Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAre you TRUER than sonship or LESS TRUE?
What you obstinately fail to admit is that your statement "facts are not true" is wrong.
You did not even say "certain facts". (which is what you now seem to be arguing for)
Neither did I say "All facts without exception".
All I have to do is produce one fact that is true and your statement, "facts are not true" is wrong.(Which has been done multiple times).
Not only will that not prove me wrong, but even if you could prove me wrong, you would have still failed to demonstrated your original claim which was that I contradicted myself. It is possible that I was wrong, but didn't contradict myself.
In addition, you made a number of other false statements which all need to be addressed, the most glaring of which is when you repeatedly stated, even after it was pointed out to you that you were wrong, claimed that I had 'stated'. the second dictionary definition that I quoted.
And lastly, I still don't see a response to the Bible quote. Until you give a satisfactory response to that quote, I win and you remain less logical than me, and my ego isn't oversized for pointing that out.
7 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI guess all you really need to do to is give me a factual (true) example of a "fact" that is "not true". Good luck with that. Maybe the contradiction will eventually sink in. (The chances of the ego dissapating are very slim though, based on the evidence of this thread).
Are you TRUER than sonship or LESS TRUE?
[b]You did not even say "certain facts". (which is what you now seem to be arguing for)
Neither did I say "All facts without exception".
All I have to do is produce one fact that is true and your statement, "facts are not true" is wrong.(Which has been done multiple times).
Not only will that no ...[text shortened]... te, I win and you remain less logical than me, and my ego isn't oversized for pointing that out.[/b]
Oh yes and keep pretending that a neutral 3rd party does't exist. That way you don't have to admit that you are wrong.
Originally posted by twhitehead
ss: Writing something in stone makes it less disputable ?
That's absurd.
tw: So is your argument. The funny part is, that your attempt disagrees with that of Fetchmyjunk's so you are actually hurting his case.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you admit that your argument is absurd.
Now, Have i stopped beating my wife ?
I never started beating my wife.
Finally, are you bored with me asking you in the next post please explain where the universe comes from? Well, some of us are bored with you saying whatever the answer is you know it is not God.
And of course your malignant egotism has long been quite boring also.
Originally posted by sonshipThe universe has always existed. It was not created. it had no beginning. You are merely viewing things from a finite viewpoint with an incomplete understanding of time.
[b]
ss: Writing something in stone makes it less disputable ?
That's absurd.
tw: So is your argument. The funny part is, that your attempt disagrees with that of Fetchmyjunk's so you are actually hurting his case.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you admit that your argument is[ ...[text shortened]... ou know it is not God.
And of course your malignant egotism has long been quite boring also.
4 million Jainists can't be wrong.
Originally posted by sonshipI admit that my joke that writing something in stone is better than writing it on paper is absurd.
So you admit that your argument is absurd.
Now, Have i stopped beating my wife ?
I never started beating my wife.
Bail out. Do that.
Finally, are you bored with me asking you in the next post please explain where the universe comes from?
Yes, I am bored with you asking given that I have stated multiple times that I don't know where the universe comes from and you have repeated the words back to me showing that you did read that response.
That you keep asking me to give a different answer and that you keep insisting it be 'in the next post' is disingenuous and dishonest of you.
Well, some of us are bored with you saying whatever the answer is you know it is not God.
Be bored then. That doesn't change the fact that I know it is not God. I have to point out though that almost every time I have said that, it is because I was asked for my opinion, so if you are bored, then don't ask.
And of course your malignant egotism has long been quite boring also.
Be bored then. But I suspect that this feigned boredom is really because you have realised that you are NOT TRUE and cannot admit it.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThe universe has always existed. It was not created. it had no beginning.
The universe has always existed. It was not created. it had no beginning. You are merely viewing things from a finite viewpoint with an incomplete understanding of time.
4 million Jainists can't be wrong.
So atheists are people of faith after all. You don't know this for sure, so you put your faith in it. And hence you believe it to be true.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadyou have realised that you are NOT TRUE and cannot admit it.
I admit that my joke that writing something in stone is better than writing it on paper is absurd.
[b]Now, Have i stopped beating my wife ?
I never started beating my wife.
Bail out. Do that.
Finally, are you bored with me asking you in the next post please explain where the universe comes from?
Yes, I am bored with you asking given t ...[text shortened]... s feigned boredom is really because you have realised that you are NOT TRUE and cannot admit it.[/b]
If sonship's existence is a fact then he is 'something that truly exists'. So would you say his (factual) existence is "true" or "not true"?
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBut is he a fact? Is he true? He claims he is true and Spiderman is false.
If sonship's existence is a fact then he is 'something that truly exists'.
So would you say his (factual) existence is "true" or "not true"?
Neither. His existence doesn't have a truth value. Only the claim that he exists does.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo one claimed that he is a fact. He is a person. Him being a person is a fact. His existence is a fact. Are these "facts", "true" or "not true"?
But is he a fact? Is he true? He claims he is true and Spiderman is false.
[b] So would you say his (factual) existence is "true" or "not true"?
Neither. His existence doesn't have a truth value. Only the claim that he exists does.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSonship asked:
No one claimed that he is a fact.
1.) Is something that "truly exists" true ?
I asked whether or not he truly exists and whether or not he is true.
His response was that he is more TRUE than Spider Man and later claimed that he is true.
Clearly, he was suggesting that he is a fact. If not, then his line of argument doesn't make sense.
P.S. I am still waiting for a response to the Bible verse..........
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI made clear I was speaking on behalf of the 4 million Jainists who hold that belief.(Which would be evident if you hadn't pasted only half of my post).
[b]The universe has always existed. It was not created. it had no beginning.
So atheists are people of faith after all. You don't know this for sure, so you put your faith in it. And hence you believe it to be true.[/b]
I'm not a Jainist.
6 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadi have no problem stating that I am true (as to my actual existence).
Sonship asked:1.) Is something that "truly exists" true ?
I asked whether or not he truly exists and whether or not he is true.
His response was that he is more TRUE than Spider Man and later claimed that he is true.
Clearly, he was suggesting that he is a fact. If not, then his line of argument doesn't make sense.
P.S. I am still waiting for a response to the Bible verse..........
I have no problem stating that I am a fact.
I thought this kind of thing was settled long ago when the philosopher uttered "I think therefore I am." Resident philosophy scholars can supply the rest - Thomas Aquinas ?
I am true in the sense that I exist in actuality. How much mileage for debate twhitehead thinks he can get out of this, who knows ?
Now I will put " the next post something will be dealt with " I will put to myself. Though I was not asked I will go back and see what twhitehead's beef is about the Leviticus passage and give my reply.
He says he's waiting and waiting. AT least it gets attention off of his own boo-boos.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWell, if the bible is the word of God, and God is the absolute authority when it comes to facts, you must surely then agree with the Leviticus verse in question (that blasphemers should be immediately stoned to death) and take this as a factual instruction for Christians to follow. - And before you counter argue that Leviticus was intended for a different age of man, don't forget your previous assertion that facts are unchanging.
Bottom of page 7, T thinks it's his get out of jail free card, whenever he's cornered he will try to bring it up.