Search results

Sorry that doesn't make sense to me. Answers are not pre-determined because questions are grounded in hindsight . That does not follow at all. on the contrary..... That claims your knowledge of potential which makes your rhetorical answer to it informed not pre-determined. Potential...

Also...that might well be causing some confusion ! Please clarify

I'm not really proposing anything in there. I simply have 3 questions I would like you to respond to so I might better understand how you may not be trying to stand across and hold all sides of an argument at once. Anyway now you have some too so , here is my response to yours…...

Quote from WaveStrider: "Though I suppose, since time is being used as the measuring stick, one could argue that a "Creator" and "Existence" both occur at the same instant - no time lapse. Existence and awareness of existence simultaneously." ...... Was it possible or not? In...

My argument does seem to lead to there being no such thing as non-existence. However that does not mean it follows as you suggest , 'all things, real and unreal (never realized), exist.' How do you arrive at that.? I don't see the "potential" as existence. I understand the...

Well yes, goodness knows why jem is being so angry , insulting and absurd. Perhaps he's not well. But I find myself agreeing with your sentiments, however I think it's unesessary for you to assume there is necessarily more to something than what is particularly obvious to it. Nor correct...

Yes it is putting existence for the potential of existence before the potential. They are not the same thing. It does not follow that existence for the potential of existence would not exist. Indeed if there really was a potential , existence for that -potential existence- must exist.

Fair enough, but my position is there cannot be any potentiality without existence. It is why I am supporting existence exists as an axiom of irreducible principal. So if there is a potential of existence, existence must exist for the potentiality. Existence exists is the irreducible principal...

Hurry up then Barth. :) There's no quality discourse possible with only jem around.

You'll never make a convincing argument using only absurd statements of denial. If you really think this concept of existence is not an axiom but is tautology, you're going to have to explain how the dictionary definition you gave fits. You're also going to need to explain why you aren't...

Good point., but no, not in regard to this thread so far. Not like - does beauty exist....[]. That's the point you see, existence must exist before beauty can. Another good point, but you have to remember the existence axiom through all this, which isn't always the first thing one might do...

Calm down jem, you're getting yourself in knots again... try it slowly.... step by step Barth Vader said nothing would or could "pre-date" the Creator. " I pointed out... Existence must have predated a Creator. Then you, obviously way out of your depth said this: I...

It's a trojan horse mind virus use the common sense firewall and anti-malware remover

jem, Deal with the issues raised. The fact and those concepts of existence are axiomatic.

No I don’t think so, There is a similarity in this thread between those who want to believe religion above all else and are only looking at selective data to do so. Jem can only look at one particular word (no surprise he’s notoriously thick) , peilthetraveler is only looking at...

Very good !!...now do axiom....

How hard is it? Without first the possibility of existence there could be no God or Creator in existence. How hard is that? Your previous post to vhehn is quite honestly the most complicated tortured dissemblance I've seen for a while, so how hard is it really for an intelligent person such...

Not a strawman (do you even know what one is?) , a well understood Axiom and not a tautology. Do some learning. ..aww diddums....are you jealous , feel all left out 'cause KTS and others happen to agree with me. Get over yourself..

Existence must have predated a Creator. Creators can't exist unless existence exists. No Creator could exist were there not existence.

The above just demonstrates how you willfully ignore all contrary evidence to your belief preferring instead to frame a science vs religion political debate. Can you not stay on topic?