Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
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.
But you have left out the actual reason, the reason I gave you...which is the contingent requirement set down by God. We are His creation...so He decides what is required.
Also, yes, we both speak english, but you would have to believe me. And just as I would not trust you with my life (not at this point), you should not expect to trust me with yours...so believing my words is not realistic. But I can explain just how it works, and I have, which is confirmed by countless people down through the ages. But then you have to take it upon yourself. You are either a child of God and have it in you to see it through and trust in His requirements, or you are not His child, but only an animated part of his creation...which is a gift all by itself...but it does not include the bonus of eternal life.
As I said, you do whatever you will do about this...for you.
All the best!
The claim to have knowledge of the nonexistence of something is not irrational. This is a demonstrable fact. I fear you are mangling your logic here.There only contradicting because you've decided that its reasonable to claim that you can have knowledge of the nonexistence of something, which is clearly an irrational thing to claim. As long as this third party can comprehend that, then the answer is clear that your being irrational and I'm not.
The claim to have knowledge of the nonexistence of something is not irrational. This is a demonstrable fact. I fear you are mangling your logic here.
Sorry, I meant to say "...the existence of God."Hey, I (almost) agree with you: the "why" of the world is indeed demonstrated in the existence of the world. But it isn't the "why" that you imagine it is.
As I didn't offer any explanation, any "lack" is inevitable. But I didn't find any 2nd, 3rd and home base in your explanation either.... so, reciprocal lack is lacking.
But the main problem might be: there is no need to mention 2nd, 3rd and home base... because what I am "explaining" is not baseball.
Incorrect.Okay, lets think this through. In order to have knowledge of the nonexistence of something, you must first have knowledge that it existed.
I do have the knowledge of the suggested identities of God, thus I can have the knowledge that deities with this identity do not exist.Did you have knowledge that God existed in order to know that he now does not exist?
Irrelevant, see above.You can't demonstrate that God never existed at any point in time ever, this is simply an irrational thought that your mind has allowed you to think for some irrational reason.
Yes, agreed. Still, I propose a different "why". As for a "purpose"... I fear you are still lacking your bases. There is no way to demonstrate an existing "purpose" for "the world".Sorry, I meant to say "...the existence of God."
The "why" the world exists is not the "how" or the happenstance of science. But the "why" would indicate a "purpose" behind the "what."
It's not knowledge of something that doesn't exist, as that would be absurd. It's knowledge of what you, Chrilliman, claim about the knowledge of god. See the difference?Okay, lets think this through. In order to have knowledge of the nonexistence of something, you must first have knowledge that it existed. Did you have knowledge that God existed in order to know that he now does not exist?
You can't demonstrate that God never existed at any point in time ever, this is simply an irrational thought that your mind has allowed you to think for some irrational reason.
I don't know of this gaps god of which you speak. But what has that got to do with why there would be males and females in a happenstance evolution model?God of the gaps, gotcha.
Watch out for the gaps closing, as this will likely be a bit scary for you.
In order to have knowledge of the nonexistence of something, you must first have knowledge that it existed. Did you have knowledge that God existed in order to know that he now does not exist?
Recombination of hereditary material provides evolutionary advantage. Smallest base on which recombination is possible is 2.I don't know of this gaps god of which you speak. But what has that got to do with why there would be males and females in a happenstance evolution model?
"These are really delicious, try one!"
No, of course not, nothing like that ever happens.
How do you know it's fiction if you havnt read it?
Something can only be of significance in contrast to something else. "All significance" is incoherent.The way your mind works is baffling. How can all significance be meaningless? Isn't it more likely that all significance would be all meaning as well?
Incorrect.
Basically, there are two ways of having such knowlegde.
First, you can have the knowledge of the nonexistence of something, you must have knowledge of its identity. Identity can be contrived, it doesn't have to be in material - or spiritual, whatvever that may mean - existence.
Second, you can have that knowledge by having knowledge of the impossibility of such an existence, thus leaving non-existence as the only alternative. (Basically what you are trying to do, showing that I do not have "truth"... by showing that my claims are impossible. Problem is: you fail at it.)
If you have that knowledge of identity or the knowledge of logical impossibility, you can have the knowledge that such an item is not in existence.
I do have the knowledge of the suggested identities of God, thus I can have the knowledge that deities with this identity do not exist.
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?