08-06-2018, 12:01 AM
funnyguy wrote:
By clinging to your belief that I don't know you're doing exactly what you're saying people do and strikes you.
First of all, I wouldn't call it a belief. I'd call it a hypothetical that, at the moment, the evidence I'm aware of seems to more greatly support than dispute. You haven't really provided much evidence against it. If you do provide a stronger case that you know what you ate, what your name is, or anything else than that you don't absolutely know it for certain, then I'll change my mind. It's as simple as that.
Please go towards my first posts and read how I said that nothing is constant everything is subject to change it is a matter of the assemblage position and that perception and information can shift in the blink of an eye. I repeated that a few times too.
That seems like a pretty good argument against you knowing your name and what you ate for breakfast, isn't it? Why do you keep wanting to make saying that you know things as reasonable?
By clinging to your belief that I don't know you're doing exactly what you're saying people do and strikes you.
First of all, I wouldn't call it a belief. I'd call it a hypothetical that, at the moment, the evidence I'm aware of seems to more greatly support than dispute. You haven't really provided much evidence against it. If you do provide a stronger case that you know what you ate, what your name is, or anything else than that you don't absolutely know it for certain, then I'll change my mind. It's as simple as that.
Please go towards my first posts and read how I said that nothing is constant everything is subject to change it is a matter of the assemblage position and that perception and information can shift in the blink of an eye. I repeated that a few times too.
That seems like a pretty good argument against you knowing your name and what you ate for breakfast, isn't it? Why do you keep wanting to make saying that you know things as reasonable?