It is irrational to think BOP is on athiesm

The philosopher Code The Fool: One thing I could never wrap my head around is why, would anyone would be motivated to argue for the sake appearance. As a philosopher, the method of falsification is the logical refutation by others; that is you want to find the best possible refuter you can. Thus if your argument holds you can feel more confident of the strength of you arguments. It is not useful to argue with someone who doesn’t have the necessary skills to refute you well. Secondly you want to make sure you follow the Principle of Charity, a chivalry of reason, which is to presuppose the most rational articulation you partner, has argued. It is a sign or respect and it is to you benefit, because if you know you the opposing argument as well as you could, you know exactly, where to target it if there is a whole. A third reason is that the worse thing possible is to get a false affirmation. That is to feel more confident in your argument, because of and irrationally error that you opponent wasn’t able to point out. But they most important thing rather when winning is to accept refutation when a contradiction have been shown. That is the only way you can know where you need to adjust your model/theory, if you know anything about science, that you know this is the heart of the scientific method. Where the ideas is you have much more knowledge then we think we do from the experience that we have had. All, experiences. I mean all in that every conscious recognition what so ever is an experience. (not the physicalism understanding in that experience is only sense data. ) That is our Absolute Experience all that we experience. Are best humanly assets like “language” can also be our biggest curse. For the worse thing to do is to confuse our language with the reality it is meant to DESCRIBE. But never ever commit the rational sin of defining something into existence or out of existence. For we can all recognize clearly that I may use the word “computer” to refer to the idea of a “hat” But NO MATTER what I change the ‘Word’ to refer to(aka definition) It does not affect what was previously LABELED my “computer”.. That is you may mislabel/misrepresent reality with poor definition or words that don’t refer to anything but an irrational ‘idea’ but absolute reality itself can never be wrong. I have presented the most simplest a yet one of the most powerful arguments of philosophy. But why must our self-bias be so high that we would assume so hastily that because we don’t understand something it follows that the other person, is irrational. Even though the other person, said specifically that the argument is there. Do they think I am A FOOL!! The argument was simply this “THERE IS ONLY EXISTENCE”, that which is non-existence is not even there to talk about. That is the very fact that we understand the difference between unicorns and leprechaun, presupposes a necessary existence from which we can tell the difference NO MATTER HOW WE LABEL IT. A better use of language would be to say that we do not recognize any physical correspondence to the ‘idea;’ of a unicorn. For all physical knowledge is dependent upon the correspondence, of our ideas and sense data. If we did not have the “idea” of something there would be nothing to verify a correspondence in the first place. Parmenides “But gave upon things which although absent are securely Present in thought” It does not matter whether we label ideas as “abstract;” which may refer to having no real existence” it will never be the case that they have no real existence. Up on the Hill! Here is something to think about, let’s stop for a second and think about that fact that we call sense data as concrete “real” yet we are much surer that 1=1 or 1+1=2 then we are sure if we are dreaming or awake. The Problem which confuses us about is that we are so used to thinking in terms of things existing in Space. It may intuitively sound absurd to think of exist which are not space related. (it took me a long time to grasp this concept clearly) But we can feel more grounded when remember that emotions are not felt in a spatial context. Nor do other logical intuitions, depend on it. Secondly, we all have an intuition of a contradiction. In psychology we call it Cognitive Dissonance. That is the uncomfortable feeling when our ideas are in opposition. I call it the Philosopher intuition. But this intuition does not depend on a spatial context. But logical intuition supersedes space conception and all experiences. As we begin to grasp the idea of pre-spatial experiences, you may be prepared to notice that there is not as much in a visual-spatial context as you thought. In fact all there is in space are MOVING BODIES. All other things we know are apprehended in other forms. But I think I am getting to complex now. Much respect if you were able to stay with me on that. If you don’t get it you mind want to try another read later. Earth So let get back down to earth and see how the argument amounts to. Parmenides “The other, that is not, and that it is necessary for it not to be, this I point out to you, to be the path of the completely un-learnable, for neither may you know that which is not(for it is not to be accomplished, nor may you ever declare it. For this is the same for thinking and of being.” That is only the existence of something can be evidence or proven. Because existence is all there IS! Aka The Absolute Universe Moreover non-existence=/=non-existence because it’s not there to even equal itself. Even if you try and predication something with non-existence for let God equal X 0(X) =0 It does not make a difference to change the language to no God, or not, because the language does not change the reality of anything. For all you will be doing are playing “language games.” One last and very point to take away is doing not confuse the concept of negative and positive. In that there a negative depend on a positive, but no negative exist. It is only in relative explanations, where positive and negative are relative to a standard. We can just take the “Absolute value” of the negative which gets rid of the positive and negative. Actually, on last think, be very care not to confuse Recognition with Existence. In that because we can’t recognize something it does not exist. (This is the only thing left I haven’t cover clearly) Now, as a Fool I am well practiced to dealing rigorous analysis. So I have trouble telling how far from the norm I am going. But if you can grasp all of this, it is pretty Cool! VOTE FOOL!