Do you want "scientific proof"?, page 3

reply to post by redoubt

---

The greater sum of the human race exists trusting certain perceptions and concepts that they have no avenue to on a personal level.

This has nothing to do with Science, your insinuation that it does reveals your transparent motivations.

Those who believe in science,

We don't BELIEVE in Science, We SEE REALITY happening.

We can read any number of statements from churches, laboratories, popes and geniuses

You guys see what I mean about the attempt to set science against religion to get you to abandon knowledge?

So that you will be Quality Ignorant slaves for the Elite.

This entire thread is transparent.

reply to post by redoubt

---

We are, as a species, not nearly as smart as we like think we are.

" We know one billionth of 1% of absolutey Nothing. "

Thomas Edison

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

---

I'm not going to argue that the definition of the word "science" means knowledge.

Well then, I'm glad that you finally agree that I am right.

I hope you aren't suggesting that knowledge implies truth.

It does, actually.

I *KNOW* that A = A, and I have proven it, and it is TRUE.

The only reason that I can state that I KNOW this, is because it is *TRUE*

I am very knowledgeable about Chaos Magick and its implementation through Sigilization. That does not mean that it is "provable" or "right" as opposed to "wrong".

What your knowledge MEANS is that what you KNOW of this subject is TRUE in reguards to what the subject teaches.

If I were to say that "I do not like Green Eggs and Ham", I would not state that this is unequivocal truth, but I would state that in the Book, "Green eggs and Ham" this line is Provably Written in the text.

While you state that you have knowledge of what is in those books, you are stating the TRUTH that you posses this knowledge that is actually contained within these works.

However, this Knowledge does not automatically mean that what is contained within those books *IS* true.


IF, however, you were to state that you KNOW how magic works, BECAUSE of what you have learned from those books, I would have to disagree with you, because you have no proof that what is contained within those books are true, and thus it is not KNOWLEDGE you are speaking of, but Belief.

There is no binational answer for scientific theories. The theory of electricity does not equal 1.

Ah... the Strawman Argument.... these are fun.

A theory is not Knowledge, it is an explanation of some phenomenon in reality that is based UPON knowledge.

The two are not the same thing, and your attempt to equate the two as identical is quite telling of your Tactics, and I would state, your ultimate motivation....

That of Spreading Ignorance, by deliberate obfuscation of meaning.

Hence the reason it was in quotes. I'm just showing you the limitations of using only a dictionary definition of such words.

Did that sound like an intelligent thing to say before you hit "Submit" and posted it to this board?

Did it?

The limitations of using the actual definition for words is HOW WE CAN COMMUNICATE you absulfwquescent finalgrefting smalntrofticater.

And I'll have you know that You are a Complete Minsficating Flowkwopts.

Savvy?

Science MEANS knowledge, as you stated earlier. Logic, however, does not MEAN that.

Logic:
1. Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity

Valid
1. well grounded in logic or truth or having legal force

So.. you agree that your equation is mathematical, yet you are using it to prove me "wrong" about science..?

You claimed that Nothing Knowable is Provable.

I proved you Wrong.

What's the big deal?

When science obviously does not equal mathematics and the two can be irrelevant.

Please explain why you think that science and math are irrelevant.

Because I think the discussion was ABOUT science, and Proof, of which mathematics is one form OF proof.

So, if you would like to continue obfuscating with straw-men and red herrings, then by all means..... I'll have Fish, and the Tinder to cook them with.

Basically, what you just said is that:
"The mathematical equation A = A, proves science can be absolutely false or true".

And this is anouther Straw-Man fallacy.

I said nothing of the sort....

What I SAID, was in response to your statement that nothing in Science can be Proven.

In which you meant that KNOWLEDGE cannot ever be proven.

Thus, I used the axiom "A = A" to prove to you that A *IS* A... and thus, is something that is both KNOWABLE, and also PROVABLE.

Thereby *UTTERLY DESTROYING* your entire argument.

Q.E.D. You lose.

Just deal with it and move on already.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

---

Well, there goes your rationality.

Hardly.

Now you are obviously a mind-reader and have figured out my sole purpose of making this thread.

Quite.

Yes, I have chosen to point out not to believe that everything scientific is set in stone, yet I am somehow the one who is spreading and not denying ignorance.

Hardly.... you are stating that NOTHING in science is Provable.

*THIS IS FROM YOUR OP*

You do realize that the term "scientific proof" is some what a form of oxymora, right?

There is no such thing as "proof" when it comes to science

Do I need to read back to you what you have already posted some more?

Or are you going to stop trying to "Moving the Goalpost" out of the corner you painted yourself into?

Secondly, who is this "they" you are speaking of?

You can't in all seriousness come to a conspiracy board, and ask that question.... Honestly, it's amateurish.

I have no religious affiliation and yet you assume I created this thread because I want to give more validity to God and less to science.

And you have trouble with reading comprehension too....

I *STATED* that you were attempting to Pit Science AGAINST Religion.... Not that you were lending credence to either side specifically.

Why must the two be separate? You can't prove religion and you can't prove science Sounds like they are a match made in.... Heaven.

Except that is wrong.

You can prove things IN, and WITH science.

And I have already PROVEN this.

A = A

This is TRUE, and IT has been PROVEN.

Nothing you have said has even APPROACHED a refutation of this statement....

It's all just sound and fury signifying nothing.

reply to post by BLKMJK

---

Where did you get this idea in this thread?

From reading the thread, Thats the....

I have not read anything ITT with regards to having zeal for God thereby kicking their brains into the gutter.

It's a hypothesis that I have that explains perfectly the current hostility between the camps of Religion and Science, when the two technically have nothing to do with eachother.

And yet, for some reason, are opposed to eachother as if they are two religions competing for followers.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

---

Now, how can you prove that the yellow you see is the exact same yellow that anyone sees?

Because regardless of WHO is observing the Photons from the text, we can empirically prove that their wavelength is between 570 and 590 nanometres.

en.wikipedia.org...

His yellow might be your red, but your red might be his blue.

Nope... Colour is determined by frequency and wavelength.

Would you like to try again?

You can use words all you want but you can't prove that his yellow is the same as your yellow even if he says so.

And I have given you PROOF that your statement is WRONG.

So, A *IS* A but that does not mean that A = A.

And this is also wrong.

You come off extremely childish when you make claims like that.

Claims like what?

That I destroyed your argument?

HAHAHAHAHA, it's not a childish claim... it is the *TRUTH*.

Your stubborn refusal to admit that you are wrong is the only childish thing here, I'm afraid.

I have to assume now that you are playing an aggressive Devil's advocate

Your assumption is false.

and you have even shown that you tip no hat to rationality by making assumptions earlier in the thread.

Oh?

Would you like to cite a specific example?

Or do you wish to keep your claims conveniently beyond the realm of scrutiny, by just INFERRING that what you are saying is true?

I can't take the arguments of someone who makes assumptions seriously.

For someone whose entire thread is based upon a DEMONSTRABLY FALSE assumption, you have got a lot of nerve saying something like that.

I assume you will have some witty come back to that too, right?

One does not need to assume that a witty retort will be forthcoming when I am involved in an argument.






It is inevitable.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

---

See the assumptions here:

ITT: People who are trying to get you to believe that Knowledge is a form of FAITH that is opposed to whatever GOD that you believe in, in the hopes that in your religious ZEAL to follow your GOD, you will ABANDON knowledge.

Because Knowledge is power, and they want you POWERLESS with Ignorance.


I DENY Ignorance, of which this thread was created SPECIFICALLY to spread.

Sorry, that's very scientific and all, but measuring wavelengths and frequencies of colors is only relevant to you =) Just because the the frequencies are agreeable among two individuals does not mean that the brain of another person interprets them the same.

reply to post by spav5

---

Tell me what A is? And don't tell it is A.

I already told you that A is A.

Your requirement that it NOT be A is an example of deliberate Ignorance.


You already KNOW that A is A.... as does EVERYONE.

IT is self Evident.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by spav5

---

Tell me what A is? And don't tell it is A.

I already told you that A is A.

Your requirement that it NOT be A is an example of deliberate Ignorance.


You already KNOW that A is A.... as does EVERYONE.

IT is self Evident.

And this is your science?..it is what it is?

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

---

See the assumptions here

The only assumption here is yours, I'm afraid.

Sorry, that's very scientific and all

Yes... we are talking about Science!

I'm glad that we are finally on the same page

but measuring wavelengths and frequencies of colors is only relevant to you

....And the rest of the Universe, actually.

Just because the the frequencies are agreeable among two individuals does not mean that the brain of another person interprets them the same.

Then you are not arguing about Reality, or Science.

You are arguing about how peoples perceptions can be different.

And that is not a discussion about knowledge, science, or proof... it is an argument about the differences of subjectivity, which has no bearing on a discussion about Science, Proof, or Reality.


Learn 2 Reality plox.

reply to post by spav5

---

And this is your science?..it is what it is?

I suppose you think that A is Q?

Or perhaps you believe that A is Bolt?

Or maybe you think that A is 5?

Is this *YOUR* science?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by spav5

---

And this is your science?..it is what it is?

I suppose you think that A is Q?

Or perhaps you believe that A is Bolt?

Or maybe you think that A is 5?

Is this *YOUR* science?

I don't know what A is. Are you saying that A is never Q and A is never a Bolt? Or A is never 5? Are you saying that A cannot and will not ever be anything but A?

Peace

Starship Enterprise could be a reality by 2032, engineer says
  Posted 15 days ago with 77 member flags

Quantum Gravity Model "Loads" "Programs" from NON-PHYSICAL DIMENSION with INVERTED PENTAGRAMS!
  Posted 1 days ago with 41 member flags

TV Networks Say You\'re Breaking The Law When You Skip Commercials
  Posted 2 days ago with 39 member flags

Schoolboy \'genius\' solves puzzles posed by Sir Isaac Newton
  Posted 3 days ago with 21 member flags

I want to build a free energy generator! Suggestions?
  Posted 18 days ago with 20 member flags

World’s longest-running experiment now with webcam
  Posted 16 days ago with 19 member flags

Bye Bye Co2 and global warming
  Posted 8 days ago with 16 member flags

Big Oil Vs. Plasma Battery Technology - Guess who is winning?
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: