Originally posted by Bardock42So I missaid something. Why do you care?
Yes.Do you listen to me though?
I will spell it out for you again:
None of it exists until it's proven.
WRONG. Things can exist without being proven.
Things that are not proven should not be considered as existent without any evidence
Correct. But not what you said in the first place, which is why my "Bullshit" was totally accurate.
Do you understand now?
Originally posted by Bardock42I didn't deny it. I explained to you what I meant, 3 times. It's never good enough for you though, is it?
What a stupid thing to say.We are on a religious debate forum, you said something wrong, I pointed it out, you continued to deny that you made a mistake. That's how debates work. I showed you what you made wrong.
Originally posted by lord xyzActually you did deny it.
I didn't deny it. I explained to you what I meant, 3 times. It's never good enough for you though, is it?
Originally posted by lord xyz
Ermm no. That's how Science works. If there's no evidence for it, it's non-existant (to us).
After I told you again that that was nonsense you pretended like I didn't understand your point, while in fact you just didn't state it. You also called me an idiot. Not once did you admit to your mistake. Even now you are making shit up.
And it can be good enough for me, but what you just did wasn't. That was just dishonest and stupid.
Originally posted by Bardock42Okay, from my point of view it was like you didn't understand, as you are not specific when you post, probably because that way you can change what you mean when you say something.
Actually you did deny it.After I told you again that that was nonsense you pretended like I didn't understand your point, while in fact you just didn't state it. You also called me an idiot. Not once did you admit to your mistake. Even now you are making shit up.
And it can be good enough for me, but what you just did wasn't. That was just dishonest and stupid.
I admit that what I said was incorrect and that I should have been more specific, but in the second post I was. The (to us) part shows what I meant when I said it. Obviously that wasn't good enough for you as you just love to insult me by calling me an idiot.
And what's this about me making shit up? Where did you get that from?
Originally posted by lord xyzThe "to us" was still incorrect.
Okay, from my point of view it was like you didn't understand, as you are not specific when you post, probably because that way you can change what you mean when you say something.I admit that what I said was incorrect and that I should have been more specific, but in the second post I was. The (to us) part shows what I meant when I said it. Obviously that wasn't good enough for you as you just love to insult me by calling me an idiot.
And what's this about me making shit up? Where did I do that?
But I accept that you admit your mistake now. No harm done.
Originally posted by lord xyzI would listen if you were correct. But the "to us" is still not correct. Black Holes were existed (also to us) before we could prove them. Probably the same for dark matter. Gravity. Etc.
It's not incorrect. The "to us" means...oh **** it. You won't listen anyway.
What you said is just plain wrong.
"Non-existant to us" is the same way as saying "can't be classed as real". In a sence that if we can't class it as real, we can't say it exists, therefore, doesn't until proven. Understand? I agree that just because we can't see the evidence, it doesn't mean it's not there, but all we can class it as is non-existant. So to us, it is non-existant as there's no evidence for it.
Gravity can't be proven as real either, but now we're going off-topic by debating what can be classed as real.
Originally posted by lord xyzYou use clearly defined words in your own obscure and wrong way. We do not class it as "non-existent" that is a clear statement like "existent", we class it as possible, likely, unlikely, unclear ... not non-existent. You use the word "existence" incorrectly, that's why this whole debate came about and you still show no inclination to use it the way it is defined.
"Non-existant to us" is the same way as saying "can't be classed as real". In a sence that if we can't class it as real, we can't say it exists, therefore, doesn't until proven. Understand? I agree that just because we can't see the evidence, it doesn't mean it's not there, but all we can class it as is non-existant. So to us, it is non-existant as there's no evidence for it.Gravity can't be proven as real either, but now we're going off-topic by debating what can be classed as real.
Originally posted by Bardock42That first sentence is ironic. As to the rest, it's either existant, or non-existant. Now, neither are absolutes. As time goes on, new evidence is discovered but as of now, something that doesn't have evidence to say it exists, is said to not exist. Likeliness doesn't make it exist or not. You know the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", you can look at science the same. "False until evident". Yes there's likeliness of existance, but until absolute proof of it's existance is revealed, we can't say it exists, therefore, it doesn't.
You use clearly defined words in your own obscure and wrong way. We do not class it as "non-existent" that is a clear statement like "existent", we class it as possible, likely, unlikely, unclear ... not non-existent. You use the word "existence" incorrectly, that's why this whole debate came about and you still show no inclination to use it the way it is defined.
You ****ing idiot. I don't know how I can break it down more. Do you really need ****ing puppets to understand something.
Originally posted by lord xyz
That first sentence is ironic. As to the rest, it's either existant, or non-existant. Now, neither are absolutes. As time goes on, new evidence is discovered but as of now, something that doesn't have evidence to say it exists, is said to not exist. Likeliness doesn't make it exist or not. You know the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", you can look at science the same. "False until evident". Yes there's likeliness of existance, but until absolute proof of it's existance is revealed, we can't say it exists, therefore, it doesn't.
Existence is an absolute. It is an attribute a thing either has or hasn't got. Our limited understanding has zero to do with it. No new evidence or lack of said changes the existence of a thing.
You still use existence wrong. Even if there is zero evidence that something exists, it does not mean that it doesn't exist. Your conclusion is childish and you fundamentally misunderstand science as well as English.
You are infuriatingly slow. It pains me to explain things to you.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You ****ing idiot. I don't know how I can break it down more. Do you really need ****ing puppets to understand something.Existence is an absolute. It is an attribute a thing either has or hasn't got. Our limited understanding has zero to do with it. No new evidence or lack of said changes the existence of a thing.
You still use existence wrong. Even if there is zero evidence that something exists, it does not mean that it doesn't exist. Your conclusion is childish and you fundamentally misunderstand science as well as English.
You are infuriatingly slow. It pains me to explain things to you.
I agree with you. Existance is there, regardless of our observation or recognition of it. 👆
However, I think the words Existance and Reality are incorrectly used interchangeably. Either that, or the term "reality" has more than one official definition.