Are you lawless?

" so while it may not be 100% certain" Gee that sounds like there is uncertainty and now you are showing the symptoms of not not accurately reporting the condition of your previous post. Need I address anything else you have written below, when you obviously cannot get past the first line without being in error regarding your own posting?

 

I don't need to be absolutely certain about something to make the claim, I only require substantiating evidence.

 

If you make the claim, then you also need to be able to support the claim, else you are doing nothing more than stating an opinion that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Deliberately initiating off-topic discussion is what that would amount to.

 

I did support the claim, you are the one who seems to think that you have to be absolutely certain about something to make a claim or hold a belief. And once again, it was YOUR post addressed to me that began this current conversation. You are the one who came in here and started talking about irrefutable proof, AGAIN. You are the one who interrupted the conversation between me and BFSmith to make a comment not germane to the topic.

 

Your alleged support does not prove the claim to be true. Therefore, your evidence is to non affect. That is why I have decided to always ask for irrefutable proof... I do that to circumvent such nuisances as what you have posted above and in your prior post.

BTW: if you want to have PRIVATE conversations with a member, then take it to that member through the private side (ya know ... PM = Private Message). . otherwise your comments are open to the public for the purpose of public discussion.

 

So what? It doesn't need to be proven absolutely.

Non affect isn't a word.

I see no nuisances.

I never said that it was a private conversation, I said that it was a conversation that you interrupted with an off-topic comment.

 

On the contrary. If something is not proven to be true (absolutely), then it is not 'true' ... it is tainted. Now we surely don't want to engage in providing tainted evidence of incorrect statements now do we. Example: Take an ounce of the purest water that can be found and or manufactured. Add to that water 1 single grain of salt. is that water pure water anymore? Of course not. Would you be able to taste that singe grain of salt... depending on the sensitivity to taste that the individual has.... probably not able to taste that salt. But... the water is no longer pure water.. it is tainted. Just like your allegations of having proven something. You have provided tainted material as your evidence... why.. because you have not irrefutably proven anything.

Oh Geee... did I make another typo... goodness me.

Take off the blinders or crawl out of the box.

You complained about me interrupting a conversation that was going on between you and another poster.. That would imply that you intended that conversation to be private. BTW: my interruption did not contain 'off-topic' material... it directly addressed the issues of the alleged private conversation that you were having and which I intentionally interrupted.

 

Tainted by what?

Your analogy is incredibly vague. What is the water supposed to metaphorically be? The salt?

I have, and I still see no nuisances. How do you know the nuisances exist without resorting to opinion?

No, it certainly did not address anything at all related to the topic. Irrefutable proof was never mentioned by the OP or anywhere by BFSmith in this thread, so why is it relevant? It is a standard you impose; I have seen nobody else do so.

 

In this particular instance, it is tainted by the preconceived notions you have, by the biases that you have, by the prejudices that you have.... get the point? Now don't come back and say something silly like prove that you have any... so before you can do that I will say: provide irrefutable proof that you do not have any preconceived notions, any prejudices, or any biases.

Deal with it. Your intellect. Your prejudices, biases, and preconceived notions.

Then go see an eye doctor. And finally, the question I have been waiting for all day long:
the answer: "be·lieve (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr.
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
v.intr.
1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe."

Surely you can comprehend that definition?

On the contrary. My request that you provide irrefutable proof of the things you were talking about does directly address those things. Learn to read.

 

Yes, and that's a problem I, and scientists, deal with by only relying on tests for claims that are repeatable and verifiable. Do you have an issue with that solution?

Yup, but it doesn't answer my question at all.

No, it just moves the goal posts. I have no plans on providing irrefutable proof to you until you stop being intellectually dishonest.

 

Yeppir.... quite leaning on your beliefs/opinions and provide irrefutable proof of your claims.

On the contrary. As long as you are leaning on your beliefs/opinions, then you are doing the same thing that you are complaining about the Theists doing.

Where is there any intellectual dishonesty other than you making claims that you cannot prove to be 100% true... you know irrefutably prove those claims.

 

Why? Provide some ulterior discipline where absolute certainty about future natural phenomenon is possible. If you can't, why should I bend to your will?

Nope, once again you're using arguments that demonstrably are false. You're using equivocation, AGAIN. There is a difference between a belief substantiated by consistent evidence and a belief substantiated by hearsay and desire.

How is that intellectual dishonesty? I have repeated to you about 100 times now that absolute certainty concerning irrefutable proof is simply not possible using any method that we know of. How am I being intellectually dishonest when I am being absolute consistent with my claims, I.e. not being able to provide irrefutable proof outside of logic or math?

 

No one has requested you to 'bend to" my "will". At the same token, you and others are complaining because I will not bend to your will. Duh... did you forget to look at what you and others are attempting to do?

Perhaps demonstrably, but definitely not definitively. Definitively you are doing the same thing as Theists.

By saying "I have proven it"... when in fact you have not irrefutably proven anything. That is intellectual dishonesty.

 

You just did. "quite (which I assume you meant quit here, otherwise this sentence makes no sense) leaning on your beliefs/opinions and provide irrefutable proof of your claims."

What is that if not a demand to bend to your standards?

We are complaining, not because you aren't bending to our will, but because you are being intellectually dishonest by simply ignoring our refutations outright and using double standards. Also, another avoidance of my question concerning a discipline that can produce absolute certainty about future natural phenomenon.

And why would your arguments not definitively be false if they are demonstrably false?

If you're a representative for theists, then I am certainly not doing the same thing that you're doing. I provide logical arguments and evidence, you ignore logic and demand irrefutable proof (and then change your demand to be irrefutable proof that shatters your belief once you ignore the irrefutable proof).

Care to provide the post where I made that statement? Because I haven't. Another lie.

 

It is a request.

Who is the "we"? You frequently refer to 'we' in your statements. Are you the official representative of some group of people? If you are, then where is the notification that authorizes you to be that spokesperson? Show irrefutable proof that I am being "intellectually dishonest". Yeppir that is another demand and it is addressing a point (claim) that you just made, so it is not off-topic. What double standards are you accusing me of using? I have repeated requested that you provide a code, rule, regulation, law, statute, TOS that a person adhere to and you have blatantly refused to show one. Now suddenly you decide that I am in violation of some imaginary set of "standards". LOL.

Why do you arbitrarily move the goal posts by referencing 'arguments' when prior to this post we were talking about 'opinions'? Is that a matter of being intellectually dishonest on your part, or are you now attempting to move the goal posts?

Too much alcohol in your system today? Where did I say that I was a 'representative' of any group of theists? Uh oh... False representation on your part.

So far your statement is accurate (save the dispute regarding the alleged evidence.. it is not irrefutable).

Yes! I was hoping that would clarify what it is that I am looking for. On the other hand, what is the difference... both require "irrefutable proof"... whether or not it "shatters my beliefs". Deal with it.

No! But I will provide this analysis of a couple of your post that closely relate (being that you are a self appointed representative of "we") to your post above with regard to particular subject matter.

In the below listed post, you are quoted as saying:
"We have provided you with irrefutable proof, "
http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...hematicians-scientists-56.html#post1062812860
(whoever that "we" is, you would be included in the group, effectively saying "I have provided you with irrefutable proof.")

In the next post, listed below, we find this activity going on between you and me:
I said:"Then show your irrefutable proof of claim !!!!"

to which you replied:
"I have." This is found here: http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...-your-scientific-texts-79.html#post1062793751

Then amazingly at the following post you contradict your own statement shown immediately above:
I said ""Then you are still admitting that you cannot meet with such a request as "irrefutable proof". We (the readers of this forum and this thread) already knew that because you have already admitted that."

To which you responded:
"Yup" Found at this location: http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...-your-scientific-texts-79.html#post1062793829

 

Okay, then you just lied when you stated: "No one has requested you to 'bend to" my "will".".

I'm not claiming to be the spokesman, I've seen several other posters pose the same complaints, hence the "we". Not that difficult to understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

"Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are sometimes called intellectual dishonesty."

Considering you have openly admitted to committing logical fallacies, you are being intellectually dishonest.

You're right, instead I should call them "unsubstantiated beliefs" since you clearly are not capable of actually making an argument based on logic or appeals to evidence.

Which is why I included the "if". How is a hypothetical situation a false representation?

There is a difference since you have consistently ignored our proofs. Another example of you being intellectually dishonest. You make demands, and then when those demands are satisfied, you move the goal posts by ignoring the proof and asking for further demonstration without actually giving a good explanation for why you're ignoring the proofs in the first place. You just don't want to be proven wrong so you stick your fingers in your ears and demand somebody shatter your beliefs while simultaneously ignoring the problem that it's impossible to shatter somebody's beliefs if they aren't even responding to the arguments with anything beyond "Nope, not good enough!" like a child.

That's because I haven't said it, another lie on your behalf.

Maybe you should stop being vague and deceitful; what was it that I claimed to provide irrefutable proof for? You have made about 100 different demands for irrefutable proof so it's incredibly deceitful to take only one or two of my responses to those idiotic demands. If "it" dealt with logic or math, then I have provided you with irrefutable proof. If "it" dealt with explaining natural phenomenon, then I haven't provided you with irrefutable proof due to the limitations of inductive methods.

 

Before we go into all the stuff below your first line, let us first resolve the misrepresentation that you have made. Show the post where I have said that "I request tht you bend your will". Short of you providing a direct link to the post where I said "I request that you bend your will", there is no need to go any further in this discussion with you. What you have done is misinterpreted what was said and then ran with the misinterpretation to form a misrepresentation.

 

You requested that I go along with your demands. Semantically no different from requesting that I bend to your will.

 

Wrong on both accounts... In your last post you claimed that I requested you to bend to my 'will'. Now you claim that I requested that you "go along with your demands". However in the original post relating to this subject, the term that was used was "standards".

The 'standards' that I use are not my 'standards' and are of a variety that my 'will' would sometimes prefer not to have to adhere to, but I do adhere to those standards as a matter of 'faith' toward my Lord. Therefore, I bend to His will, forfeiting my own will. Now, if my will has been forfeited to the glory of my Lord, then there is no 'will' belonging to me that would allow me to request that you bend to that will.

Semantically, there is a big difference between 'will', 'demands', and 'standards'. I believe it would be appropriate for you to study those terms and learn the differences that exist between them.

Go back to this post http://www.politicalforum.com/religion-philosophy/309227-you-lawless-9.html#post1062813716 and look at what you said in which I made the response "it is a request".

 

"We" find it difficult to understand why you keep this up.

 

Yup, and every single one of those terms can be interchanged with one another in the context of that sentence and the sentence would retain the same meaning.

You don't have a will of your own? You just admitted, "but I do adhere to those standards as a matter of 'faith' toward my Lord." So, obviously there are standards you are adhering to, and requested/demanded me adhere to them. Regardless of whether or not you want to call them "your" standards or not is besides the point. There are standards that you are trying to subject me to and you have given me no reason to accept those standards since you have not shown that the standard of irrefutable proof is possible outside of logic or mathematics.

Yes, there is a semantic difference in those terms, but no substantial difference between saying "subjecting to my will (since your will is for me to accept for standards)", "subjecting to my demands (since you're demanding me to accept your standards)", "or subjecting to my standards".

- - - Updated - - -

I'm a masochist, apparently

 

Prove it.

That is correct. I voluntarily surrendered it over to the Lord when I joined His army. Want to try to prove me wrong?

Yeppir,,, I did state those words.

Yeppir.

Nope.. Just requested. However I still don't recall saying "I request that you adhere to my standards."... Please show that post to me. In fact, 'standards' was your terminology.. So, you knew beforehand that standards were involved... even before I said "its a request". Now apparently you don't comprehend that a request is not a demand, and that a person (other than a Christian who is truly devoted) has the free will to not abide by a standard if he/she so chooses.

I agree with that, because I do use those standards.

Of course I have given you a reason to use those standards... but seemingly you chose to ignore that reason and go on to make the false claim saying that I did not provide a reason. But I have shown you that the standard of irrefutable proof is possible outside of logic and mathematics... that irrefutable proof is the fact that regardless of what you attempt to use, my beliefs remain steadfast. You have not even cast the faintest of a shadow on my beliefs... My beliefs are still fully illuminated by the eternal light of God.

If you say so and believe what you are saying.

 

I provided evidence for it in my last sentence to you: "Yes, there is a semantic difference in those terms, but no substantial difference between saying "subjecting to my will (since your will is for me to accept for standards)", "subjecting to my demands (since you're demanding me to accept your standards)", "or subjecting to my standards"."

Nope, I have no reason to try to prove you wrong if you don't accept verifiable evidence or logic as "proof".

http://thesaurus.com/browse/demand

Definition: question, request

They're synonymous.

I never claimed you said those words. Strawman argument.

Once again, dictionaries and thesauruses say otherwise.

Then what was the point of claiming they weren't "your" standards beyond obfuscation?

Of course you ignore the context of that statement: "since you have not shown that the standard of irrefutable proof is possible outside of logic or mathematics."

And, once again, ignoring refutations is not evidence that your beliefs are irrefutable, only that you're ignoring the refutations.

If I say so and believe what I say, that what I said was true, not only to me, but to you as well?

 

That is not proof. That is your opinion regarding what you think about yourself. What you quoted above was not your last sentence.

Because you now change the goal posts once again, does not mean that a 'reason' was not given to you.

When not taking into account the contextual aspect, yes they can be synonymous... but when you add in that context aspect,,, then you are talking about an entirely different matter. So you have proven nothing.
http://thefreedictionary.com/demand Scroll to a point near the bottom of the page and there is a list of synonyms and antonyms that are applicable to each definition, and you will see, that context is the deciding factor on whether or not they are synonymous. Also pay attention to the legend at the beginning of that section.. it shows that the synonyms are marked with a green bar an then the blue bar refers to 'related terms'. Red bar indicates antonyms.

On the contrary. You gave the strongest implication that I did.

Depending on which dictionary and which thesauruses one is using. Therefore the whole matter is reduced to 'perception' of the authors of those various dictionaries and thesauruses.

To show non ownership or non authorship of those standards.

Again,,,, you have not shown me a code, rule, regulation, law, statute, TOS that requires that I use either logic or mathematics in formulating my responses.

Well of course I am ignoring those alleged refutations because they are not irrefutable proof that a valid refutation has been supplied. Remember, the term irrefutable means impossible to refute... therefore, your alleged refutation must meet the 100% level of refutation else it is not an irrefutable response that you have given as an alleged 'refutation'.

You cannot dictate to me what I believe and what I won't believe. Also, I have never asserted that you were required to believe what I believe. I simply request that you provide irrefutable proof that my beliefs are wrong or in error. So far, you have failed miserably.

 

It certainly is proof. It is evidence, which is a perfectly valid definition of proof. Of course it isn't absolute proof, but that is why I described it as "evidence" and not "proof" in the original statement.

Yes, I understand that. Now, why are you claiming that the context of this conversation makes demand and request not synonyms?

No, I asked you why I should bend to your will, I never claimed that you said the words "bend to your will" or anything of the sort.

Provide a thesaurus that doesn't present request (or any synonym of request) as a synonym of demand. I'll wait.

Apparently you don't know what a possessive form is, which is what the word "your" is.

There is none, for the last time, troll. But, I have no reason to abide by your standards if you have not shown that such a standard is even possible.

Right, and you have not refuted any single proof that has been provided to you, you have ignored them.

No, once again this is a huge lie. You are asking for an irrefutable proof that changes your mind about a belief. That is an entirely different request than simply requesting for irrefutable proof.