In the name of cause vs guilt (i.e. nature)

 If something is not able to be known it does not exist.

==================

Bwhahahahah - lol. This seriously cracked me up on either on the basis of its simplicity or my own personal fault.

================

That is known.

================

Seriously. How is that? You are confusing what your premise stated. That, "if something is not able to be known it does not exist" = equates that you knew my response apriori to the fact I was in fact going to state something (unknown to you), although not that what we are saying is "unknowable" per se.

You are negating what is unknowable. Then, you are guilty of debunking it. Though it is a fallacy.

Come on man.

- Marco

================

Let's test this.

Let's trace that OJ Simpson did not murder his wife with the hypothetical - lets say - because there is an absence of evidence to determine Simpson was in fact guilty of murder. However, (as the hypothesis stated) for lack of evidence we can only say we don't know 'guilt', therefore, because x or y is unknowable. Therefore, we can only determine (that we cannot determine) guilt. Conclusion: since there is no evidence that OJ committed murder all it is / is psychologically independent if we believe that he IS guilty of a crime. Is this fair or is it a loaded response to a loaded question.

Debunk this.

- Marco

°●●°●°●°▪︎°

What is the gift of material implication (logical contradictory) to a loaded question.

Answer: how do we know that we do not know.