how sad that I spent so many years talking to such an intelligent man who only knows how to "speak of what others WROTE" and how sad that I spent so many years talking to such an intelligent man who only knows how to "speak of what others WROTE" and has NO INNER experience of MYTH or God or THE WORKINGS OF THE UNIVERSE that are "personified" by these:
'Argument by Omniscience' is not a valid response; it's a fallacy, quite a common one too.
"All people believe in something. Everyone knows that."
There's only two ways for the arguer to actually know what is claimed:
Either, the arguer has consulted all people about it ( which the arguer hasn't - the arguer wouldn't have the time to argue when trying to establish such a feat )
Or, the arguer is omniscient ( which the arguer isn't - (s)he'd be the most famous person on earth )
Claiming on an internet forum that a poster has no inner experience of myth or God or the workings of the universe that are "personified" by these:
The arguer can only know to be true what is being said here about the poster when the arguer has consulted the poster in question in person ( which the arguer hasn't, I can vouch for that :^D )
and the arguer would need to be some sort of omniscient to know about the nature of 'God', as implied, and know how the universe works, as implied, the arguer knows ( which the arguer isn't - as far as we know, no one has been declared omniscient yet 8^D )
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : incontrovertibility
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -
New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
CD: short for incontrovertible