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.
Have you noticed how many people have reached the same conclusions about your statements; they make no sense what so ever?
Or, is this something, you must ignore, because it is too painful to contemplate, they may be right?
That's just it, we have thought about what you've stated, and your syllogisms are incoherent and based on false premises.Asserting that my statements do not make sense and explaining why they don't make sense are two completely different things. Try thinking about what I'm saying and then explain to me why you think it doesn't make sense. Or better yet, read what Freodin is saying and explain why it does make sense and is rational.
To paraphrase a poster well-known to both of us: That. Simply. Doesn't. Make. Sense.
It is just a list of claims. I can do that as well.
"Primal Chaos can be made sense of. It is eternal and infinite. It is all that there is."
When accepting something irrational is the only possible rational conclusion, it is by definition rational. You can keep claiming that it is in itself irrational... but you still doesn't have shown it rationally. It's really that simple: if you want to show that something is irrational... SHOW IT!
That's just it, we have thought about what you've stated, and your syllogisms are incoherent and based on false premises.
Several of us have attempted explain this to you, but you continue to deny and ignore this.
You completely ignored my post #2539. Why?
Atheism: I don't accept your claim of god/s.
Agnosticism: I don't have knowledge that god/s exist.
I hope this is clear enough for you to understand. I hope you will discontinue your fallacious arguments (strawman / false dichotomy).
The irrationality of Primal Chaos makes perfect rational sense. You just have to understand the principle behind irrationality.I thought you said primal chaos is irrational, therefore, impossible to make sense of it? Again, get your story straight if you want me to consider you as a rational person.
That is not a rational explanation. That is only another claim. It should never... It isn't... Well, as you claim to be so rational... show it!Accepting something irrational should never be considered rational.
Yes, I can see the outright idiocy of that statement. But, as so often here... this is YOUR statement. It is not what I say, would say, or anything "that would be like me saying".This would be like me saying to you "Since you think my God is irrational, you should accept Him as rational". Can you see the outright idiocy of that statement?
The concept of irrationality is not in itself irrational.The difference is that you're admitting primal chaos is irrational and your admitting to accept it as rational. Mind boggling!
No, you cannot show us why. That is the whole problem. You make claims, and add the claim that this shows that these claims are rational. But that isn't how rationality works!I'm claiming God is rational and I can show you why. You're claiming God is not rational because somehow you know a rational God does not exist, but you have no reason/evidence to back this assertion. This is a problem.
The doctrine that the universe is self existent, not a creation of God. The Atheist belief in a godless universe and their promotion of godless ideals constitutes their doctrine of doubt.
I've yet to see evidence for your claims.My claim is that God is eternal and infinite. So you don't accept that God is eternal and infinite or you don't accept that this eternal infinite God exists?
For both of us.The intellectually honest position.
Clear enough?Only clear when you give a clear answer to my inquiries above.
I've yet to see evidence for your claims.
For both of us.
Clear enough?
BTW, why did you ignore the null hypothesis?
I've honestly received evidence that God exists, why would I deny that I know God exists? Whether you believe me or not has no affect on the existence of God.
Because you don't have a monopoly on reality, the totality of reality. To say "we don't know" would be far more sincere than "we have concluded"
The irrationality of Primal Chaos makes perfect rational sense. You just have to understand the principle behind irrationality.
And in the same way that you wouldn't claim to understand / make sense every single little detail of God, I won't claim that you can do that with Primal Chaos. But you can make sense of the whole.
The concept of irrationality is not in itself irrational.
No, you cannot show us why. That is the whole problem. You make claims, and add the claim that this shows that these claims are rational. But that isn't how rationality works!
The reason / evidence that I can provide is based on rationality.
If "rationality" has any form of existence, it is limited. It is limited by the form of its own existence... it cannot be irrational itself.
So if something exists beyond the limits of rationality, it has to be irrational, by definition.
Such a potential irrational existence cannot have limits, as it's irrational state would negate these limitations.
On the other hand, if there isn't any state of existence beyond rationality, there would be no limitless, no infinite existence.
Rational existence cannot be without limits.
The evidence would be that I'm making the claim. Now explain why you don't accept the claims.
Do you believe every claim made is evidence of the claim's existence?
That's his premise though; if he believes god is true, then god is true.I think he was asking for evidence of god's existence....not for evidence that you believe in god. I don't think anyone is doubting that you believe in god.
Atheists could say the same thing about believers. We could just as easily argue that believers should be saying "We don't know " as opposed to "we have concluded".
You might be thinking "We do know the answers though"...however, you should keep in mind that too many members of our crowd have come from the believer crowd for us to be fooled.
You said this:Of the 108,000,000,000 people purported to ever have lived, who discovered how to survive?
If someone has discovered how to survive, then why did you say atheism is [still] concerned with how to survive?
My "place" is one of sound logic and reason. Yours of metaphysical woo, baseless assertions and faulty syllogisms, as I've previous pointed out about a dozen times.Yet another unreasoned assertion. At least Freodin as attempted to explain why he believe what he believes, even though it's turned out to only prove that is claims lead to irrational beliefs.
I suspect you know your claims would lead to the same place.
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?