SHEEPEOPLE

[bhsmte]

Of course not...it's a riddle. There is only ONE truth. If you intend to navigate through the confusion, you must decipher it correctly. There is only one way through, the rest are dead ends (literally).

Don't tell us, you know how to decipher it correctly?

 

[Michael]

You have descended to the same level as the evolution-deniers that say humans are not apes, and chickens are not theropods.

Not even close. You're comparing empirical physics that works in the lab to pure invisible sky mythology that is based upon affirming the consequent fallacies galore, and ideas that have been falsified more than a dozen ways in the past decade.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=20cf5fb0a0a7f0c4ebb7318819162f91

When Lambda-CDM proponents actually get a 'dark matter' prediction right in the lab for a change, or they actually come up with a defined source of ''dark energy', wake me up. Until then, they aren't actually "experts" on squat. Even their use of "magnetic reconnection" in plasma is absurd since the whole idea was made obsolete over 3 decades ago by the guy that wrote MHD theory and called that whole concept 'pseudoscience'.

 

[ScottA]

Or do you mean; when will he agree with you?

Could be, when you can provide some justification that is logical for your claims. If you can't, no problem, you can still hold onto those for your own personal satisfaction.

You obviously have not been paying attention. There are two choices. The choice is everyone's to make, just how they see it. Then...everyone gets what they choose.

I was merely pointing out that proving or justifying my choice, is no different then justifying or proving any other choice. The rules are the same. I get to say what evidence is acceptable, and so does everyone else...and that is all the Atheist crowd has offered (their rules and facts and history, etc. are all that count). I counter that argument with the same rules: mine are all that count, and yours do not. Have it your way bergerking

 

[bhsmte]

You obviously have not been paying attention. There are two choices. The choice is everyone's to make, just how they see it. Then...everyone gets what they choose.

I was merely pointing out that proving or justifying my choice, is no different then justifying or proving any other choice. The rules are the same. I get to say what evidence is acceptable, and so does everyone else...and that is all the Atheist crowd has offered (their rules and facts and history, etc. are all that count). I counter that argument with the same rules: mine are all that count, and yours do not. Have it your way bergerking

Only two choices for what?

 

[ScottA]

Don't tell us, you know how to decipher it correctly?

Let me put it this way: In the end, on my path there is (hypothetically) a chance to continue living after physical death. On your path, you die and it's over. But, I am not selling anything. Have it your way.

 

[Davian]

I just leveled the playing field.

All you did was assert that some bible stories were accurate descriptions of reality.

What...no moves left?

The next move is yours. Put up this demonstration, or abdicate.

 

[bhsmte]

Let me put it this way: In the end, on my path there is (hypothetically) a chance to continue living after physical death. On you path, you die and it's over. But, I am not selling anything. Have it your way.

You may not be selling anything, but it appears you have bought something.

Even when some make a claim that seems comforting, I can't jump on board with it if I can't reconcile the claim with the realities of the universe we live in, not matter how nice the claim may be. That would be fooling myself and I don't do that all too well.

 

[ScottA]

Only two choices for what?

True or False.

 

[bhsmte]

True or False.

True or false for what?

 

[Davian]

Of course not...it's a riddle. There is only ONE truth.

I do not accept your religious opinion as truth.

 

[ScottA]

All you did was assert that some bible stories were accurate descriptions of reality.

The next move is yours. Put up this demonstration, or abdicate.

No. I "asserted" that by your rules you can not demonstrate what you consider true (your reality) without drawing from your own playbook...which (by your rules) is not allowed. In fact, I demand that you demonstrate your reality using only things from my playbook (which I only do, because those are your rules).

Two can play at this. You can dish it out. Lets see if you can take it: Prove ANYTHING in your reality, using only my playbook. I will be waiting.

 

[bhsmte]

No. I "asserted" that by your rules you can not demonstrate what you consider true (your reality) without drawing from your own playbook...which (by your rules) is not allowed. In fact, I demand that you demonstrate your reality using only things from my playbook (which I only do, because those are your rules).

Two can play at this. You can dish it out. Lets see if you can take it: Prove ANYTHING in your reality, using only my playbook. I will be waiting.

Tell us about his playbook?

 

[ScottA]

True or false for what?

Reality, history, the meaning of life...everything.

 

[bhsmte]

Reality, history, the meaning of life...everything.

Reality, history and the meaning of life are all either; true or false?

Need to fill in a few gaps there, don't you?

 

[ScottA]

I do not accept your religious opinion as truth.

I do not accept yours as truth either.

 

[Davian]

Not even <snip yet another irrelevant straw-man>

Not even reading my posts.

You are confusing ability with authority. You may be of the opinion that the people that run your country lack the ability to run it (the way you would like to see it run), but that doesn't mean they lack the authority to run it.

That is why my statements were not fallacious.

 

[ScottA]

Reality, history and the meaning of life are all either; true or false?

Need to fill in a few gaps there, don't you?

EVERYTHING is either true or false, by one version of history and reality or another by [intelligent] design. Only one version is true. All of the choices are riddled. One must choose. The correct choice could possibly mean life after physical death, the rest are likely certain death. Choose wisely.

 

[Davian]

No.

Abdication accepted. Michael never gets anywhere with that fallacy either, but he pulls it out often enough.

I "asserted" that by your rules you can not demonstrate what you consider true

I am not making truth claims.

(your reality)

Define what you mean by "reality". In the common vernacular, there is only one. Axioms, and all that.

without drawing from your own playbook

What is this "playbook" that you allude to?

...which (by your rules)

My rules? What are, exactly, my rules?

is not allowed. In fact, I demand that you demonstrate your reality using only things from my playbook (which I only do, because those are your rules).

Word salad.

Two can play at this. You can dish it out.

Why, thanks.

Lets see if you can take it: Prove ANYTHING in your reality, using only my playbook. I will be waiting.

Take it? I can't even make sense of it. My reality? Your playbook? What are you talking about?

 

[Davian]

I do not accept yours as truth either.

I am not asserting my opinion as truth.

 

[dlamberth]

He's been appealing to authority throughout this thread, but apparently it's easier for him to feign neutrality since he has no logical explanation for preferring one over the other.

I can relate. The Panenthiest side of me has everything to do with the experiential aspect and has very little to do with logic. It's when I add the evolutionary combined with the Lambda-CDM (I had to google it) model that I go with logic.

.