This entry was posted by Bailey Packard on August 23, 2013 at 10:52 am
Already did. Scroll up. Though it is now clear you’re some sort of creationist, so arguing logic with you would be pointless. You’re just an ignorant person.
yeah, that sounds like a GREAT place for scientific inquiry. It’s no wonder you don’t know shit about science or logic if you hang out at a place like that. So sad, it’s pathetic.
And yes, I’ve demonstrated your cherry picking. It was easy, too. You had about a hundred definitions to select, and you plucked the one you THOUGHT, (wrongly of course), backed up your case. That is the very definition of cherry picking. So yup, that was demonstrated, not asserted. Even then, you cherry picked what WORDS you concentrated on, and which to ignore. You, for some reason, decided to ignore that “known to be true” part, didn’t you? Where did you get your phil degree from?
PS: **known to be true**. If it isn’t known to be true, it isn’t a fact, by ANY definition. Is this man’s experience ‘known to be true’? The answer is no. Hence, no, it’s not a fact. The only opinion being expressed here, is by this fellow who claims he had the opinion that he met god. It’s not (as we established) factual. Hence, it’s an opinion. My skepticism of an unsubstantiated illogical claim..is quite justified. I don’t have a god complex, I just understand logic and you don’t.
Because that is not how science and logic work. You silly lil guy. We don’t assume unsubstantiated claims are true. Just like you don’t assume that because I claim a dragon lives in my closet, that is true. You do realize I’ve already addressed this, right? You failed to respond. It’s funny you keep trying to claim an understanding of logic, when clearly you dont have it. You seem to be arguing “you can’t prove it false!” which shows you have literally no understanding of debate.
Really, I challenge you to come to the evolutionfairytale c o m forum
Yet again you need to support your claims. Claiming something over and over doesn’t make it true otherwise I’d just call you an idiot over an over and then by your logic you must be one…. Demonstrate this “cherry picking” and how it is dishonest or stop promoting dishonest lies.
Perhaps demonstrate some evidence for your claim, I caught you out on slander before and it seems here you have done the same. Being dishonest and claiming things with no evidence will only make you look bad since you lose creditability by being unable to support your claims. I gave you the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of fact, since initially you were claiming FACT not scientific fact, (demonstrating a goal post change by you). As I said go debate with the dictionary.
How do you know? You cannot prove that it isn’t an actual experience. What one experiences within one’s mind is real for the experiencer since even our physical “experience” is relegated to electrical signals in the mind anyway. Therefore you have no way to claim that this is not an actual experience, you are merely citing your disbelief as an argument which by definition is an argument from ignorance.
I didn’t cherry pick anything… Assertum non est demonstratum, to assert is not to demonstrate.
How do you KNOW that this mans experience wasn’t an actual experience, he thinks it was and you have no evidence to prove that it isn’t. Again mere opinion at this point is irrelevant, you are entitled to your opinions but don’t think that your opinions are facts or that they are valid arguments, (as I mentioned before…. God Complex)…
And just in case you forgot, or want to crawl, sniveling, away from your own point.. The definition you cherry picked included: “actual experience or observation; something known to be true”. So no, your own cherry picking does you in. **actual experience** **known to be true**. Neither one of these works regarding a man claiming to have seen, while unconscious, hell, god, and jesus. Sorry, but the best you could do in your pathetic attempt to obscure what a fact is, still fails, utterly.
furthermore, as we are talking about perceiving the real word,scientific fact would be the correct terminology (not goal post shifting, you illogical dolt, that is the definition of fact that fits) You want to talk knowledge? OK. You do not know that there isn’t a blue dragon in my closet, do you? do you therefore accept that a dragon lives there? This man being delusional or lying is the default position until evidence of his claim is shown. You know nothing of science or philosophy, clearly.
hmmmm. So it appears you don’t have the ability to read, or think. There are MANY definitions to each word, in one definition, the word ‘experience’ appears, but no, not in the way you are saying. You are arguing that it is in the realm of fact to talk about a vision you have while unconscious. that is NOT an actual experience. You finding a definition of fact (there are dozens) with the word experience in it does not prove your point, it destroys it.
You admitted that the definition includes experience as fact, as I have been saying.
You didn’t claim scientific fact initially you were saying facts which by definition includes experience. (Goal post shifting by you).
However the initial thing I was getting at was that YOU do not know if this man’s experience was a dream or delusion etc therefore you cannot claim anything about it. Honestly you are not the arbiter of truth you are just a person with a computer.
for some reason I cant reply to this post. Facts are NOT absolute in science. I’m a 33 year old science teacher who understands that words have multiple definitions to fit the topic at hand. ‘fact’ has several. You used the wrong one, and still missed the word ‘actual’ in it. The best, most far reaching definition of fact is the one I gave you. You, in utter desperation, tried to cherry pick the data to appear not so damn stupid (which you are). Is personal, unverified experience fact? no
Wow, you sure are a sore loser huh? You demonstrated that ONE definition in the dictionary mentions the word ‘experience’. You omitted the relevant definition, that of a scientific fact. Even the definition you proved (number 3, out of 6 from on online dictionary!) proves you wrong. Personal experience, like a dream or delusion, is NOT factual. ACTUAL experience is. Meaning it can be verified. I almost feel bad for you.
er….no. You have been cherry picking definitions in an attempt to prove that a guy who claims a near death experience has facts. When discerning if a claim is true of false we use science and philosophy. Hence, me posting what a scientific fact actually is. You provided the incorrect definition of fact (one, generally used in LITERATURE) and ignored the definitions that actually fit. Even your defintion says ACTUAL, not *personal* experience. SO yes, there are no facts in this case.
Nope, you demonstrated cherry picking, which annihilated your own point. You intentionally left out the relevent definitions, because they make you look stupid. Instead, you plucked a definition you THOUGHT would back up your point, but missed the word ‘actual’ in it. The point is, that this fools testimony is not a fact by ANY definition. Period. You’re wrong, dead with it.
For a guy that attempts (poorly) to point out logical fallacies, you sure are a failure, huh? “Cherry picking” google it! There are many definitions for fact, you omitted the ones that made you look stupid, and cherry picked the ONE definition with the word “experience” in it. Proceeded of course by the word ACTUAL, which a near death experience ISN’T. SO even by the definition YOU cherry picked, you still disproved yourself. How does it feel to be humbled?
You did no such thing, just abusing people and then claiming victory is not “annihilating” anything its merely self-delusion and idiocy. I demonstrated that the dictionary itself refutes your claims, as I said go debate the dictionary.
ACCEPTED as true, doesn’t mean it is an absolute, like a fact.
Seriously how old are you?
I have been using the dictionary to demonstrate that your claims are false, all you seem to do is spout abuse (ad hominems) which do nothing to further your argument nor to demonstrate why the dictionary is wrong.
Shakes head… Obviously you didn’t read it
1. The apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind
a. An event or a series of events participated in or lived through.
This guy lived through an event… This guy experienced thoughts / emotions via the senses of mind…
Meaning that he had an experience meaning that it is a fact since experiences are fact, as per the dictionary.
So you think the dictionary is wrong since it refutes your claims?…. Yeah like that isn’t evidence of a God Complex…
**You gave the wrong definition**
Oh, and I’m still waiting for you to give me some facts (hell, for you, we can even use the non-scientific definition which includes ACTUAL experience (not personal experience/delusion, dummy) about near death experiences, since you claim they exist 🙂
yup, all OBSERVATIONS in science. Thanks for proving my point.
fail again. Why not just admit you’re wrong? I mean, we both know you’re gullible and uneducated (you believe near death experiences are factual, LOL). I have a degree in philosophy, I’d destroy you in any debate based around logic. Just like I pointed out that your equivalency and Ad Hominem claims were…..absurdly stupid.
scientific fact – an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true 🙂 I can do this all day. Are you ready to admit you had NO IDEA what a fact in the context YOU used it means? 🙂
Comments are disabled for this post.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 522 other subscribers