tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post6388936381140496088..comments2023-10-29T08:19:51.395-05:00Comments on The Raytractors - Ray Comfort's Detractors: The fundie huntMacGyver Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02307024564664964571noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-73632569531810918302008-07-27T17:42:00.000-05:002008-07-27T17:42:00.000-05:00GE said: "It is crystal clear, but you, very artfu...GE said: <I>"It is crystal clear, but you, very artfully I might add, make it look muddy."</I><BR/><BR/>So crystal clear, in fact, that you don't answer my questions as to TMM's meaning:<BR/><BR/>Are the laws of logic characteristics of the universe, or are they abstracted by man out of characteristics of the universe? Did the laws of logic exist before man abstracted them out of characteristics of the universe? What if man abstracted the laws of logic out of the random characteristics of the universe, would they be valid?<BR/><BR/>I seriously do not know his position on this, if you do, congrats.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-27291284048985530172008-07-27T17:32:00.000-05:002008-07-27T17:32:00.000-05:00Sye,You see? Once you start playing this way it is...Sye,<BR/><BR/>You see? Once you start playing this way it is when we have to make a conclusion about you. I still do not know if there is a third alternative. Is there?<BR/><BR/>It is crystal clear, but you, very artfully I might add, make it look muddy. but it is just your art. Something that should not happen if you were playing cleanly.<BR/><BR/>So, I stop this one right here not to go into the insults again.<BR/><BR/>Also, I am still on the other, though you seem prone to start the tricks there too.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Gabohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552375541700079254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-18227660488982166782008-07-27T17:21:00.000-05:002008-07-27T17:21:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gabohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552375541700079254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-83199723332563810662008-07-27T16:32:00.000-05:002008-07-27T16:32:00.000-05:00GE said: ”TMM is clearly stating that these are ch...GE said: <I>”TMM is clearly stating that these are characteristics of the universe. No way around that. The created thing is obviously an attempt at explaining that men abstracted the stuff out of observation of the universe, and so on and so forth. It is crystal clear.”</I><BR/><BR/>So, are the laws of logic characteristics of the universe, or are they abstracted by man out of characteristics of the universe? Did the laws of logic exist before man abstracted them out of characteristics of the universe? What if man abstracted the laws of logic out of the random characteristics of the universe, would they be valid?<BR/><BR/>Clear as mud you mean.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-28291829884227695662008-07-27T16:23:00.000-05:002008-07-27T16:23:00.000-05:00Sye,do you know whether he believes that the laws ...Sye,<BR/><BR/><I>do you know whether he believes that the laws of logic are man made, or are a characteristic of the universe?</I><BR/><BR/>TMM is clearly stating that these are characteristics of the universe. No way around that. The created thing is obviously an attempt at explaining that men abstracted the stuff out of observation of the universe, and so on and so forth. It is crystal clear. It is also crystal clear that you chose the meaning. Whether the purpose was to annoy or not, I leave it to you.<BR/><BR/>I did give you answers too at that time. Quite direct to your question. After that time I considered it useless, since you were not going to pay any attention. But I guess there is no point discussing this any more. You are not accepting this. I will be at the "hijacked." thingie with our other dialogue.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Gabohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552375541700079254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-4778031485025228022008-07-27T14:03:00.000-05:002008-07-27T14:03:00.000-05:00GE said: ”I do not see any justification. I have f...GE said: <I>”I do not see any justification. I have followed your conversation with TMM (sorry to talk about you like you are not there TMM), and yes, he calls you names, but somehow you earn that.”</I><BR/><BR/>Disagreeing with one’s argument may lead to name-calling in the school playground, but in a debate between adults it’s just childish.<BR/><BR/><I>”Then, as you tend to do, you do not try to understand the full meaning of the sentence, you just take the bit where TMM said "created," give it the meaning most convenient to you and answer”</I><BR/><BR/>If he did not mean that men created the laws of logic, he should not say that. I’m not a mind reader.<BR/><BR/><I>”So, to me it is clear that TMM was not implying "creation" of logic as such, but the choice of this word is inconsequential if you read the whole thing and take the meaning. However, you choose to change it so you can mock it and sound like you were the smart one.”</I><BR/><BR/>If he means that logic is a characteristic of the universe, and that man has no part in it, he should say that, but to imply in any way that man had a part in the creation of logic AND that it is a characteristic of the universe is having one’s cake, and eating it too.<BR/><BR/><I>”So, you choose to, not only continue this change of meaning, but also take offense and do the mocking more intense.”</I><BR/><BR/>Nope, I point out what he is saying in the hopes that he might clarify his argument, but all he does is claim that he has already defeated my arguments with the verbal diarrhea he claims as an argument.<BR/><BR/><I>”By the way, the first time we exchanged posts, you did the exact thing to me, changed meanings, cared little if at all about what I was trying to say, and I did not even once called you any names.”</I><BR/><BR/>Fact is, when I engage people in these kind of debates, I start by asking how they account for universal, abstract, invariant laws according to their worldviews. Look at how long these conversations have been going on, and no one has yet even attempted to do so. They obfuscate, dodge, and weave, but do not answer the question. When someone gives me a non-answer, I try to bring them back on topic by sifting through what they give me. It hardly makes sense to accuse me of misunderstanding them, when they aren’t even answering my question. Take TMM’s response for example. From what he has said, do you know whether he believes that the laws of logic are man made, or are a characteristic of the universe? Look at your own responses to me, you haven’t even addressed the topic. If anyone should get frustrated and start calling names, it should be me.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>”Now I would ask, if this is your strategy, then what would be your accomplishment?”</I><BR/><BR/>I am only trying to expose those who claim to have justification for the laws of logic outside of God, by showing that this is simply not the case. It would be great if the people here would step up to the plate and actually answer my questions, but not having any answers tends to bring out the worst in them.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-56711208920295086262008-07-27T10:13:00.000-05:002008-07-27T10:13:00.000-05:00Granted, my response was cheekyThank you for admit...<I>Granted, my response was cheeky</I><BR/><BR/>Thank you for admitting this Sye. However, I do not see any justification. I have followed your conversation with TMM (sorry to talk about you like you are not there TMM), and yes, he calls you names, but somehow you earn that. Let me show you (and I am not trying to be insulting):<BR/><BR/>TMM said:<BR/><BR/><I> They are merely creations of men, based upon our observations of the universe, and revised and refined over the ages, based upon their ability to generate consistent results and accurate predictions.</I><BR/><BR/>Then, as you tend to do, you do not try to understand the full meaning, you just take the bit where TMM said "created," give it the meaning most convenient to you and answer:<BR/><BR/><I>Alright, let me ask you this then, could the sun have been both the sun, and not the sun, at the same time and in the same way before man 'created' the law of non-contradiction?</I><BR/><BR/>So, to me it is clear that TMM was not implying "creation" of logic as such. The choice of this word is inconsequential if you read the whole thing and take the meaning as intended. However, you chose to change it so you can mock it and sound like you were the smart one.<BR/><BR/>Now, I bet you do understand, yet you do not care as long as you can piss off the "opponent." So, an "opponent" has no option but to conclude that, either you are being dishonest (troll), or you are dim. TMM chose the second. So, you chose to, not only continue this change of meaning, but also take offense and do the mocking more intense.<BR/><BR/>By the way, the first time we exchanged posts, you did the exact thing to me, changed meanings, cared little if at all about what I was trying to say, and I did not even once called you any names. I stopped then at the point where I felt only insulting you would be appropriate, since you were insulting me with your "tactics." Granted, I started insulting you afterwards, but not that time.<BR/><BR/>Now I would ask, if this is your strategy, then what would be your accomplishment? You look too obviously dishonest or dim to us. You do not look like your arguments were convincing. Are you looking to be labeled a troll? (Even if an unwilling troll, since you seem to think you are doing something out of christianity, not out of trollism). Or maybe you just want the christians to feel like you accomplished something even if you did not?<BR/><BR/>Again, I might not be able to post too often, but I will be listening.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Gabohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552375541700079254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-59748446804126123202008-07-27T10:11:00.000-05:002008-07-27T10:11:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gabohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552375541700079254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-83334383325353444312008-07-27T09:52:00.000-05:002008-07-27T09:52:00.000-05:00Simple Sye sez"Um, how can I talk about you in the...Simple Sye sez"<BR/><BR/><I>Um, how can I talk about you in the first person???</I><BR/><BR/>*sigh*<BR/><BR/>Honestly...it's like trying to teach calculus to a squirrel.<BR/><BR/><I>If you believe that you have proven the deduction that the sun could not have been both the sun, and not the sun, at the same time and in the same way before man could have observed this, then I can’t help you.</I><BR/><BR/>And now you're reduced to outright lies. Sadly, I expected no better of you.<BR/><BR/><I>Look, I already believe that you are self-deceived about sooooo many things, adding this proof of yours to the list is no biggie.</I><BR/><BR/>I'd say "you're not fooling anyone, Sye", but the really tragic thing here is that you've probably managed to fool <I>yourself</I> with your constant barrace of disingenuous bullshit.<BR/><BR/>So go ahead, add this latest Straw Man to your "list". At least <I>you're</I> impressed by it.TripMaster Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13780570912044493356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-7021286773830624462008-07-27T08:50:00.000-05:002008-07-27T08:50:00.000-05:00Tripmaster Monkey said: ”So this is what you're re...Tripmaster Monkey said: <I>”So this is what you're reduced to, Sye? Talking about me in the third person, trying to insinuate that I'm avoiding an argument that I've already refuted?”</I><BR/><BR/>Um, how can I talk <B>about</B> you in the first person??? If you believe that you have proven the deduction that the sun could not have been both the sun, and not the sun, at the same time and in the same way <B>before</B> man could have observed this, then I can’t help you. Look, I already believe that you are self-deceived about sooooo many things, adding this proof of yours to the list is no biggie.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-69892211357843109152008-07-26T23:09:00.000-05:002008-07-26T23:09:00.000-05:00So this is what you're reduced to, Sye? Talking ab...So <I>this</I> is what you're reduced to, Sye? Talking about me in the third person, trying to insinuate that I'm avoiding an argument that I've <B>already</B> refuted?<BR/><BR/>I thought your God didn't like it when you lie...Commandment #9 and all that.<BR/><BR/>What a joke. You Fundies take hypocrisy to hitherto undreamt-of levels.<BR/><BR/>Clearly, you have nothing more to offer on this thread. Be seeing you.TripMaster Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13780570912044493356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-19303738218094902502008-07-26T22:00:00.000-05:002008-07-26T22:00:00.000-05:00GE said: ” So, taking this out of the context and ...GE said: <I>” So, taking this out of the context and mocking is an obvious attempt at obfuscating and annoying. Even if you then talk about the rest of the sentence, this part is still inappropriate. Now tell me this is not out of pure trollism.”</I><BR/><BR/>If TMM wants to show the deduction that proves that since the sun cannot be both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way today, then it could not have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before man existed, he is welcome to do so. <BR/><BR/>Granted, my response was cheeky, but just look at our history to see if TMM warrants any more respect. If he wishes to argue in the vein that you have now chosen, I would be happy to respond in kind.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-29168780131174279512008-07-26T21:43:00.000-05:002008-07-26T21:43:00.000-05:00Simple Sye sez:You observed the past before mankin...Simple Sye sez:<BR/><BR/><I>You observed the past before mankind existed??? Reaaaaaaally.</I><BR/><BR/>Straw man. Invalid.<BR/><BR/><I>Alright, then produce the argument that proves that the sun could not have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before mankind ‘created’ the law of non-contradcition.</I><BR/><BR/>Asked and answered.<BR/><BR/><I>I guess we’ll see about that once you produce your proof.</I><BR/><BR/>See above.<BR/><BR/><I>So, if man did not create the laws of logic (as you earlier stated), where’d they come from?</I><BR/><BR/>You're confusing the nature of the universe with mankind's observations of same again. <I>Try</I> to keep up.<BR/><BR/><I>By what standard of logic are my arguments flawed, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?</I><BR/><BR/>Disqualified. Thanks for playing.<BR/><BR/><I>How do you know that 2 + 2 will = 4 tomorrow, since you have not observed tomorrow?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't know it. I have a reasonable expectation that it will, based on the fact that it has, as far as we can tell, since the beginning of the universe.<BR/><BR/>How do <I>you</I> know it?<BR/><BR/><I>Prove this please.</I><BR/><BR/>Shifting the burden of proof. Invalid.<BR/><BR/>Really, Sye, can't you do <I>any</I> better?<BR/><BR/><I>By what standard of logic are my questions irrational, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my questions? You seem to want to hold my argument to some universal, invariant, abstract standard of logic, but you have yet to account for one according to your worldview.</I><BR/><BR/>And disqualified <I>again</I> Thanks for playing.TripMaster Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13780570912044493356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-65060032107797908922008-07-26T21:35:00.000-05:002008-07-26T21:35:00.000-05:00Sye,tripmaster monkey's argument was:Observation. ...Sye,<BR/><BR/>tripmaster monkey's argument was:<BR/><BR/><I>Observation. You know, it is possible to deduce things about the past based on the evidence we can observe today.</I><BR/><BR/>Your response:<BR/><BR/><I>Tripmaster Monkey said: ”Observation.”<BR/><BR/>You observed the past before mankind existed??? Reaaaaaaally.</I><BR/><BR/>So, taking this out of the context and mocking is an obvious attempt at obfuscating and annoying. Even if you then talk about the rest of the sentence, this part is still inappropriate. Now tell me this is not out of pure trollism. But do not change it to a "how do you account." Be a man and answer whether this was done just to annoy. Otherwise what for.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Gabohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552375541700079254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-64298541924262934012008-07-26T20:25:00.000-05:002008-07-26T20:25:00.000-05:00Simple SyeMan met T.M.M.Going to the fair.Said Sim...<B><I>Simple SyeMan met T.M.M.<BR/>Going to the fair.<BR/>Said Simple SyeMan to T.M.M.,<BR/>"How d'you know you're there?<BR/><BR/>For I am here and I've been told<BR/>I cannot be mistook.<BR/>How do I come to know this?<BR/>Why, it's writ in this old book.<BR/><BR/>So how're you sure that you are here<BR/>In this partic'lar place?"<BR/><BR/>T.M.M. answered not a word,<BR/>But pied Sye in the face.</I></B>Weemaryannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06329039927702839707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-51082806737800204122008-07-26T19:52:00.000-05:002008-07-26T19:52:00.000-05:00Tripmaster Monkey said: ”Observation.”You observed...Tripmaster Monkey said: <I>”Observation.”</I><BR/><BR/>You observed the past before mankind existed??? Reaaaaaaally.<BR/><BR/><I>”You know, it is possible to deduce things about the past based on the evidence we can observe today.”</I><BR/><BR/>Alright, then produce the argument that proves that the sun could not have been both the sun and not the sun at the same time and in the same way before mankind ‘created’ the law of non-contradcition.<BR/><BR/><I>”This "were you there" argument is as weak as all your others.”</I><BR/><BR/>I guess we’ll see about that once you produce your proof.<BR/><BR/><I>”There's a difference between natural phenomena and man's observations of them.”</I><BR/><BR/>So, if man did not create the laws of logic (as you earlier stated), where’d they come from?<BR/><BR/><I>”It's not surprising that you failed to understand just how flawed your arguments are.”</I><BR/><BR/>By what standard of logic are my arguments flawed, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument?<BR/><BR/><I>”When 2+2 is observed to !=4, this point will be valid.”</I><BR/><BR/>How do you know that 2 + 2 will = 4 tomorrow, since you have not observed tomorrow?<BR/><BR/><I>”I like it just fine, since there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of God.”</I><BR/><BR/>Prove this please.<BR/><BR/><I>”Sye, don't you realize yet that every time you yammer “By what standard of logic is {blank} invalid, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to {blank}?", you disqualify yourself from participating in a rational discussion?”</I><BR/><BR/>By what standard of logic are my questions irrational, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my questions? You seem to want to hold my argument to some universal, invariant, abstract standard of logic, but you have yet to account for one according to your worldview.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-67738337322720187472008-07-26T19:20:00.000-05:002008-07-26T19:20:00.000-05:00Oh look. Simple Sye is back. Joy.Uh, how do you ...Oh look. Simple Sye is back. Joy.<BR/><BR/><I>Uh, how do you know?</I><BR/><BR/>Observation. You know, it <I>is</I> possible to deduce things about the past based on the evidence we can observe today. This "were you there" argument is as weak as all your others.<BR/><BR/><I>Well, you are the one that said: “They are merely creations of men”, how was I supposed to know that you really meant the complete opposite?</I><BR/><BR/>I did <I>not</I> mean the "complete opposite", dolt. There's a difference between natural phenomena and man's observations of them. If you're really too feeble-minded to grasp <I>that</I>, I can see how the understanding of the basic rules of logic can elude you.<BR/><BR/><I>Plus, how do you know what did or did not exist prior to man’s existence???</I><BR/><BR/>See above, simpleton.<BR/><BR/><I>Where exactly does the ‘demolishing’ of my argument begin?</I><BR/><BR/>It's not surprising that you failed to understand just how flawed your arguments are. <BR/><BR/><I>Nope that’s not at all what I would say. I would say, “How do observations become law-like?”</I><BR/><BR/>Of course that's what you would say. I see I gave you far too much credit when I tried to guess what argument you would use.<BR/><BR/><I>If the laws of logic are based on observation then they are contingent to what was observed, and they lose their universality.</I><BR/><BR/>When 2+2 is observed to !=4, this point will be valid. Don't hold your breath.<BR/><BR/><I>Of course if you said this, I would just counter with, “Why do I have to explain the existence of God, He just exists! How do you like your argument now?</I><BR/><BR/>I like it just fine, since there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of God. Can you say the same for the universe?<BR/><BR/><I>I’d ask: “By what standard of logic is the first cause argument invalid, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to the first cause argument?</I><BR/><BR/>Sye, don't you realize <I>yet</I> that every time you yammer “By what standard of logic is <blank> invalid, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to <blank>?", you disqualify yourself from participating in a rational discussion?<BR/><BR/><I>Thanks, but your strawman argument is pathetic.</I><BR/><BR/>Not nearly as pathetic as your <I>real</I> "argument". What a joke.TripMaster Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13780570912044493356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-12821141886721289952008-07-26T18:37:00.000-05:002008-07-26T18:37:00.000-05:00Dale said: "Sye,Logic is not "invariant."One one s...Dale said: <I>"Sye,<BR/>Logic is not "invariant."<BR/>One one side of your argument you claim it is, on the other side you claim it isn't."</I><BR/><BR/>Quotes please. Methinks yous a tad muxed ip :-)<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-65759642823995787152008-07-26T18:27:00.000-05:002008-07-26T18:27:00.000-05:00The Celtic Chimp said: ”Poor Sye, He asks, "How ca...The Celtic Chimp said: <I>”Poor Sye, <BR/>He asks, <BR/>"How can you be absolutely sure about anything etc. etc."<BR/>I reply. <BR/>"I can't be absolutely sure"<BR/>His retarded response.<BR/>"Can you be absolutely sure about THAT?" </I><BR/><BR/>Actually on your July 25, 8:49 AM post you said: <I>” We don not know anything with 100% certainty.”</I><BR/><BR/>Then on my 1:43 PM post I said: “Well, then YOU don’t know THAT now do you? In other words, if you are not certain, that certainity is impossible, then certainty may very well be possible.”<BR/><BR/>Big difference. Nice try though :-)<BR/><BR/><I>”I think you should seek proffessional help. There appears to be something wrong with your brain. If someone says they cannot be 100% certain aboout anything, can you see the problem with asking them how they can be 100% certain about that?”</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I didn’t ask, I merely exposed your contradiction (scroll up). If you cannot be 100% certain about ANYTHING, then you cannot be certain about that very sentence, so, in fact, you could be certain about some things.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-5627280684830895052008-07-26T18:12:00.000-05:002008-07-26T18:12:00.000-05:00Tripmaster Monkey said: ”That's why you came back ...Tripmaster Monkey said: <I>”That's why you came back long enough to toss out a snarky comment, but failed to address my earlier demolishing of your "argument". Because of your "life". Riiight.”</I><BR/><BR/>Demolishing my argument eh? Cute. I imagine that you mean this post, so now that I have a bit of time, I’ll respond.<BR/><BR/><I>”Prior to mankind codifying some of the more important characteristics of the universe into "the laws of logic", those characteristics still existed.”</I><BR/><BR/>Uh, how do you know?<BR/><BR/><I>”Trying to make it seem as if I said they didn't exist prior to our writing them down is disingenuous...par for the course for you.”</I><BR/><BR/>Well, you are the one that said: <I>“They are merely creations of men”</I>, how was I supposed to know that you really meant the complete opposite? Plus, how do you know what did or did not exist prior to man’s existence??? Where exactly does the ‘demolishing’ of my argument begin?<BR/><BR/><I>"Let me save some time and hash out the rest of your "argument":<BR/>Sye: So, you say the laws of logic are just mankind's observations of the characteristics of the universe. But how do you explain the presence of those characteristics?”</I><BR/><BR/>Nope that’s not at all what I would say. I would say, “How do observations become law-like?” If the laws of logic are based on observation then they are contingent to what was observed, and they lose their universality.<BR/><BR/><I>”TMM: Why exactly do I have to explain them? That's just the way the universe works.”</I><BR/><BR/>Of course if you said this, I would just counter with, “Why do I have to explain the existence of God, He just exists! How do you like your argument now?<BR/><BR/>And if you said this: <I>”TMM: First Cause argument. Invalid.”</I>Even though I don’t use that argument, I’d ask: “By what standard of logic is the first cause argument invalid, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to the first cause argument?<BR/><BR/><I>”There. I just saved us three hours of pointless bullshit. Feel free to thank me.”</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks, but your strawman argument is pathetic.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-38698757341750760562008-07-26T13:46:00.000-05:002008-07-26T13:46:00.000-05:00Poor Sye, He asks, "How can you be absolutely sure...Poor Sye, <BR/><BR/>He asks, <BR/><BR/>"How can you be absolutely sure about anything etc. etc."<BR/><BR/>I reply. <BR/><BR/>"I can't be absolutely sure"<BR/><BR/>His retarded response.<BR/><BR/>"Can you be absolutely sure about THAT?" <BR/><BR/>Am.....no...<BR/><BR/>How dimwitted can you get? <BR/><BR/>Sye, <BR/><BR/>I think you should seek proffessional help. There appears to be something wrong with your brain. If someone says they cannot be 100% certain aboout anything, can you see the problem with asking them how they can be 100% certain about that? Probably not. Without your single broken brained question to ask you wouldn't have anything to type.<BR/><BR/>Sye. You are a moron. I can't be ABSOLUTELY certain of that but that is what the evidence suggests <BR/><BR/>Cheers :),<BR/><BR/>Gary.The Celtic Chimphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04570106602777322387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-2179253648881378202008-07-26T08:02:00.000-05:002008-07-26T08:02:00.000-05:00Sye sez:Actually no, I happen to have a life outsi...Sye sez:<BR/><BR/><I>Actually no, I happen to have a life outside of here.</I><BR/><BR/>Sure you do, Sye. <snicker><BR/><BR/>That's why you came back long enough to toss out a snarky comment, but failed to address my earlier demolishing of your "argument". Because of your "life". Riiight.TripMaster Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13780570912044493356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-65023082861700428572008-07-26T01:09:00.000-05:002008-07-26T01:09:00.000-05:00The problem here is that we don't have our own ser...The problem here is that we don't have our own server space. If we had our own space, then we could set up an IP based filter. Unfortunately, blogspot's tools to do that are slightly...lacking.<BR/><BR/>So, <I><B>IF</B></I> anyone has free server space AND we can register our own URL, I would be glad to try and get us set up with a better system than this.MacGyver Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02307024564664964571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-84285166410971031502008-07-26T00:09:00.000-05:002008-07-26T00:09:00.000-05:00Mac & Lance, build up that Bathroom Wall!Mac's...<I>Mac & Lance, build up that Bathroom Wall!</I><BR/><BR/>Mac's got the technical skills - I'm not even sure how I'd go about doing that.Lance Christian Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14662783824480475026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4140917903722388348.post-26666377993611824622008-07-25T23:17:00.000-05:002008-07-25T23:17:00.000-05:00Looks like Sye's been run off this thread..."Actua...<I>Looks like Sye's been run off this thread..."</I><BR/><BR/>Actually no, I happen to have a life outside of here.<BR/><BR/>Don't worry, I'll be back :-)<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>SyeSye TenBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05695428662014842212noreply@blogger.com