BigJohn wrote: Why do you keep pointing this out, when no one disagrees with you?
On the contrary. People =including yourself originally, and later the Chief, said that what I presented is a logical argument.[/quote]
Actually the chief never said that at all, he said it was your opinion ('You were stating opinions to support your position. Even though you worded them as statements, they were still opinions.'). I said you were stating a logical form of argument, not a logical proof. A logical form of argument and a logical proof are not the same, and I told you more than once that I was not saying you were stating a logical proof ('I didn't say it was a statement of logical proof', 'No one said you were offering any evidence or logical proofs; I have no idea why you keep saying 'I did not offer evidence or logical proofs'').
A logical argument consists of a conclusion and premises meant to support or prove.
The statement 'X because Y' is exactly that; X is the conclusion, Y is the premise. That's a standard form of inductive argument, such as the typical example 'All swans are white, because every swan observed is white'.
Why don't you take your own advice and read the earlier posts before saying that no one said this.
I did. Not only did no one say you were stating a logical proof, but I told you more than once I wasn't saying such a thing.
Or are you hair-splitting between proofs and proofs from premises?
No, I'm simply pointing out that 'logical proof' and 'logical form of argument' are not the same thing.
You said in your last post to me that you explained falsifiability in Cliff's Notes format because you felt I didn't understand the concept. Check your post.
I'm not denying this. I'm pointing out that I didn't simply assume that you didn't know what falsifiability was, I deduced it from the fact that you asked me to explain it in the context of my argument. I introduced it without assuming you didn't know it, you asked me to explain it, so I explained it.
Finally! Was that so hard?
No it wasn't so hard. You have completely forgotten that I had already provided this statement, and you had already read it. I provided that statement on Monday. You not only read this post on the same day that I made it, but you quoted it, so it's clear you were well aware of this simple, straightforward, three sentence explanation of my position and how falsifiability relates to it.
You then continue to ask me several times for what I had already given you. In fact on the very same day that you had read my explanation, you asked for it again. I reminded you the next day that I had already given it to you ('I gave it to you').
You then asked me again to give you what I had already given you ('Yes, I am asking you to give me the Cliff Notes version of your argument, including falsifiability'). I had to remind you yet again that I had already done so. This time I even linked to the post which contains exactly the statement you're saying 'Finally! Was that so hard?' about ('I gave the Cliff's Notes version of my argument here. I also linked to a very simple explanation of why I believe, here').
So to recap:
* Monday: I gave a simple, straightforward, three sentence explanation of my position and how falsifiability relates to it
* Monday: you read this statement and responded to it
* Monday: you asked for it again
* Tuesday: I reminded you that I had already given it
* Tuesday: you asked for it again
* Tuesday: I reminded you that I had already given it, and this time I not only linked to the post in which I had given it, but quoted the statement to you directly
* Tuesday: You read the post you had already read the previous day, and say 'Finally! Was that so hard?'; remember, this is the post you had already read and reponded to the previous day, of which I had reminded you several times
You spent three posts asking me for something you had already read, and when I quoted it to you, you acted as if it was the first time I had written it and the first time you had read it. Can you see why I might find your form of argumentation unnecessarily tedious? You managed to fail to understand what three other people found to be quite clear. That tells me that the communication problem wasn't on my side.
I think that's an odd position to take, considering how much stuff you do write down.
When I write something down, and you read it, and you then ask me three times to make a statement which I have already made (and reminded you of twice), clearly having forgotten not only that I had made the statement but having also forgotten that you had actually already read it, then it's not an 'odd position' to decide that I'm not here to remind you of what you've already read.
If I write something, you read it and reply to it, and then later that very day you can't even remember that you read it, I am not interested in reminding you constantly that you've already read it, then chasing up the post you read, giving you a link to it, and quoting it because I know you won't even make the effort to click on the link. It's a waste of my time to remind you of what you have already read and responded to. That is not my job here.
Because then the theory that some exterior force resuscitated a dead man would have some basis in direct evidence to him.
Why? Wouldn't hallucination be a more likely explanation?
That's a load of tripe. I haven't done any such thing, That is pure word twisting, and not sincere as far as I can tell.
I described in detail a fundamental scientific principle. As antarcicbeech has observed, you dismissed this as a 'style of philosophy which is all based on references to other things and does not bravely state it's own vision'. He pointed out that the 'style of philosophy' you were dismissing was, in fact, science. This is not word twisting, this is what you did.
And don't call me BJ, Fart-again! The name is BigJohn.
Sorry, it wasn't inded to offend, it was just a convenient abbreviation; I won't do it again. You can call me what you like by the way.
Obviously I disagree with Fortigurn's beliefs and style or argumentation. However,nothing in that makes me believe he is ill-willed or intellectually dishonest, beyond the occasional snarky Anglican-tippler style crack, which obviously I can tolerate. I look forward to having a glass of Baal's blood with him at the next HH. He is probably a loving and kind person in real life, and obviously has read a few books now and then,.
Thanks, returned. I owe you a beer, remember.
