I think perhaps you were using the first definition.
Seeing some of your previous attempts at trying to think what i was thinking, i would seriously advise you to try and think about what you're thinking, because your attempts just aren't working.
That wasn't very helpful. Seems you don't really want to debate me at all. Judging by your response it would seem safe to wager you were using the second definition. Which would mean you believe the laws of nature (as they actually are) are not laws at all, and can be defied.
I didn't claim that. It was implied by you. Knowledge requires some observer.
I, at no time, claimed that knowledge doesn't require an observer, all i said was; "The knowledge was always there we just happened to become aware of it." You are the one who said i implied no observer.
Try and stay with me.
That's right, because it is a direct implication of your statement that knowledge always existed even before we were aware of it. If one isn't aware of it, then you don't know it, and thus, you don't have the knowledge. If you're the first, then no one has the knowledge, and therefore the knowledge doesn't exist yet.
How do you propose to have knowledge existing when there is no one to have it?
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said there is no one to observe it, that is your simplistic inference.
I didn't put words in your mouth, I simply asked you a question. Yes, I did make the inference (and you have no justification for calling it simplistic). I was expecting you would claim God as an observer and we could go from there, but unfortunately you haven't been able to keep up.
I propose God not only observes it, but is it, and is the source of it. Complicated.......yes, but it makes complete sense to me.
Simplistic actually. Now back up your proposition, if you please.
Do you really dispute this?
Carry on with this madness and i will exterminate you.
Uh huh. Seems you don't really dispute it anyway, you claim God possesses the knowledge.
I'm surprised you can't come up with your own example.
Huh!!!
Say what?
Your own example of someone gaining new knowledge. Unless you claim that God is omniscient too...
She was the first to know, before anyone else.
That is a nonsense example, can you not come up with something better.
Don't need to. There's nothing wrong with this example, is there? If there is then speak up.
The discovery of pluto by Clyde Tombaugh. No one knew of it before he discovered it. Need I go on?
Can you prove that, or is a statement based on faith?
It is a statement based on evidence & reason. I am not certain of it, but I have no reason to doubt it. Obviously it was discovered by someone, and I'm not aware of anyone contesting that he was the first.
Prove it. Nah, that's too big a request. Just provide some evidence. ...Or at least a reason for believing it.
If you become a good little boy, i might engage in some dialouge with you, regarding the subject.
LOL, right. If you continue to evade, then I'll have even more reason to doubt that you have anything more substantial than hot air. And who are you to judge the morality of my actions?
You could be right. But i grow bored of Wes's tiresome questions, which have no relevance to anything. He was probably just pissed at me making a fool out of you and tried to scrape back some dignity.
The only one you've made a fool of, if anyone is yourself.
Interesting. Are you Muslim then? Or do you simply believe both?
Matter of opinion.
Work that one out for yourself. Better still, make it your homework assignment.
If you are unable to espouse your own beliefs and arguments, then stop wasting our time. How about you do some research and come back with something more substantial. That's your homework assignment for the rest of the decade. Have fun!
If you were honest, you might just retract your ridiculous statement or yield to superior reasoning in order that you might improve yourself. It's obvious that you only seek to promote your unfound, ridiculous rhetoric.
Indeed, on this we agree.
