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 was only using your logic.
"Nothing comes from nothing" means that "nothing" is equal to itself. Not "something with the value of 8" equal to "something with the value of 9."
You said that non-A equals non-A. Let A be a tree. Then the sun is non-A. Also, the moon is non-A. According to your statement, the sun and the moon are the same thing. You messed up.
Also, nothing is not a thing, so how it is "equal to itself"? It doesn't have a self, it is not a thing. It is nothing. Moving on, please explain the problem here:
Assume "From nothing, nothing comes."
Is there nothing?
Yes → Then nothing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.
No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.
Not in the same time and in the same relationship. That's entirely your error.
Then you must conclude that something comes from nothing. You have no other options.
He literally said the opposite of this.He's literally saying that "A" equals both 8 and 9 at the same time and in the same relationship.
Pick this moment right now. Freeze time. Pick any tree you like. That tree is not the sun. That tree is also not the moon.
"We don't know" never occurred to you?
He literally said the opposite of this.
But not at the same time and in the same relationship. I'm not the one forcing a contradiction and then trying to make a cheap "gotcha" out of it.
It's never "the" answer, in any case. That is, unless you insist on appeal to ignorance as a rational form of argumentation. You can never claim an indeterminate = a determinate.
The dilemma is still in-effect! Mere hand-waving won't make it go away: You either concede the rational maxim that "nothing comes from nothing," or "something comes from nothing." You can't propose a rational 3rd option.
You said that non-A equals non-A. You're wrong. Let A=0. Then both positive numbers and negative numbers are non-A. Positive numbers and negative numbers do not exist in time. They both have the same relationship to zero in that they are not zero. So in the same "time" and in the same relationship, you imply that -1=1, that -5=27, and any positive number equals any negative number. Taking it further, a spider is non-A. The Koran is non-A. Literally everything is non-A except 0. You're stating nonsense, please admit it.
Do you know everything? No, you don't. I don't claim to know everything. There are some things I don't know. Why would I claim to have knowledge I don't have?
Before you jump to a conclusion, explain the problem with my statement.
How many fingers am I holding up as I click the "Post Reply" button?"I don't know" is never a rational answer.
You gonna lose sleep over losing one petty "gotcha?"
I'm not claiming that "Spider" is equal to "Koran." You cannot propose two completely different forms of "non-A" and try to sneak them past as equal.
Simple. An indeterminate is not equal to a determinate.
"Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan
In other words, you can't draw any conclusions either way, regardless. "I don't know" is never a rational answer.
Period.
How many fingers am I holding up as I click the "Post Reply" button?
When i say, "I don't know," that doesn't mean it's a substantive and equal substitute for the exact number of fingers you're holding up.
"I don't know" is never a rational answer.
Period.
Are you conflating "non" with "anti"?
If A has a unique inverse, then yes, the inverse of A equals the inverse of A. But non-A is not unique, no matter what A is. This is basically the vertical line test with functions. If f(2)=7, but f(2)=9 also, then f is not a function because f(2)=f(2) and this would mean that 7=9. This is why each input has to map to one unique output. Your "non" function maps to many, many different things (because non(A)=tree is true and non(A)=rock is true if A=dirt), and as a function it violates the vertical line test, and that is why there is a comedy of errors I've paraded before you.
Relevance? Where am I equating two things in my statement?
The statement does NOT conclude that things can come from nothing.
Sorry, but the facts don't care about your feelings.
You jam words into my mouth I never said and you whine about the consequcenes.
Wrong again. Even if you and I had obtained all knowledge that is possible to obtain within this universe (assuming this is even a sensible notion), there are still undecidable propositions in mathematics.
One? The one in the middle?How many fingers am I holding up as I click the "Post Reply" button?
Google Gödel to see the full proof if you like. But you're wrong. "I don't know" is a rational answer. Please look this up and concede you're wrong. Thanks!
One? The one in the middle?
Maybe? lol.
But you're still saying they're equivalent inverse relationships to one another. You created an inconsistency in an equivalent inverse relationship yourself, and then try to blame me for it.
"I don't know" is an indeterminate. That is not a determinate and final answer.
You are forced to draw that conclusion, or abandon your argument. You think that after 2000+ years of this maxim that someone else didn't come up with this "killer argument" before you did? Seriously?
Whoa. When did you establish it as a fact? It's merely descriptive, remember? Why are you suddenly behaving as-if it objectively applies to someone outside of yourself alone?
But facts don't care about what you want either. Assuming you're right, then you have to deal with the fallout.
Which are themselves indeterminate. They don't magically become determinate outcomes, or even substitutes for what hasn't been decided yet.
You're welcome to ragequit at any time.
No, you're totally confused. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You've been proven wrong on this issue.
It's better than just guessing.
Yeah, seriously. Show the me the refutation. Why do you continue to stall?
And I see you've redacted large portions of my response where I got into the theory of knowledge and I explained in excruciating detail why there are things we can't know.
No, you're totally confused. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You've been proven wrong on this issue.
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?