(May 13, 2013 at 3:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:(May 10, 2013 at 10:36 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: You have not made a single intelligent rebuttal to anything I've written. You have demonstrated a complete inability to understand the difference between shit pulled from one's anus, and a claim worth ANALyzing. I'll await an intelligible thought, until then, I'll just sit back and enjoy defeating you in this debate Waldorf. Cheers to that!
Oh stop it, I made you look like a complete fool and you know it. You claimed all of those examples were falsifiable but then you made appeals to the truth of the very claim in question to try and verify/falsify that claim.
You appealed to your memory to try and prove you can trust your memory. You appealed to your senses to try and prove that you can trust your senses. You tried to appeal to your ability to reason to try and prove you cannot trust your ability to reason. You used an inductive argument to try and verify that inductive reasoning is valid. You tried to use a logical argument to try and demonstrate that the laws of logic discern truth- utterly small time sir!
Your brand of verificationism has been refuted time and time again, it’s completely self-refuting.
He he he...You so silly. Again...there is a difference between a hypothesis that has the potential to being confirmed or falsified, and one that lacks the substance of anything that correlates with reality or experience at all (I feel like a broken record). Everything you listed as examples of unfalsifiable hypotheses, correlates with reality, and therein has the potential to be falsified (you really don't get this eh?). The only similar hypotheses comparable to the one you defend, are examples such as the tooth fairy, santa, and other such myths. They all share the same properties and the same liklihood. You continue to demonstrate a misunderstanding of the endless word of that which is possible, all the while ignoring the key difference in all of your supposed "unfalsifiable" examples. That shadow of probability that gives merit to any hypothesis. A hypothesis that is falsifiable is just as vulnerable to being confirmed as it is to being overturn. The subject of any "God" one (or tooth fairy, or santa, or unicorn...etc) do not have the substance necessary to be challenged. The validity of such claims rests souly on the belief-holder's persistance that they are true, and nothing more. They do not warrant any intelligible argument from that perspective, and to be frank, nothing you have said warrants an intelligible response as it has taken 4 or 5 pages of me attempting to illustrate this very simple concept, and you continue to practice the classic theist rebuttal technique that will soon be afforded to you again. So, thanks for reading more stuff that you probably don't understand. You may now go back to plugging your ears, while singing bible songs, stomping your feet and claiming victory while typing back more distortions of the things I say which illustrate perfectly that you don't understand them.
