-
-
Replying to @InbornAtheism
@InbornAtheism We don't need to re-verify our understanding of rain or toes or window glass on a regular basis to "know" them. @rune00771 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison Yes, there are types of
#information: 1)Undisputed knowing -established as fact 2)Disputable understanding -theory @rune00771 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InbornAtheism
@InbornAtheism Even gravity is a theory :) @rune00772 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison Yes,we
#know that something causes the attraction of objects, but we don't fully#understand/informed what is it @rune00771 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InbornAtheism
@InbornAtheism That's actually irrelevant; we KNOW how objects behave in gravity. I'm not buying your argument :) @rune00774 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @aspexit
@emlynaddison If u know for a fact in
#evidential sense,but r missing to know it in#explanatory sense,then u don't fully know it @rune00771 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InbornAtheism
@InbornAtheism So you're arguing certainty. Can we know *precisely* why humans are born with 10 fingers? Who cares, it's still 10. @rune00772 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@InbornAtheism That same logic is applied as a predictor for everything we know, until proven (and re-proven) false. @rune0077
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.