|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 17, 2020 4:39:52 GMT
A definition of God includes "all that exists" thus equating a belief in all existence as existing to a hallucination, ie God is a hallucination, is to result in contradiction given one is calling the very totality of reality they live in to a hallucination.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 28, 2020 16:55:40 GMT
You did not answer the question where 1 comes from. Where does 1 come from? First cause is a very difficult thing to prove because it requires being there. Likewise your question is irrational because no person alive today knows the answer to it. Now are you asking where I got my personal #1? If we do not know where 1 comes from then it comes prior too the senses, it is innate knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 28, 2020 19:21:19 GMT
First cause is a very difficult thing to prove because it requires being there. Likewise your question is irrational because no person alive today knows the answer to it. Now are you asking where I got my personal #1? If we do not know where 1 comes from then it comes prior too the senses, it is innate knowledge. I wouldn't hardly consider that to be the criteria for something being innate
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 29, 2020 3:44:11 GMT
If we do not know where 1 comes from then it comes prior too the senses, it is innate knowledge. I wouldn't hardly consider that to be the criteria for something being innate Then where does it come from. A series of telling another person of the number one regresses to the premise of it starting out as innate within the person who first observed it.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 29, 2020 4:11:22 GMT
The argument can be broken down to this:
1. A=B and B=A 2. If A=B then A=C means B=C 3. However B=-C therefore A=-C
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 29, 2020 4:23:14 GMT
Why assume a=c?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 29, 2020 17:32:30 GMT
One assumption progressively equivocates to another.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 30, 2020 10:24:50 GMT
One assumption progressively equivocates to another. Exactly my point you seem to equivocate quite often but regardless of how often that is it doesn't make a claim anymore correct .
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 2, 2021 19:01:14 GMT
One assumption progressively equivocates to another. Exactly my point you seem to equivocate quite often but regardless of how often that is it doesn't make a claim anymore correct . Equivocation is similarity, similarity is repetitive symmetry. That which shares the same limits is equivocable.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jan 4, 2021 17:44:40 GMT
That doesn't make it true it just means that you prefer to assume
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jan 4, 2021 22:12:57 GMT
That doesn't make it true it just means that you prefer to assume Then what is equivocation if not the same thing expressed a variety of ways?
|
|