[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

your proof of god,

Read the OP

where you "completely destroyed" Buffy and Modest.

Read the last posts on the last page I have for "Buffy" and "modest".


Let God deal with my arrogance as it is an ad hominem fallacy to keep appealing to it.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

Read the OP

IIRC, your OP was actually demolished by Buffy. Where did you rebut her criticisms again? A specific link to the post would be useful.

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

Read the last posts on the last page I have for "Buffy" and "modest".

Which one, again? Was that the one where you misdefined zero point energy, or where you said:

"I do not have faith that God exists. I know God exists!"

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

Let God deal with my arrogance as it is an ad hominem fallacy to keep appealing to it.

God? You haven't proven it, now you're assigning behavioral responses to this ambiguously defined three letter word? Curious leap of logic, that.

Speaking of logic, it would only have been an ad hominem fallacy if I were showing your ignorance and saying, "See how deluded he is? He can't be right." Since I was simply making a valid observation of your tone and ability, and not using it to attack your presentation, your suggestion that I was ad homming you is misapplied.

Please sir. Try again. You may want to look up these words you're using before hitting submit.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

But if you see a particular point that you feel is extraordinarily relevant to a refutation of my proof please highlight it for me that I may respond promptly.

I already showed you a particularly relevant point. Instead of refuting it, your response was that you see god and god talks to you.

Thats a pretty pathetic argument. You expect me to believe that?

Sorry, if that's all you've got, then you've just got diarrhea of the mouth.

Prove it, show evidence, or bug out.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Buffy

However one of the implications of your claimed Tautologies is the statement:
Nothing = ~Something
And thus we can conclude from your Axiom:
~(A1) = "Nothing" can be true and false at the same time
Thus making all of your Tautologies undecidable!

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

Nothing can be true and false in the same respect at the same time.
My tautologies aren't nothing silly. So, this statement is actually true as a variation of my axiom.

Originally Posted by ughaibu

Here's the relevant proof:dfnul2 - Metamath Proof Explorer It's not clear to me what "nothing" means in the second quote, above, I guess you two agree about this. Was this matter resolved in the subsequent squabbling?

Yes, to apparently everyone but the OP.

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

IIRC, your OP was actually demolished by Buffy. Where did you rebut her criticisms again? A specific link to the post would be useful.

Which one, again? Was that the one where you misdefined zero point energy, or where you said:

http://hypography.com/forums/theolog...tml#post230869
http://hypography.com/forums/theolog...tml#post230876

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by Overdog

I already showed you a particularly relevant point.

Would you be able to highlight or at least link to the post?

Better yet, could you present your argument as formally as possible?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

http://hypography.com/forums/theolog...tml#post230869
http://hypography.com/forums/theolog...tml#post230876

I'm still not seeing it.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

Would you be able to highlight or at least link to the post?

Better yet, could you present your argument as formally as possible?

I see that you, again, are trying to shift the topic since your own formal presentation was so completely shown nonsensical.

Good debate tactic. How's that proof of god working out for ya?

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by MySiddhi

Would you be able to highlight or at least link to the post?

Better yet, could you present your argument as formally as possible?

If you can't keep up, take notes.

Call two theories empirically equivalent just in case exactly the same conclusions about observable phenomena can be deduced from each. Let T be any theory which posits unobservable phenomena. There will always be infinitely many theories which are empirically equivalent to T but which are such that each differs from T, and from all the rest, in what it says about unobservable phenomena (for formalized theories, this is an elementary theorem of mathematical logic). Evidence in favor of T's conception of unobservable phenomena ("theoretical entities") would have to rule out the conceptions represented by each of those other theories. But, since T is empirically equivalent to each of them, they all make exactly the same predictions about the results of observations or experiments. So, no evidence could favor one of them over the others. Thus, at best, we could have evidence in favor of what all these theories have in common--their consequences about "observables"--we could confirm that they are all empirically adequate--but we could not have any evidence favoring T's conception of unobservable theoretical entities. Since T was any theory about unobservables, knowledge of unobservable phenomena is impossible

[MySiddhi]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I'm still not seeing it.

Are you able to even comprehend our arguments? If so could you summarize them and show how I have not refuted their points?

I doubt you have such a comprehension level. Feel free to prove my doubts unfounded.