I forget the year...

Your cowardice showcases "my" logic.

You previously admitted you haven't ever thought what your standard of truth is.
You can't admit to unchanging immaterial logic because you know it is transcendental proof for The Creator & to deny universal unchanging logic leaves you in the matrix or a brain in a vat, or some other ridiculous nonsense like a pastafarian.

Don't be coward pinky

I defined transcendental for you... you clearly don't know what it means.

This isnt even an argument about whether a creator or not.

It's an piece showcasing the equivalence of two hypothesises.

And you're going to have to define coward in this context.

Pretty sure I can argue in favor of a creator better than you can.

Let me take a second and help you argue with me (I think you need it).

You're arguing to the wrong target audience... probably more on the level of a strat that worked on you.

You have to consider your target audience.

You're trying to convince/add credibility to your position in the mind of someone who thinks there's no significant difference in the Bayesian probabilities associated with the stories of Abraham vs the glob of expanding snot on a 4d floor as mentioned above.

Know your audience.

Coward = Pinky's refusal to answer the question

Blockheads like you don't deserve a audience, your just a dancing fool with two left feet.

I can't commit to an ill-defined notion of absolute truth.

There is no logic to doing so.

I can agree that 1 + 1 = 2 in any positive integer base greater than 2.

Let's go with that, I'm sure we both can agree that that's universally true within the confines of our universe and our mathematical notation specifically.

Wow! You are so scared of admitting you believe in truth!
Poor pinky.
Do you think you're the first Atheist I've debated that tried to cower behind false intellect?
It's actually the most common response among unlearned Atheists.
Puffed up boasting vaunting around with childish insults in a feeble attempt to rabbit trail away from a sincere & simple question.
Atheists that have considered epistemological arguments are no better but at least they understand transcendence.
I love you pinky, maybe next time you'll be better prepared for the brain

You speak as if you've won something. You can't finish an argument with the assumption that I agree with your notion of absolute truth.

That's not good enough for you, I have to not only concede to the notion but also believe in an arbitrary ill-defined notion of truth... it's actually closer to undefined.

So in order for you to complete your argument, you require me to agree to an undefined notion of truth otherwise your argument crumbles.

I'm not sure how that's winning by any definition.

On another note... do you believe in the simulation hypothesis?

Wow you are one squirmy wormy
Try to keep up for those that are following this debate.
Truth- that which corresponds to reality

But you already admitted to believing in truth.
I don't know why you keep backsliding.
We were all the way u to universal, unchanging immaterial logic.
Or do you need a definition for that also?
Try to be sincere.

But I demonstratably know more about our physical reality than you.

Your argument is obsurd.

In fact... I'm not even sure what you're arguing...

The question... Do you believe in simulation theory?

That is the topic of the thread... you keep up.

Yo... the whole premise of this thread assumes you are correct... please... with all due respect...

Answer the f*cking question.

1+1=2, prove it, Godel says you can't. Mindless energy or Concious energy created the universe, prove which, you can't. You believe, you don't, or you are unsure, prove which is correct, you can't. That's why it is called faith.

Apparently there exists a mathematical bible where a good percentage (somewhere around 98.2 or so) is dedicated to the proof of 1 +1= 2.

I tried to define it in a way where it should be true for most practical applications.

Yet you can't prove it, at least according to Godel who I happen to agree with. Yet many of us know 1+1=2. It all comes back to energy. It cannot be proven that the energy was mindless/random or concious. You know it was random, others know it was concious. Do not make the mistake of believing what you cannot prove is absolute. If you would, please specifically direct your next post towards specifically what I stated here. Thank you. I am neither saying you are correct or incorrect. We could talk about multiverse, or faster than the speed of light, and so on yet still which energy is not provable. BTW, your advanced alien child is conceptually interesting.

1+1 = 3 if you are not careful.

Well... to be fair. In this universe any conceivable mathematical numeric system will have a concept of natural numbers... ie, if I have one unit of something and I add another unit to it, I'm going to have two units.

I say my definition is satisfactory. In this universe, 1 + 1 = 2 with all the other assumptions I gave.

what if 0 is really 1 and 1 is really 0?

Are you ass-king for a digital anal-sis?