- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,655
- 52,517
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
Sounds plausible!Just had a thought strike me:
The absence of evidence is the evidence. You can define nothing without it becoming something when it is absent.
I was thinking more in terms of a trial when the evidence goes missing. You've got nothing to convict the person with because the evidence becomes absent.So now the absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
Can it be explained in a Twitter post of 280 characters or less?Actually, it's ridiculously simple.
Can it be explained in a Twitter post of 280 characters or less?
Not bad ... not bad at all.Let me try:
"Ex nihilo": has nothing, says nothing, proves nothing, means nothing.
...there you go.
Not bad ... not bad at all.
Now if you could just understand the difference between ex nihilo and ex materia ...
I do.Who says we don't?
Let me try:
"Ex nihilo": has nothing, says nothing, proves nothing, means nothing.
...there you go.
Not bad ... not bad at all.
Now if you could just understand the difference between ex nihilo and ex materia ...
Thanks for the QED.I can understand the difference between "ex nihilo" and "hocus pocus": a special pleasing fallacy.
The rest is irrelevant doubletalk.
I am particularly fond of fallacies that are pleasing.I can understand the difference between "ex nihilo" and "hocus pocus": a special pleasing fallacy.
The rest is irrelevant doubletalk.
Thanks for the QED.
I am particularly fond of fallacies that are pleasing.
That's just arguing for a dishonest god who removed evidence. I'm sure AV will object.I was thinking more in terms of a trial when the evidence goes missing. You've got nothing to convict the person with because the evidence becomes absent.
Right.That's just arguing for a dishonest god who removed evidence. I'm sure AV will object.
Norbert L disagrees. He's saying the evidence has gone missing.Right.
No evidence generated means no evidence removed.
There's nothing to remove.
Norbert belongs in that percentage that believes: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED.Norbert L disagrees. He's saying the evidence has gone missing.
Right.
No evidence generated means no evidence removed.
There's nothing to remove.
Unlike the Flood, where the evidence was cleaned up for sanitary and safety reasons, the creation events didn't produce any.
He appears to be in the minority percentage (with you) who believe: God is dishonest.Norbert belongs in that percentage that believes: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED.
And in that 100% of those who ever lived, alive today, and will be alive tomorrow, who believe: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.
In short, Norbert knows how to prioritize.
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?