In offering this position I note that millions experience a connection to a being greater than themselves through means other than the classical five senses. — jksmba
People dislike the "God debate" primarily because they get frustrated that their conversation partners aren't convinced by the same things as them. — Tzeentch
Please work through the first sentence of this post.1) Ignorance as an absence of knowledge is merely observing a gradation of knowledge. — eodnhoj7
English, please. You don't get points either for being obscure or from making your reader provide the meaning.2) One cannot negate knowledge without fundamentally resulting in a form of multiplicity. — eodnhoj7
Didn't you just write that ignorance is a gradation wrt knowledge?3) Ignorance can only be observed as an absence considering it exists dually to knowledge. — eodnhoj7
It exists, but is not a thing in itself?4) It is not a thing in itself but rather a statement of relation, hence separation. — eodnhoj7
The first sentence, again.5) One who is ignorant is one who is separated from knowledge. — eodnhoj7
I asked you for a shorter simpler clearer version.BELOW is a longer version of the argument, — eodnhoj7
Apparently, but I very specifically was.We are not talking about square circles, — eodnhoj7
To know ignorance is to know; hence knowledge.
We can start from there. — eodnhoj7
Sorry, I got a little dramatic with the title. I should have said, "an end to the 'proof of God' debate." — BrianW
I like your way of reasoning, but I don't see why we should aspire to end the debate. — Tzeentch
Can this be the end of the God debate? — BrianW
Given that God's [non-]existence cannot be proven, it seems unlikely. — Pattern-chaser
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.