@Lucienne d'Anwyl, you completely miss the POINT of the excercise. The FIRST step of solving any problem is clarifying requirements and one will ALWAYS make assumptions that don't apply. Therefore, the first step is always to ASK QUESTION to narrow DOWN those requirment rather than arrogantly assuming you UNDERSTAND the reason for the question and that you aleady KNOW all the contrraints...

Your pride won't ALLOW you to ask questions...

not to answer pointless discord twatter

lol

... and when someone calls you on an oversight, you simply dismiss it as 'unimportant' stating you don't 'care' DESPITE the obvious investment in arguing previously....

Would anyone here like to debate a orthodox Christian?

“The most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom is 'I do not know'. I do not know what that is.” “the beginning of wisdom is I don't know”. It's so simple, but at the same time so true.

Prove that god exists.

God exists

Done

shit

https://tenor.com/view/clay-davis-wire-sheeeeeeeeiiiiiiit-shiet-gif-5630596

Mathematics, reason and logic are not the tools for dealing with god.. Reason does NOT say that 'god doesn't exist'; Reason says that god is division by 0....

Undefined

Kek.

Bracket and halves

This is problem solving 101

@hello all debate on what exactly

depends on the type of problem.. but.. garbage in. garbage out

At best, "god" is an assertion.

No

Epistomology and ontology are arguments for or against god only within their parameters, its not equal to actualization

again, even that negation implies you can prove a mutual exclusion with 'god' in order to assert DNE

you can't; so it remains a 'discontinuity'

The only reason gods continue to exist is because people are inculcated into the beliefs necessary to sustain them from birth. Without that inculcation, done at the hands of imperfect people, gods simply vanish of their own accord.

"Epistomology and ontology " aren't arguments. They are frameworks that fundamentally include or rule out even the possibillty that god COULD exist

Hot take

No

I meant epistomological and ontolovical

Religion as a concept had to be invented.

And they only exist within their own parameters

No again

An epistomological argument isnt the same as a logical argument

Its a different domain

Let me finish shitting and ill explain

We can track the invention and evolution of religion.

Then whats wrong with it

again, you aren't even examining god via reason ; if you were you'd realize that an assertion 'reason god continues to exist' isn't dependent on the observer

The Big bang is a theory we cannot 'track' as it is based on interpolation/extrapolation

does this render it LESS true?