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

What is your standard of evidence to change your mind?

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 Aristotle´s argument for a first mover?

yes 😂

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?

If nothing can move on its own, something must move first.
Things are moving.
Too bad gravity from one stationary object can move another stationary object.

but ill hear you out

but this is the crux

do continue im intrigued

He's talking before gravity existed, something caused it to come into existence

or, reality in general

except gravity is just the bending of spacetime.

so nothing cause it to come into existence