Is there objective Truth?

[Pat Mustard]

Correction... I've never observed genetic mutation adding NEW genetic information.

Fixed your post.

In response to your baseless assertion which has been proven to be wrong, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html.

In fact I'd advise you to read the whole of talk origins. It pretty comprehensively debunks the fallacies and lies of the shits behind creatardism and cdesign propnentsistism.

[GrandizerII]

Correction... I've never observed genetic mutation adding NEW genetic information.

Fixed your post.

In response to your baseless assertion which has been proven to be wrong, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html.

In fact I'd advise you to read the whole of talk origins. It pretty comprehensively debunks the fallacies and lies of the shits behind creatardism and cdesign propnentsistism.

You're asking too much of him, lol.

[Pat Mustard]

Fixed your post.

In response to your baseless assertion which has been proven to be wrong, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html.

In fact I'd advise you to read the whole of talk origins. It pretty comprehensively debunks the fallacies and lies of the shits behind creatardism and cdesign propnentsistism.

You're asking too much of him, lol.

I know, but I'll keep rubbing his face in his profound ignorance for a few weeks. After that I'll work on arkilogue some more, he looks like he's beginning to think he's free at this stage.

[Edwardo Piet]

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" should be "Why did the big bang begin rather than not begin?" Asking why there is anything at all rather than nothing at all makes no sense. There can't be nothing at all. The only thing that can ever be is something. Existence has to exist and be existent otherwise it's not existence.

Are you suggesting that of the two, the set of things which include something and the set of things which include nothing at all, only the former could possibly include questioners?

There isn't a set of things that contain nothing at all and such a set certainly doesn't contain questioners because it doesn't contain anything because there's no such thing as a set of no things... it doesn't exist [emoji56]

[Whateverist]

How about a hypothetical set of no things in a hypothetical alternative universe which is demarcated by absolutely nothing? (Hence the name.)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Alternate universe made of Play-Do!

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Whatev

By a hypothetical set of no things do you mean the hypothesis or conceptualization itself? The concept of "nothing" or "no things" can exist but nothing itself or no things themselves cannot.

I feel overly serious, hehe.

I like the Play-Do jest.

[bennyboy]

You should care whether you can support your position.  And you can't.

Every single time you stub your toe on a rock you prove my position is correct. You trying to say that materialism is unsupported is at the same level as Ken Ham trying to denounce evolution because "nobody has ever seen DNA mutate".

Your position is false, it is demonstrably wrong and is delusional. Deal with it.

Straw man much?  Is this what happens-- anyone who challenges you to support your opinion gets lumped in with morons?

My position is that you are making assertions about the nature of reality, and you cannot prove those assertions to be true.  Using an experience (pain, in this case) to demonstrate the fundamental nature of reality is non sequitur, unless you are attempting to demonstrate that the universe is experiential.

The confident and condescending way you assert a position you don't bother to prove is familiar-- it is the same stance taken by many Christians.  Luckily, rudeness doesn't equal truth.

And by the way, since you claim my positions is false and delusional-- maybe you'll share with me what you think my position IS? Because I'm pretty sure you don't know.

[Mister Agenda]

After all other options have been rendered impossible, what remains is the answer. The natural world cannot justify its own existence. Absolutes, moral duties, immaterial laws, work much the same way, demanding a trancedent cause. Something above and beyond the natural order

That isn't really true. After you've eliminated the impossible, what remains is merely the possible, which may or may not be the actual case.

[The Grand Nudger]

42 pages....still not sure what an objective truth is, and now we're on to creatinism



That bit quoted by the poster above me, Soldat..it isn't actually logical...but it is an explicit admission of the improbability of what you're proposing. Delicious irony. I thought we already discussed this...20 pages ago? Everyone on earth being wrong about -everything- wouldn't make you right about -anything-. If you want that to be the case, you have to make the case...and asserting ad naus doesn't cut it. The absolute best you could hope for in the line of rationalizations expressed in this thread is an argument from incredulity. Seems like a waste of time and effort to me.