Yeah, but we won't get anywhere if we can't question our basic premises. Just like common sense doesn't always apply to certain phenomenon outside our realm of experience, common meanings don't often apply to every philosophical question.
You get off to a bad start with misspelling my name.You see, Baldee,
I see no evidence that he asked for an explanation of this proposition.I get the impression that Sarkus is into requiring endless explanation from me on a sentence that is obvious to anyone what is the meaning of the thought intended by the writer of the sentence, everything with a begininng has a cause.
There's nothing to dialogue:Suppose you and I dialog on the sentence, we will not go back anymore to who said what, etc.
Yes.But I just have to say this, do you understand the sentence, everything with a beginning has a cause, and the example to illustrate to you what is the meaning intended by the writer of the sentence, namely: a baby has a beginning, it has a cause for its beginning, scil., in its parents.
And I will remind you that this is not a court of law.If you will ask me to explain even though I already give an example, in a court of law the judge will remind you that you are in danger of contempt of court; as the author of this thread, I will just tell you that you are not qualified to dialog with me.
No, thanks.Suppose, let you be the one to make a sentence and ask me to tell you what I understand of your sentence, and further do I have a sentence opposite to your sentence.
It has fast become clear that having a viable communication with you is nigh on impossible.Oh no, please don't ask me to explain to you what I mean by asking you to make a sentence, etc., etc. etc.
That will be for me the realization again that it is impossible to have a viable communication with you as also with Sarkus and with Seattle.
If you WANT to learn, check this site out for an answer.Okay, Baldeee, allow me to just ask you to tell readers here what you can understand of this sentence:
Everything with a beginning has a cause.
Just don't not ask me to explain it, because I submit that anyone who is possessed of reading comprehension can understand it and to repeat the same thought it in other words, or in another language that people who know English also have a reading comprehension of i.e. the other language.
So you don't not want me to ask you to explain it?Everything with a beginning has a cause.
Just don't not ask me to explain it, because I submit that anyone who is possessed of reading comprehension can understand it and to repeat the same thought it in other words, or in another language that people who know English also have a reading comprehension of i.e. the other language.
What is the point of what you are doing? Do you win a prize, even though the 2 fellas give up, not because you "won"Now is that time that I give up on Baldeee as like I did previously with Sarkus.
Okay, I am now inviting another atheist to dialog with me on God exists or not.
I think it was Sarkus that gave up on you, as a number have done, not the other way round (ref: post #720).Now is that time that I give up on Baldeee as like I did previously with Sarkus.
There is no dialogue with you.Okay, I am now inviting another atheist to dialog with me on God exists or not.
You keep repeating claims like that long after several posts by others have debunked them. They are all false. Not everything has a beginning, not everything with a beginning has a cause.pachomius said:Everything with a beginning has a cause.