[1 second conversion] Convert theist to atheist, in 1 second

[Edwardo Piet]

SIMPLE QUESTION: Can you measure any event to absolute/true degree (ie are you omniscient of any event) ?


NOTE: The above appears to be yes or no question.

It's also a loaded question containing a false equivalence.

BZZZZZZZZT try again.

[Edwardo Piet]

I got a kudos from Drich.

Now I feel extremely dirty and not in a good way

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

SIMPLE QUESTION: Can you measure any event to absolute/true degree (ie are you omniscient of any event) ?


NOTE: The above appears to be yes or no question.

It's also a loaded question containing a false equivalence.

BZZZZZZZZT try again.

How does the question contain "false equivalence"?

[Edwardo Piet]

"absolute" and "true" are not the same thing. They are not equivalents.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

"absolute" and "true" are not the same thing. They are not equivalents.

Absolute may mean true in Math http://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute.

Albeit, of what significance is your comment?

[ignoramus]

Slightly more than yours?

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Slightly more than yours?

Conversation sequence, between "theists" and I:

1) Theists says they have absolute confidence that the existence of God is true.

2) I talk about how we are not omniscient of any event. (This is the uncertainty principle. The non omniscient wording better appeals to some of them)

3) Theists change expression, they no longer say they believe absolutely; instead they express that they can't with absolute degree know or believe whether God exists.

So, which ever degree of truth they newly select, I don't see them attempting to select the absolute degree, after a few minutes of our conversation...

[Edwardo Piet]

"absolute" and "true" are not the same thing. They are not equivalents.

Absolute may mean true in Math http://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute.

Albeit, of what significance is your comment?

( YAY!!!! HE DID THE PRICELESS "ALBEIT"!!!!!!!!!!!!! )

The significance is you are conflating two words with different meanings and sticking them together in your question making it loaded.

[Drich]

It's also a loaded question containing a false equivalence.

BZZZZZZZZT try again.

How does the question contain "false equivalence"?

I out lined your 'how' in great easy to understand detail sport. (Re-read my last 3 posts to you)

What does it say about a great word salad-er who can not understand a simple principle that supposed to by driving said salad?

Because You are referencing the definition of Absolute truth as defined in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which demands omniscient to confirm said truth.

The NT/Bible definition of the word truth is derived from the koine Greek term: ἀλήθεια which simply means: Shown to be accurate. Again one does not need Omniscient to know or vet the accuracy of a given statement.

Meanwhile your/Heisenberg's 'truth' does.

That my friend is a false equivalence. Same word, two completely different meanings. And what's more you are pretending still there is only one definition of the word truth. In that truth can only exist as mr.white says it does in his own uncertainty.

---

1) Theists says they have absolute confidence that the existence of God is true.

Proof, sport. The word is PROOF not confidence.

2) I talk about how we are not omniscient of any event. (This is the uncertainty principle. The non omniscient wording better appeals to some of them)

And again, is there a definition of the word truth apart from the uncertainty principle?

There IS!

That is why you fail.

You have deleted the common definition of the word truth, that we all use in all everyday communication, and have inserted Heisenberg's version of truth. While the word is spelled the same, Heisenberg is looking for a degree of truth that can never be know to anyone aside from God.

Now, in out everyday contextual use of the word truth does anyone espouse to be able to decern Heisenberg's truth/God's understanding of truth?? No.

3) Theists change expression, they no longer say they believe absolutely; instead they express that they can't with absolute degree know or believe whether God exists.

When you force God's truth on to what people understand to be true of course they will take a set back as our use of the word does not encompass the ablity to so vet a claim or statement.

That said every person reading this has the ablity to vet the existence of God. If you simply approach Him on His terms.

Jesus promised if you simply approach The Father as He/Jesus has directed in luke 11 He will send the Holy Spirit to direct us. The Father will Send God the Spirit... What better proof of God is there than God?

So, which ever degree of truth they newly select, I don't see them attempting to select the absolute degree, after a few minutes of our conversation...

Pleeze bruh,
That tired argument of yours is usually shut down after the 2 post if the person in your shoes understands what a equivalency fallacy is.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You have deleted the common definition of the word truth, that we all use in all everyday communication, and have inserted Heisenberg's version of truth. While the word is spelled the same, Heisenberg is looking for a degree of truth that can never be know to anyone aside from God.

Congratulations, it appears you are finally 'awake':



It appears my mission has been accomplished.

As priorly mentioned, I had not attempted to bound truth to one degree. 

Albeit, you now realize that you can't approach the absolute degree (uncertainty principle)


So now you need change:

Absolute belief that the existence of God is true/absolute

TO:

Probable belief that the existence of God is probable (or probably true, specify that you refer to the probabilistic degree, as as you say, absolute degrees are not accessible by human)