Whateverman
Well-known member
Not rocks, or breathable atmosphere. Your failed logic isn't "belief based".Everything is belief based.
Not rocks, or breathable atmosphere. Your failed logic isn't "belief based".Everything is belief based.
Not rocks, or breathable atmosphere.
Your failed logic isn't "belief based".
English, please.How do you know what's "rocks, or breathable atmosphere" silly?
Logic is an abstraction of effective language. If language exists, then logic exists.Do you believe that logic exists
English, please.
Logic is an abstraction of effective language. If language exists, then logic exists.
YOUR logic doesn't exist, because it's based on a refusal to use language the way it's been defined.
Assembled together like a toddler with alphabetic fridge magnetsThese are English words: 'How do you know what's "rocks, or breathable atmosphere" silly?
Prove it.Logic is a attribute of the truth and reality, it indicates its non-contradictory nature.
So funny. I've been banned twice for this drivel. You're a name-caller and just won't answer a question, "Tercon."How do you know what's "rocks, or breathable atmosphere" silly?
Do you believe that logic exists silly? Maybe you should try using it sometime.
So funny. I've been banned twice for this drivel. You're a name-caller and just won't answer a question, "Tercon."
I'm being nice now.
Amazing how you've united me with Atheists. They're right about you, as I've been saying this whole time.
Can you show me (just cut and paste how you have) how you've answered anyone's questions?
You tell me. What is your first principle?
Assembled together like a toddler with alphabetic fridge magnets
Prove it.
No one understands you, because of your toddler-level use of language.I have to talk to you like a toddler, because you wouldn't understand me if I didn't.
It's not.If all truth and reality is logical
No one understands you, because of your toddler-level use of language.
That's not what the actual physicists say. They say you're wrong.Yes I understand how and why the truth and reality works. It is you who struggles with this. QM requires and entails a believing mind in order for WFC and entanglement to occur. And no-one as shown otherwise.
That's not a first principle.My answer: Everything is belief based. And if it isn't in the form of a belief, then it has nothing to do with the truth or reality. God tells us to believe for a reason, because He uses belief to do everything He does. God doesn't do things to us, rather He does it with us; He believes with us and that makes us a part of His truth and reality = His Kingdom.
It's mine and your opinion as to what my first principle matters not, because it is mine and not yours. Understand? Now deal what has been said to you instead of pretending it hasn't been said. Like I said, you seem to have pick up some of the atheist discussion tactics.That's not a first principle.
That's not what the actual physicists say. They say you're wrong.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Also, that which is required for scientific methodology has no bearing on what is required for QM events to occur. QM events occur all the time, regardless of whether or not there is any scientist observing or measuring them.I have not seen any physicist including show that "observation", "measurement" or a believing mind isn't necessary and entailed in order for WFC and entanglement to occur. As far as I know all present QM models include as a apart of their methodology "observation" and "measurement" to this day. And you haven't shown otherwise.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Also, that which is required for scientific methodology has no bearing on what is required for QM events to occur. QM events occur all the time, regardless of whether or not there is any scientist observing or measuring them.
No you haven't. No-one here has ever told you that.I have seen lots of silly people including you pretending that a believing mind isn't necessary in order for events to be known to occur
Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_compassWhy don't you tell us about the "QM events" that "occur all the time" silly?
No you haven't. No-one here has ever told you that.
Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_compass
Here's another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
You're strawmanning. No-one has ever told you that a believing mind is not needed for knowledge. We are rather telling you that a mind is not required for QM events to occur. And I just gave you examples of quantum events that occur without any mind having to observe them. Quantum technologies like the quantum compass would not work without quantum events occurring, yet these technologies do still work without anyone having to actually observe those events as they occur, just as your computer works even when you're not observing the transfer of electrons through the CPU.Sure you have, you and Carroll are doing just that when you pretend that there is no need of "consciousness" or a believing mind to know anything to exist or occur. The truth, reality and all its occurrence is the product of "consciousness" and you can't show otherwise. You are even silly enough to pretend you aren't trying to do just that by diminishing belief's role in the truth and reality, when all you are doing is projecting your silly atheism (unbelief) onto everything.
All I seen was things made possible by a conscious mind and nothing that didn't require or entail consciousness in order to be known to occur silly.
And it's already failing. Do you even know what you're talking about?It's mine
Not an opinion. You don't understand philosophy 101, dude. Are you even old enough to have taken this course??? Nope.and your opinion as to what my first principle matters not,
MY TOYS! MINE!!!!because it is mine and not yours.
Nope. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect...Understand?
Wow. That was a HUGE whine.Now deal what has been said to you instead of pretending it hasn't been said.
Just answer my question from eons ago, deflector and awful debator.Like I said, you seem to have pick up some of the atheist discussion tactics.