. . .but. . .the concept falls apart if it goes:
All mammals are warm blooded.
My dog is warm blooded.
Therefore my dog is a mammal.
There is plenty of room to challenge that particular syllogistic argument even though we know the conclusion is accurate. Change dog to parrot and you have an accurate statement but a false conclusion.
Let's move on to another one that seems logical but which we can logically conclude is false:
All humans with vocal chords can speak.
My parrot has vocal chords and can speak.
Therefore my parrot is human.
And moving on to one that is both logical and untestable which is the theme of this thread:
Everything must come/evolve/develop from something.
The universe exists.
Therefore something produced the universe (and the theologian calls that something God.)
That the argument can be falsified is irrelevant. Your claim was that we didn't understand what a syllogism is, and that is not true. The point is that for the conclusion to be true the two preceding statements must be true. You cannot simply declare them true by default, they must be shown to be true. In this case, that step is being skipped entirely.
We can dispute and argue the truth or plausibility for any of the three statement in the syllogism. But there is no requirement that any of the statements be true in order for there to be a syllogistic argument. But a valid syllogistic argument? Now we are into a territory where the truth or plausibility of all the statements can and should be called into question.
But if there is no way to verify or falsify any of the statements via logic, reason, known quantities, or empirical experience, the syllogism remains just the same.
Now if we go with the opening statement that:
Knowledge cannot exist separate from or apart from a creator or God.
. . . . that is easily subject to question 'how do you know that? Or what is your argument for that?
Likewise he who is foolish enough to say the opening statement is false is easily subject question 'how do you know that?' or what is your argument for that?
But if the opening statement cannot be challenged via reasoned argument or verifiable evidence, then the following does logically follow:
Knowledge exists.
Therefore there is a God.
Where this breaks down is the assumption that if the statement is not challenged it must be true. It is not the responsibility of others to challenge the statement, it is the responsibility of the one making the statement to support it. If you cannot support it, then the statement is not valid. It might actually be true, but you can't use it to support the conclusion.
No. What it breaks down to is that if the statement cannot be effectively challenged, then we logically hold open the possibility that it could be true.
One, the story above about the Marine is not true.
Two, vigi has a perverted fascination with using violence to protect his idea of religion.
Three, so does ISIL ISIS.
It's not supposed to be true, it's a parable, but I keep forgetting that a 2 digit IQ'd misfit, such as yourself would NEVER recognize it as such!
You truly are a subversive piece of pond scum, and I imagine you and the rest of the 2 digit btigade, won't understand what it says!
