Message from @DanConway
Discord ID: 507404196144742401
I will now ask you to read
It was just proven above.
π€
I dont think you understand what prove means
I don't think you understand set theory.
I dont think you understand what math is
^
The addition and subtraction of objects is always true, even without observation.
I dont think you understand my point
If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, is there one less tree standing?
yes
^
if i do not set a standard of evidence and when you try and explain the concept just say that does not meet my standard
that is not an honest conversation
wut
"Prove" *is* a set standard
If youre talking about us not accepting a proof for objective morality, you havent exactly put one forth
You have already said it is unprovable
Because dan's a glue huffing, crayon chewing idiot
> its unprovable
> change my mind
and that is a sincere invitation
a series of well structured arguments that are logically consistent
It's from a catholic so it can't be all the sincere
> proof
Ok
Do you know AristotleΒ΄s argument for a first mover?
yes π
ok that is our starting point
lemme stop you right there
Let him finish
I started my own server, does anyone wanna join?
I have a beef with first mover
ok
If nothing can move on its own, something must move first right?
Chqnge my mind: the R9 fury is better than the GTX 1080
that is not the argument it is a question of: can there be an infinite regress?
I got mine for $200 new
Before the coinfags bought them all
so youre using first mover as a starting point
but you cant affirm when i restate it to you?
what is more likely in your opinion?
As infinite regress, or a first mover?