Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#221  Postby surreptitious57 » Dec 21, 2018 10:27 pm

Destroyer wrote:
There is only one way to find out if anything that I have to say about the Nature of Existence is demonstrably false

Then post it on the forum where everyone can see it if you are that certain
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10074

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#222  Postby Cito di Pense » Dec 21, 2018 10:32 pm

Destroyer wrote:
There is only one way to find out if anything that I have to say about the Nature of Existence is demonstrably false.


You might be thinking that anything not demonstrably false necessarily has anything to contribute to knowledge. That you might be thinking that could be a significant aspect of your problem.

It's not demonstrably false to say that "somewhere over the rainbow, bluebirds fly".
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 28234
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#223  Postby Destroyer » Dec 21, 2018 10:35 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
We do not need to know the future in order to know the facts
Nature being absurd enables the subjective to connect on the same wavelength as One who is Objectively Real

The first sentence is demonstrably false [ knowledge is provisional ] while the second is wibbly wobbly word salad
Do you have anything of substance to justify your evidence free claim about your apparent knowledge of reality ?


There is only one way to find out if anything that I have to say about the Nature of Existence is demonstrably false.

Destroyer, exactly how many people have you convinced using this intensely idiotic method?


To convince is not my aim: it is currently impossible for humans to be convinced of a Nature that opposes their own. To demonstrate that I am in possession of knowledge that cannot be logically refuted is the aim.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1767
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#224  Postby newolder » Dec 21, 2018 10:40 pm

Destroyer wrote:...[/b] To demonstrate that I am in possession of knowledge that cannot be logically refuted is the aim.

Axiomatic logic or another system of logic?
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6111
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#225  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 21, 2018 10:44 pm

Destroyer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
The first sentence is demonstrably false [ knowledge is provisional ] while the second is wibbly wobbly word salad
Do you have anything of substance to justify your evidence free claim about your apparent knowledge of reality ?


There is only one way to find out if anything that I have to say about the Nature of Existence is demonstrably false.

Destroyer, exactly how many people have you convinced using this intensely idiotic method?


To convince is not my aim: it is currently impossible for humans to be convinced of a Nature that opposes their own. To demonstrate that I am in possession of knowledge that cannot be logically refuted is the aim.

You can't logically refute Russell's teapot either, what's the point? Why are you pestering people with this?
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 13057
Age: 39
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#226  Postby Destroyer » Dec 21, 2018 10:48 pm

newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:...[/b] To demonstrate that I am in possession of knowledge that cannot be logically refuted is the aim.

Axiomatic logic or another system of logic?


Logic that demonstrably has factual support, albeit not phenomenal support. So there will be no axioms to draw upon from phenomena, only explanatory power that binds the whole.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1767
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#227  Postby surreptitious57 » Dec 21, 2018 10:52 pm

scherado wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
There arent any fucking miracles . There are only unexplained events

In order for there to be miracles you have to assume miracles are in the cards

Read this carefully : The existence of a miracle does not depend upon any action of your brain

What exactly is the definition of a miracle ?

A single non repeatable event for which there is no known rational explanation

No known rational explanation does not automatically translate to supernatural event absent any other explanation

There is another category infinitely more possible [ the one that you are ignoring ] : an unknown rational explanation

Also this : once a rational explanation can be found for a miracle then by default it cannot be defined as such anymore

There is precisely zero evidence for any genuine miracle because all explanations are rational [ both known and unknown ]
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10074

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#228  Postby Destroyer » Dec 21, 2018 10:54 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Destroyer wrote:

There is only one way to find out if anything that I have to say about the Nature of Existence is demonstrably false.

Destroyer, exactly how many people have you convinced using this intensely idiotic method?


To convince is not my aim: it is currently impossible for humans to be convinced of a Nature that opposes their own. To demonstrate that I am in possession of knowledge that cannot be logically refuted is the aim.

You can't logically refute Russell's teapot either, what's the point? Why are you pestering people with this?


I am not just positing non-existence, but that which is Real and universally solid.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1767
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#229  Postby newolder » Dec 21, 2018 10:54 pm

Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:...[/b] To demonstrate that I am in possession of knowledge that cannot be logically refuted is the aim.

Axiomatic logic or another system of logic?


Logic that demonstrably has factual support, albeit not phenomenal support. So there will be no axioms to draw upon from phenomena, only explanatory power that binds the whole.

Let XKCD explain proof by intimidation to you then: http://www.dorais.org/news/2011-11-27-x ... hoice.html
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6111
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#230  Postby Destroyer » Dec 21, 2018 11:00 pm

newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:...[/b] To demonstrate that I am in possession of knowledge that cannot be logically refuted is the aim.

Axiomatic logic or another system of logic?


Logic that demonstrably has factual support, albeit not phenomenal support. So there will be no axioms to draw upon from phenomena, only explanatory power that binds the whole.

Let XKCD explain proof by intimidation to you then: http://www.dorais.org/news/2011-11-27-x ... hoice.html


Whatever helps you sleep... However, when you awake there will still be me with knowledge that is irrefutable.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1767
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#231  Postby newolder » Dec 21, 2018 11:04 pm

Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Axiomatic logic or another system of logic?


Logic that demonstrably has factual support, albeit not phenomenal support. So there will be no axioms to draw upon from phenomena, only explanatory power that binds the whole.

Let XKCD explain proof by intimidation to you then: http://www.dorais.org/news/2011-11-27-x ... hoice.html


Whatever helps you sleep... However, when you awake there will still be me with knowledge that is irrefutable.

Your first axiom then is: There is irrefutable knowledge.

Good luck with that one. :lol:
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6111
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#232  Postby Destroyer » Dec 21, 2018 11:05 pm

newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:

Logic that demonstrably has factual support, albeit not phenomenal support. So there will be no axioms to draw upon from phenomena, only explanatory power that binds the whole.

Let XKCD explain proof by intimidation to you then: http://www.dorais.org/news/2011-11-27-x ... hoice.html


Whatever helps you sleep... However, when you awake there will still be me with knowledge that is irrefutable.

Your first axiom then is: There is irrefutable knowledge.

Good luck with that one. :lol:


Thanks.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1767
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#233  Postby newolder » Dec 21, 2018 11:09 pm

Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Let XKCD explain proof by intimidation to you then: http://www.dorais.org/news/2011-11-27-x ... hoice.html


Whatever helps you sleep... However, when you awake there will still be me with knowledge that is irrefutable.

Your first axiom then is: There is irrefutable knowledge.

Good luck with that one. :lol:


Thanks.

No, I was wrong. You have at least three axioms there: There is knowledge. There is irrefutability. Irrefutability applies to some knowledge.

Not a good start because the sub-text from my previous link now applies:
Proof of Zermelo’s well-ordering theorem given the Axiom of Choice: 1: Take S to be any set. 2: When I reach step three, if S hasn’t managed to find a well-ordering relation for itself, I’ll feed it into this wood chipper. 3: Hey, look, S is well-ordered.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6111
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#234  Postby Destroyer » Dec 21, 2018 11:12 pm

newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:

Whatever helps you sleep... However, when you awake there will still be me with knowledge that is irrefutable.

Your first axiom then is: There is irrefutable knowledge.

Good luck with that one. :lol:


Thanks.

No, I was wrong. You have at least three axioms there: There is knowledge. There is irrefutability. Irrefutability applies to some knowledge.

Not a good start...


This particular brain can handle it; I assure you.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1767
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#235  Postby newolder » Dec 21, 2018 11:17 pm

Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Your first axiom then is: There is irrefutable knowledge.

Good luck with that one. :lol:


Thanks.

No, I was wrong. You have at least three axioms there: There is knowledge. There is irrefutability. Irrefutability applies to some knowledge.

Not a good start...


This particular brain can handle it; I assure you.

Where did 'handle' come from? You've gone from "there are no axioms" to at least 3 axioms in 1 step and now you add a handle - this will not end well.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6111
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#236  Postby SafeAsMilk » Dec 21, 2018 11:19 pm

Destroyer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Destroyer, exactly how many people have you convinced using this intensely idiotic method?


To convince is not my aim: it is currently impossible for humans to be convinced of a Nature that opposes their own. To demonstrate that I am in possession of knowledge that cannot be logically refuted is the aim.

You can't logically refute Russell's teapot either, what's the point? Why are you pestering people with this?


I am not just positing non-existence, but that which is Real and universally solid.

But you can't demonstrate it, and we've established merely making a claim that isn't assailable by logic isn't difficult or any sort of indication that there's any truth at all to what you believe. I mean, I'll accept that your claim isn't logically refutable without having even read it. So what? Again, what's the point?
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 13057
Age: 39
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#237  Postby Destroyer » Dec 21, 2018 11:22 pm

newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:

Thanks.

No, I was wrong. You have at least three axioms there: There is knowledge. There is irrefutability. Irrefutability applies to some knowledge.

Not a good start...


This particular brain can handle it; I assure you.

Where did 'handle' come from? You've gone from "there are no axioms" to at least 3 axioms in 1 step and now you add a handle - this will not end well.


Handle came from me: as in strong like a lion. The end will bring peace.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1767
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#238  Postby newolder » Dec 21, 2018 11:23 pm

Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
No, I was wrong. You have at least three axioms there: There is knowledge. There is irrefutability. Irrefutability applies to some knowledge.

Not a good start...


This particular brain can handle it; I assure you.

Where did 'handle' come from? You've gone from "there are no axioms" to at least 3 axioms in 1 step and now you add a handle - this will not end well.


Handle came from me: as in strong like a lion. The end will bring peace.

You have word salad stuck between your teeth again.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6111
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#239  Postby Destroyer » Dec 21, 2018 11:24 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Destroyer wrote:

To convince is not my aim: it is currently impossible for humans to be convinced of a Nature that opposes their own. To demonstrate that I am in possession of knowledge that cannot be logically refuted is the aim.

You can't logically refute Russell's teapot either, what's the point? Why are you pestering people with this?


I am not just positing non-existence, but that which is Real and universally solid.

But you can't demonstrate it, and we've established merely making a claim that isn't assailable by logic isn't difficult or any sort of indication that there's any truth at all to what you believe. I mean, I'll accept that your claim isn't logically refutable without having even read it. So what? Again, what's the point?


If I cannot demonstrate it then why don't you come and show this to be the case.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1767
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Confirmations of a Creator of the Universe

#240  Postby Destroyer » Dec 21, 2018 11:30 pm

newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
newolder wrote:
Destroyer wrote:

This particular brain can handle it; I assure you.

Where did 'handle' come from? You've gone from "there are no axioms" to at least 3 axioms in 1 step and now you add a handle - this will not end well.


Handle came from me: as in strong like a lion. The end will bring peace.

You have word salad stuck between your teeth again.


I have word salad all over my body. This particular salad happens to have a solid source.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1767
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest