V Null

@salmon13528 @darwintojesus For the 3rd time. I didn’t say it was required. Does meaning exist in objective reality? Yes or no.

@null00333 @darwintojesus First answer my question, where is that required?

Friendly reminder: there’s no such thing as “better” on atheism.

@schrodingersmeh “Numbers aren’t needed for atoms to exist” Then how are hydrogen and oxygen atoms distinct on a fundamental level? Or are they the same?

@null00333 Nope. Because numbers aren't needed for atoms to exist. You've just asserted it. And yes, it's a Platonic ideal, but either way, just an assertion.

@vant008- Vanquished like a lil' bitch! 🤣

@salmon13528 @darwintojesus Does meaning exist in objective reality? Yes or no.

@null00333 @darwintojesus I didn’t say they didn’t. You’re seeming to assume they only do but cannot prove it

@schrodingersmeh Exactly. I proved numbers exist because atoms require them to exist since their distinctions are based on NUMBER/quantity of protons. This was true even prior to humans.

@null00333 Nope. You said it has to do with the number of protons. Try again, retard.

@salmon13528 @darwintojesus If meaning doesn’t exist in objective reality (you just said they don’t) then they could only exist in your mind/feelings.

@null00333 @darwintojesus Did I say that? The answer is no

@schrodingersmeh I proved they exist because atoms require them to exit in order for different elements to exist. Different elements existed prior to humans.

@null00333 Nope. I'm using AI to summarize what I've said a million times, yet you ignore. I've said "You've asserted numbers exist in the universe" as a way to debunk conceptualism, *without ever proving numbers exist in the universe*. So again, failure to launch on your stolen syllogism

@salmon13528 @darwintojesus So meaning doesn’t exist in objective reality?

@null00333 @darwintojesus If it’s not required to be found in objective reality why does it matter to you?

@schrodingersmeh Wrong. I didn’t mention Platonism and I also didn’t assert that it was true. You didn’t even tell it my line of reasoning. You are using AI and yet can’t even provide a critique against what I actually said 😂 even worse than when Destiny googled “epistemic justification” and sti

@schrodingersmeh That’s also not what I said. Keep avoiding actually engaging with my argument. Coward.

@salmon13528 @darwintojesus “I didn’t say meaning was required” Learn how to read. Answer my question: Where do you find meaning?

@null00333 @darwintojesus Answer my question

@salmon13528 @darwintojesus I’d suggest learning basic grammar.

@null00333 @darwintojesus I would suggest learning to read

@schrodingersmeh Hydrogen and oxygen vary by proton quantity. This was true even prior to humans. So prior to humans, numbers existed. That’s the proof. You’ve yet to address it. You just keep defining conceptualism over and over.

@null00333 Numbers exist outside of humans. ^Prove it. This is just the same assertion. That is why conceptualism, which states numbers ONLY exist in the mind, is false. ^If you can prove numbers exist in the universe, which you haven't.

@schrodingersmeh Okay so show me where the strawman is. Prove my reasoning wrong.

@null00333 Because your syllogism depends on conceptualism being wrong. Remember? And so far, you keep propping up a straw man, knocking it over, and saying, "See? It's wrong!", as you dust the straw off your shirt. I'm retarded for continuing to argue with a retard. Learn the script.

@schrodingersmeh Distinctions aren’t human created. This would be like saying that before humans existed, oxygen and hydrogen were the same thing.

@null00333 Nope. You keep trying to put abstracts outside of the mind. Distinctions are abstracts, and abstracts are human-created. You're saying abstracts need to exist in order for the universe to exist. Conceptualists do not, no matter how many times you argue to the contrary.

@salmon13528 @darwintojesus I didn’t say meaning was required. I’m asking you where you find meaning

@null00333 @darwintojesus Answer my question

@salmon13528 @darwintojesus ?? English

@null00333 @darwintojesus I mean you’re whole meaning in life objective reality is also an ad hominem. And it’s not, I’m not using it as an argument

@schrodingersmeh You literally got refuted. Numbers exist outside of humans. That is why conceptualism, which states numbers ONLY exist in the mind, is false. You’re slow and you’ve got to be trolling at this point.

@null00333 LMAO. You're the one saying abstracts exist outside of humans. Since conceptualists believe abstracts are a human construct, OF COURSE they don't exist without humans.

@schrodingersmeh Why do you keep defining conceptualism? I’m telling you why it’s false. It’s false because in reality, numbers existed prior to humans. Defining conceptualism over and over doesn’t help you argue against what I said. You just sound retarded.

@null00333 Nope. Read what I posted. They believe abstracts are mental. They *DO NOT* state that requires reality to do anything as it relates to abstracts. It's just your dumb version of it. I've posted the actual reasoning, and you run like a coward every time I bring it up.

@schrodingersmeh Ive proved it over and over already Distinctions of atoms existed prior to humans Their distinction requires quantity to exist But quantity requires numbers Numbers existed prior to humans You just dismiss things by defining conceptualism over and over like a retard

@null00333 You keep *asserting* it's false. I've posted *actual conceptualist* views on abstracts. You then straw man the argument. "numbers exist independent to the mind" ^An assertion you've yet to prove. This is getting boring.