If there is a creator, so what?

[The Grand Nudger]

My bold. You're talking about the knowledge of oxygen, not the truth of oxygen.

So is Igno.

You're not agreeing with me by saying the truth of oxygen wasn't important until we knew about it, lol.

We've never been in disagreement about that, though you did fuck up a response -to- it, which made you disagree with both of us. There are always three people in our conversations, lol. It reminds me of a joke about rabbis.

Before the truth was known it was kind of still important.  Being able to breathe is kind of important.

The existence of oxygen was, but not the knowledge of it.  The knowledge is -still- unimportant to the subject in question, even though we possess it.

You do this thing where you say you've been agreeing with me all along after I point out something you've said that's inaccurate lol.

You pointed out something that you thought I said was innaccurate, "correcting" me by repacking my statements in other formulations.  You imagine disagreement and then respond.  You do it more than you realize.  I've learned that it's pointless to get in your way when you're in that mood.

INB4 you tell me I;m wrong in this, as well:

Whatever you say, as ever, Ham.

[Edwardo Piet]

You are agreeing with me while you request that I deny what you have agreed to. There are unknown truths, the existence of oxygen was just such a truth, for all but a few hundred years of human existence.  Put two and two together from there, that knowledge of the existence of oxygen (and existence is not knowledge, nor is it truth, do stick to your dogged insistence of identity and the existence of unknown truths, please) was irrelevant to the things proposed.  

People were fully and wholly human.  Leading happy lives, long before it's discovery.  People continue, since it's discovery, to be fully and wholly human, to lead happy lives, without ever thinking of oxygen.  The truth or falsehood of propositions regarding oxygen and it's existence have no bearing on the other thing, and the non-existence of oxygen is not the same thing as the non-existence of knowledge of oxygen.  Just because one would be bad, doesn;t mean the other is bad, because they aren't the same godamned thing....and really, think this through, if there were no oxygen there would -be- no people and no -bad for people- in the first place because they just don't exist, another "so what" appeal to irrelevant consequence.

All of this holds as demonstrably and inarguably in the case of gods existence, and the seperate issue....knowledge of gods existence, with regards to the same. Human fullness, wholeness, and happiness.  

Get, your shit, together.

This particular bit of inanity can be attacked from nearly every angle of rational thought, and can also be -demonstrated-, emprically to be complete and utter garbage.  It's DOA.  It's undeserving of either consideration or of divinity.

My bold and underline and red text.

Regarding the bold:

Lol you've changed your assertion.  Now you're agreeing with me. Now you're saying that it was an unknown truth until a few hundred years ago but before you were saying it wasn't a truth at all until a few hundred years ago, lol.

Regarding my underline:

Lol you've contradicted yourself again already. How can it be a dogged acceptance on my part to accept the existence of unknown truths when the bolded section of what I quoted here is agreeing with that? LOL

Regarding the red text:

Yes. That's what I said. It's you who is conflating them. You conflated truth and knowledge by saying something wasn't a truth until it was known, and then when I pointed that out you conflated truth and existence by saying that it wasn't always a truth but it was always existent.

And that you list "identity" as one of my dogged acceptances is utterly hilarious. Denying identity is denying reality.

You're one walking strawman lol.

You backtrack and change your assertion when I point out you're wrong lol.

You also tell me that you've been agreeing with me the whole time even though you were saying things I disagreed with lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL< Whatever you say, Ham.

[Edwardo Piet]

My bold. You're talking about the knowledge of oxygen, not the truth of oxygen.

So is Igno.

My point is you were wrong to call it truth when you're talking about knowledge.

You're not agreeing with me by saying the truth of oxygen wasn't important until we knew about it, lol.

We've never been in disagreement about that, though you did fuck up a response -to- it, which made you disagree with both of us.  There are always three people in our conversations, lol.  It reminds me of a joke about rabbis.

No you messed up lol. We started disagreeing when you said that the truth of oxygen wasn't important until it was discovered when actually it's been important as long as we've been around to breathe it. It's the knowledge of oxygen that hasn't been important until it was discovered.

The existence of oxygen was, but not the knowledge of it.  The knowledge is -still- unimportant to the subject in question, even though we possess it.

Yes, the existence and truth of it has been important. The existence of oxygen and the fact that it's true that it exists has been important to us for as long as we've been breathing. Yes the knowledge of it has only been important since it has been discovered.... but you didn't say that. You said the truth of it has only been important since it has been discovered. That's not true. The truth of the existence of oxygen has always been important to us. It's only the knowledge of the existence of oxygen that hasn't been.

You pointed out something that you thought I said was innaccurate, "correcting" me by repacking my statements in other formulations

It is inaccurate. You said that the truth of oxygen wasn't important until it was discovered. But it's always been important. It's the knowledge of it that hasn't always been.

 You imagine disagreement and then respond.

I see inaccuracy and then I respond.

 You do it more than you realize.  I've learned that it's pointless to get in your way when you're in that mood.

You mean it's pointless to admit you were wrong when I'm in the mood for correcting all your inaccuracies?

INB4 you tell me I;m wrong in this, as well:

Whatever you say, as ever, Ham.  

You are wrong. You've already contradicted yourself and proved me right. You started by saying the truth of oxygen wasn't important until it was discovered and then you've since changed that statement to the knowledge of it:

The existence of oxygen was, but not the knowledge of it.  The knowledge is -still- unimportant to the subject in question, even though we possess it.

My bolding.

When I show one of your assertions to be inaccurate, instead of saying "oops" and thanking me for correcting you or admitting you were wrong about something you just change your assertion and tell me you were agreeing with me the whole time even when you said something inaccurate that I disagreed with

[The Grand Nudger]

Whatever you say, Ham.  What else can be said? Far be it from me to define truth, for you, as I see it, or knowledge. No need, you'll only disagree/agree for reasons™. I can easily see, from our "disagreements" that any such bickering finds it's point of origin there, but it's pointless to argue that with anyone who incessantly refers to absolutes and comports their "disagreements" to the absolute truth of the same, adn to the absolute truth of disagreements as they see them by reference to the same.

You aren't actually capable of recognizing when we agree or disagree. Nothing I can help you with, nothing I care to argue with you about./ Why would I, since we agree........

[houseofcantor]

Sew buttons.

In the beginning, Gwyneth Paltrow created me; from me, the universe.

So what just happened? I created god, introduced myself; in the tension between me and my Gwynnies the universe is made. There's actually some deep mathematical reasoning just presented which is probably more rationally expressed by Carl Sagan with in order to make apple pie from scratch, first you must create the universe. 

If I meet somebody and we have a conversation somewhere in the first five minutes I'm gonna go on about my Gwynnies. Why should god be any less? If a god created the universe it should be blatantly obvious to everybody all the time. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[robvalue]

After 31 pages I'm as yet totally unmoved towards caring.

Credit to igno for a damn good try though. Everyone else has left him hanging. Drich insulted me a bunch of times, that was fun. Didn't really motivate me to care though.

[Edwardo Piet]

I can't leave any word undefined.

I think I'm still correct and you're incorrect, Rhythm. But I will admit I'm correct about something very petty and I shall now do the following:

* Edwardo Piet removes the gigantic stick from his own butt

[Edwardo Piet]

Whatever you say, Ham.  What else can be said?  Far be it from me to define truth, for you, as I see it, or knowledge.  No need, you'll only disagree/agree for reasons™.  I can easily see, from our "disagreements" that any such bickering finds it's point of origin there, but it's pointless to argue that with anyone who incessantly refers to absolutes and comports their "disagreements" to the absolute truth of the same, adn to the absolute truth of disagreements as they see them by reference to the same.

You aren't actually capable of recognizing when we agree or disagree.  Nothing I can help you with, nothing I care to argue with you about./  Why would I, since we agree........

My bold.

You're projecting

You say we agree even when we don't

Here's Matt Dilahunty telling you why you're wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuRCF7h7FzE

[houseofcantor]

Did that guy just make a point of pulling the stick out of his butt only to turn around and reinsert, or am I reading this incorrectly?