(October 24, 2016 at 8:10 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Suppose dear colleagues here, we or at least one of you, we two will talk on something until we get to concur that it exists or it does not exist.
Otherwise, we just get on and on with new things coming up with every other post written and submitted and published, without ever getting treated systematically and completely as to come to concurrence that yes, it exists, or no it does not exist.
So, if I may, what about causation or circular reasoning, but please don't bring in the Bible, I already said that I am here to stick to thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, and not into bringing in revelation or enlightenment, because they are not founded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas, but on the what we might call gut feeling.
Forgive me, but I notice that there are a lot of what I see to be categorical statements, but no explanation how they are founded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas to be truthful, or factual, or founded upon logic, or supported by ideas in the history of human thinking.
That is a very good theme to work on, namely, that the universe is all there is, period.
First of course we have to ask scientists what they mean by universe, is it all that is existence?
Now it just sounds like you are trying to change the subject to confuse the conversation instead of trying to back up your claims. Why does this always seem to happen when people can't accept their burden of proof? Keep the goalposts where they are, please.
I don't believe you. Get over it.
