Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm sorry did you want a real answer or one that invokes magical beings?
Which is cool because I never claimed that.
Science is dependent upon evidence.
See your post at the top of page 35. Also I am not the only one who has noticed that you enjoy putting words into peoples mouths. You've been asked more than once to stop it.Wow, strong accusations. Prove them.
Unless your talking about the Norse gods, the hindu gods, the greek and roman gods...... sorry but no.The definition of God, regardless of whether you and I want to believe this, as it has been defined by ALL cultures is all knowing, all powerful, always present.
See your post at the top of page 35. Also I am not the only one who has noticed that you enjoy putting words into peoples mouths. You've been asked more than once to stop it.
Unless your talking about the Norse gods, the hindu gods, the greek and roman gods...... sorry but no.
I refuted Atheism.
Skepticism is self refuting becuase it must be skeptical of itself.
Agnosticism says it can not know, but it knows that it can not know, so it is self refuting.
Ignosticism says God can not be defined, but defines him as unknowable inso doing. Thats self refuting (as is the definition, see Agnosticism).
Each of these refutations assumes that all skeptics/agnostics/ignostics are the same in their degree of believing the basic idea of whatever particular system they espouse.
Not all skeptics are pyrhhonists, which by Socrates' demonstration are indeed contradictory.
Not all agnostics are radical to the extent of claiming absolute knowledge that they don't know, in fact most are just skeptics regarding God, they have certainty on other things more than likely.
And ignostics as well have at least two forms, if not at least a third, the third potentially being the group you have pointed out in some form of refutation. But technically ignosticism only says that in order for an adequate discussion about God, a coherent and falsifiable definition must first be presented. And if this is unable to be presented, they take a theological noncognitivist perspective, stating that the question is meaningless and has no real content within it.
Similarly, atheists do not take God as seriously as you would believe they consciously or subconsciously do, therefore they are not being contradictory in disbelieving in something that they recognize as having some significance but still not believing in it as reality in the same way all humans essentially recognize gravity for instance.
Not yet.I refuted Atheism.
Skepticism is healthy, it keeps people from being made fools of.Skepticism is self refuting becuase it must be skeptical of itself.
Agnosticism says that god(s) is/are unknowable. That's all, it's not self refuting at all.Agnosticism says it can not know, but it knows that it can not know, so it is self refuting.
That's not what Ignosticism says.Ignosticism says God can not be defined, but defines him as unknowable inso doing. Thats self refuting (as is the definition, see Agnosticism).
Not yet.
Skepticism is healthy, it keeps people from being made fools of.
It's not self refuting at all. Skepticism says, "I question everything". It's quite healthy.
Agnosticism says that god(s) is/are unknowable. That's all, it's not self refuting at all.
That's not what Ignosticism says.
It says you need a coherent definition before the question of existence can be discussed.
You're carrying them to extreme conclusions. Not every skeptic concludes that skepticism must manifest pyrhhonism and so on. You can't assume everyone behaves at the far end of a spectrum when the very nature of a spectrum philosophy suggests there are multiple types of that single philosophy, just like liberalism in political philosophy.
So you will be the one to do it? After 2000 years?
The only way you could say that would be if you were being dishonest or if you were ignorant of those religions.
Which do we have here?
Haha, then go ahead.
That's right I apologize you could be both ignorant and dishonest.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?