This seems pretty disingenuous from the get go. You are already making an ad hominid attack on Penn by saying that what he says cannot be trusted because he is a Magician. His career has nothing to do with his arguments.
you have burden of proof on your hands, not penn. You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know at this time. Penn is simply saying "I don't know" and by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! Therefore there is no need for a debate...just a need for you to explain how you can know the unknowable.
you have burden of proof on your hands, not penn. You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know at this time. Penn is simply saying "I don't know" and by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! Therefore there is no need for a debate...just a need for you to explain how you can know the unknowable.
you have burden of proof on your hands, not penn. You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know at this time. Penn is simply saying "I don't know" and by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! Therefore there is no need for a debate...just a need for you to explain how you can know the unknowable.
you have burden of proof on your hands, not penn. You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know at this time. Penn is simply saying "I don't know" and by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! Therefore there is no need for a debate...just a need for you to explain how you can know the unknowable.
What is the point of debating Penn what you yourself do not answer questions for example I’ve asked you these questions many times and you have yet to answer them once.
How do you know the Laws of Logic (Law of non-contradiction) in the first place, the bible doesn't actually mention them?
How do you know which laws of logic are actually absolute such as the Law of non contradiction?
I think most Christians who would posit that the laws of logic aren't axiomatic and absolute would instead argue that the laws of logic are a reflection of god's mind. They are constrained by his nature in a similar sense of how morality is argued. Of course this seems kind of like a problematic analogy because morality doesn't apply to god, where as without the laws of logic being applied to god, god can both exist and not exist at the same time.
This seems pretty disingenuous from the get go. You are already making an ad hominid attack on Penn by saying that what he says cannot be trusted because he is a Magician. His career has nothing to do with his arguments.
MaximumAxiom 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you have burden of proof on your hands, not penn. You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know at this time. Penn is simply saying "I don't know" and by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! Therefore there is no need for a debate...just a need for you to explain how you can know the unknowable.
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you have burden of proof on your hands, not penn. You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know at this time. Penn is simply saying "I don't know" and by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! Therefore there is no need for a debate...just a need for you to explain how you can know the unknowable.
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
you have burden of proof on your hands, not penn. You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know at this time. Penn is simply saying "I don't know" and by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! Therefore there is no need for a debate...just a need for you to explain how you can know the unknowable.
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
@PuffProductions08 //"you have burden of proof on your hands"//
Prove this positive claim please.
offenseofthefaith 5 months ago
you have burden of proof on your hands, not penn. You are claiming to know something that is impossible to know at this time. Penn is simply saying "I don't know" and by saying you believe in god YOU are saying you know! Therefore there is no need for a debate...just a need for you to explain how you can know the unknowable.
PuffProductions08 5 months ago
If these dick's are gonna start pointing out logical fallacies, they had better look in the mirror.
craigomatic2000 5 months ago
He will not debate you Sye .. not a chance. Keep us posted. God bless.
thecosmichippo 5 months ago 2
What is the point of debating Penn what you yourself do not answer questions for example I’ve asked you these questions many times and you have yet to answer them once.
How do you know the Laws of Logic (Law of non-contradiction) in the first place, the bible doesn't actually mention them?
How do you know which laws of logic are actually absolute such as the Law of non contradiction?
copypaper92704 5 months ago
@copypaper92704
I think most Christians who would posit that the laws of logic aren't axiomatic and absolute would instead argue that the laws of logic are a reflection of god's mind. They are constrained by his nature in a similar sense of how morality is argued. Of course this seems kind of like a problematic analogy because morality doesn't apply to god, where as without the laws of logic being applied to god, god can both exist and not exist at the same time.
MaximumAxiom 5 months ago