Because he can't get the point...

112 posts / 0 new

Last post

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:21

(Reply to #91) #92

Sir Random

*sigh* Xavier misinterpreted

*sigh* Xavier misinterpreted as usual

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:52

(Reply to #92) #93

the_believer

Sir Random:

I would expect that Xavier's method of challenge to Andrew's original post actually prompted Andrew to pass beyond the scope set (the scope of observation, and not of debate), which is fair, as Xavier's own first comment, in that scenario, probably too passed beyond the scope set at start.

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:56

(Reply to #93) #94

Sir Random

Looking at it, yes that does

Looking at it, yes that does seem to be the case. But, that still does not alleviate Andrew from his part in it. He still, a Nyar pointed out, claimed to have proven his side, baited or not. Xavier tends to do this on purpose. Don't be fooled.

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:21

(Reply to #94) #95

Sir Random

*sigh* Xavier misinterpreted

*sigh* Double post glitch, as usual.

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:11

#96

Drewcgs11

Only for consideration

Only for consideration purposes not to be proven.

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:14

(Reply to #96) #97

Sir Random

And you realize that there is

And you realize that there is no guarantee any one will consider it correct, yes?

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:37

(Reply to #97) #98

Nyarlathotep

Andrewcgs - "Only for

Andrewcgs - "Only for consideration purposes not to be proven."

pretty hard to take that seriously:
--------------------------------------------
Andrewcgs - "I have p̲r̲o̲v̲e̲n̲"

Andrewcgs - "I have already p̲r̲o̲v̲e̲n̲"

Andrewcgs - "but i have already p̲r̲o̲v̲e̲n̲ this"

Andrewcgs - "The p̲r̲o̲o̲f̲ that you can use my philosophy universally"

Andrewcgs - "The p̲r̲o̲o̲f̲ that i have given you"

Andrewcgs - "i have evidence to p̲r̲o̲v̲e̲ everything"

Andrewcgs - "the very thing i am trying to explain/p̲r̲o̲v̲e̲"

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:40

(Reply to #98) #99

Sir Random

Oh ho ho? What's this? I feel

Oh ho ho? What's this? I feel lied to! Neither Reeves nor Andrew mentioned this!

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:44

(Reply to #99) #100

the_believer

Sir Random:

I merely reported what was implied by the original post; Andrewcgs himself strayed beyond the scope he set at start.

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:50

(Reply to #100) #101

Sir Random

Then you are in the clear.

Fri, 08/05/2016 - 00:44

(Reply to #101) #102

Drewcgs11

There is proof inside the

There is proof inside the concepts i explain but the concept it self if not what i was trying to prove but talking to you guys we couldent agree that roses are red.

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:24

#103

Drewcgs11

Hours of deep explanation of

Hours of deep explanation of reasons why it should be considered that would be unwise not 2, but i do realize that what is a guarantee is i have gave good logical reasons for it to be considered. But you guys can choose to walk around blind with a limited perspective just like religious people all you want i cant control anyone.

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:27

(Reply to #103) #104

Sir Random

You do. But even having good,

You do. But even having good, logical conclusions doesn't make something correct. Plausible, but not nessisarily correct.

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:27

#105

Drewcgs11

M. V. Reeves somebody in here

M. V. Reeves somebody in here stating facts

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:45

(Reply to #105) #106

the_believer

Often unlike yourself.

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:28

#107

Drewcgs11

I never claimed to be correct

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:32

(Reply to #107) #108

Sir Random

Then what was the whole "walk

Then what was the whole "walk around with a limited perspective." Bit about?

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:43

(Reply to #108) #109

Nyarlathotep

Andrewcgs - "I never claimed

Andrewcgs - "I never claimed to be correct"

When you claim to have proven something, that is an even stronger claim than that you are correct, it is a claim that you are demonstrably logically correct. And you did this several times.

Thu, 08/04/2016 - 23:48

(Reply to #109) #110

the_believer

Claiming to have proven

Claiming to have proven something is actually just as "strong" as claiming that something is correct, as proving something entails formulating an argument that is both valid/strong and sound/cogent. The only exception is when claiming to have proven a piece of accepted evidence to be "correct," at which rate no propositional calculations can have possibly been performed.

Fri, 08/05/2016 - 00:02

(Reply to #110) #111

Nyarlathotep

M. V. Reeves - "Claiming to

M. V. Reeves - "Claiming to have proven something is actually just as "strong" as claiming that something is correct"

This looks false:

Claiming you have proven x means: you are claiming you are correct AND you have a proof for x.

Claiming you are correct about x does not imply the existence of a proof.

/e
08027616ab16472a60dca6257c396a09

Fri, 08/05/2016 - 18:50

(Reply to #111) #112

the_believer

Retracted.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.

You are here

Pages