PENNSYLVANIA, ARIZONA, MICHIGAN LEGISLATURES TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS ON 2020 ELECTION

Tercon

Well-known member
Is that so? You're an unbeliever - do you think your unbelief exists in reality?

No, unbelief doesn't exist in reality, because unbelief is just a lack of something that actually occurs in reality and that something is belief. Unbelief is the lack of the mental exercise that is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to us. So, unbelief represents nothing in reality, because in just being a lack of belief (unbelief) it cannot possess a object of belief in order to have any ontological value in reality.
 
Last edited:

rossum

Well-known member
No, unbelief doesn't exist in reality
So your unbelief in Shiva does not exist.

Logically if your non-belief does not exist, then your belief in Shiva does exist. Two negatives make a positive.

I didn't have you pegged for a Hindu. Oh well, you learn something every day.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
So your unbelief in Shiva does not exist.
Sorry not doing anything in reality to disbelieve in Shiva little Buddy.
Logically if your non-belief does not exist, then your belief in Shiva does exist. Two negatives make a positive.
No, you are just strawmanning by projecting your unbelief unto me Pal. Actually if unbelief or "non-belief" "does not exist" in reality, then unbelief or "non-belief" "does not exist" in reality is a positive making unbelief "not exist" in reality silly.

I didn't have you pegged for a Hindu. Oh well, you learn something every day.
Your unbelief makes you ignorant. But you have "pegged" yourself as a unbeliever of how and why the logical truth works in reality.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
So basically we excuse the complete absence of evidence
Does the term "basically" absolve you from stating a total falsehood as though it were truthful? I for one don't believe in incantations, so I can't concur.
because a proven repeat liar says it's there.
Ad hominem. . .
I'm sure the courts will agree.
And the way you've started this post is supposed to inspire confidence in your assurances?
That is, if Rudy ever decides to take it to the courts again, after they kicked him to the curb many times so far.
Trump's team has only filed three lawsuit's perhaps a fourth in the last day.
 

rossum

Well-known member
Sorry not doing anything in reality to disbelieve in Shiva little Buddy.
So you do not avoid Hindu temples, but instead visit them all the time, because not doing so would be something in reality: walking into a specific building.

No, you are just strawmanning by projecting your unbelief unto me Pal. Actually if unbelief or "non-belief" "does not exist" in reality, then unbelief or "non-belief" "does not exist" in reality is a positive making unbelief "not exist" in reality silly.
By the law of the excluded middle if X does not exist than not-X exists. If your unbelief in Shiva does not exist then you do not unbelieve in Shiva.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
So you do not avoid Hindu temples, but instead visit them all the time, because not doing so would be something in reality: walking into a specific building.
No, I don't have any reason to "avoid Hindu temples but instead" I see them like I see parks or museums. And I "visit" parks or museums all the time, because in reality the only temple that God can indwell is the ones capable of belief silly.

By the law of the excluded middle if X does not exist than not-X exists. If your unbelief in Shiva does not exist then you do not unbelieve in Shiva.

You are literally demonstrating for me that you don't know how the logical truth and reality works.

You are strawmanning and projecting your unbelief unto me by conflating belief (X) and unbelief (not-X).

In reality my argument doesn't say "X does not exist", but rather my argument is that if "not-X" "does not exist", because if in reality belief is represented by X and unbelief is represent by "not-X", then you have confused and conflated the two haven't you?

Here is my argument:
If belief (X) is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to exist and unbelief (not-X) cannot be known to exist in reality, because it is only belief (X) that can make the truth and reality known, then unbelief (not-X) cannot be known to exist in reality.
 

rossum

Well-known member
In reality my argument doesn't say "X does not exist", but rather my argument is that if "not-X" "does not exist", because if in reality belief is represented by X and unbelief is represent by "not-X", then you have confused and conflated the two haven't you?
I have confused nothing. If "not-X" does not exist then X exists. X can either exist or not exist. There is no middle position.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
I have confused nothing. If "not-X" does not exist then X exists. X can either exist or not exist. There is no middle position.
Actually in reality there isn't two "positions" to begin with, because there is just one position in reality and that's belief (X) exists, because unbelief(not-X) doesn't exist in reality silly.. You are NOT using logic here to reason, rather you are using fallacies in order to hide yourself from the logical truth and reality.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
No, unbelief doesn't exist in reality, because unbelief is just a lack of something that actually occurs in reality and that something is belief
So your unbelief doesn't exist in reality? Good to know.

Unbelief is the lack of the mental exercise that is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to us.
Nope. Unbelief is the absence of belief. You have an unbelief in infinitely many things, just like us.
So, unbelief represents nothing in reality, because in just being a lack of belief (unbelief) it cannot possess a object of belief in order to have any ontological value in reality.
Great. So your unbelief represents nothing in reality. Good to know.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
So your unbelief doesn't exist in reality? Good to know.
No it doesn't. Rather it's just the mentally ill and atheists who believe unbelief exists in reality.
Nope. Unbelief is the absence of belief. You have an unbelief in infinitely many things, just like us.
The absence of belief doesn't represent or make anything known in reality silly.
Great. So your unbelief represents nothing in reality. Good to know.
Nope, believing unbelief exists in reality is a sign of mental illness silly.
 
Last edited:

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
No it doesn't. Rather it's just the mentally ill and atheists who believe unbelief exists in reality.
Right. So you have infinitely many unbeliefs...but they don't exist in reality. Makes perfect sense. Not.
The absence of belief doesn't represent or make anything known in reality silly.
Irrelevant and non-responsive. You have infinitely many unbeliefs, just like us.
Nope, believing unbelief exists in reality is a sign of mental illness silly.
Right. So you have infinitely many unbeliefs...but they don't exist in reality. Makes perfect sense. Not.

This is going to come down, as so many things do, to your poor understanding of English. You do not understand the difference between believing in unbelief and believing in the object of that unbelief.

For example, I believe that my unbelief in gods exists. I have unbelief that gods exist.

Just like you believe that your unbelief in leprechauns exists. You have unbelief that leprechauns exist.
 

rossum

Well-known member
No, rather in reality I just don't believe Shiva exists patient rossum
Tell me, how does "I just don't believe Shiva exists" differ from "unbelief in Shiva"?

Can I say " I just don't believe God exists" without you claiming I am an atheist or mentally ill?
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Right. So you have infinitely many unbeliefs...but they don't exist in reality. Makes perfect sense. Not.
If belief is necessary in order to ,make the truth known to you and you cannot both believe and unbelieve at the same time in order to make the truth and reality known to you, then how can you know unbelief exists in reality when belief is what it necessary in rodre to make the truth and reality known to you to begin with?
Irrelevant and non-responsive. You have infinitely many unbeliefs, just like us.
All Christians believe in their belief's capacity to make the truth and reality known to them, because in reality belief is necessary in order to make the truth and reality known to everyone including atheists silly.
Right. So you have infinitely many unbeliefs...but they don't exist in reality. Makes perfect sense. Not.
The lack of something that occurs in reality, in this case belief, doesn't have the capacity to make the truth and reality known to anyone, because in reality it is belief that is necessary in order to make the truth known and not unbelief at all silly.
This is going to come down, as so many things do, to your poor understanding of English. You do not understand the difference between believing in unbelief and believing in the object of that unbelief.
Actually in realty it is "going to come down" to how and why the truth and reality is known to us, because it is ONLY in and with belief and a believing mind that the truth and reality is known to us. And NOT with unbelief or a unbelieving mind silly.
For example, I believe that my unbelief in gods exists. I have unbelief that gods exist.
Lack of belief has NO ontological or epistemological status in reality, because if belief is necessary and NOT unbelief to make the truth and reality known to us to begin with, then in reality YOUR unbelief doesn't have the capacity to make the truth known to anyone including you . You are wallowing around in your own delusional nonsense silly.
Just like you believe that your unbelief in leprechauns exists. You have unbelief that leprechauns exist.
Strawman and projection. In reality there is no belief required nor any necessary in order for something to not exist in reality silly.. And unbelief nor lack of belief cannot be a belief and a unbelief at the same time. Also, for the same reason why in reality you cannot believe and disbelieve in the same thing at the same time, as that is in violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction.
 

Tercon

Well-known member
Tell me, how does "I just don't believe Shiva exists" differ from "unbelief in Shiva"?

Can I say " I just don't believe God exists" without you claiming I am an atheist or mentally ill?
If God is reality and someone doesn't believe God exists or you have a unbelief in the reality of God, then disbelieving reality exists is a form of mentally ill? And I am not trying to be the least bit derogatory here and I hope you do not take it as such.
As if God is reality and you disbelieve in the reality of God, then you are literally not experiencing reality. And I do think that in doing so you are exposing your to a form of mental illness. And again, please do not be offended, because I am just trying to show you the truth here.

I have been coming here for about 12 years now to argue for the truth and reality of God, because I believe He is reality. But what draws unbelievers here, as if they are not arguing for the existence of something, but rather have spent years arguing for the non-existence of something that they don't even believe to exist, that seems like a complete waste of a life to me to fight against something they don't even believe exists. And this kind of irrational behavior is a indicator of mental distress.
 

rossum

Well-known member
If God is reality and someone doesn't believe God exists or you have a unbelief in the reality of God, then disbelieving reality exists is a form of mentally ill? And I am not trying to be the least bit derogatory here and I hope you do not take it as such.
You start with an "If..." I also can start with an if:

If Shiva is reality and someone doesn't believe Shiva exists or you have a unbelief in the reality of Shiva, then disbelieving reality exists is a form of mentally ill? And I am not trying to be the least bit derogatory here and I hope you do not take it as such.​

Any if should be followed by "and if not ..." or alternatively it needs to include specific evidence that the "if ..." is true. So far you have failed to di either . You say "if..." and then ignore the possibility of "if not..." and fail to provide evidence. Hence all your arguments are based on an unsupported assumption that your "if...2 is true.

An argument based on an unsupported assumption is built on sand.
 
Top