What is your standard of truth? The standard of truth of people living on the "bezelbug bradiboy" planet or the standardization of the "local" community?

MORE SIMPLE. What is your standard of testing correctness?

What if the ethical model you use is taken from the ethics prevailing in other countries? It could be irrelevant. Does that mean misguided thinking? NO!

Relevant thinking models? No. Doesn’t a relevant thinking model mean a realistic thinkin...

To test means to compare the tested with the standard of truth.

So, every time you test something, of course you involve standardization. As simple as that.

My question is, what is your standard of truth? We ar...

That in the end finding certainty, that’s another story, but the main mission is exploring the possibility.

If it is possible then it can be confirmed. If it is possible 0.9, then it could be rounded to 1 certainty.

Yes, because even though your way of thinking is relevant, it makes sense, it’s been this & that’s it, but it’s still not realistic! What? ️

Yep. You're not realistic if you are not completely realistic! Sorry, this isn't a philosophical sta...

What is the wisdom behind this? Simple.

That when you deny something, something must have absolutely no trace, no trace of its truth, nothing in any way to trace its possibility, not the slightest hint of its possibility in...

🔰 Impossible gives no chance , while possible indicates there is chance

🔰 It is possible for a thing to be true because similar example can be found, while something is confirmed to be true because the truth is realized

🔰 If a thing is impossible, then there can't be a single examp...

What model do you use to think?

• A simple example ... you want to renovate a house. What house model do you want to apply?
• You want to shave your hair? What hairstyle would you like to imitate?

It is always necessary to have a realistic comparison model!

If you deny that there is no Creator - God, even though your own reasoning admits that for “a product” there needs to be a maker. Then they (atheists) argued "yes, it’s clear someo...

It’s like someone trying to think of a form of impossibility. Whereas there has never been an example or there is no trace of a piece called impossibility. Even if you say "something is impossible", that is the opposite of the possible reality (there is a reality involved...

Worse? They are trapped by their own game, like mathematicians fiddling with formulas. That’s the philosopher who tinkers with meaning and then trapped himself into atheism.

Furthermore the atheist maestro (Richard Dawkins) or whoever succes...

Or more unrealistic...

"can " .... " "...." then "...." and "...." so that "...."? Difficult isn’t it! Why? Because there are no traces. There are no cheat sheets, there is not even the slightest cheat. HOW CAN YOU ENSURE THE POSSIBILITY OF ...

Let’s try to turn thoughts around without getting dizzy. We try to twist the meaning, change the meaning of words, without losing the common thread. Without losing the basic structure

If irrelevant means unrealistic? Then as long as it’s rea...

There’s no way you’d want to prove the existence of "dancing cakes" without an example from the world of cake.

Likewise, when you want to prove the existence of God, of course you need initial information that allows for the existence of God...