And that doesn't strike you as a silly set of house rules to begin discussion from?
It has nothing to do with "house rules". It's just what the scenario says.
One opinion can't invalidate another.
Ok then.
Hence introducing "zero knowledge" as the context for airing opinions is on par with finding a sitting place in the corner of a circular room.
No. In the scenario, A was offering opinion instead of knowledge. There was knowledge available but the scenario specifically stated that A did not use it. The only one introducing "zero knowledge" was A.
Feel free to introduce a better one. Just try to understand it better than you understood this one.
Hence the inherent sub moronic nature of Baldeee's request to introduce it.
One in which the house rules don't prohibit the introduction of the form of knowledge.
What is your argument from evidence for rejecting and denying your God Capracus?
Unit Musika, we’ve gone over and over in this thread why I can justify myself as God, but you sill stubbornly refuse to give any account of your own experience for knowing God. The physicist, the doctor, and the Buddhist monk can said to be experts in their respective fields, and through training and experience have acquired knowledge that could be considered special. Like the monk, have you had any training and experience that’s led you to special knowledge regarding a religion? If so, describe what this entailed. As God I already know the answer, but the other biological units would appreciate your reply.
Yes, provide the rational framework that gives me and this shit throwing zoo monkey the capacity to cure peoples ills.
I don't know what Baldeee introduced. I'm only addressing your illogical rambling.
I see you're working on the basis that if you keep spouting your misunderstanding as if that was what was stated, enough people will agree with you, rather than actually face the fallaciousness of your original dismissal.
If you can't be bothered looking at what it was a response to, you don't really have a point of address one way or another.
I thought it was obvious and specific.
It's kind of the popular modus operandi of our resident atheists : they want to discuss philosophy and history but they don't want to study the subject.
Amazing how broad a subject can become when you introduce special pleading devoid of any reference points of knowledge, huh.
I am working on the basis of you saying claims of knowledge can be assessed by divorcing them from knowledge.
The subject of this thread is your evidence and argument for rejecting your God Capracus.
Which remains my longstanding speculation for the oA theists's motive in doing that, every single time they post on a science forum.
If you dismantle "knowledge", you effectively destroy the table that any such evidence could be presented on.
Meh
