Ok, I’ll prove it once you’ve proved that the world wasn’t made by a trio of pixies called Larry, Curly and Moe, using magic invisible spanners.
Game over, tony, you lose.Prove it!
I’ve thought about it too, and I’ve concluded that I’m here because my parents decided it would be nice to have marital relations and see what developed. If they had not done so, would God have implanted my soul in someone else’s bod? Only He knows, I don’t. Do you?
There’s only one problem. You can’t even prove that you exist… let alone anything else!Well, let’s see here. According to your argument, if someone claims that the existence of Cheetos is proof that fairies exist, and I don’t accept their claim, I essentially have to proof that fairies don’t exist in order to be justified in my unbelief.
I’m going to make that claim now: The existence of the Cheeto clearly proves that fairies exist. I don’t have to explain why, because Maria didn’t explain her ten proofs. You can either accept the claim or not, and if you don’t, you’ll have to prove that fairies don’t exist. And in the scientific world, “we’ve never seen one before” isn’t a reason to dismiss the existence of a species.
You should read more carefully… I specified “evidence rather than proof”…
No - you said:
The word ‘prove’ implies ‘proof’ in case you weren’t aware.Prove it!
As I have pointed out, I referred to evidence rather than proof.
You are confusing two things. I originally stated “You have made a claim that it does not constitute** evidence**…” and followed it with “Prove it”, i.e. “Prove that it does not constitute evidence” - which you have failed to do…
And you have made an original claim that the OP list ‘does’ consitute evidence, which you have failed to substantiate. As you well know, proving a negative, which you have asked me to do, is not possible. Hence my counter-challenge to you to prove that my claim about the origin of the universe is false - I thought it would make you aware of your error. The onus is on you to substantiate your positive claim, not on me to prove that your claim is wrong. This is fundamental stuff.
I have at least summarised the evidence whereas you have produced absolutely nothing to refute it.
I asked you to prove that it is not evidence. Don’t you have any criteria at all to determine what constitutes evidence?
That puts you in a impregnable position from which you can launch your diatribes. You can assert that everyone else’s statements are not evidence without ever specifying what you regard as evidence. Very convenient indeed!
It’s amazing to hear you - of all people - accusing me of arrogance! You were supposed to produce examples of my logical errors but of course you have failed to do so. It would be more to the point if you produce reasoned arguments rather than fanciful images like “the embarrassed boy at school who blusters and re-phrases stuff because you think people will laugh at you if you admit you were wrong”. You spend most of your time on this forum resorting to abuse rather than reasoning… but you are merely exposing your inability to deal with the issues at stake…
Bull
Again - burden of proof is with the one making the claim. You never justify any of your claims, so I’m not surprised you’ve failed to do so this time as well. You’re nothing if not consistent!
Again, you’re asking me to prove a negative, and you seem consistently unaware of the logical fallacy you present.
I have an impregnable position purely because you are unable to provide evidence of your claims. No other reason. Impregnability through logic and rationality. It’s not my fault that people’s claims are just fluff. I have defined evidence several times on this forum. Objective, independent, observable, testable, predictive. In a nutshell - ‘beyond reasonable objective doubt.’
Apart from the buren of proof’ error you made, and continue to make, and which two other posters have also pointed out, and which you’re clearly now trying to wriggle out of.
Sorry - that’s just what you reminded me of. Someone who can’t bring themselves to admit they’ve made a mistake, even though it’s startlingly obvious that they have.
If you call ‘pointing out the falsehoods in Tony Rey’s arbitrary claims’ abuse, then you’re right. You certainly have some odd definitions in your head, maybe this is another one.
**wanstronian’s **posts display an extreme form of scepticism which is clouding his thinking. in answer to my post he states he has thought about it. I say he hasn’t.
You’re right. I did make assumptions about the nature of your argument, before you made it. I apologise for that, but not for being skeptical!
In future I shall ignore and delete all your irrelevant and insulting remarks.
Feel free to delete the insulting ones, I’m sorry to say my patience runs out when consistently faced with the sort of nonsense you present as fact. I apologise for any undeserved insult. However, I also have no doubt that you’ll define ‘irrelevant’ as ‘things I can’t answer’ and delete them too. It seems to be your MO. You still haven’t admitted you got the Burden of Proof thing wrong.
Well done, you got one out of five. Maybe I should have made it clear that you need most, if not all, of the properties I mentioned. Yes, consciousness is objectively real. But it’s not measurable, it’s not predictable, it’s not testable other than as a ‘there/not there’ experiment. Or, it’s testable, but you won’t get consistent results from different subjects. So the test is meaningless.
That is all we need to know! Thank you and good luck…
Way to cherry-pick a quote out of context!That is all we need to know! Thank you and good luck…
[/QUOTE]The context makes not the slightest difference.
Consciousness is objectively real whether or not you like it or not.
Something I’ve never denied…Consciousness is objectively real whether or not you like it or not.Code:The context makes not the slightest difference.