Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Random Islamic History Po...
Yesterday at 11:39 PM

Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 08:42 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
Yesterday at 02:11 PM

Protests in Iraq
by zeca
Yesterday at 12:46 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
Yesterday at 06:04 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 13, 2019, 10:26 PM

The Armenian genocide a h...
by zeca
November 13, 2019, 06:49 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
November 12, 2019, 05:43 PM

Excellence and uniqueness
November 11, 2019, 12:56 PM

Upcoming movies
by zeca
November 10, 2019, 10:42 PM

مسيو بيجو, بروس-لي, المهن...
November 09, 2019, 03:36 PM

New PM incoming
November 08, 2019, 08:34 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves

 (Read 80454 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 14 15 1617 18 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #450 - August 15, 2015, 04:12 PM

    We all know you can't prove something doesn't exist.


    Wrong.

    1. There exists a square-circle (assumption)
    2. A square-circle denotes an item made up of incompossible elements (definitional contradiction)
    3. Ergo, there does not exist a square-circle.

    The above is a proof by contradiction. By assuming the existence of something and showing that the assumed existence leads to a contradiction, I have proven that it cannot exist. As aforementioned Teddy boy, you may want to avoid talking about logic when you clearly know very little about the subject.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #451 - August 18, 2015, 08:27 AM

    But you need to demonstrate this scientifically ie via observation and experiments. Once you've demonstrated that a square circle does not exist scientifically then I'll accept I was wrong.  whistling2
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #452 - August 18, 2015, 08:39 AM

    What on earth are you talking about?
    A square-circle leads to a definitional contradiction. X cannot have the properties of a square and circle at the same time. No experimentation is required to demonstrate this.

    Cute ad hoc rescue though, ted.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #453 - August 18, 2015, 08:41 AM

    But you need to demonstrate this scientifically ie via observation and experiments. Once you've demonstrated that a square circle does not exist scientifically then I'll accept I was wrong.  whistling2

    Hmm good point., let me read those words again

    "scientifically ie via observation and experiments."

    Ted... teddy..teddy bear.,  I will prove it and I will show it to you.  Do you got the money to support such observation and experiments?  

    Teddy., my problem with you is not that.,  but  my problem is "neither you know the meaning of scientific proof., or you know  the  meaning of experiments nor you know the difference between  observations and experiments".

    That is the problem..
    Quote
    and ..............  whistling2  whistling2  whistling2

       Teddy  whistling away and says
    Quote
    Once you've demonstrated that a square circle does not exist scientifically then I'll accept I was wrong


    That is the fundamental point of your argument Teddy., and many readers do understand your point of view  and They + me  sympathize with you. Let me clearly write your logic., So the bottom line of your argument in EVERY POST of yours is    ..
    Quote
    ..."If you can not prove  "God/allah whatever  exits hence god exists"..............

    ..."If you can not prove  "square circle does not exist scientifically  then god exists"..............

    with same logic.. let me add one more statement... I just  pooped and I prayed allah/god whatever......   So the argument again is
    Quote
    If you can not prove that god didn't make the poop  that came out your ass .. then then god exists"


    That is your logic Teddy and it is fantastic Ted.  I can assure you no one can beat that logic..

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Re: Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #454 - August 18, 2015, 08:45 AM

    But you need to demonstrate this scientifically ie via observation and experiments. Once you've demonstrated that a square circle does not exist scientifically then I'll accept I was wrong.  whistling2


    Draw a circle and a square. Look up both words in the dictionary. Look at what you have drawn. See if a squared circle makes an sense by comparing the definition and your two drawings. Now attempt draw a squared-circle which still maintains the definitions of both. When you have failed to do this you just falsified the idea. At times visual aids are easier to understand than text.
  • Re: Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #455 - August 18, 2015, 08:59 AM

    But you need to demonstrate this scientifically ie via observation and experiments. Once you've demonstrated that a square circle does not exist scientifically then I'll accept I was wrong.  whistling2


    First, let's put into quotation marks the words you are deliberately misusing or do not know/accurately understand the definitions for:

    But you need to "demonstrate" this "scientifically" ie via "observation" and "experiments." Once you've "demonstrated" that a square circle does not exist "scientifically" then I'll "accept" I was "wrong."  whistling2

    Now let's take apart how you're misusing/misrepresenting these words:

    Demonstrate:
    To you, means to comprehensively eliminate all the possible "goddunnits" anyone can possibly imagine, whether or not those "goddunnits" are themselves supported by any evidence, observation, or experiments.
    To everyone else, means
    • clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence. OR
    • give a practical exhibition and explanation of (how a machine, skill, or craft works or is performed).
    Sometimes, a practical exhibition or explanation is impossible with available technology, but it is possible to demonstrate the existence or truth of something another way, and vice versa. And your failure to understand the available evidence, exhibition, explanation, or truth does not invalidate it, nor is your failure to understand proof that "goddunnit."

    Scientifically
    To you: means "I have no idea how it works, so it might as well be magic."
    To everyone else: That which we can demonstrate through processes to be not magic; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.

    Observation
    To you: means "I must personally understand and accept your demonstration."
    To everyone else: "the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information." The vastness of the universe and the expansiveness of modern human knowledge means that, unless we manage to perfect transferring our consciousness to computers, it is extremely unlikely that any living person will ever have a complete understanding of every observation made by humans. However, we are a species that has the remarkable ability to communicate both through spoken and written word. What I'm writing here, you personally may never understand, but in 150 years, another person may come along, read this, and understand it. And that is an incredible accomplishment. It means each of us has the ability to learn more than we can observe in our own lifetimes, and also to leave our observations for people who we will never meet, so they can learn more than they can observe as well.

    Experiments
    To you: means "whatever I can understand, that can comprehensively and consistently overcome my reflex to put my fingers in my ears and scream 'GODDUNNIT'."
    To everyone else: a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact, or a course of action tentatively adopted without being sure of the eventual outcome.

    "I will accept I was wrong"
    To you: Means I will continue to deny that I am wrong while simultaneously screaming "goddunnit" until you shut up.
    To everyone else: Means "I will accept that the evidence does not support my previous view of the world and adjust my view of the world accordingly, adjusting or eliminating my previous opinions."

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #456 - August 18, 2015, 09:01 AM

    What on earth are you talking about?
    A square-circle leads to a definitional contradiction. X cannot have the properties of a square and circle at the same time. No experimentation is required to demonstrate this.

    Cute ad hoc rescue though, ted.


    Then you have not scientifically proven it...move on.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #457 - August 18, 2015, 09:01 AM

    To Ted's question. Experimentation is not always required. Theories can be based on inference. Stars have gravity which causes movement. Dust can collide due to the movement transferred by the gravity of a star to the dust. Inference is a valid method. You are parroting a single method of science as the only method of science.  

    http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form
  • Re: Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #458 - August 18, 2015, 09:03 AM

    Then you have not scientifically proven it...move on.


    It does not require science since it is about linguistics. Again demonstrating what you have no idea what you are talking about. Heck it seems like you do not know the difference between a square and a circle. I hope you realize this does make you look stupid.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/square
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circle
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #459 - August 18, 2015, 09:05 AM

    Draw a circle and a square. Look up both words in the dictionary. Look at what you have drawn. See if a squared circle makes an sense by comparing the definition and your two drawings. Now attempt draw a squared-circle which still maintains the definitions of both. When you have failed to do this you just falsified the idea. At times visual aids are easier to understand than text.


    Still not demonstrated it via observation and experimentation.  You're just postulating. Try again.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #460 - August 18, 2015, 09:07 AM

    Then you have not scientifically proven it...move on.


    It's not a scientific postulate. Why the fuck would anyone need to scientifically "prove" it?

    It's an argument regarding the definitions of a square and circle. To anyone who has a basic understanding of mathematics, it is clear that something cannot simultaneously hold the properties of a square and circle. No real world "experimentation" is required to notice this.

    Move on, go to your local library, pick up a book on logic, read it until your eyes bleed and then get back to me after you've understood the a priori and a posteriori distinction.

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #461 - August 18, 2015, 09:07 AM

    Nope. Draw both as these are geometric shapes which can be represented by a drawing. No need to find a square or circular rock. Look at the definitions of both. Now attempt to draw a squared circle while maintaining both definitions.

    If you do not understand this you are either willfully ignorant, a troll or stupid.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #462 - August 18, 2015, 09:08 AM

    It does not require science since it is about linguistics.


    Exactly. Rubbish like that is nothing to do with scientific evidence.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #463 - August 18, 2015, 09:08 AM

    It's not a scientific postulate, so why the fuck would anyone need to scientifically "prove" it?
    Move on, go to your local library, pick up a book on logic, read it until your eyes bleed and then get back to me after you've understood the a priori and a posteriori distinction.


    He needs a dictionary before any book on logic. Baby steps
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #464 - August 18, 2015, 09:10 AM

    Exactly. Rubbish like that is nothing to do with scientific evidence.


    You can create the evidence by drawing a presentation of the geometric shape. I am guessing you never took or passed grade school math. The question can be resolved either way. Science is only required when one does not understand basic words such as circle and square.


    http://www.helpingwithmath.com/by_subject/geometry/geo_shapes.htm
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #465 - August 18, 2015, 09:11 AM

    If you do not understand this you are either willfully ignorant, a troll or stupid.


    Now now, calm down. Just because you can't get you head around science no need to get upset.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #466 - August 18, 2015, 09:11 AM

    Exactly. Rubbish like that is nothing to do with scientific evidence.


    "Rubbish like that", do explain why it's rubbish?

    Calling it "rubbish" isn't an argument against anything.

    Are you just upset that I offered a clear counterexample to your claim , once again demonstrating that you are nothing but a pseudo-intellectual, Ted?

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #467 - August 18, 2015, 09:14 AM

    First, let's put into quotation marks the words you are deliberately misusing or do not know/accurately understand the definitions for:

    But you need to "demonstrate" this "scientifically" ie via "observation" and "experiments." Once you've "demonstrated" that a square circle does not exist "scientifically" then I'll "accept" I was "wrong."  whistling2

    Now let's take apart how you're misusing/misrepresenting these words:

    Demonstrate:
    To you, means to comprehensively eliminate all the possible "goddunnits" anyone can possibly imagine, whether or not those "goddunnits" are themselves supported by any evidence, observation, or experiments.
    To everyone else, means
    • clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence. OR
    • give a practical exhibition and explanation of (how a machine, skill, or craft works or is performed).
    Sometimes, a practical exhibition or explanation is impossible with available technology, but it is possible to demonstrate the existence or truth of something another way, and vice versa. And your failure to understand the available evidence, exhibition, explanation, or truth does not invalidate it, nor is your failure to understand proof that "goddunnit."

    Scientifically
    To you: means "I have no idea how it works, so it might as well be magic."
    To everyone else: That which we can demonstrate through processes to be not magic; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.

    Observation
    To you: means "I must personally understand and accept your demonstration."
    To everyone else: "the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information." The vastness of the universe and the expansiveness of modern human knowledge means that, unless we manage to perfect transferring our consciousness to computers, it is extremely unlikely that any living person will ever have a complete understanding of every observation made by humans. However, we are a species that has the remarkable ability to communicate both through spoken and written word. What I'm writing here, you personally may never understand, but in 150 years, another person may come along, read this, and understand it. And that is an incredible accomplishment. It means each of us has the ability to learn more than we can observe in our own lifetimes, and also to leave our observations for people who we will never meet, so they can learn more than they can observe as well.

    Experiments
    To you: means "whatever I can understand, that can comprehensively and consistently overcome my reflex to put my fingers in my ears and scream 'GODDUNNIT'."
    To everyone else: a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact, or a course of action tentatively adopted without being sure of the eventual outcome.

    "I will accept I was wrong"
    To you: Means I will continue to deny that I am wrong while simultaneously screaming "goddunnit" until you shut up.
    To everyone else: Means "I will accept that the evidence does not support my previous view of the world and adjust my view of the world accordingly, adjusting or eliminating my previous opinions."


    Just because you don't understand God and some of the mysteries of life doesn't mean everyone else is in the same boat as you. Some of us do know more than you, learn to accept it instead of getting angry. Be patient.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #468 - August 18, 2015, 09:15 AM

    Now now, calm down. Just because you can't get you head around science no need to get upset.


    I am not the one with a problem understanding basic words and shapes people learn about when they are 5 and earlier.

    Go down to your local toy store and pick up one of these. You can get a flat one if a cube is too complicated for you



  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #469 - August 18, 2015, 09:16 AM

    Just because you don't understand God and some of the mysteries of life doesn't mean everyone else is. Some of us do know more than you, learn to accept it instead of getting angry. Be patient.


    Or people just make up sophistry which they both try to sell then buy into themselves.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #470 - August 18, 2015, 09:18 AM

     Cheesy Cheesy  gal_from_usa  wrote a page of  logic...
    ...................  da..da..da...

     and Ted's logic is  
    Just because you don't understand God and some of the mysteries of life doesn't mean everyone else is. ................

    And..and.. I pulling my hair to understand "how Ted got that from that gal_from_usa post"

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #471 - August 18, 2015, 09:22 AM

    By not reading it Yeez, that is how.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #472 - August 18, 2015, 09:29 AM

    I am not the one with a problem understanding basic words and shapes people learn about when they are 5 and earlier.

    Go down to your local toy store and pick up one of these. You can get a flat one if a cube is too complicated for you

    (Clicky for piccy!)




    And if you lack the ability to figure out how to walk to a store, you can order one online!

    Here, I will provide some convenient links so you can pick one to buy online and have it delivered straight to your house by magic fairies who you may never see. Be sure to ask your parents' permission before you use their credit card!

    http://www.melissaanddoug.com/wooden-shape-sorting-learning-clock

    http://www.melissaanddoug.com/shape-sorting-cube-learning-game

    http://www.amazon.com/Fisher-Price-Brilliant-Basics-Babys-Blocks/dp/B0089W1IGG/ref=sr_1_2?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1439889892&sr=1-2&refinements=p_n_age_range%3A165813011%7C165890011


    Or if those are all a bit too complex for you, this one has lights and sounds!
    http://www.amazon.com/VTech-Busy-Learners-Activity-Cube/dp/B00HD3T1QQ/ref=pd_sim_21_7?ie=UTF8&refRID=0JBNAC0H746S55DG7VAY

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #473 - August 18, 2015, 09:42 AM

    By not reading it Yeez, that is how.



    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #474 - August 18, 2015, 10:10 AM



    You're taking it too far now, you can't possibly have fire in water.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #475 - August 18, 2015, 10:14 AM

    Quote from: CallMeTed
    You're taking it too far now, you can't possibly have fire in water.


    Which is why the meme is supposed to be funny.


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #476 - August 18, 2015, 10:22 AM

    Only someone devoid of logic could believe that you could have fire in water. Thanks for educating me. I now understand my irrational way of thinking.

    I feel fortunate to have the atheists show me how deluded I was. I look forward to learning more about atheism and rational thinking.  dance
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #477 - August 18, 2015, 10:27 AM

    Haha. You're welcome, man!

    I enjoy discussing stuff with you. You're really honest, extremely humble and your responses are always engaging.
    I would never suggest that you are ignorant of basic logic and I totally wouldn't make the claim that the majority of your arguments are irrelevant bollocks.

    I also love the fact that you constantly offer unsolicited advice, Ted.

     Afro  dance  grin12





    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #478 - August 18, 2015, 10:31 AM

     001_wub
  • Ringside: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves
     Reply #479 - August 18, 2015, 10:33 AM


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Previous page 1 ... 14 15 1617 18 ... 37 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »