If God Is A Contradiction Then He Does Not Exist

I don't understand what is being said here. What analyses comes to the answer $0.05? Is it there may be a hidden variable like a tax?

 

The total of bat and ball is $1.10
Bat costs a dollar more than ball.

$1.05 + $0.05 = $1.10

$1.05 - $0.05 = $1.00 or $1.05 - $1.00 = $0.05

 

I still don't understand why the addition of a third variable in a two part equation.
I do see that if the bat costs 1.05 the ball would be .05. So does the statement reflect that considering probabilities gives a greater picture of possibility? That I understand and also I apologize as I have discovered my eyesight suspect or my font too small to distinguish with up most clarity the difference between a minus sigh and an equal sign.

Or perhaps even between an h and a n

 

...

 

No extra variables necessary, Don't know what to tell you there...

 

As I tried to explain, I mistook the equal sign, =, in your equation to be a minus, -, sign, due to poor visual reception. There was no third variable in the presence of the equal sign but there was when I thought it was a minus sign,

signing off specifically. You watched me comprehend something I didn't previously by asking questions and continuing to consider.

 

A question however to the analytiks,
Why should skepticism rule the day when curiosity is all the fun of the sophist?

 

Curiosity is fine. Curiosity leads to seeking. One should always seek, but one should not make a positive claim regarding the existence of something when there is no proper evidence to support it.

Technically, everyone should simply state I don't know in reference to the existence of anything for which there is no evidence.

Though, if there is no evidence for its existence, it is also fine to state it does not exist, at least until such evidence of its existence can be provided.

 

I agree and there is no harm in surprise but to try and affirm non existence is a contradiction in terms. Don't be suspicious, be alert to the tenor of your own experience and realize everyone is in the same boat. Not knowing is no reason to not venture hypothesis. We don't know for certain given indefinite proportions that a spacecraft will reach it's distant destination in space in time but we know enough that our chance is favored as measured by our success. No measure is apart from our measure.

 

But proving something exists is absolutely better than something not existing. The exception to that is the ego. The reason being that the sceptics will need the gift of God to show that egolesness is fine. The sophists, on the other hand, need nothing for the proof that God is the Ego. Huh. I don't know what I've got.

 

There is nothing wrong with something not existing. Of course, proving it would be the operative phrase, because as of yet there is no verifiable evidence for that which currently only exists in the minds of men as concepts not formulated in reality.

 

What is reality? Does that get understood? Come on.

 

The inherent power to conceive.

 

Not if you doubt it.

 

That's easy enough. I am a sceptic. It is reasonable to be so for the doubt. There is no doubt for solely me at being myself.

 

It is reasonable to maintain your conviction although I find accuracy more stable than maintaining doubt. I am holy trusting and I find the reality of self to be shared.

 

I've seen these posted before. A type of music to me.
I point often to the synchronicity of certain axiomatic statements like, and in conjunction with the hippies sentiments, if the eye be sound the whole body will be full of light or the measure you give is the measure you receive.

Perception is not knowledge but can lead to it equates to do not judge by appearances but rather use right judgment.

The realization that you have your finger on the pulse of the only reality you will ever know standing in relation to your own authoritative determinations shows you that in real terms only your own thoughts can hurt you. The realization that our apparent reality is consensual makes you a joy to be with.

 

A good question is whether the absolute IS such a bad concept for explaining the relative at the basis for the relativity it appears as showing the hidden truth. R. A. Wilson seems to disagree. But relativity is certainly capable of good optimism. Relativity because the senses are certainly sensible: hmmm.

 

Well it seems no problem to conceive the absolutely chaotic for some or the absolutely unknowable for others. I heard an old new age congruent thinker talk about a reality sandwich consisting of the absolute or formless potential being informed by a quantum domain to become what we see.