Iambiguous is avoiding my proofs

In this thread by user guide, we get something similar to what iambiguous does…

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194190

Iambiguous argues that unless you know everything, you can’t know anything.

Guide argues that if you know everything, you can’t know anything.

Iambiguous completely avoided my disproof of omniscience, and my thread on objective morality.

Iambiguous states that to know anything, you must know everything.

To which I offered “knowing that you don’t know something is a specific form of knowledge that a being who knows “everything” cannot have, this, unless it knows nothing, it cannot know what it’s like to be all of us”. The conclusion being, god exists and doesn’t exist at the same time.

I went a step further with iambiguous, who states that morality is not objective if you can’t prove every minutia … to this, I have the thought experiment about every being being able to destroy existence by mere instantaneous thought… we can prove simply by being here that this never occurs. The proof in this scenario, is that everyone who exists has decided that existence has purpose, this we can conclude perfect ethics, because if any being decided that there was only 99.9999% ethics and have this power, none of us would exist. Just because iambiguous is not smart enough to solve ALL ethics equations, doesn’t mean inferentially that they don’t all exist.

I additionally state, that if you enjoy something, say, smoking cigarettes… you have, like anything enjoyed, a limitation of some sort. You have air, you can breathe, you have a way to get it to your mouth, you have lungs. Those are all limitations, however, those limitations, like everything we enjoy, are necessary for our enjoyment … as is true for all enjoyments. Iambiguous and guide speak of the limitations and the limitlessness allowing for no objectivity. To even be limitless, you need the limit of continuity of consciousness.

One thing I will assert for certain, is that these types of arguments are simply put forth to attract females to males. Females only select contradictory males.

I’ll offer another analogy… if I ask for spill room, or walking room, or room for cream with a coffee order, it doesn’t have to be exact to be perfect. Another concept iambiguous seems not to understand when he bloviates about this in nonsense.

Aweeee. yeah. The mind at work. Information be process to me.

Although come to think of it. Descartes. The cool mean crude rude dude large and in charge, with which I consolidate with when frustrated beyond philosophy. Done quoted, that “He thought, therefore he was.” Although apart from that statement, went on to repeatedly question his quotes. ‘Questionably quoting’ i.e. “So I thought, Who was he?” “Who was it, where is it, why was it.?” And, come to think about it I more or less based my knowledge of accumulated philosophy over not what, who, or why. Yet by, ‘Therefore’, you know, by Concluding, and Providing Proofs. I relied on Socrates’ sources quite a lot. One quote, moreover I considerably account for. Thinking that someway somehow these quotes will, said by these ancient crazies, eventually provide insight or answers as to the why’s and how’s of today.

One example is of Socrates’ quote: "I know One thing, and that is, that I know nothing."

One major quote of philosophies induction.
(Easy to forget yet hard to neglect, nuh?)

Obviously, Socrates quote is a contradiction.

Obviously, you have reason for believing whatever you wish to be, ‘Obvious’, but keep it to yourself. Because, everything is obviously obvious to those you say, Obviously to. COME WITH SOME MATTER OF MATERIAL BIG Baller. Or spend less time telling people your obvious opinion.

You and silluette are nasty today…

Socrates statement refutes itself…

It’s not even in the positive affirming form, like “everything in moderation including moderation”

Let me know how this all turns out.

Like I stated, iambiguous avoids proofs.

An avoidant answer with a wink to establish social dominance and hierarchy …

Truth, proof, has no hierarchy

Have not this statement ever crossed a philosophers mind. Not a once, No? Okay so, well then the figure of speech, or simile, or analogy or crucially pivotal interpretation need not be taken explicitly to heart. unless you’d already affirm it. Anyways see it like there wasn’t an actual course of constant thought being applied to one mind. No. If anything we’re nerfed to a point where we can’t hold not a rational sequence of ideas without, forgetting, then, not knowing said processed thought patterns having occurred. If anything it would’ve been something of a contrary statement. The main purpose, was that not a one person knew anything, yet as a whole knew not every action and source thought transpiring. Was there all along, not just a mind, yet a visual play by play of how people came to realize, came to the conclusion, actually found reason for having applied incentive for Living? Putting work down to bring forth any type of archaeological or wondrous monument? No. Had not minds still conquered a mindset of the same criteria as is Everyone’s? Or are not all minds alike, and have specially unique powers? If so, then I’m afraid I’ve been studying the wrong Earth my whole life.

Where was the evidence? The actual philosophy? I’ll say, I’ve never seen such arguments be disputed and just dropped like a bag a potatoes. It’s like illogical projection of random reflexes, some sitcom based off the 40’s television era. Something of a show if you ask me. Although i didn’t get asked. I’ll still be here if you need help in determining your next line of defense though.

If you know nothing then you don’t know one thing.

End of debate.

Now this gets a little more interesting when males cannibalize their rationality (contradict themselves) to be more attractive to females. I am not a woman though, stop practicing on me.