7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
The answer is logical: something that doesn't exist is not here to do anything,
which include the ability to know, or not know.
Once again, you're still clinging to the same error to which you've been clinging all along. You are imagining, against truth, that your phrase, "something that doesn't exist", is meaningful. To be referred to is to be, and to be is to exist, and so, if something is being referred to by your phrase, "something that doesn't exist", then the thing you are calling "something that doesn't exist" is something that does exist.
The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." One elementary thing about saying that that makes the fool a fool is the simple fact that he/she has just called something, or someone,"God", and yet, has denied that the something he/she called "God" exists. To call something, or someone, "God", is for that something, or someone, to exist; that is, for something, or someone, to be called "God" is for that something, or someone, to be--to exist.
Are you referring to something, or not, by your phrase "something that doesn't exist"? If you are referring to something by it, then you are (of necessity) referring, by it, to something that does exist. And, it seems rather silly to refer to something that exists by a phrase like "something that doesn't exist" rather than by a phrase like "something that does exist".
If you're not referring to something, then you're not stating truth.
Also, to be "not here to do anything" is to be, and to be is to exist. Whatever is "not here to do anything" is something that exists.
You're the one who loves playing with words - and it caught up with you. :shrug:
By "playing with words", you mean "asking people questions which are inexorably embarrassing to their cherished falsehoods".
Not only do you insist on your irrational argument (despite the clear, logical explanation given).......either you're being obtuse about it, or it's really sailing way over your head.........
Another meaningless phrase: "irrational argument". No argument is irrational; you hand me something that's irrational, and what you've handed me is not an argument.
Again, you've explained nothing;
.....but obviously, you can't keep a discussion without resorting to personal attacks.
I simply told you the truth when I called you a weasel. That's what you've been doing, persistently: trying to weasel yourself out of answering the questions I asked you. Even in your last post (#258) you are still being a weasel. You call truth-telling "resorting to personal attacks".
Well it's said the first one to throw a personal attack is the one who loses the argument.......nothing more for me to say.
Even in your own eyes you have lost, since, as you and I both know, you have needed, persistently, to stonewall against the questions I have asked you. You and I both know that you're not in the least satisfied with your performance, yet, what other choice do you have, so long as you stubbornly cling to your irrational mindset.
This so-called discussion between us has really sunk down to an "idle talk."
Before we say anything more we'd regret, I'm bowing out of it.
You already weaseled your way out of it from the get-go; and, your performance never really sunk down at all, but simply started out, and remained, at a low level. The posts you have written in reaction to my posts, have, indeed, been almost exclusively comprised of idle talk.
Again, betsy123, here are some of the questions against which you have been stonewalling:
- Is God able to know that you, betsy123, are wiser than God? Yes or No?
[*]Is God able to know that you, betsy123, are holier than God? Yes or No?
[*]Is God able to know that you, betsy123, are mightier than God? Yes or No?
[*]Is God able to know that you, betsy123, created the heaven and the earth? Yes or No?
You don't answer these questions, you lose the debate.
You answer "No" to these questions, you answer correctly, but you still, equally, lose the debate.