Search results

Just a bare assertion? That's it? I never said anything about "existence existing" or anything similar. It's meaningless anyway. It's like saying "tallness is tall." At any rate, can something exist without a mind observing it, in your opinion?

Existence of something is a prerequisite for minds. Minds exist because the stuff they're made of exists. I'm not sure if you're trying assert that it's unsupported to claim that something exists independent of minds since there'd be no way for anything to ponder existence. Is this your way to...

So, things only exist when observed? Don't we usually develop object permanence by around 20 months of age?

I am one of those atheists. I believe that theists have "reasons" to believe, bad reasons, but no evidence. Evidence isn't merely a reason to believe something, it's a specific type that is empirically, intersubjectively demonstrable reason. And no, you can't choose what you really believe. You...

What does it mean to say that that things exist relative to something? If only one particle existed as the whole universe, are you saying it wouldn't exist because there would be nothing else for it to "exist relative to?" What about if only two particles existed as the whole universe? Now they...

Maybe the problem's with your answers and not with the inquisition.

It's sad how when you realized you were wrong, all of the sudden it's sour grapes.

Maybe so, but that's irrelevant to my point.

I don't need to check 100% of the universe to simply NOT claim that a god exists in much the same way I don't need to check 100% of the universe to NOT claim that an eternal, blue elephant exists somewhere in the universe. However, whoever does make the claim, needs to show why we should believe it.

Bill Clinton existed at one time as our 42nd president. He's a myth.

Maybe it's a 'you' thing. Most of my female friends are completely fine with being touched on their back or arms and being hugged but few, if any, would be OK with being touched in anything most people would consider sexual like breasts, genitals, or buttocks. Although there seem to be levels to...

I'm guessing I'm not asking this correctly or something... I don't know if anyone else can explain or ask this better than I can since I keep getting replies that are irrelevant to my point.

I must have missed this explanation and I even tried reading back and I don't see it.

I understand perfectly there's different preferences regarding touch and personal space. That's fine. But I see that no matter what our preferences are regarding these things, we all seem to object to not only being touched in sexual areas, but we see as a given that it is simply wrong to touch...

Was Joe not a prisoner for 20 years? Or is that a myth, too?

Personal space doesn't explain this. People don't react the same way when they're touched on their hands, feet, back or arms that they do when touched on their genitals, buttocks, breats (if female.) This is a specific prohibition of areas seen as sexual. Again, why?

I understand that we grow up in such a society. I am asking why society is such.

I understand not wanting to touch where fluids come out or where disease can be most easily transmitted or contracted but that doesn't explain why we treat genitals or any sexual organ seen as sexual as almost sacred. For instance, many people consider to be touched in their genitals without...

My point isn't that we should do as animals do, necessarily. I'm merely asking why we don't do as other animals? For instance, we don't throw or even touch our own feces because we know we might get diseases that way. There's a logical, reasonable answer for this. What's the answer for the...

It seems to me that either your handshakes are much too long or you're a wee bit sensitive. :D