That is NOT what I said. You are twisting my words. I never said "I know you are wrong," nor did I imply that I knew that to be true. I said explicitly that the evidence suggests. That is not me "knowing," that is me seeing substantial evidence that supports a different position.

Whatever the Truth is, Is what It Is. I don't know it, I don't profess to know it, but I can follow evidence, and I can see when a conclusion doesn't fit with the evidence. That has nothing to do with "knowing truth," that is simply how the act of reason works. ANYONE using logic, based on the same premises comes to the same conclusion. That is what logic is. It is not mutable. Logic is not truth however, logic is just a self-consistent language. The conclusion relies on the premises. If the premises are shown false, or premises are missing from the logical construction, the conclusion is also false. To test premises or determine if you are missing something important you must be willing to look at the evidence in earnest.

If you can learn to appreciate the depth of the difference between "knowing" and "the evidence suggests," perhaps you can better appreciate the evidence itself.

That is NOT what I said. You are twisting my words. I never said "I know you are wrong," nor did I imply that I knew that to be true. I said explicitly that the evidence suggests. That is not me "knowing," that is me seeing substantial evidence that supports a different position.

Whatever the Truth is, Is what It Is. I don't know it, I don't profess to know it, but I can follow evidence, and I can see when a conclusion doesn't fit with the evidence. That is not a "me knowing" thing, that is simply how the act of reason works. ANYONE using logic, based on the same premises comes to the same conclusion. That is what logic is. It is not mutable. Logic is not truth however, logic is just a self-consistent language. The conclusion relies on the premises. If the premises are shown false, or premises are missing from the logical construction, the conclusion is also false. To test premises or determine if you are missing something important you must be willing to look at the evidence in earnest.

If you can learn to appreciate the depth of the difference between "knowing" and "the evidence suggests," perhaps you can better appreciate the evidence itself.

That is NOT what I said. You are twisting my words. I said explicitly that the evidence suggests. That is not me "knowing," that is me seeing substantial evidence that supports a different position.

Whatever the Truth is, Is what It Is. I don't know it, I don't profess to know it, but I can follow evidence, and I can see when a conclusion doesn't fit with the evidence. That is not a "me knowing" thing, that is simply how the act of reason works. ANYONE using logic, based on the same premises comes to the same conclusion. That is what logic is. It is not mutable. Logic is not truth however, logic is just a self-consistent language. The conclusion relies on the premises. If the premises are shown false, or premises are missing from the logical construction, the conclusion is also false. To test premises or determine if you are missing something important you must be willing to look at the evidence in earnest.

If you can learn to appreciate the depth of the difference between "knowing" and "the evidence suggests," perhaps you can better appreciate the evidence itself.

Haha, that is NOT what I said. You are twisting my words. I said explicitly that the evidence suggests. That is not me "knowing," that is me seeing substantial evidence that supports a different position.

Whatever the Truth is, Is what It Is. I don't know it, I don't profess to know it, but I can follow evidence, and I can see when a conclusion doesn't fit with the evidence. That is not a "me knowing" thing, that is simply how the act of reason works. ANYONE using logic, based on the same premises comes to the same conclusion. That is what logic is. It is not mutable. Logic is not truth however, logic is just a self-consistent language. The conclusion relies on the premises. If the premises are shown false, or premises are missing from the logical construction, the conclusion is also false. To test premises or determine if you are missing something important you must be willing to look at the evidence in earnest.

If you can learn to appreciate the depth of the difference between "knowing" and "the evidence suggests," perhaps you can better appreciate the evidence itself.

Haha, that is NOT what I said. You are twisting my words. I said explicitly that the evidence suggests. That is not me "knowing," that is me seeing substantial evidence that supports a different position.

Whatever the Truth is, Is what It Is. I don't know it, I don't profess to know it, but I can follow evidence, and I can see when a conclusion doesn't fit with the evidence. That is not a "me knowing" thing, that is simply how the act of reason works. ANYONE using logic, based on the same pieces of evidence comes to the same conclusion. That is what logic is. It is not mutable. Logic is not truth however, logic is just a self-consistent language. The conclusion relies on the premises. If the premises are shown false, or premises are missing from the logical construction, the conclusion is also false. To test premises or determine if you are missing something important you must be willing to look at the evidence in earnest.

If you can learn to appreciate the depth of the difference between "knowing" and "the evidence suggests," perhaps you can better appreciate the evidence itself.

Haha, that is NOT what I said. You are twisting my words. I said explicitly that the evidence suggests. That is not me "knowing," that is me seeing substantial evidence that supports a different position.

Whatever the Truth is, Is what It Is. I don't know it, I don't profess to know it, but I can follow evidence, and I can see when a conclusion doesn't fit with the evidence. That is not a "me knowing" thing, that is simply how the act of reason works. ANYONE using logic, based on the same pieces of evidence comes to the same conclusion. That is what logic is. It is not mutable. Logic is not truth however, logic is just a self-consistent language. The conclusion relies on the premises. If the premises are shown false, or premises are missing from the logical construction, the conclusion is also false. To test premises you must be willing to look at the evidence in earnest.

If you can learn to appreciate the depth of the difference between "knowing" and "the evidence suggests," perhaps you can better appreciate the evidence itself.

Haha, that is NOT what I said. You are twisting my words. I said explicitly that the evidence suggests. That is not me "knowing," that is me seeing substantial evidence that supports a different position.

Whatever the Truth is, Is what It Is. I don't know it, I don't profess to know it, but I can follow evidence, and I can see when a conclusion doesn't fit with the evidence. That is not a "me knowing" thing, that is simply how the act of reason works. ANYONE using logic, based on the same pieces of evidence comes to the same conclusion. That is what logic is. It is not mutable. Logic is not truth however, logic is just a self-consistent language. The conclusion relies on the premises. If the premises are shown false, the conclusion is also false. To test premises you must be willing to look at the evidence in earnest.

If you can learn to appreciate the depth of the difference between "knowing" and "the evidence suggests," perhaps you can better appreciate the evidence itself.

Haha, that is NOT what I said. You are twisting my words. I said explicitly that the evidence suggests. That is not me "knowing," that is me seeing substantial evidence that supports a different position.

Whatever the Truth is, Is what It Is. I don't know it, I don't profess to know it, but I can follow evidence, and I can see when a conclusion doesn't fit with the evidence. That is not a "me knowing" thing, that is simply how the act of reason works. ANYONE using logic, based on the same pieces of evidence comes to the same conclusion. That is what logic is. It is not mutable. Logic is not truth however, logic is just a self-consistent language. The conclusion relies on the premises. If the premises are shown false, the conclusion is also false. To test premises you must be willing to look at the evidence in earnest.

If you can learn to appreciate the depth of the difference between "knowing" and "the evidence suggests," perhaps you can learn to see the evidence with less bias.

Haha, that is NOT what I said. You are twisting my words. I said explicitly that the evidence suggests. If you can learn to appreciate the depth of the difference, perhaps you can learn to see the evidence with less bias.