Proven is proven.

Proven is proven. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

SpanishMatMaster -> Proven is proven. (12/13/2011 11:45:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel When I wrote that you hadn't made any argument to differentiate the proofs, just pointed out the issues in the god of the gaps. Following my statement you raised objections to differentiate one proof from the other. Here: quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster There are three differences between your reasoning and my reasoning. Difference A: I do not pretend your (1) while others do pretend my (1) Difference B: I can disprove your (2) in one way while others cannot disprove my (2) Difference C: I can disprove your (2) in other way while others cannot disprove my (2) If that's what you're asking me to acknowledge then yes that's what happened. I presented the differences in the moment you presented the analogy. I only reformulated them in that message, but I did not add any information. Probably you just did not understood the previous message. Nevermind. quote: it seems like you're claiming two differences (you just listed one twice) No, the difference C is not the same as the difference B. Even if you can object B, you still would have to object C. quote: What I am going to claim is that there are others who do not pretend your (1). So what? There are people in this forum who do you use reason at all. The point is, your analogy is invalid for me, to be applied on me, to show me that I should change my positions in any way. Your analogy is not valid for me, so I can be consistent rejecting your reasoning and supporting mine, because your (1) does not apply to me while my (1) does. That's all and that's enough. As you do not attempt to object A, your analogy is still invalid: I do not have to recognize that my reasoning is wrong or that God exists, because your analogy does not apply on me. Even if you had objected successfully B and C, your analogy would still be invalid to be applied on me. Therefore I can ignore your other objections and your errors, even if they are indeed abundant and repeated. Your analogy does not apply on me. Reformulate or ask something else. Or close the discussion.

Azonier -> RE: Azonier why have you forsaken me (12/13/2011 11:50:40 PM)
I have not forsaken you my child. Those times you thought you climbed the rocks alone I...well...I waited at the bottom until you got down. But I thought good thoughts about you and hoped you would make it down the right way. I did actually take your nose beforehand, just in case, because well...rock climbing (aka rock falling) can be hard on noses. Go in peace. (not pieces)

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/14/2011 12:46:34 AM)
quote: It isn't everyone here, Wikipedia and science tutorial websites that are all wrong, it really is just you. Yeah, talk dirty to me. I mean... I am not just saying that SOME people here may be wrong, or that you (and perhaps other people) are misunderstanding me, or that you misunderstand probably something you read somewhere, or that you just do not realise something. No, no, I am saying that everybody here, wikipedia and all science tutorials of the world are wrong and I am right. Sure. Fuck you. Let us finish this conversation in a civil way before you repeat some shit like this, ok?

SpanishMatMaster -> Sumary (12/14/2011 1:00:30 AM)
So... repeating the whole, as I think this will probably be all. quote: A: My reasoning about Occam's Razor and Atheism, ultra-short version. 1. If you are rational, you have to consider that God does not exist. note Aa: Consider that you do not have any kind of obligation to be rational. note Ab: ... does not exist, until proven otherwise, as always in reason and same as "2+2=4 until proven otherwise" (see Appendix 1). B: A bit more expanded. 1. If you are rational, you have to consider Occam's Razor a rule. 2. If you use Occam's Razor as a rule consistently, you conclude that God does not exist. 3(1,2). If you are rational, you conclude that God does not exist. note Ba: The principle behind Occam's Razor, the Principle of Parsimony, the Skeptical Principle and the Preponderancy of the Negation. note Bb: As a rule, not as a guessing or a suggestion. A hardcore rule, as hard as "I do have a nose". note Bc: Occam's Razor does not lead to simple Solipism, because Solipism alone gives no explanation to, why we hallucinate exactly what we hallucinate. C: More expanded 1. Reason tells us that we have a nose. 2. Without Occam's Razor being a rule, there is no way to discard Unoser. 3. Discarding Unoser is necessary to say that we have a nose. 4(2,3). Using Occam's Razor as a rule is necessary to say that we have a nose. 5(1,4). Using Occam's Razor as a rule is part of reason. 6. The "Hypothesis God" does not reduce the amount of unexplained information. 7(6). Using Occam's Razor as a rule, we have to conclude that God does not exist. 8(5,7). Using reason, we conclude that God does not exist. note Ca: (2) is proven by Parsimony Appendix 1: Comparing "2+2=4" and "God does not exist" on certainty. 1. We cannot be absolutely sure (certain, in a strict sense) that God does not exist, as our reasoning and/or data could be wrong. 2. We cannot be absolutely sure (certain, in a strict sense) that 2+2=4, as our reasoning and/or data could be wrong. 3. We cannot calculate the probability of the imaginable (and not imaginable!) scenarios where we are wrong on God, unless we use Occam's Razor. 4. We cannot calculate the probability of the imaginable (and not imaginable!) scenarios where we are wrong on 2+2, unless we use Occam's Razor. 5(3,4). We cannot say that "God does not exist" is more, less or equally probable as "2+2=4", unless we use Occam's Razor. 6(1,2). Both assertions are only true, until proven otherwise. 7. Using Occam's Razor, we can discard the scenarios, where 2+2 are not 4. 8. Using Occam's Razor, we can discard the scenarios, where God exists (see A, B, C). 9(7). Using Occam's Razor, the probability that 2+2=4 is 1. It is simply a fact. 10(8). Using Occam's Razor, the probability that God does not exist is 1. It is simply a fact. 11(6,10). God does not exist. The certainty of this assert is the same as for "2+2=4". Both are facts, until proven otherwise. note 1a: See note Ba. Unfortunately, there is not a single comma of this, which has been refuted by any message here or in the game's thread. This is my position. I have asked already for anybody who could refute anything. Nobody seems to be able to. I can close this discussion.

Kirata -> RE: Sumary (12/14/2011 7:26:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster I can close this discussion. There is a God! [:D] K.

GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/14/2011 7:34:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster I mean... I am not just saying that SOME people here may be wrong, or that you (and perhaps other people) are misunderstanding me, You're claiming that Occam's Razor can be used to prove things. I asked for clarification about that, you've stuck to that claim. You're wrong, we have had a consensus that you're wrong like I've never seen before on collarchat. More people in the thread know that you're wrong than know that unicorns don't exist. That's how glaring the issue is. quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster or that you misunderstand probably something you read somewhere, or that you just do not realise something. No, no, I am saying that everybody here, wikipedia and all science tutorials of the world are wrong and I am right. No, there are some science tutorials that don't bother talking about Occam's Razor, so not all of them. But other then that, yeah that is what's going on, we're past the point of just misunderstanding you, you're clearly wrong. quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Unfortunately, there is not a single comma of this, which has been refuted by any message here or in the game's thread. This is my position. I have asked already for anybody who could refute anything. Nobody seems to be able to. I can close this discussion. It has been refuted many times in many ways. It's been explained to you that it's an appeal to desire not a valid logical proof and that you've fucked up at even managing to construct said appeal to desire. It's been explained to you that asserting something and proving something are not remotely the same. It's been explained to you that Occam's Razor cannot be used that way both by a multitude of posters and by multiple links. You've been told that reputable sources consistently explain that Occam's Razor doesn't work that way and have been unable to contest that. Here's an analogy for how the discussion has gone. quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster Sure. Fuck you. Let us finish this conversation in a civil way before you repeat some shit like this, ok? Hmm, a civil conversation it seems like that ship has just set sail, welcome to my blocked list.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/14/2011 7:52:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel You're claiming that Occam's Razor can be used to prove things. I asked for clarification about that And I proved that without using Occam's Razor this way you cannot even say that you have a nose. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel You're wrong I am not, I have proved it, and I do not care about what other think as long as they can not prove it. Truth is not decided by vote, what kind of stupid fallacy was that one!? But ok... first, I don't think so. I would like to make a polling, maybe the results are not so unanimous as you believe. Second, why should I care. Third, there is a wide consensus that I am right on the basics (Occam's Razor leading to positive Atheism) in circles WIDE more significant for me as this forum, for example the theologists of the Juan XXIII, one of them is my father. Fourth, maybe you got me wrong, maybe I am just not nice, maybe I have a problem of the language, maybe, maybe, there are thousands possible explanations for that. So... WTF? quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel But other then that, yeah that is what's going on Your impression, and I just don't care. I have studied epistemology myself but I simply do not care about checking every possible source you may have found, misunderstood, abused of, etc. I was speaking, and I explained it about a dozen of times, about the principle laying under *four different formulations. I do not need to make a battle of sources of it. You could not bring any argument refuting mine so - gone. That's it. quote:* ORIGINAL: GotSteel It has been refuted many times in many ways. It's been explained to you that it's an appeal to desire not a valid logical proof And I refuted that, as what I was demonstrating was that IF a THEN b, not that b , as I explained many times. If you want to be rational... I never pretended to demonstrate that you HAVE to be rational. Only the logical consequences of it. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel and that you've fucked up at even managing to construct said appeal to desire. It's weel demonstrated and visible for everybody. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel It's been explained to you that asserting something and proving something are not remotely the same. Superfluous: I proved. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I t's been explained to you that Occam's Razor cannot be used that way both by a multitude of posters and by multiple links. None by a single posting. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel You've been told that reputable sources consistently explain that Occam's Razor doesn't work that way and have been unable to contest I am not interested on contesting that. "Bring your own arguments of fuck off" would be my answer to that. If you accuse me of thinking that the whole world is wrong, then you are a sucker, and that's it. You can accuse me of being wrong, and you can say that the whole world is right instead, but if you accuse me (as you did) of thinking that the world is wrong and I am right, you are a sucker and you deserved exactly what you got. If you can't deal with it, it is your problem. Goodbye. Remains the final summary: quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster A: My reasoning about Occam's Razor and Atheism, ultra-short version. 1. If you are rational, you have to consider that God does not exist. note Aa: Consider that you do not have any kind of obligation to be rational. note Ab: ... does not exist, until proven otherwise, as always in reason and same as "2+2=4 until proven otherwise" (see Appendix 1). B: A bit more expanded. 1. If you are rational, you have to consider Occam's Razor a rule. 2. If you use Occam's Razor as a rule consistently, you conclude that God does not exist. 3(1,2). If you are rational, you conclude that God does not exist. note Ba: The principle behind Occam's Razor, the Principle of Parsimony, the Skeptical Principle and the Preponderancy of the Negation. note Bb: As a rule, not as a guessing or a suggestion. A hardcore rule, as hard as "I do have a nose". note Bc: Occam's Razor does not lead to simple Solipism, because Solipism alone gives no explanation to, why we hallucinate exactly what we hallucinate. C: More expanded 1. Reason tells us that we have a nose. 2. Without Occam's Razor being a rule, there is no way to discard Unoser. 3. Discarding Unoser is necessary to say that we have a nose. 4(2,3). Using Occam's Razor as a rule is necessary to say that we have a nose. 5(1,4). Using Occam's Razor as a rule is part of reason. 6. The "Hypothesis God" does not reduce the amount of unexplained information. 7(6). Using Occam's Razor as a rule, we have to conclude that God does not exist. 8(5,7). Using reason, we conclude that God does not exist. note Ca: (2) is proven by Parsimony Appendix 1: Comparing "2+2=4" and "God does not exist" on certainty. 1. We cannot be absolutely sure (certain, in a strict sense) that God does not exist, as our reasoning and/or data could be wrong. 2. We cannot be absolutely sure (certain, in a strict sense) that 2+2=4, as our reasoning and/or data could be wrong. 3. We cannot calculate the probability of the imaginable (and not imaginable!) scenarios where we are wrong on God, unless we use Occam's Razor. 4. We cannot calculate the probability of the imaginable (and not imaginable!) scenarios where we are wrong on 2+2, unless we use Occam's Razor. 5(3,4). We cannot say that "God does not exist" is more, less or equally probable as "2+2=4", unless we use Occam's Razor. 6(1,2). Both assertions are only true, until proven otherwise. 7. Using Occam's Razor, we can discard the scenarios, where 2+2 are not 4. 8. Using Occam's Razor, we can discard the scenarios, where God exists (see A, B, C). 9(7). Using Occam's Razor, the probability that 2+2=4 is 1. It is simply a fact. 10(8). Using Occam's Razor, the probability that God does not exist is 1. It is simply a fact. 11(6,10). God does not exist. The certainty of this assert is the same as for "2+2=4". Both are facts, until proven otherwise. note 1a: See note Ba. Unfortunately, there is not a single comma of this, which has been refuted by any message here or in the game's thread. This is my position. I have asked already for anybody who could refute anything. Nobody seems to be able to. I can close this discussion.

GotSteel -> RE: Azonier why have you forsaken me (12/14/2011 11:50:01 AM)
Yeah I know someone who lost their nose climbing and let me tell you human nose illusion technology is not very high quality So thanks for keeping my nose warm. So I've been wondering, I didn't really keep track of everything. Was there any statement that Spanish made in his position that didn't get refuted?

SpanishMatMaster -> Summary in #389 (12/14/2011 8:42:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Was there any statement that Spanish made in his position that didn't get refuted? That's childish, you admitted many of them. But you can try to refute one if you want. The summary is there. If you change your mind and you want to try, here they are. We can start again. And if you remain civil, I will remain civil. But don't be childish. The invitation is for anybody. Choose one (only one, to keep focused) assert or step. Choose the first one you disagree with (so that I cannot support it on something of the summary you also disagree with). The best would be of C or the appendix (to be as detailed as possible). Tell me exactly why this is false. And let us see. PS: "They yell, therefore we are riding" (El Quijote)

Azonier -> RE: Azonier why have you forsaken me (12/14/2011 8:56:16 PM)
My child, it has long been said That when you argue with fools, you end up...well...arguing over foolish things. (hey, don't judge us, we haven't always had access to thesaureses and quote books and such) But God knows, (and He does!) if you argue with a man who isn't even sure of the fact of his nose, you will never win, for such a man will never be sure about anything. Please be careful on the rocks. The nose you have now is just a loaner. Have a peaceful and blessed evening.

Kirata -> RE: Azonier why have you forsaken me (12/14/2011 9:55:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Azonier for such a man will never be sure about anything. Apparently not even what "welcome to my blocked list" means. K.

JanahX -> RE: Azonier why have you forsaken me (12/14/2011 9:58:01 PM)
Is Spanish Master having a convo with himself? Doesn't he have you all blocked?

Kirata -> RE: Azonier why have you forsaken me (12/14/2011 10:23:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JanahX Is Spanish Master having a convo with himself? Doesn't he have you all blocked? What does having people blocked have to do with it? [:D] K.

EmilyRocks -> RE: Trying (12/14/2011 11:16:18 PM)
quote: Choose one (only one, to keep focused) assert or step. Choose the first one you disagree with (so that I cannot support it on something of the summary you also disagree with). The best would be of C or the appendix (to be as detailed as possible). Tell me exactly why this is false. And let us see. OK, from the appendix, Assertion #2. You said quote: We cannot be absolutely sure (certain, in a strict sense) that 2+2=4, as our reasoning and/or data could be wrong. I can refute that. I put two pebbles on the table. Then I put two plums on the table. Then I count all the pebbles and plums on the table. 1 2 3 4 That's it four. Not 5, and not 3, except in passing on the way to four. So, it would seem that 2 + 2 does equal 4. What do I win?

Kirata -> RE: Trying (12/14/2011 11:20:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EmilyRocks What do I win? Being told that you're wrong. K.

EmilyRocks -> RE: Trying (12/14/2011 11:27:07 PM)
Well that hardly seems worth the effort then.

susie -> RE: Trying (12/15/2011 12:01:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EmilyRocks Well that hardly seems worth the effort then. Personally I don't think anything on this thread has been worth the effort. Afterall we have already been told that we are all wrong and only the OP is right.

SpanishMatMaster -> Answer to EmilyRocks (12/15/2011 12:49:23 AM)
Hello, EmilyRocks. And yes, Emily actually rocks :) quote: it would seem that Yes, it would seem that. But "it would seem" is not absolute certainty, to be absolutely sure. You think that you have demonstrated that 2+2 are 4. But... How can you be absolutely sure that your example with pebbles applies to anything else? How can you be absolutely sure that you do not live in a Matrix-like universe, where the extraterrestrials even control your thoughts (and everyone else's) and they manipulate them anytime you think about it, to convince you that you are doing it right, when actually you are doin it wrong and 2+2=5 ? How can you be absolutely sure that there is not even an unimaginable scenario, which renders your proof wrong? Of course, these scenarios look completely fantastic. Of course, I don't think that this is the case. Of course, reason tells us that 2+2 are 4. But as long as you can't exclude any scenario where 2+2 are not 4, with absolute certainty, you cannot be absolutely sure that 2+2 are 4. Remember the formulation of A1.2 quote: 2. We cannot be absolutely sure (certain, in a strict sense) that 2+2=4, as our reasoning and/or data could be wrong. Think about this: You would have to demonstrate with absolute certainty, that all imaginable scenarios (Matrix-like universes, etc) which render 2+2=4, are false. You would have to demonstrate the same for all unimaginable scenarios. Think about the difficulty of proving that something you can't imagine, does not exist. And if you dare to try, anybody can easily ask for any of the steps or premises of your demonstration, how can you be absolutely sure of them... and you would have to start again, proving that any unimaginable scenario which renders that step or premise wrong false, is false itself... That's the reason why absolute certainties are not in the range of reason, but of fanatism, dogmatism, etc. Rational thinking proves things "until proven otherwise", "for the time being", "as long as we are not taught better by new facts", "provisionally". If you are interested on epistemology, I would recommend you Karl Popper on this subject. So... as you have not show an "absolutely certain" demonstration that 2+2=4 (there is not such a thing, I'm telling you) #387A.2. holds. For the time being. As long as you or others don't prove me wrong :) Best regards.

SpanishMatMaster -> Answer to susie (12/15/2011 1:01:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: susie Afterall we have already been told that we are all wrong and only the OP is right. Really? By whom? I have had fanatic disciples already and I do not like that. If you tell me who said that I would try to speak with her.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/15/2011 2:36:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I'm not going to claim that your pretending {to know "the first cause of the universe."}, I suspect that you are considering how deeply unsatisfying an infinite regress is Reading previous messages I noticed this from GotSteel. Apparently he thinks that there are only two options: an infinite regress, or the existence of a first cause of the universe. This is wrong on many ways. If somebody wants a detailed analysis, just ask.

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375