Another law thread

[Esquilax]

If you believe me to be wrong on little more than what you think, then truly there is nothing more to discuss. If however you are basing this belief you have on something more than your word then please as I have provide some sort of reference material. Anything other than you opinion based on popular opinion will do. Give me something of Merritt to discuss, otherwise know I will not yeah-huh/nut-huh with you any further than I already have.

Alright, since you're apparently incapable of reading my arguments at all, I'll make this literally as simple as possible:

un·de·ni·able adjective \ˌən-di-ˈnī-ə-bəl\

Definition of UNDENIABLE

1
: plainly true : incontestable <an undeniable fact>
2
: unquestionably excellent or genuine <an applicant with undeniable references>

There is a difference, Drich, between things that one believes and things that are true. People can believe things that are not true, and they can often do it with great conviction and in large numbers. Numerous theocracies, in all manner of religions, believed in the truth of their religion over all else, and sacrificed individual freedom to that end. This does not mean that they had proof enough to be called undeniable. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if a theocracy is anything other than christian, you too would say they didn't have undeniable proof to justify their actions.

You started this conversation by saying that undeniable proof of god would deny free will, because one would have no choice but to accept the existence of said god. And then to support this, you produce these examples of Israeli theocracies: my contention to you is that the proofs they had were not undeniable, because people denied them. Because they didn't meet the standards of evidence let alone unquestionable evidence. Or are you actually trying to tell me that this Israeli theocracy spanned the entire globe, every man, woman and child on the face of the earth, and continues to do so. By your own logic- that undeniable proof would zap free will into nonexistence- then either we live in a biblical theocracy founded by Israel, or the proof this now defunct theocracy had was not undeniable because we have denied it, or your definition of undeniable proof is wrong.

Read that paragraph again. Let it sink in. You're claiming three premises that cannot coexist: you claim that undeniable proof of god would remove our free will to not worship god as a society, that an old school Israeli theocratic regime had undeniable proof of god, and yet somehow, we have the free will to move on from that. One of your premises is untrue. Which one is it?

Because the thing is, Drich: proof has a very solid definition, and so does the word undeniable. The standard for undeniable proof can't change: if there's any room for doubt, it's not undeniable. This isn't a subjective thing: either it meets the criteria or it doesn't.

Drich, I hope, I really do, that before you hasten to ignore what I've written again, that you'll actually read it. That you'll look at the logic I've presented, consider it on its own terms, and then come up with the best rebuttal you can. I hope that you actually engage me in this, that you return with something that makes me think. I actually don't enjoy the pissing contest of trying to make you listen to what I have to say. I'd like to debate you, not just argue about the argument.

So, in the spirit of this: Hit me with your best shot.