Are you claiming these two are evidence of a huge gulf in human philosophy? In practice, they turned out near-identical.
Well, that was a quick burnout.
I don’t have a degree in philosophy and I do not understand the debate. 
Although I suspect the OP isn’t really trying to debate, but create an overly complex argument full of meaningless jargon to sidelong in the existence of aliens and magic mayan space ninjas.
You might have a philosophy degree, but you must have skipped the logic and epistemology courses. Try googling “Occam’s Razor” and go from there.
Is this actually established anywhere? The OP alleges we would need a philosophy degree to understand the debate, not that he needed one to create it.
Way to take one for the team, big guy.
Could you outline this incontrovertible proof of god, or if it’s too long, give us an Amazon link or something?
I don’t suppose you have some actual, I dunno, evidence for any of this?
Oh, you’re so clever! You answered what he literally asked, and not the obvious implication! Please provide the cites you claim to have.
How do I put this?
Anyone whose best effort begins by making numerous unproven and unprovable statements alongside completely untrue statements and then claiming anyone who laughs tried to use wikipedia to disprove your statements… and whose username is a ridiculously self-congratulatory “leet-speak” nitwittery foisted upon the world… and whose very first post claims godlike powers once we all just followed him… has issues.
But you are incorrect. I can use Wikipedia to quite efectively demolish your theory. On the other hand, I can use Magic the Gathering to do even more damage.
You have been pwned.
Yet you haven’t even tried. Best to stay away buddy before you go too far out in that vast sea of knowledge you so lack. Perhaps while you’re at it google: “axiomatic” and you’ll find out you actually have nothing to say in this “debate”
What, Occam’s Razor of No Imagination? You’ll find that if you worship Occam’s dogma you will end up in absolute materialism which is a reductionist fallacy.
Lol, want a copy of my transcript?
This is the only relevant point you all have managed to pull off as a collective group. Perhaps on a basic evolutionary stage, humanity would fight wars to protect and increase resources but as we have evolved a higher consciousness (a human cognitive sphere of activity) we have become more sophisticated and wars are now conducted on ideological grounds to :a justify any act of aggression, and b: engender acts of aggression. As it became clear in my history of modern philosophy class, philosophy has played the greatest role in influencing all modern societies because of paradigm worldviews. Everything in those societies from physics to politics (as Dr. Trundle’s book is called).
This is why it’s the most central question in global ethics today because theories are dangerous and polemical. We all struggle for Shalom, or world peace and the only way to do that is to change the modus operandi of the cognitive sphere. This is done through global experience recast as logical symbols in my theorem.
Mind you the study of consciousness is rather young both in philosophy and the field of neuroscience.
To attack the substratum of my magna opus is a disingenuous stratagem which ultimately shows that most of you are too lazy or too stupid to actually read my work.
Just because you use big words doesn´t mean that the resulting sentence is meaningful. Pulling down the (faulty) premises of a any theory is a perfectly valid approach.
Pointing out that you just dumped a throughly unsubstantiated load of mystical prophesizing dressed up as a logical argument is, as you´d put it, a substantial reality. All your arguments revolve around and are pointed out as a proof of some future cataclysmic event coming out from Mayan mythology.
And if you want to call the posters here stupid we have a separate forum for that.
Dude, that’s your magna opus? I’d trade you my opus for it, but I like his cute little red-bowtie, just visible under his honking big nose, too much.
You can have my garfield for free, though.
:settles down in easy chair with a beer and some popcorn:
Of course it’s a valid approach to formal logical. Petitio Principii and Non Sequitor are perfectly valid objections if and only if they apply which they don’t in my case. The only thing you have managed to decry is your own intelligibility. This forum is rife with snide tyros. I am here to kick ass and finish off old business. Meanwhile you are doing me a favor by making a fool out of yourself as it is obvious you haven’t read my work in extenso. If you had you would have known that I openly profess that the GE symbol can be anything at any time but that I have chosen from my own belief to include 2012 for a coherent scholarship to guide the reader.
Now please take your opinion and go to the back of the cave where you came from. I know you’re at Wiki right now so why don’t you type in Plato’s “The Republic” and you will understand my last paragraph.
Pwned.
Gee whiz, I may be a knuckle dragging simpleton but I know better than admitting a bannable offense here.
That’s almost clever. But you forgot to thrown in some Latin, so I’m afraid I can’t award the full score.
Lol I have silenced this community.
Those who still speak are embarrassing themselves with their unfounded opinion. I am the strongest philosopher in here. Thestraightpwn?
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” - Wittgenstein