You may ask this question another time, right now we are dealing with something else. I'm talking about THE PLANET, regardless of what name you give to it, did it or did it not exist? I wonder how long it will take you to give me an honest answer.
Creations points to a creator. For example, time, a creation of God, demands a beginning (or a point of creation). However, a creator does not point to a creator as time demands a beginning. More than that, obviously a creator is not subject to his creation (as a computer can not be smarter than the one that coded it).
It isn't coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin.
Don't pretend that you are willing to answer the question when you are not. Already did, go back and read again...
So you finally agree that [the planet now known as] Pluto existed. Is it right or wrong to say that this planet "does not exist" before it was discovered?
You don't need brackets, it doesn't prove your point... Right, if there was no proof of it's existence. Wrong, if it's existence was proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
Only a fool believes something he has no evidence for. The evidence for the existence of God exceeds the height and depth of His creation.
Humans could not prove that [the planet now known as] Pluto existed, yet it existed. You are saying that [the planet now known as] Pluto did not exist before it was discovered, but it came into existence after it was discovered, no? You believe that [the planet now known as] Pluto did not exist before it's discovery, without proof, so what does that make you? A fool.
You are hard press on Pluto, because today it's proven that it exists.. No one could have said Pluto existed 10,000 years ago, without any sort of evidence and expected everyone to believe him... Why should have I said 10,000 years ago that Pluto does not exist when I had no freaking idea about it? Unless you came to me and said that Pluto exists. Then I would have asked you to show the evidence that it exists. If you had shown me the evidence, I would have accepted that yes it does exist, other wise there was no reason for me to believe you. This holds true for Foxatrotta today. Do you believe that it exists as I said? Do you accept it existence in the exact same way as I described? I'm not saying that a celestial body 48 AU away from sun did not exist 10,000 years ago, that no body knew about. But Pluto did not exist in anyone's mind, until it was discovered in 1930. something that you don't know about or can't prove that it exists, does not exist for you.
You done what i said you'd do, predictable ape. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. In fact, proof only exists mathematics. If they had the capacity 10000 years ago to claim pluto existed, measure, observe and experience pluto and still found nothing then that would be evidence that it didn't exist. Having no evidence to support a claim that something exists, while not proving that it doesn't exist, is evidence that it doesn't exist. Because things that exist, have evidence to support their existence. Let me ask the same thing again, but this time in as infantile way as i possibly can. These may sound rhetorical, but i do want you to answer them. Question 1. Is there a tiger on your lap? Question 2. List some of the reasons for the answer you gave in question 1.
I didn't say that anyone could have said it without evidence. And while nobody could have said "Pluto exists" without proof, nor could they say "Pluto doesn't exist" without proof. Because both are positive claims, both require proof. I notice you complain about the name "Pluto", I already told you that I'm referring to the planet now known as Pluto, the planet, the name is not important. Answer the question, did it exist at that time or not. If you won't answer don't bother replying to me. Ah..but what if they did not have the capacity? Does that mean that Pluto doesn't exist? Of-course not. Likewise you have no capacity to "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" God, and just because you do not have the capacity to do this, does not mean He does not exist, therefore you have no right to say "God does not exist" just like a man 1000 years ago could not say "Pluto doesn't exist." Answer 1. No. Answer 2. I cannot see, hear or feel this Tiger, this is proof that it is not on my lap. Not being able to "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" something, means that it does not exist, however, you don't always have the ability to "observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure" something, e.g. God. Therefore you cannot use the argument of "I cannot observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure God, therefore He does not exist." It's like a man 1000 years ago saying "I cannot observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch or measure Pluto, therefore it does not exist"
I cannot observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch, taste or measure your Mom, therefore they don't exist ?
You have some kind of reading disorder? Can't you read? Ofcourse it existed that time, or a million years ago.. The question 1 that Stox put wasn't right.. Allow me to ask you a brand new question. Question 1. Is there an invisible clown monster midget hovering over your head? Question 2. List some of the reasons for the answer you gave in question 1. Absolutely right. For something that we can not observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch, taste or measure, we can not prove it exists. You can't be sure about whether it exists or not. You can only assume that it exists. And that I always say, existence of God is just an assumption without any evidence to back it up. You chose to assume that this assumption is right. I choose not to believe in assumptions without any evidence. You can not claim that God exists, because you don't know yourself. I cannot observe, experience, sense, see, hear, touch, taste or measure your Mom, therefore I do not have any reason to believe that your mom exists. What you are unable to graps is the matter of individual belief. There are people who will bet anything on the existence of Big Foot or Locness Monster or Little Pixie Fairies. They exist for them. Does any of these things exist for you?
You said: By saying this you automatically believe that this planet did not exist a 1000 years ago: But today you acknowledge that Pluto does indeed exist. Do you see the contradiction?
You said: Are you retracting from your own statement? No I don't see the contradiction.. The Planet Pluto did not exist 10,000 years ago. A random celestial body existed, that no one knew about. Again, does Foxatrotta exist in the exact way I described? It's not your mom, it's your own butt..