Are you lawless?

Despite the definition you are using, there is also such a thing as 'false evidence'. Now show irrefutable proof that your evidence is not of that 'false evidence' category.

If it is not "absolute proof" then the proof is tainted because it is not absolute.... you know ... less than 100% true.

Read the explanations that were provided in the listing at thefreedictionary in which I supplied a link.

Where did I say that you should bend to my will?

I already did.

Which is why I posted the statement that the standards are not my standards.

Then why do you keep attempting to apply such demands upon me?

Because there is no need to refute something that is not 100% true. Something that is not 100% true stands without merit.

How can it be a "huge lie".. Show the lie. Point it out by post number and paragraph and line.

 

Since we're dealing with natural phenomenon, I can't. I'm not sure what you don't understand about irrefutability being an impossible task for observations dealing with nature.

Yes, use all the pejorative words you want, you still have been unable to show how irrefutabilty is a reachable goal when describing natural phenomenon.

Once again, I didnt' say that is what you said. Are you unable to read? You told me to do something, and that is a demand to bend to your will.

Sure, you provided a thesaurus with numerous definitions of demand and numerous synonyms for the various definitions. And you're saying that the context of the word "demand" somehow makes it not synonymous with "request". And of course you acted like a child and did not actually explain what the context was that makes it not synoymous, just told me to find it myself. Epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

Sure they are, by the colloquial usage of the word "your".

The same question could be asked of you. I suspect we have the same reason: because we both view our standards as better than the other persons. The thing is, I actually have evidence that mine is a better standard while you have to dismiss both rationality and logic to adopt yours.

Once again, you're attempting to confuse the topics. I have provided proofs of my claims using logic when the topic deals with something that can be described logically. Logic certainly can provide 100% proof or disproofs of certain claims. You have ignored these proofs and not provided any refutation of them.

Okay, this was in your last post to me: "I simply request that you provide irrefutable proof that my beliefs are wrong or in error."

That is a lie since that is NOT what you have requested before. You have in the past asked for proof, then you shift the goal post to "irrefutable proof", and then you shift the goal post to "irrefutable proof that changes your mind". Those are ALL different requests.

 

What more is there to say? Your admission in totality over rides anything else that you might have to say.

 

My admission in totality? Gee, I sure did miss your thought provoking posts.

 

You can't have missed that thought provoking post,,, you commented on it in your previous post... you know,,, the one containing your admission in totality.

 

What the hell is an admission in totality? Those words together don't make any semantical sense.

 

Well perhaps your own words "I can't" regarding your ability to irrefutably prove that your statements are not in the category of 'false evidence' would be more understandable to you.

 

Same old tired argument from Incorporeal, the man of double standards and intellectual dishonesty.

 

No double standards ,,, just your own words... as for the intellectual dishonesty... it is you who is denying the import of your own words. That is indeed the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

 

And how am I denying my own words? I have seen no irrefutable proof of this.

 

You have seen no irrefutable proof of what? "this" is meaningless without stating what "this" is in reference to. You are denying the fact that you have already stated that you cannot offer irrefutable proof that your statements are not in the category of 'false evidence'.

 

And? That is not irrefutable proof that I cannot.

 

It is irrefutable proof that you admitted that you cannot irrefutably prove that your statements are not in the category of 'false evidence'. If it is not irrefutable proof that you cannot, then your former statement would render you to be in the category of a 'liar'.

 

Nope, sorry, it isn't irrefutable proof to me.

 

Then you admit to being a liar.

 

Irrefutably prove that I admitted to being a liar.

 

I don't need to prove anything. The record of this thread proves it.

 

Not to me, sorry. Therefore you have not provided irrefutable proof.

 

Again, your sentiment regarding your own words emphasize the point that you have placed yourself into a category of "liars".

 

That's according to your opinion, of which you have been unable to substantiate with irrefutable proof.

 

Well of course it is my opinion... my opinion based on the evidence of the record of this thread. No other proof is necessary. Now are you going to deny having written the things that you wrote on this thread?

 

Because you have not shown me irrefutable proof of this assertion.

 

You also refuse now to answer the question as to whether or not you are going to deny what you have previously written on this thread.

 

Yes, I do, until you provide irrefutable proof. Since you have done this exact same thing to me (demanded irrefutable proof when I called you a liar and then refused to acknowledge what you have said), I don't see how you can start complaining now.

 

Who ever claimed that I could provide irrefutable proof? Not me. At any rate, the statements you made on this thread will either serve as evidence that you cannot irrefutably prove that your statements do not fall into the category of 'false evidence', else your statements on this thread will serve as evidence that you have told a bold face lie in regard to what you claimed that you "can't" do.