questfortruth
Well-Known Member
It is wrong to say, that we can not know all. Because there is no limit (for example, 80%) to research. If we get to know all 100%, we get to know, that we are all-knowing. Hence, the all-knowing being does exist.
My premise is: ``future research will tell us about twice as much as we know in 2021AD''.
From it I derive the theorem: ``somebody has achieved that in 2021AD.''
All you need is to accept the premise, you do not need to accept as a premise the
result of the proof.
Nobody loves my paper, not because of flaws. Simply, we had no sex or
other type of personal contact. To get loved by the communities,
you need good social wellness and ability. Otherwise, your work won't be
loved. The more of love, the fewer mistakes they see in your work.
I am not about the ultimate love expression (which is sex), but about
social skills. You do not trust my paper, because you had no physical
contact with me. We haven't been on conference somewhere. Hence, your
instinct and immunity tell you to ignore me as I would be a virus or a
monster.
My premise is: ``future research will tell us about twice as much as we know in 2021AD''.
From it I derive the theorem: ``somebody has achieved that in 2021AD.''
All you need is to accept the premise, you do not need to accept as a premise the
result of the proof.
Nobody loves my paper, not because of flaws. Simply, we had no sex or
other type of personal contact. To get loved by the communities,
you need good social wellness and ability. Otherwise, your work won't be
loved. The more of love, the fewer mistakes they see in your work.
I am not about the ultimate love expression (which is sex), but about
social skills. You do not trust my paper, because you had no physical
contact with me. We haven't been on conference somewhere. Hence, your
instinct and immunity tell you to ignore me as I would be a virus or a
monster.
Last edited: