Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8936 total)
62 online now:
Faith, ramoss (2 members, 60 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: martygraham
Post Volume: Total: 861,917 Year: 16,953/19,786 Month: 1,078/2,598 Week: 1/323 Day: 1/51 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2221 of 2309 (862287)
09-03-2019 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2220 by Thugpreacha
09-03-2019 4:19 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Thugpreacha writes:

Are you basically rejecting an argument from popularity as akin to dismissing the idea that some of *us* have found God within our available information(within our own subjectivity) or are you declaring that all believers are mistaken in their claim that God exists?

Knowledge is not absolute - nor is it a claim to what "actually is."

Using our best method of acquiring knowledge - we can "know things" to the best of our ability.
Whether or not this is "correct" or "what we should be doing" - is up to the individual.

All I'm saying, is if we use our best method of acquiring knowledge (rational analysis), and apply it to what-information-we-have-acquired-on-God over the last few thousand years - the conclusion is obvious: I know that God does not exist.

There are just some things we *know* (or even believe) that can't simply be trotted out as objective facts for others to examine.

Perhaps there are.
Or perhaps there are many things we "think we know" that actually are not a part of reality.

Which one is accurate?

Again - we have our "best known method" to decide such things as described above.
Your choice if you want to apply it or not.
There is no "right or wrong" answer - but there is a "you are using our best-known-method or not" answer.
Up to you to consider if it's "right or wrong" to use it or not.

If it were so, everyone would have the same belief based on the objectivity of the community at large.

This is only if all humans were rational and consistent about all things all the time.
I think it's fairly obvious that this barely describes any human, let alone all of us.

Again - it's up to to the individual to put in the effort required to try to use our "best known method" or not.

You took an atheist position(based on the fact that atheists are a clear minority) and made it the default position...thus eliminating the majority position as being valid in any way.

I simply took our "best-known-method" and saw what would happen if we apply it to all-the-information-we-have about God.
Turns out a rational analysis comes out to "I know that God does not exist."

This doesn't eliminate other methods from being valid.
Other methods are eliminated from being "our best known method" because they include ideas that introduce more errors.

Our "best-known-method" is also not error-free, it simply has the "least amount" of error that we're (currently) capable of.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2220 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-03-2019 4:19 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 2222 by AlexCaledin, posted 09-03-2019 5:37 PM Stile has responded

    
AlexCaledin
Member
Posts: 56
From: Samara, Russia
Joined: 10-22-2016


Message 2222 of 2309 (862294)
09-03-2019 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2221 by Stile
09-03-2019 4:39 PM


Re: When specifics are required
In other words, since Einstein, Bohr etc. discovered the great and useful things, it's time to apply the scientific methods to wash people's brains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2221 by Stile, posted 09-03-2019 4:39 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2223 by AZPaul3, posted 09-03-2019 8:25 PM AlexCaledin has responded
 Message 2226 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 8:23 AM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4512
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 2223 of 2309 (862306)
09-03-2019 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2222 by AlexCaledin
09-03-2019 5:37 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Having been poisoned by various opposing superstitions the collective human mind needs a good washing out with a large dose of reality.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2222 by AlexCaledin, posted 09-03-2019 5:37 PM AlexCaledin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2225 by AlexCaledin, posted 09-04-2019 6:45 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17300
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 2224 of 2309 (862312)
09-03-2019 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2219 by Stile
09-03-2019 3:03 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

If "I know God does not exist" has a "lack of facts" - from whatever is outside our "current information"....
Then so does "I know ringo can bake a cake" - because it, too, has an equal amount of lack-of-facts beyond our "current information."


We've been through that already. The cake is a done deal. The search for God is not.

Stile writes:

The search is finished - within our current information.


By that logic, we "knew" that God did not exist before we ever started looking; we "knew" that the Northwest Passage did not exist before we ever started looking; we "know" that our keys don't exist before we ever start looking. Based on no information, nothing exists.

“Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.”
-- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2219 by Stile, posted 09-03-2019 3:03 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2227 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 8:33 AM ringo has responded

  
AlexCaledin
Member
Posts: 56
From: Samara, Russia
Joined: 10-22-2016


Message 2225 of 2309 (862317)
09-04-2019 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 2223 by AZPaul3
09-03-2019 8:25 PM


Re: When specifics are required
Well then take this dose of reality: Scientifically brainwashed regimes, Hitler's and Stalin's, got in the bloodiest fight and failed to survive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2223 by AZPaul3, posted 09-03-2019 8:25 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2228 by AZPaul3, posted 09-04-2019 9:55 AM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2226 of 2309 (862319)
09-04-2019 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2222 by AlexCaledin
09-03-2019 5:37 PM


Re: When specifics are required
AlexCaledin writes:

In other words, since Einstein, Bohr etc. discovered the great and useful things, it's time to apply the scientific methods to wash people's brains.

If you are aware of a better method for knowing things - I am very interested in following your lead.
Just let me know if you have anything useful to offer...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2222 by AlexCaledin, posted 09-03-2019 5:37 PM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3846
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 2227 of 2309 (862320)
09-04-2019 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2224 by ringo
09-03-2019 11:19 PM


Re: When specifics are required
ringo writes:

We've been through that already. The cake is a done deal. The search for God is not.

Did you forget?

You admitted there is doubt in the knowledge of the cake.
There is doubt in the knowledge of God not existing.

I say it's the same doubt - one that exists in finding something "beyond our currently available information:"
All of our "currently available information" confirms that ringo can bake cakes.
All of our "currently available information" confirms that God does not exist.
There is no link from imagination-to-reality that there's any reason to consider that "something beyond our current information" will lead to us knowing ringo can't bake cakes.
There is no link from imagination-to-reality that there's any reason to consider that "something beyond our current information" will lead to us knowing God actually exists.

You seem to act as if the doubt is different - but the only different you've ever mentioned is based upon popularity - which is an irrational consideration when doing a rational analysis of our knowledge.

But feel free to try again.
You just have to do better than claiming it to be so without any evidence or support or reason.

By that logic, we "knew" that God did not exist before we ever started looking;

Nope. Have to look first.
Thing is - we have looked for God. For the last few thousand years. Longer than we've looked for how ringo can bake cakes - that's for sure.

we "knew" that the Northwest Passage did not exist before we ever started looking;

Again - nope.
We knew water-passages existed, therefore we knew the NWP could exist - there was a link between imagination and reality.
Not the same as God - yet you keep trying to use it as an analogy - exactly as someone would if trying to hide in vague generalities and popular opinion.

we "know" that our keys don't exist before we ever start looking.

Nope. Have to look first.
After we look for keys, and find no evidence of them ever existing in the first place, in the entire history of all available human information - we can say we know they don't exist.
After we look for God, and find no evidence of Him ever existing in the first place, in the entire history of all available human information - we can say we know He doesn't exist.

Based on no information, nothing exists.

This, actually, is true.
But, of course, we do have information. So we don't live in this "no information" vacuum you're speaking about.
Anytime you'd like to join us in rational reality - my conclusion that "I know God does not exist" is waiting for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2224 by ringo, posted 09-03-2019 11:19 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2229 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-04-2019 10:53 AM Stile has responded
 Message 2231 by ringo, posted 09-04-2019 11:32 AM Stile has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4512
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 2228 of 2309 (862323)
09-04-2019 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2225 by AlexCaledin
09-04-2019 6:45 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Scientifically brainwashed regimes, Hitler's and Stalin's

Neither religion nor science had anything to do with either.

Historical revisionism and ignorant buffoonery.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2225 by AlexCaledin, posted 09-04-2019 6:45 AM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2230 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-04-2019 11:00 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12813
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2229 of 2309 (862341)
09-04-2019 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 2227 by Stile
09-04-2019 8:33 AM


Re: When specifics are required
Stile writes:

All of our "currently available information" confirms that God does not exist.

Absence of Evidence does *not* equate to evidence of absence.
  • Objective, measurable physical evidence may be lacking, but people suspected that radar, x-rays, and other previously undetectable forms of energy existed even before ways were found to measure them. This is, I think, ringos point. He claims that people are always going to be looking, whereas you claim that the rational mind has given up(for now). This may well describe you* but it does not describe everyone.

    The argument is not one side or the other. The argument merely involves phraseology. You cant speak for everyone in your declaration.

    For me, personally--God does indeed exist. Critics could say that my position is illogical. Why fight them? Critics could charge me for deluding myself. They likely said the same thing to early explorers insisting that the world was round, that x-rays and radio waves existed, or that the universe was not geo-centric.

    A bigger question for examination is this: Should God Exist? Perhaps at its deepest level, this is what you should be asking yourself. Your answer likely would be "No, there is no need for Him". My answer would likely be that "Yes, He must exist, for I surely would never survive without Him" and I feel His presence. No scientific data is needed nor wanted in order to confirm(or disprove) such a point. Perhaps what gets me a bit riled is the idea that good guy Stile, whom I've always respected as openminded and willing to accept new information is, in reality, already set against information that may upset his world view. Looking further in the mirror, I see that I too don't want to know---if the conclusion is not what I believe should be the conclusion.

    Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
    In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
    ~Stile


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 2227 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 8:33 AM Stile has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2232 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 12:17 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 12813
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 2230 of 2309 (862347)
    09-04-2019 11:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 2228 by AZPaul3
    09-04-2019 9:55 AM


    Re: When specifics are required
    AZPaul3 writes:

    Historical revisionism and ignorant buffoonery..

    What gets me is that these days people believe in all sorts of*magic* apart from God. It's a bit like believing in luck or chance and rejecting the supernatural. I say that all of the RPG fantasy roleplaying games hurt us more than they help us. At best they are harmless---which is the same with belief in God. It is unrealistic to have too much hope in the magic of humanity...we likely will die off. God represents something (someone) who will never die, lives eternally as a Living Hope, and is one aspect of the eternal future that we can count on. Not too many of us are happy believing that we are worm food unless we(they) live vicariously (and somewhat eternally) through their children.

    Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
    In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
    ~Stile


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2228 by AZPaul3, posted 09-04-2019 9:55 AM AZPaul3 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2239 by AZPaul3, posted 09-04-2019 1:53 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 17300
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 2.5


    Message 2231 of 2309 (862362)
    09-04-2019 11:32 AM
    Reply to: Message 2227 by Stile
    09-04-2019 8:33 AM


    Re: When specifics are required
    Stile writes:

    You admitted there is doubt in the knowledge of the cake.


    I don't think I did.

    Stile writes:

    Thing is - we have looked for God. For the last few thousand years. Longer than we've looked for how ringo can bake cakes - that's for sure.


    Thing is - when we find something, we stop looking. The search for the cake didn't take long - there it is. It doesn't matter how long you look for something and don't find it. What matters is that you look in every possible place that it could be. Our curremt available knowledge includes dark matter - but we haven't looked there yet, so it's premature to conclude that we won't find what we're looking for.

    “Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.”
    -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2227 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 8:33 AM Stile has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2233 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 12:36 PM ringo has responded

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3846
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 1.7


    Message 2232 of 2309 (862371)
    09-04-2019 12:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 2229 by Thugpreacha
    09-04-2019 10:53 AM


    Re: When specifics are required
    Thugpreacha writes:

    Absence of Evidence does *not* equate to evidence of absence.

    Sometimes it doesn't.
    Sometimes it does.

    If you want to turn left - you look for absence of evidence of oncoming cars - no?
    Are you saying this isn't "evidence of absence" of oncoming cars when none are there?
    How would anyone ever safely turn left if we can't provide evidence that no oncoming cars are present?

    Of course absence of evidence *does* equate to evidence of absence, in the right context.

    As well, if we search ALL of our current information, and it ALL confirms that God does not exist - then this is evidence of absence.

    Objective, measurable physical evidence may be lacking, but people suspected that radar, x-rays, and other previously undetectable forms of energy existed even before ways were found to measure them. This is, I think, ringos point.

    And it's a very good point to make.

    If there's a link from imagination-to-reality indicating that something *might* exist beyond our current information - as there was for radar, x-rays, higgs-boson, the NWP, and many, many other things - this is valid for a rational analysis and would prevent me from saying I know such things do not exist.

    Of course, if that link from imagination-to-reality is not present, then this point does not apply in a rational analysis.
    Like Santa Claus and Luminiferous Ether and any other infinite number of ideas that only exist in our imagination with no rational link to reality.

    Right now, again according to our available information, the idea of God only exists in our imagination and has no rational link to reality suggesting He *might* exist beyond our current information.

    The argument is not one side or the other. The argument merely involves phraseology. You cant speak for everyone in your declaration.

    I do not intend to "speak for everyone."
    My statement only applies to those interested in an objective, rational analysis of knowledge claims using our best-known knowledge-identifying method.

    If someone wants to be irrational (use a method other than that currently identified as our 'best method' in order to make a knowledge claim on God's existence) - they are free to do so - but it doesn't change what I'm saying based on our best method.

    For me, personally--God does indeed exist. Critics could say that my position is illogical. Why fight them?

    I have no fight with anyone claiming the use of another method, and honestly identifying it as "another method."

    They likely said the same thing to early explorers insisting that the world was round, that x-rays and radio waves existed, or that the universe was not geo-centric.

    Exactly. When, or "if," you ever come up with some link from imagination-to-reality - I will immediately change my conclusion - as is demanded by our currently-best-method.

    Of course, there are an infinite number of ideas with no link from imagination to reality.
    If you want to bet on this one being right - that's up to you.
    I choose to use our best-known-method with the highest chance of leading to correct conclusions.

    You are free to make your own personal decision on what method you want to use for what circumstances.

    A bigger question for examination is this: Should God Exist? Perhaps at its deepest level, this is what you should be asking yourself. Your answer likely would be "No, there is no need for Him".

    Why would you say that?
    I've told you many time that I dearly wish an all-powerful, all-benevolent God existed to take care of us. It would make for a much better world than the one we currently live in.

    Perhaps what gets me a bit riled is the idea that good guy Stile, whom I've always respected as openminded and willing to accept new information is, in reality, already set against information that may upset his world view.

    I think you misunderstand.
    This thread is about "what happens to the idea of God if we put it through the same rational analysis we use for everything else?"
    It has nothing to do about my own personal ideas or feelings on the matter.

    Some of my personal ideas/view align with this conclusion.
    Some don't.
    My personal ideas/views are generally irrational - and I identify them as such when thinking about them.
    Irrationality is much more important that rationality - without it life would be boring and progress may very well be impossible.
    Of course, if you fail to identify them properly, and use them in the wrong situations - you can end up in very, very bad circumstances.

    Looking further in the mirror, I see that I too don't want to know---if the conclusion is not what I believe should be the conclusion.

    I don't really see the problem.
    If you don't like the conclusion provided by our currently-best-method for identifying knowledge - then don't accept it. Be honest and say "I don't want to apply our currently-best-method in this situation - I'm going to be irrational and believe otherwise." What's wrong with that? Belief is much stronger than rational conclusions as far as people are concerned anyway.

    I'm just arguing against anyone who's suggesting that this is not what our best-known-method actually concludes, or if they think another method is "better" - but refuse to explain how or why.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2229 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-04-2019 10:53 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

        
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3846
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 1.7


    Message 2233 of 2309 (862377)
    09-04-2019 12:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 2231 by ringo
    09-04-2019 11:32 AM


    Re: When specifics are required
    ringo writes:

    Stile writes:

    You admitted there is doubt in the knowledge of the cake.

    I don't think I did.

    Then what did you mean by this:

    quote:
    If I say there is no reasonable doubt that I can bake a cake, will you drop the silly schoolboy semantic game?

    Message 2159


    Is there "no doubt?"
    Or is there "no reasonable doubt?"

    I would assume you mean "no reasonable doubt."

    And wouldn't it be unreasonable to consider information we *might* find beyond our currently-known-information, when there's no link from imagination-to-reality that we would actually find such information?

    Then there's no doubt for cake.
    Of course - then there's no doubt for knowing God does not exist, either.

    Make up your mind.
    Be consistent.

    Thing is - when we find something, we stop looking. The search for the cake didn't take long - there it is. It doesn't matter how long you look for something and don't find it. What matters is that you look in every possible place that it could be. Our curremt available knowledge includes dark matter - but we haven't looked there yet, so it's premature to conclude that we won't find what we're looking for.

    Make up your mind.
    Be consistent.

    You seem to want to consider ideas with no link from imagination-to-reality to provide doubt that God may be found behind Dark Matter - therefore, we're not done searching for Him?

    But then you do not want to consider ideas with no link from imagination-to-reality to provide doubt that "ringo actually can't bake cakes" may be found behind Dark Matter - therefore, we're not done searching for ringo-baking-cakes?

    Make up your mind.
    Be consistent.

    On one hand you want to dismiss imagination from causing doubt. (ringo can bake cakes.)
    On the other hand, you want to accept imagination from causing doubt. (God does not exist.)

    Both are only imagination.
    Maybe behind Dark Matter we'll find that God actually does exist even though all our current information and observations say otherwise.
    Maybe behind Dark matter we'll find that ringo can't actually bake cakes at all, even though all our current information and observations say otherwise.

    Why accept the imagination to cause doubt for God?
    Why not accept the imagination to cause doubt for cakes?

    You have no rational explanation for this inconsistency.
    That's why it is proven that you're being irrational.

    If you want to remain irrational - that's up to you.
    But any honest description of what you're doing must identify this inconsistency - because it exists, and you are (so far) unable to provide a rational explanation for it.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2231 by ringo, posted 09-04-2019 11:32 AM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2234 by ringo, posted 09-04-2019 12:54 PM Stile has responded

        
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 17300
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 2.5


    Message 2234 of 2309 (862380)
    09-04-2019 12:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 2233 by Stile
    09-04-2019 12:36 PM


    Re: When specifics are required
    Stile writes:

    Is there "no doubt?"
    Or is there "no reasonable doubt?"


    Since we're talking about reason, it's the same thing.

    Stile writes:

    ...there's no link from imagination-to-reality that we would actually find such information?


    That's your claim, which I do not accept.

    “Maturity, one discovers, has everything to do with the acceptance of ‘not knowing.”
    -- Mark Z. Danielewski, House of Leaves

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2233 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 12:36 PM Stile has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2235 by Stile, posted 09-04-2019 1:01 PM ringo has responded

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3846
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 1.7


    Message 2235 of 2309 (862383)
    09-04-2019 1:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 2234 by ringo
    09-04-2019 12:54 PM


    Re: When specifics are required
    ringo writes:

    Stile writes:

    ...there's no link from imagination-to-reality that we would actually find such information?

    That's your claim, which I do not accept.

    Feel free to share - otherwise, it's not a part of anyone-else's "currently available information."
    And we can all still rationally continue to conclude that we know God does not exist.

    If you refuse to share (as you've done for over 2000 messages now...) then it can rationally be assumed that you have nothing.
    And the following still stands.

    quote:
    On one hand you want to dismiss imagination from causing doubt. (ringo can bake cakes.)
    On the other hand, you want to accept imagination from causing doubt. (God does not exist.)

    Both are only imagination.
    Maybe behind Dark Matter we'll find that God actually does exist even though all our current information and observations say otherwise.
    Maybe behind Dark matter we'll find that ringo can't actually bake cakes at all, even though all our current information and observations say otherwise.

    Why accept the imagination to cause doubt for God?
    Why not accept the imagination to cause doubt for cakes?

    You have no rational explanation for this inconsistency.
    That's why it is proven that you're being irrational.

    If you want to remain irrational - that's up to you.
    But any honest description of what you're doing must identify this inconsistency - because it exists, and you are (so far) unable to provide a rational explanation for it.


    I have no problem with you not accepting rationality.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2234 by ringo, posted 09-04-2019 12:54 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 2236 by ringo, posted 09-04-2019 1:08 PM Stile has responded

        
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019