Fake News

[jediuser598]

Only with God, do we get truth, according to you. As an aside, if God didn't exist, and you said "There is no God," then would that be true?

I would say DSL would say, "God can't not exist, then nothing would exist, thus you wouldn't be around to say 'there is no God.'"

If God doesn't exist, then who created this thread? Who created the code for this website? Stupid son of a bitch...

So you're saying if God doesn't exist, then existence itself is impossible?

[pineapplemike]

tim pool is fake news



i had no idea the poor guy was bald

[heydaralon]

I would say DSL would say, "God can't not exist, then nothing would exist, thus you wouldn't be around to say 'there is no God.'"

If God doesn't exist, then who created this thread? Who created the code for this website? Stupid son of a bitch...

So you're saying if God doesn't exist, then existence itself is impossible?

At the very least, someone with a coding background would have needed to make the site. Then you need someone with an IT background to have kept it up and running. That's 2 people already. Next comes the money. Someone would need to pay money to some sitehosting service to keep it online. So we have already established that 3 people exist. Now, because you and I are talking back and forth, we could be 2 of those 3 people. There's no way of knowing. I can't code, or do IT, so that probably makes me the money guy. That means you are one of the other 2. The question is: who is the third guy we know exists?

Here's the kicker: I'm broke as fuck, so I can't be the money guy.

[Fife]

Don't wear my hat Ange.

[jediuser598]

If God doesn't exist, then who created this thread? Who created the code for this website? Stupid son of a bitch...

So you're saying if God doesn't exist, then existence itself is impossible?

At the very least, someone with a coding background would have needed to make the site. Then you need someone with an IT background to have kept it up and running. That's 2 people already. Next comes the money. Someone would need to pay money to some sitehosting service to keep it online. So we have already established that 3 people exist. Now, because you and I are talking back and forth, we could be 2 of those 3 people. There's no way of knowing. I can't code, or do IT, so that probably makes me the money guy. That means you are one of the other 2. The question is: who is the third guy we know exists?

They could all be deceptions. Ever have a hallucination, or a dream so real you couldn't tell the difference? You can know to yourself that you exist, but you can't necessarily know that other people exist. (basically Des Cartes)

It could also be the result of a universal deceiver God or machine who feeds you false information. It could also be a modified memory, where in reality we live in a place that can create artificial memories for people, then all of this could be just an artificial memory and none of it actual reality.

There are a lot of possibilities.

What DSL is arguing though is that there is no existence without God. That's his fundamental argument.

[Speaker to Animals]

A=A is objectively true.

No?

And your question is a loaded one, I'm not saying nothing I say can be objectively true.

I'm saying your basis of truth relies on the existence of God. If God doesn't exist, then nothing could be true.

At the very core of your reckoning of objective truth, is God. You believe that if a person doesn't believe in God, they're missing that core, it's a house without a foundation and easily toppled.

So does A=A?

Your trying to make this about religion does not work. My argument is philosophical.

You cannot have liberalism without idealism, and idealism always always always results in sophistry.

To the man who disbelieves he can know objective truth, all language is nothing more than a weapon to use in manipulation, deception, or the achievement of power. There is no other reason to engage with another outside mundane communication problems.

Men like me seek to argue about what is best and true, whereas the liberal man only uses argument in the pursuit of power and influence.

1. Does A=A?
2. So according to the bold part, all liberal men are evil?

1. This is idealism. You are playing symbolic games. If by A=A you mean the principle of noncontradiction, then that is obviously true. But liberals do not actually believe that either. One can list examples where the liberal thinks something is both true and not true at the same time. They build entire fake academic disciplines around it. It's the basis of Marxism (Hegelian dialectic).

2. Yes. Liberalism is just another term for what St. Augustine called the City of Man as opposed to the City of God. Since you want to get religious, a man can either be on the boat (ark) or off the boat, and you as a liberal are definitively off the boat, not even trying. This is the point of the parable of the goats and the sheep. But my argument really is not restricted to religious people. Lots of people are realists and not religious. They still believe in objective truth and live their lives to that end. Liberals hate truth like they hate anybody who dares to say they are not real women when they have a penis, or that women with real vaginas are not as capable as men at many tasks and jobs. This is list is so very long of the self-evident truths liberals hate so much as to threaten physical violence upon anybody who dares to speak them.

[heydaralon]

So you're saying if God doesn't exist, then existence itself is impossible?

At the very least, someone with a coding background would have needed to make the site. Then you need someone with an IT background to have kept it up and running. That's 2 people already. Next comes the money. Someone would need to pay money to some sitehosting service to keep it online. So we have already established that 3 people exist. Now, because you and I are talking back and forth, we could be 2 of those 3 people. There's no way of knowing. I can't code, or do IT, so that probably makes me the money guy. That means you are one of the other 2. The question is: who is the third guy we know exists?

They could all be deceptions. Ever have a hallucination, or a dream so real you couldn't tell the difference? You can know to yourself that you exist, but you can't necessarily know that other people exist. (basically Des Cartes)

It could also be the result of a universal deceiver God or machine who feeds you false information. It could also be a modified memory, where in reality we live in a place that can create artificial memories for people, then all of this could be just an artificial memory and none of it actual reality.

There are a lot of possibilities.

What DSL is arguing though is that there is no existence without God. That's his fundamental argument.

Its Descartes, but that dude is hardly a credible source. True story, he believed that dogs and cats were essentially machines so to test it he threw these animals out of the top of a tower and watch their reactions as they fell to the ground, to see if they expressed fear. Not exactly a stable guy. Who is the third man?

[Speaker to Animals]

What DSL is arguing though is that there is no existence without God. That's his fundamental argument.

That was not my argument, as much as you want to make this about God.

But while you are prattling on about God, I might as well point out that your spite for objective truth stems from your hatred towards God. You disbelieve in truth precisely because you object to God. You dispute moral realism because you want to do your own thing, and in order to do your own thing (becoming your own god), you have to reject the true God. This is why the liberal is what he is. This is why the liberal rejects truth and is therefore inherently a liar.

[jediuser598]

What DSL is arguing though is that there is no existence without God. That's his fundamental argument.

That was not my argument, as much as you want to make this about God.

But while you are prattling on about God, I might as well point out that your spite for objective truth stems from your hatred towards God. You disbelieve in truth precisely because you object to God. You dispute moral realism because you want to do your own thing, and in order to do your own thing (becoming your own god), you have to reject the true God. This is why the liberal is what he is. This is why the liberal rejects truth and is therefore inherently a liar.

I believe A=A.

If you can show me where I've erred in that belief, I would certainly like to hear it.

But you say that since I'm a liberal, I don't believe that A=A. News to me.

Can anything exist if God doesn't exist? Can God not exist?

[Speaker to Animals]

What DSL is arguing though is that there is no existence without God. That's his fundamental argument.

That was not my argument, as much as you want to make this about God.

But while you are prattling on about God, I might as well point out that your spite for objective truth stems from your hatred towards God. You disbelieve in truth precisely because you object to God. You dispute moral realism because you want to do your own thing, and in order to do your own thing (becoming your own god), you have to reject the true God. This is why the liberal is what he is. This is why the liberal rejects truth and is therefore inherently a liar.

I believe A=A.

If you can show me where I've erred in that belief, I would certainly like to hear it.

But you say that since I'm a liberal, I don't believe that A=A. News to me.

Can anything exist if God doesn't exist? Can God not exist?

Example:

"The Earth is getting hotter."

"The fact that the annual temperatures are getting lower is proof the Earth is getting hotter."

Liberals in general believe any evidence is proof of their ideology. It doesn't matter whether A is true or false.