Quote:
I wasn't trying to be cute and self righteous. YOU posted a fallicy which anyone who has taken a high school level or higher logic or debate course knows is undefendable.
Nope. I didn't. Learn to read.
Quote:
To understand why you can't prove the non-existance of something you first have to understand the definition of proof.
Proof is factual evidence that establishes the truth of an object. Evidence occurs when there is interaction between the object in question and it's environment.
While I appreaciate your introduction to logic "existance is a predicate" argument, it doesn't apply here. It's unfortunate that you can't diffrentiate between absolute proof and proving something to a degree of certainty but that's not my problem.
Quote:
For example, we have proof of the existence of dinosaurs because as they interacted with thier environment they left behind tracks, markings and skeletons. This is concrete proof based on objective evidence.
If an object does not exist, then it in no way interacts with the environment around it, and therefore leaves behind no evidence of it's existence. So the ultimate proof of non existence is the lack of evidence. However lack of evidence doesn't mean you have proof, it means you have a LACK of proof.
Again, you're applying a rule to something where it doesn't fit. Trying to put a ***** in with a sledgehammer because the it's the only tool you have available. In your mind everything must be a nail because your only avaialable tool for debate is that sledgehammer.
Quote:
Your 'example' of proof of jesus' nonexistence was disqulified as proof from the first word you used, if. Use of the word if immediately qualifies a statement as a hypothetical.
And?
Quote:
A hypothetical statement by it's own definition isn't a proof of anything. It is an idea presented despite the LACK of proof for the purpose of reasoning and debate.
No ****, genius. If you had an IQ over 100 you'd have realized that's completely irrelevant to anything as no one was arguing that there was concrete proof of Christer Bunny's non existance beyond a rational doubt.
Quote:
I had unfortunately ASSUMED that you were intelligent enough to understand how your reasoning was flawed, and only needed a reminder to see that you made an indefensible statement. After reading your reply to me, however, I'm beginning to wonder.
No, you unfortunately ASSUMED that you understood what I was saying, which apparently you didn't. There's an expression "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing". You're a fine example of what it means. A person learns a small degree of information about a subject and then suddenly, they've become an expert!
A man has a car which stops going because his Transmission fails. Now every car he sees non working is caused by a failed transmission. You're that man. No one mentioned absolute proof of anything. Only proof beyond rational doubt.
Were you capable of reading, I would have thought you would have noticed that little point in my prior post and said "Oh, yes, my mistake." But instead you proceeded to swing your newfound hammer around, ignoring the fact that there wasn't a nail in sight.
Ignoring the fact that I clearly and cleanly pointed out where you're completely and utterly wrong in a forensic, logical, and inuitive sense. Ignoring the fact that you're clearly out of your depth here and havent the ability for considered discourse any more than a Special Oplymics participant would. Were I the person who had explained the "existance is a predicate" argument to you I'd be disgusted with myself at not intstilling even the slightest amount of intelectual rigor and critical thinking skills in you.
You should be dissapointed in yourself, but apparently, that's not possible as you won't realize your mistake while you can still parrot concepts that don't apply.
Don't quit the fryolator job yet, the academic comminty isn't ready for you.