Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 210 of 244 (888528)
09-19-2021 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Christian7
09-18-2021 5:22 PM


Your spelling and grammar is fine, but I don't think you know how to make sense.
That which is mental is sentient. That which is physical is not. A process is nothing more than the interaction of its parts. When a computer operates, it does so by the interaction of its parts. Nothing emerges out of it that is not reducible to this interaction. When the brain operates, it merely operates according to the interaction of neurons and whatever else. This process should be nothing but purely physical. Therefore, it cannot be sentient. For sentience by nature is not a physical thing. For mind has form, and this form is not physical, for if it were physical, then all physical things all to have the same kind of form. But the problem is, that this form is not isolated merely in bounds, another reason why it cannot be physical. No physical objects are isolated in this fashion. The content of no process is isolated from any other process in this fashion.
This is just a bunch of nonsense, but I've listened to you enough to know what you're trying to say, which is that the brain is physical and the mind is mental and where sentience resides. Sounds fine. It isn't the way I see things myself, but it's a common viewpoint.
But your word salad was supposed to explain the nonsense in your Message 155, that if the brain is physical then there cannot be a mental aspect in a purely materialistic universe. You still haven't explained how that makes any sense.
Also, it looks to me that you didn't finish your thought, that you wanted to go on to argue that because the mental aspect does exist in our universe that therefore our universe can not be materialistic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 5:22 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 212 of 244 (888535)
09-20-2021 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Christian7
09-18-2021 8:33 PM


Re: gobbledygook
Christian7 writes:
The evidence shows no such thing. It simply shows that mental states may correspond to physical brain states. It does not show that mental states are themselves physical, or are the same as brain states.
I assume by mental state that you're referring to the mind. Why do you say the mind isn't physical? There cannot be a mind without a brain, so the mind must be part of the natural world.
quote:
That's right. The universe seems to operate quite well without us and our perceptions. It did so quite productively for the first 13.97 billion years before producing us.
Was it able to defy logic before we existed?
I'm sure no one can guess why you have this weird idea that the laws of the universe were different before we were around. If you have evidence for this then please present it.
No. I was saying this: What your mind after death will be is what your living brain should produce if materialism is true. It would have no mind, just chemicals.
You've just said it: if there's no brain then there's no mind. The mind is just an emergent property of the brain, not an independent entity that can exist on it's own.
But all models of higher levels must depend on models of the lower levels for the emergence of systems in the higher level, and there is no way that sentience emerges from biological, chemical, or quantum mechanical processes.
Can you name anything sentient that isn't part of the natural world?
For all biological processes are chemical processes, and all chemical processes are quantum mechanical processes, just as all electronic devices are not merely made of components, but the things that constitute those components. At the lowest level, everything is just energy, pure physical energy. Anything that emerges, emerges from the interaction of the energy. What we see as a house, is not a house without our minds. So how can our minds be minds without our minds?
Do you have an automatic gibberish generator?
There can be no mind without a brain. Many people view the brain as the biological underpinning of the mind, the highways and byways that the electrical impulses of the mind travel. But they're both very much a part of the natural world.
quote:
Of course the camera records the light just like the eye. The frequency is the same. The camera is made to react only by recording that frequency in its memory. We biologicals have a much greater range of reactions we can exercise.
So what? They're still all physical objects moving around and changing states in space. There is nothing qualitative about it. They are purely quantitative, (not sure if I used that term correctly).
Since you use most terms incorrectly, the odds are that once again you used a term (multiple terms, more likely) incorrectly.
I haven't seen a comment from you about it yet, but your manner of expression is so foreign to how English is normally expressed that I'm becoming more and more convinced that you think in some foreign language, perhaps even discuss this very topic on some foreign language discussion board, and then translate your ideas in literal fashion into English where, because the translation is literal and not informed by the nuances that skilled translators take into account, it makes no sense.
But I'm betting that even in your native language your ideas sound pretty strange.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 8:33 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Christian7, posted 09-20-2021 11:15 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 215 of 244 (888539)
09-20-2021 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Christian7
09-18-2021 11:07 PM


Christian7 writes:
Tell me, how is it, that when nothing was, there appeared physical things with physical laws.
You continue to repeatedly go over old ground. Nothing has changed that should cause you to expect a different answer. The answer is still the same: we don't know. And you'll probably repeat the same mistake, replacing "we don't know" with "God did it."
Without cause, objects emerged out of nowhere,...
This may be a language problem, but "objects," in the way the word is normally used, did not emerge out of nowhere during the Big Bang. A quark plasma somehow formed extremely rapidly.
...and not without cause they went through many eras.
You're trying to say the universe evolved.
There was no cause for the beginning, why should there be any cause for the end, even one to occur in a moment? If nothing was, and the world appeared, in a non-casual event, why do we limit non-casual events to the appearance of virtual particles?
A better question is how many times things have to be described to you before you get them right? We've described for you several things for which we're not aware at this time of any cause, such as the Big Bang, virtual particles, nuclear decay, and the observed spin property of an entangled particle. There may be others. Son Goku is the current resident physics expert.
Should not we fear the occurrence of destruction, happening without a cause?
If you're the type of person who fears things you don't even know exist let alone be able to do anything about then sure, go ahead, fear them.
And if nothing was, no potential was, and no potential for events, even those which are non-causal, nor is there anything of nothing that is sayable which contradicts its nothingness.
Do even you know what this means?
I guess you should be congratulated on your invulnerability to feedback. Most people when told they're not clear or have language issues would make an effort to improve, but not you. Your contributions in this thread have as high a babble content now as they did in the beginning, maybe higher.
For if no potential was, then no certainty that nothing should form could not have been, for there was no such polarity. Nothing is nothing, the absence of all things, where there is no distinction, thus no contradiction to its own lack of power to bring forth. In nothing, there is no power. Without power, there is no action. Without action, there is no emergence. Without emergence, there is no thing. Without things, there is nothing.
I think you've pegged the gibberish meter with this one.
Nothing is not a vacuum which nature abhors, as though nature had a mind or even existed.
Even in a total vacuum virtual particles continually flit in and out of existence.
You believe in oblivion after death. Will your mind rise again without cause, while you are nothing?
After death the brain will not spontaneously return to life - that would be an extreme violation of entropy. And without the brain there can be no mind.
Why is it that a mind was not first formed? Why is it that no non-physical things were formed?
I've got my own ponderings, like, "Why does Christian express himself using impenetrable language?"
It would help if you could be explicit about what a "non-physical thing" is. I've made the operating assumption that you mean things not within the natural universe, but it would help the discussion if you could confirm that, or if it's incorrect if you could explain what you do mean by a "non-physical thing."
Why should the universe be so organized, and have such levels of function, among so many objects in our universe, commonly? Is this truly all an accident?
If you see a guiding hand somewhere (not one that you make up in your head but one that you and everyone else can actually see) then please let us know.
In nothing is not the absence of absence, otherwise nothing is not nothing.
More gibberish. I'll guess that you meant, "Nothing cannot be the absence of absence, otherwise nothing is not nothing." Congratulations on another tautology. Yes, we all agree, nothing isn't something.
But if it were so,...
You're seriously postulating if nothing is something? Really? Spectacular!
...then the absence of the absence of purpose would be in nothing.
Since the "absence of absence" is the same as "presence," what you've actually said is, "The presence of purpose is in nothing." I still think you'd do much better as a mystic than you're doing here.
Therefore, would there not be purpose to the universe, according to your physical models?
You put a question mark on the end. Are you seriously asking us whether we think the senseless statements you've strung together lead to any rational conclusions? If you're really asking then speaking just for myself, no, you've said almost nothing during this entire discussion that has any rational interpretation.
Would there not be everything, then, if in nothing is not even nothing? Nothing is not a thing, it is the absence of all things. We impose linguistic obligations on the concept of nothing, for nothing is not an individual. There is no logic in nothing. There is no math in nothing. There is no reality in nothing.
When there is nothing, there is no reality. Therefore there will never be anything. For without reality there is no action, truth, potential, behavior, or anything. Thus, the concept of a causeless event where there is nothing is absurd. Where there is nothing, there is no reality, and where there is no reality, there is no event.
Wow, the gibberish just goes on and on. I agree with AZPaul3's assessment: "The rest of your post is just drivel."
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 11:07 PM Christian7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-20-2021 1:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 216 of 244 (888542)
09-20-2021 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Christian7
09-19-2021 11:18 AM


Re: Another YAWN topic
Christian7 writes:
God doesn't change His mind.
Here's just one example of God changing his mind from Numbers 14:12-19, I've trimmed it down to the essentials:
God:I will strike them down with a plague and destroy them.
Moses:Forgive the sin of these people.
God:I have forgiven them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 11:18 AM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 219 of 244 (888547)
09-20-2021 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by AZPaul3
09-19-2021 1:05 PM


AZPaul3 writes:
One non-cause theory is that the universe sprang from random alignments/collisions between mulitverses.
Then brane collisions, or interaction among multiverses, would be the cause, would it not?
Yes, no, maybe, was quantum uncertainty involved, I don't know. Writing for Christian7 is confusing.
We may not know the cause. We'll have to go find it, but there is one there, somewhere. In the mean time our best response is to admit ignorance and study harder.
This sounds a lot like those who reject quantum uncertainty and believe that there's a yet undiscovered deeper reality causing quantum behavior. But yes, if the Big Bang is the result of a causal chain of events then it has a cause. But if the Big Bang is a result of quantum uncertainty then it doesn't have a cause. Or is quantum uncertainty a cause (more on that next)? And there are other possibilities. I don't think we know if the Big Bang has a cause.
I guess it could be argued that things like virtual particles and wave function collapse and which slit a particle chooses and so forth are caused by quantum uncertainty. To me quantum uncertainty can't be a cause, but others might feel differently. I just can't see it though. If someone asked, "What caused the electron to choose the left slit?" and it was answered with, "Quantum uncertainty," my feeling would be that that is no answer at all.
I don't think, philosophically, that anything about this universe is un-caused. We're just too ignorant of how this place operates to have figured it out, yet.
Rather than put these things in the 'un-caused' bin I prefer to leave them in the 'ignorance' bin for a few more centuries to see what happens.
I hope I never implied that I've concluded the Big Bang was uncaused. If I did it was inadvertent. I've said and will continue to say that we don't know.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Edited by Percy, : Grammar again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by AZPaul3, posted 09-19-2021 1:05 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by AZPaul3, posted 09-20-2021 4:45 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 222 of 244 (888554)
09-20-2021 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Christian7
09-19-2021 1:25 PM


Christian7 writes:
If the box contains 100 billion pebbles, and I take out all but one pebble, all being white, can I be confident the next pebble will be white? Yes, but it can very well be blue. There is no certainty.
Yes, exactly right, there's no certainty, and yet you still correctly picked the white pebble. High confidence was sufficient for you to see that the best choice was white. You didn't need certainty. Science doesn't either.
Since we said science is tentative, why are you asking about certainty? There is no certainty in science. My confidence that I am right and you are wrong derives from my awareness of the evidence supporting my position and how clear you've made it that you have no evidence for anything you say. All you do is keep repeating the same fallacious rhetorical arguments.
You never pointed out a fallacy in the form of my argument, nor proved my premises false.
And yet you just disproved your own argument about needing certainty. If you don't understand that then there are some serious defects in your comprehension.
You merely quoted from other sources of which there is no certainty.
Well now you're just confused. I didn't quote any sources. The only quotes in my message are of you. Could you at least try to make an effort and get the simple and obvious things right? My message was right in front of you while you were typing your reply - how could make so blatant an error as to think I quoted any sources?
It is much more likely that a conclusion drawn from premises which are already proven, either by deduction from previous premises, or by its tautological nature, is certainly true. But I'm not claiming my arguments were fool proof, only that you did not deal with their validity at all, merely the truth value of the premises through their contradiction with unproven knowledge.
You argued that science couldn't be trusted because it lacked certainty but proved yourself wrong when you showed you understood that high confidence works just fine.
By the way, it is not a good thing when your argument is tautological. It means you haven't really said anything.
You continue your inability to get anything right by delving into dark matter. Why do you do this to yourself? Did you make this up yourself, or did someone feed you this misinformation. I'm probably making a mistake by responding more information just seems to increase your confusion, and there's a strong chance that you're confusing dark matter with dark energy, but here goes anyway:
Well, I don't know if the existence of dark matter is proven, or if dark matter has ever been detected or analyzed.
Dark matter's effects have been observed, mostly in galaxies, but dark matter itself has never been detected. We don't know what it is. By far the most popular hypothesis is WIMPs (Weakly Interactive Massive Parrticles), but MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) also has its adherents.
But speaking of scientific models, it seems that there was a problem with their model of the universe, so they accounted for it by saying the universe was filled with dark matter, unable to explain why their theory didn't make sense of the amount of matter in the universe.
Dark matter effects were first noticed long before we knew there were any other galaxies besides our own, in other words, before we knew there was a universe.
They believed in their theory more than the evidence, so they made up a concept, and filled in the gap, without any empirical observation.
Our only knowledge of dark matter derives from empirical observations, the exact opposite of what you just said.
If they have no evidence of dark matter's presence in the universe,...
This is wrong as there is a tremendous amount of evidence for dark matter.
...but merely an inference from inconsistency with math and what they observe,...
This is wrong as our knowledge of dark matter derives from observation, not inference.
...then this demonstrates their confidence is based on math rather than science.
Since almost everything you said in that paragraph is wrong, this conclusion is also wrong. Our confidence in the existence of dark matter derives from observation.
You framed this as a conflict between observation and theory, and though that wasn't actually the case it is still worth commenting on what happens in science when observation and theory do not agree.
One of the most famous examples of observation leading theory is the orbit of Mercury. Deviations in its orbit from that predicted by Newtonian physics motivated both theoretical and observational efforts, culminating in Einstein's theory of relativity which correctly described Mercury's orbit.
A case of theory leading observation is the Higgs boson. Theorists predicted the existence of the Higg's boson over half a century ago, but experimental physicists could not find it. Both theorists and experimentalists worked hard on the problem. If there were no Higgs Boson then theory must be wrong and would have to change, potentially opening up fantastic opportunities to go beyond the Standard Model of particle physics. But if the Higgs were eventually found then it would nail down some other related uncertainties in the Standard Model, also expanding our theoretical knowledge. The Higgs was finally discovered about a decade ago, resolving theory with observation.
I'm trying. Also, I don't always use the most effective communication. This is not deliberate.
Then what's going on here? We're putting in enough effort with you that we deserve an explanation. Do you think in Italian? Do you have only an 8th grade education, and that only in a foreign language? Are you a member of some weird sect hostile to science? What?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 1:25 PM Christian7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by dwise1, posted 09-20-2021 7:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 223 of 244 (888555)
09-20-2021 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by AZPaul3
09-20-2021 4:45 PM


Re: Uncertainty
AZPaul3 writes:
Quantum uncertainty does not refer to virtual pairs or entanglement unless you are trying to measure some aspect of a specific particle's properties.
Yeah, that was the example I mentioned to Christian7 a couple times.
The big bang has nothing to do with quantum uncertainty since we are not trying to measure the properties of a specific particle. Quantum uncertainty is not involved in virtual pairs, wave-function collapse (if that even happens) or the double slit experiment.
I assumed that quantum uncertainty underlay quantum fluctuations. Not so?
The 'uncertainty' in which slit a photon will pass through is not an issue. When we want to see this we can do so with fantastic accuracy. The problem we are having with this is that the whole system seems to change from wave-like behavior to particle-like behavior just trying to detect which slit was used.
Sorry, you're right, I bolloxed up the example. I was only hoping to make clear that I don't see quantum uncertainty as a cause.
AbE:
I hope I never implied that I've concluded the Big Bang was uncaused.
Com'on, Percy. We know you're smarter than that.
?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by AZPaul3, posted 09-20-2021 4:45 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by AZPaul3, posted 09-20-2021 6:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 229 by AZPaul3, posted 09-20-2021 8:11 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 230 of 244 (888568)
09-21-2021 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Christian7
09-19-2021 1:55 PM


Re: gobbledygook
There is no evidence that consciousness is the result of brain activity.
Do you have any examples of consciousness in the absence of brain activity?
If consciousness were the consequence of brain activity, then the brain would be not be a purely physical organ, for consciousness is not a physical construct.
Again, do you have any examples of consciousness in the absence of brain activity?
Consciousness is not even a thing which alone is required for person-hood; it is merely a property of a soul.
A soul is not a physical object.
By "not a physical object" do you mean not part of the natural world? If so, since you're part of the natural world and souls are not, how did you learn about them?
Physical objects do not have the ability to have qualitative experiences. There is nothing it is like to be a physical object.
Your terminology is still horrible and very confusing. You've been using the word physical to distinguish between the natural and supernatural worlds, but now you're using it to distinguish between life and non-life. Make up your mind.
True, non-life cannot have experiences like life, but why do you say "qualitative experiences." Are you implying that non-life could have "quantitative experiences?"
You mangled the second sentence, who knows what you meant.
There is no amount of computational trickery that will create a visual field isolated in the centerhood of a physical process.
Christian, come on, even as you were typing this you must have known it would make no sense to anyone. You're not even trying.
All physical processes, as far as qualia is concerned, can only produce information or states to represent it. There is no actual production nor possession of it by these processes.
Let me restate one of the things this says so you can see how little sense it makes: "A physical process produces information about itself but nothing is produced."
The precise mechanism by which qualia is created by brain in a subjective fashion has not been demonstrated. I have never read in the news that it has been. Qualia is not merely a state of a physical process or represention created by the arrangement of informational units. A computer screen does not have visual qualia.
Your nonsense just goes on and on. Who knows what you mean.
If consciousness is at all physical, it must be a property of physical things to begin with; it cannot be an emergent property of things which have no property leading to consciousness.
What you actually said after eliminating the garbage: "If consciousness is physical then it's not really physical but is instead a property of the physical. Consciousness cannot be a property of things which aren't conscious."
Nonsense followed by a tautology. Brilliant!
Anything resembling logic is not logic,...
More brilliance.
This means that logic did in fact exist before we created it,...
Something that existed before its creation. More brilliance.
If my mind is just chemicals then it is not a mind.
One way of looking at the difference between the brain and the mind is to consider the brain as the physical part consisting of living tissue, and the mind as an emergent property of the brain stemming from electrical impulses and changing connections between neurons. This view has its problems. Aren't electrical impulses physical? Isn't the changing of connections between neurons physical? When people experience love or fear or when they dream aren't different parts of the brain stimulated, as measured by an MRI?
The best that can be said about thinking of brain and mind as separate and independent is that it has its problems.
A house is not a house without a mind. A mind is not a mind without a mind. Chemicals are not chemicals without a mind. In fact, they have no qualitative property at all.
Absurd. The universe did not wait to exist until we came around. The universe is over 13 billion years old, humankind only a couple hundred thousand.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Christian7, posted 09-19-2021 1:55 PM Christian7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Parasomnium, posted 09-21-2021 4:39 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 231 of 244 (888569)
09-21-2021 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Christian7
09-20-2021 11:15 AM


Re: gobbledygook
Christian7 writes:
Are you confident about all that?
I write 282 words in Message 212, and you respond with a single pointless question? Can I ask you again to have respect and regard for other people? Yes, Christian, I'm confident about all that, now please answer Message 212 and stop wasting people's time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Christian7, posted 09-20-2021 11:15 AM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 232 of 244 (888571)
09-21-2021 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Christian7
09-20-2021 6:44 PM


Re: Is this hard to grasp?
Christian7 writes:
First, the language I speak is English, and I speak no language besides it;
In that case it would be more accurate to say you speak no language, since there is apparently no language in which you're able to communicate your ideas to others.
And I don't really buy that you're a native speaker of English. To speak the way you do would mean spending your formative years with people who speak that way, and no one speaks that way. Either some foreign language is your native language, or you've suffered some traumatic brain injury, or you have a mental disability. The last guy here who had as much difficulty expressing himself had schizophrenia, see Brad McFall.
Presumably you have to talk to people at work, so what kind of work do you do? It doesn't seem possible that you could talk this way at work and maintain a job, so you must speak normally at work. Maybe if you talk about what you do for a living you'll start making sense.
so the thing that Percy was willing to bet on, even that claim is false.
I wasn't willing to bet on anything. The phrase I used is a figure of speech indicating one thinks something likely.
To make sense in English I am fully able,...
Your very wording makes my case. If you were a native speaker of English then you wouldn't write this way. You would have said something like, "I'm fluent in English."
...but I wrote my posts with the purpose of style, and rushed through every one.
You're just blowing smoke. If you abandoned your supposed "purpose of style" and took your time you'd still write the same way. Prove me wrong.
Also in logic there is lack of skill in me,...
A native speaker of English would have said something like, "I'm unskilled at logic" or "I'm no good at logic." Anything but what you said.
...although in a course on the same I attained an A, seeing that most of what I learned, that I also forgot.
Is that what they told you, that it was a course in logic and that you got an A? Did you put the crayons back when you were done?
We treated Brad McFall with kindness and compassion while he was here, which was for nearly a decade. If you've got some kind of mental condition or disability we should know about then tell us so we can get on the right wavelength. Brad told us about his condition, though we did have to fill in a few of blanks ourselves. Without that kind of information we can only assume you're some unfortunate combination of ignoramus and asshole.
Another member who like you joined when fairly young was TrueCreation - he designed the logo for the site. He went through a period where like you he insisted on using language in odd ways, but it was a side effect of his determination to use technical language he didn't quite understand.
But when I need not to compose an argument, I am well able to write with sense.
It hasn't happened yet.
Despite what it seems, with no intent have I hidden in my words a single thought.
You just said you've hidden no thought in your words. I think what you meant to say is that you never tried to hide even a single thought from us.
I am unready to debate with you all, so to study what is needful I will take a break.
Good idea.
For with me is no argument, nor knowledge, nor evidence, by which I am able to persuade your minds; having made these posts mostly with arguments formed by the mind that is in myself.
It's been obvious all along that you were making it up. You claimed to have done some reading, but that was never apparent.
So a break will I take to advance my knowledge, of logic, of science, and of defending the faith.
If God is real and as you say then he needs no defending. Spread the word, not nonsense.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Christian7, posted 09-20-2021 6:44 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024