(December 3, 2009 at 4:31 pm)Meatball Wrote: How about "A circle is not a square"?

Prove it. What is a 'circle'? What is a 'square'?

(December 3, 2009 at 4:59 pm)Saerules Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 4:31 pm)Meatball Wrote: How about "A circle is not a square"?

Prove it. What is a 'circle'? What is a 'square'?

Yeah, and no cheating with some Kaluza-Klein compactified dimensions, please, we've seen those tricks!

(December 3, 2009 at 4:41 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Is that a negative claim? Sound more like a description to me.

Same thing really. All of our descriptions are completely subjective too Existence itself is subjective

No matter how logical or 'obvious?' 'proof' is: it always takes faith to accept its 'truth'. It may require an amount of faith similar to a blind jump through unknown space-time continuums and expecting to land at a casino on Earth... or maybe only a little blink of faith... but it is still faith nonetheless.

---

(December 3, 2009 at 5:05 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 4:59 pm)Saerules Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 4:31 pm)Meatball Wrote: How about "A circle is not a square"?

Prove it. What is a 'circle'? What is a 'square'?

Yeah, and no cheating with some Kaluza-Klein compactified dimensions, please, we've seen those tricks!

That's cheating? Prove that it is cheating

(December 3, 2009 at 5:06 pm)Saerules Wrote: That's cheating? Prove that it is cheating

Not before you have proven that you posted anything here that matters, you little fraud

(December 3, 2009 at 4:46 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 4:41 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Is that a negative claim? Sound more like a description to me.

Suits me. The thing that matters (to me at least) is that it is a description of reality that is evidence based and of practical nature.

Define reality and tell me why it matters to you

This will be highly annoying if I actually demand more proof every single time a positive remark is made It's silly, yes... but does prove my point that everyone's different 'evidence' level is different, as is everyone's ability to accept evidence (faith).

---

(December 3, 2009 at 5:14 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 5:06 pm)Saerules Wrote: That's cheating? Prove that it is cheating

Not before you have proven that you posted anything here that matters, you little fraud

How could I prove that? Especially as 'matters' is completely subjective

(December 3, 2009 at 5:14 pm)Saerules Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 5:14 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 5:06 pm)Saerules Wrote: That's cheating? Prove that it is cheating

Not before you have proven that you posted anything here that matters, you little fraud

How could I prove that? Especially as 'matters' is completely subjective

Don't turn it around. The burden of proof is yours!

BTW, your tactics are indeed pretty annoying. Are you sure they are excusively to make some intelligent point here?

Rabbit,

Most of us have ridden this carousel with Sae; apparently this is your turn. Welcome back, by the way, you were missed.

Rhizo

(December 3, 2009 at 5:24 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: BTW, your tactics are indeed pretty annoying. Are you sure they are excusively to make some intelligent point here?

I recognize those tactics myself. They are best described as representative of a function that tends to recurse into itself, except this is used in an attempt at hammering out definitions. Best used to exhaust or outlast an opposing side. Sometimes used to delve further into an argument though.

I do that to my roommate all the time. Drives him crazy in our discussions, because when we finish, my main points have won but I have concede some sub points and I wasted the entire night away in our sub-sub-sub discussions about the meaning of meaning.

Rhizomorph13 Wrote:Most of us have ridden this carousel with Sae; apparently this is your turn.

Dirty...

(December 3, 2009 at 5:24 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

---

(December 3, 2009 at 5:14 pm)Saerules Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 5:14 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 5:06 pm)Saerules Wrote: That's cheating? Prove that it is cheating

Not before you have proven that you posted anything here that matters, you little fraud

How could I prove that? Especially as 'matters' is completely subjective

---

Don't turn it around. The burden of proof is yours!

BTW, your tactics are indeed pretty annoying. Are you sure they are excusively to make some intelligent point here?

How is the burden of proof mine? I'm not the one spouting outlandish ideas like circles that are not square

Its really simple... when someone says something like 'I like blue'... a person might ask 'why?' of that. You can continue these 'why?'s until their final logical conclusion that a person just needs to accept all things on faith

I'm not making a point (I've made it before, and it has yet to be refuted)... I'm just illustrating it Creationists are a pretty good illustration of one end of this 'spectrum?', and science is a good illustration of the other (lot of faith <--> little faith).

Rhizo Wrote:Most of us have ridden this carousel with Sae; apparently this is your turn. Welcome back, by the way, you were missed.

Syna Wrote:Dirty...

I second Syna on this one...

Very good point Sae, I've never though of accepting evidence as faith before....

So no matter what... faith will be interweaved in everything somewhere along the line?

I could try to prove to you that I'm eating chips... I could take a picture of me eating them with this post in the shot, but in the end, with our ever-increasing technological advances making the photo subjective to photoshop and etc, you will have to accept it on faith... just lest faith. I see.