Present arguments for your trust in science, without using your scientific texts...

More disingenuous obfuscation.

Their conclusion was wrong and not at all accurate. What their perspective was makes no difference. They were wrong as we know the Earth is round and not flat.

What you keep ignoring is the central premise which is that the claim something is proved because it has not been disproved is fallacy.

It is you that continually asks for irrefutable proof that God does not exist which was the reason we are having this discussion in the first place. Why now are you claiming that it is others that brought God up ?

It is your fallacious inference about God that started this discussion.

 

Again, you ignore the fact that you pointed out... that they did not have the technology then that they have now. Therefore your assertions are disingenuous.

What you keep ignoring is the fact that there is no code, rule, regulation, law, statute, TOS or other creature of the mind of man that mandates that a person is obligated by the strictures of 'logical fallacies'. Furthermore, it is people like you who enslave yourselves to a man-made set of criteria and use that criteria in a manner that you desire to make it an obligation upon all other people. Show me the law.

Please show where I have stated "provide me with irrefutable proof that God does not exist" without me having first been challenged to prove that God does exist.

You brought it up... not me.

The only mention I made of god outside of the conversation with you when you brought up the subject, was in the op and that god was in reference to a god of science.

 

Strange mental images is what is professed by your posting style.

 

Dude, you clearly have no idea what equivocation means.

Except I wasn't straying from the truth. You have no problem using the equivocation fallacy.

Why should I have to provide irrefutable proof that you lied? Your post where you misquote what you said is proof enough that you lied. You still haven't even explained why you require irrefutable proof over sufficient proof. So, I see no need to sway to your ridiculous demands.

 

The bolded rambling bordering on incoherence is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Nobody bloody cares whether or not you think you're obligated to use it or not. The point of the matter is that logic was invented to distinguish between valid modes of reasoning and fallacious modes of reasoning. You are using the latter. There is nothing logical, like you falsely claimed it was, about using fallacious reasoning. If you have no more argument other than "I don't have to use logic, neeener neener!" like a child, then you lose the argument. You are using fallacious reasoning, and fallacious reasoning is a failure of reasoning. Your argument is simply a falsehood perpetuated by ignorance and troll-like behavior (which pretty assuredly comes from your inability to reconcile your beliefs with the disciplines relied on to produce valid inferences about the natural world).

 

It is not irrelevant when you have already stipulated that there are no such codes, rules, regulations, etc.

Somebody must be caring, because you and others keep attempting to force me to use it (logic).

 

Strange.. I don't see any images in my posting style.... other than the images of alpha-numeric symbols along with some other symbols used in grammar. Is that what you are complaining about when you make comments like that one above?

 

Which is why it is completely irrelevant. You keep demanding something that you've been told doesn't exist.

Who is forcing you to use logic?

No, I have admitted I have opted to use a system designed by men over thousands of years as a system of inquiring about valid modes of reasoning. That you call it a fairy tale is incredibly telling. In what way is it a fairy tale? And no, Socrates had nothing to do with the creation of logic. Socrates never wrote anything. Shows how much you know.

You claimed you were making a logical conclusion. The logical conclusion, you stated, was that because we couldn't irrefutably disprove your beliefs, that they must be true. That isn't logical. It's a logical fallacy. This isn't a complaint, this is a statement about you making false claims backed up by evidence.

"If you have no more argument other than "I don't have to use logic, neeener neener!"

How could I have been more clear? I outright defined what your argument was.

So what if it is an opinion? Describing my statement as an opinion doesn't make it false.

I have. You have failed to respond to my posts even when they have been linked to you. You are a coward.

 

The real problem with your comment above, is the FACT that you have not irrefutably proven any of your comments to be 'truth'.

Well, if you don't, then I can file a federal lawsuit against this forum, its administrators and owner, and of course using their records to track you down and include you in the suit. Charges: slander and defamation of character.

Your claim above is too vague and ambiguous to place any credibility in that claim.

Another untruth presented by you. I have explained that requirement several times. Are you intentionally misrepresenting what I have stated? But seeing as how you are now attempting to change the goal post by adding the 'sufficient' to the term proof (when sufficient proof has not been a part of the discussion), I will simply say that what is sufficient to you is definitely not sufficient to me. 'sufficient' is ambiguous whereas 'irrefutable' is not ambiguous. Get the picture now?

Then you are still admitting that you cannot meet with such a request as "irrefutable proof". We (the readers of this forum and this thread) already knew that because you have already admitted that.

 

I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand much.
We all, as humans, get a mental image of folks we converse with over a blind forum. So any image people get would come from the words and style one reads. If you think our image of you is strange, there is a reason for that.

- - - Updated - - -

i am sure you don't.
but i do have an image of what you may be, based on how you communicate. And of course, my image of you is true.

 

Are you able to refute them?

Except that law doesn't require irrefutable proof.

Why, do you misquote yourself often?

Irrefutable IS ambiguous since you haven't defined what it means beyond "it must convince me", which has no bearing on what would actually be irrefutable or how anybody would reach that level of proof.

Yup.

 

The onus of proof is upon the claimant. You are the one who declared that you have not veered from the truth. Now I await your irrefutable proof of claim.

Which law?

Show irrefutable proof of claim that I have misquoted myself. If you are referring to the sequence in which I state "code, rule, regulation, law, statute, TOS",,, that is just a matter of whim at the moment. It does not alter the meaning or intent of the clause.

Another misrepresentation on your part. I have provided the definition of 'irrefutable'. But because you might have intentionally overlooked that definition, I give it to you once again here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/irrefutable

Then once again, it is stated on the record that you cannot meet with the requests that you provide irrefutable proof that my beliefs are wrong or in error.

 

And I have provided the onus, as have you. You have claimed over and over again you are not bound by the laws of logic and therefore have no problem using equivocation. Now, are you claiming that you have lied?

United States law. Our courts. Irrefutable proof is not a requirement for our judicial system.

Nope, I'm referring to the post that you have refused to respond to because it didn't show up in your notifications. Just as you haven't addressed post 783 from this thread; another cowardly act.

I know what the definition of irrefutable is, the question is what sort of argument could be irrefutable?

I cannot meet with the request for two reasons: 1) you refuse to abide by the disciplines designed to provide irrefutable proof and 2) you have not indicated any other methods of achieving such a level of proof. So, yes, it is an impossible request and a disingenuous one at that.

 

Not telling a lie. As explained previously. My use of logic is a matter of convenience to enable me to speak to you in terms that you understand and that you abide by. Now where is the lie?

So what? The exclusion of such a requirement by the "United States law. Our courts" is no defense to the law which I establish in order for my inquiry to be satisfied.

And I have repeatedly requested that you bring that alleged post to the top of the list. But no, you want to play dummy on that issue by suggesting that you don't know how. Well, that is your prerogative... however, it is also my prerogative to ignore such claims when you are not willing to make such claims manifest in the reality of the here and now.

The creation of an argument is your problem; you being one of those who depend on logic. The request I have made is that you show irrefutable proof that my beliefs are wrong or in error.

What disciplines are designed to provide irrefutable proof?

On the contrary. I have previously stated that you use whatever methodology that you desire as long as the end result is an irrefutable proof that shatters my beliefs.

"disingenuous" in this case is your claim regarding the alleged nature of my request.

 

I didn't claim you were lying, I was asking. What more burden do I need to furnish if you admit that you have no problem using equivocation?

Why would I need to bring the post to the top of the list? I already provided the link for you. Respond to it. There's no reason beyond cowardice or laziness for why you wouldn't.

Logic, mathematics.

And the bolded is the kicker. We can provide all the irrefutable proof that we like, from logical arguments to mathematics... but if it doesn't "shatter your beliefs", then it doesn't count. You've painted yourself into an unbeatable argument by shoving your fingers into your ears. As long as you claim to not abide by logic or rational thought, you have an un-shatterable belief. Just like the person who claims he was abducted by aliens has an un-shatterable belief. Or the person who claims to be Jesus reincarnated. So, if you want to be ignorant and have a belief that you're unable to verify, a belief that relies on irrationality and illogical thought to maintain it, then by all means bask in a belief as unsupportable as "I believe I am Jesus reincarnated". Delight in your Pyrrhic victory.

 

Did I say that you were saying that I was telling a lie? Quit jumping to conclusions.

Well, by your own need to ask if I was telling a lie, indicates that you are uncertain as to what is happening. With such uncertainty going on in your mind, there is no telling what "burden" you have to overcome before you can offer proof of anything.

Because it did not show up on my notifications. All you need to do, is go to that alleged post; press the "Reply With Quote" function at the bottom of the page; and type in the following at the alleged entry: "bump, bump, bump"; then press "Post Quick Reply".

And I already said that I am not going to do your homework for you. You made the allegation, therefore, you do the seeking out and forwarding the alleged message.

Well, as stated before, I am not obligated to adhere to 'logic'; and 'mathematics' is just a modern version of 'Numerology' which is against my religious beliefs.

No. It is not a matter of "it doesn't count", it is a matter that you have not presented a 'convincing' logical argument nor a sufficiently honest display of numerological manipulations that are capable of shattering my beliefs.

No! What I have done is painted a wall that you are not capable of tearing down.

Exactly my point. Unfortunately, you cannot therefore launch any logical argument or mathematical computation that is capable of shattering my beliefs, therefore, my beliefs stand as 'true' until such time as you can shatter those beliefs with your 'logical arguments', 'mathematics', or empirical evidence... or any other creature that you want to name which belongs to the secular world.

Well, the scenarios you cite immediately above are addressing "claims" and making those 'claims' equal to 'belief'. Are you now suggesting that the 'claims' made by scientists are also 'beliefs'?

 

Nice deflection.

That isn't an explanation as to why you couldn't simply reply to the post when linked to you. Are you a robot only capable of replying to posts that you are notified of through the Notifications feature?

How is it my homework to bump a post because you don't want to reply to posts that you aren't notified of? And what allegation have I made?

LoL. How is modern mathematics numerology? It's pseudomathematics and is considered such.

It isn't convincing because you resort to a claim of irrationality. You have done so multiple times. I have told you that you are using fallacious arguments and then you respond with a demand for some law that says you have to abide by logic. So, yeah, the reason that it isn't convincing is because you dismiss the discipline as something that can be discarded for convenience.

No, your beliefs do not stand as "true". What makes them "true"? Why would the failure of me convincing you be evidence or proof that they are "true"? You can't answer that because there is no logical answer for that. You'd have to resort to idiocy; to ignorance; to irrationality. You'd have to yell something unintelligible like "Peanut butter!", and you'd make me think you're mentally ill and need psychiatric help. There is a good reason society, and presumably you, do not accept the beliefs of people claiming to have seen Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster as true.You have already admitted that you don't believe every claim is on the same level of evidence, and don't consider all claims equally valid. So, the real question is: why are you trolling and pretending like you do?

 

Ah... so now when someone makes an observation about one of your posts, it is "deflection". I see.... so much for that system of logic.

Well of course it is an explanation. What is it if it is not an explanation? No! I am not a robot, are you a robot?

Because it is you who wants it back at the top of the list of threads under discussion. You keep demanding that I respond to some alleged post (which would bring that alleged post to the top of that list {if such post existed}), therefore it is you who is wanting it at the top of the list.

Do scientists used mathematics to make predictions? 'pseudomathematics' ... how interesting. Then explain this one:
"Noun 1. divination - successful conjecture by unusual insight or good luck
speculation, supposition, surmisal, surmise, guess, conjecture, hypothesis - a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence"
found here: www.thefreedictionary.com/divination Why did I choose the term divination? Simple: scientists do make predictions regarding future events. The making of such predictions is the art of divination (in one form or another... there are many forms of divination... arithmancy is one of them), and as shown above, so is the making of a hypothesis - a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence.

No! I resort to a demand that precludes irrationality by means of demanding proof that cannot be refuted.

Yes! I will continue demanding proof of claims wherein the proof is irrefutable.

That is correct and so far, you have not been able to provide such a law that mandates that I use logic.

No! The reason that "it" is not convincing is because my beliefs are still in tact. I am not the one obligated to use such a discipline,,, therefore, I am at liberty to discard it if I so choose to discard it. So where is your problem?

Oh but they do stand as 'true' because you have not been able to irrefutably prove that my beliefs are either wrong or in error.

Well, If I am not convinced by what you are presenting, then there is no reason for me to change or alter or do away with my beliefs,.... therefore they are 'true'.

I can't answer 'what'?

Trolling? Must we go through that again. Why do you insist that I am trolling? I answer your questions, present counter questions, and even present requests for evidence that will force me to change my beliefs,,,, and for that you call it trolling. Yet you bring up such off-topic subjects as space aliens, Big Foot, Loch Ness monster... and you think that is not trolling? Grow up.

 

It wasn't an observation, it was a twisting of words followed by a chastising remark.

An unrelated statement.

"That isn't an explanation as to why you couldn't simply reply to the post when linked to you."

You then claim that this: "Because it did not show up on my notifications." was somehow an explanation for why you couldn't reply to a post when the post was linked to you. Why would it not showing up in your notifications stop you from replying to the quote?

No, I want you to reply to my post, which would put your reply at the top of the list.

Are you truly going to be this disingenuous? I posted the link to the post, are you claiming that I did not do this? If you aren't, then how could you possible question if the post exists?

If you are seriously going to pick and choose a synonym for divination to prove your point (since the definitions presented for numerology and divination on thefreedictionary.com don't work for your argument), you are being incredibly intellectually dishonest. If you're going to boil down "divination" to be synonymous with any sort of hypothesis about the future, then you're making the term mean something completely different from the definitions actually provided for divination. So, any sort of prediction about the future is going to be divination now, great. This is just so sad.

Okay, then you admit you lied when you said, "It is not a matter of "it doesn't count", it is a matter that you have not presented a 'convincing' logical argument". It obviously IS a matter of it doesn't count if you aren't even going to address the logical argument, but simply dismiss it because it outright doesn't count in your world view.

That you're discarding the logical arguments outright. So, you're being incredibly deceitful when you claim that you are looking for ANY sort of irrefutable argument. Obviously you aren't. You're picking and choosing what sort of irrefutable argument you want.

Why? What makes them implicitly true based solely on the condition of whether or not a person can refute them? If I walk up to a baby, who is unable to speak or make an argument, and claim that "I believe I am God.", does that make me God because the baby is unable to refute the belief?

Why'd you put true in quotes?

You don't answer my questions. You resort to equivocation, ignore postings, and then demand evidence and refute it outright when the evidence is presented to you.

 

Now that you have wasted a page worth of bandwidth, let me ask you one more time:
Provide irrefutable proof that my beliefs are wrong or in error.

 

And another cowardly hand waving by Incorporeal. We have already discussed how your beliefs, if you simply ignore all disciplines that can provide proof, are irrefutable by deceit.

 

So now you slip once again into the act of name-calling because I put a challenge in front of you in which you and the science and logic you worship cannot cope with. Because of the admission you made that you cannot meet the challenge, you want to refer to me as being "cowardly". LOL.

 

I called you no name, I called your ignoring the entirety of my post cowardly hand waving.

You put the same challenge in front of anybody without actually acknowledging that what you're doing is intellectual dishonesty at best and trolling at worst.

 

This is now the second poster you are asking for "irrefutable proof that my beliefs are wrong or in error". You are simply spamming at this point, which is a TOS violation. Why are you violating the TOS?

 

That is not spamming, because some element of my beliefs are at issue in every thread that I engage. Therefore, the question posed to a 1000 different members in 1000 different threads does not constitute spamming, as long as the issue is dealing with my beliefs. Try again.