Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Skepdick]

Y?

Because I don’t know how to decide which category I must place myself in.

This makes your argument modal.

Applies to me if I have nature.
Doesn’t apply to me if I don’t have nature.

For sake of argument consider yourself in the realm of intelligent sentient part of nature.

Try again.

For the sake of avoiding argument - let’s not keep re-defining bloody words.

That is the persuasive definition fallacy.

[attofishpi]

Forsake the argument.

[Skepdick]

Forsake the argument.

If you wish to redefine the word - present an argument as to why.

What makes the current definition wrong?
What makes your proposed definition right?

Otherwise arguing for the sake of arguing is a rather stupid sport.

[Will Bouwman]

You are adding nothing of scientific value to the dialogue with your faux-skepticism.

And if this were a science forum, you might have cause for complaint.

The argument is valid in every logic free from empirical counter-examples.

Here's some logic for you:
Skepdick is a computer scientist.
Skepdick thinks empirical examples affect the validity of logical arguments.
Therefore Skepdick won't be a computer scientist for very long.

If you actually understood the videos you are cargo-culting you would understand that I have, in fact found a new law by following exactly the process Feynman describes in the video.

You are losing your marbles.

What I have found is a law of thought.

There they go.

[Skepdick]

You are adding nothing of scientific value to the dialogue with your faux-skepticism.

And if this were a science forum, you might have cause for complaint.

Well, it's a philosophy forum and logic doesn't seem to matter either so. here I am - complaining.

Skepdick thinks empirical examples affect the validity of logical arguments.

You think they don't?

The claim of validity entails an empirical consequence: it's impossible to produce a counter-example for the argument's validity.

So where was your counter-example when you dismissed the argument as invalid? Pay the piper or fuck off

You are losing your marbles.

What I have found is a law of thought.

There they go.

Q.E.D

The skeptic gets to say whatever the fuck they want. With no regards for due process. Logic; or intellectual integrity.

Evidence? Counter-evidence? That's for suckers! Philosophers are above all that shit and wave stuff off, apparently.

Proof of work - you don't get it!

[Will Bouwman]

The claim of validity entails an empirical consequence: it's impossible to produce a counter-example for the argument's validity.

Not even wrong.

[Skepdick]

The claim of validity entails an empirical consequence: it's impossible to produce a counter-example for the argument's validity.

Not even wrong.

It is NOT “not even wrong”.

The theory of validity (for the argument) predicts that anybody who tries to produce such a counter-example always fails to do so! The theory is falsified if and when somebody actually produces a counter example!

The theory is a scientific fact - its predictions have stood the test of time.
Negating a scientific theory which has stood the test of time requires proof of work.

A scientist knows this, and yet you don't.

Because you don't take time (proof of work!) seriously.

[Will Bouwman]

The theory is falsified when somebody actually produces such a counter example!

Until then - the theory is a scientific fact.

Congratulations! You have achieved wrongness.

[Harbal]

Obviously! Because DOING science (which is what I am doing)

Oh, so you're a scientist now. Did you get bored with being a policeman?

=

=

[Skepdick]

The theory is falsified when somebody actually produces such a counter example!

Until then - the theory is a scientific fact.

Congratulations! You have achieved wrongness.

And you've achieved wrongness about me achieving wrongness.

Dumb philosopher. Your entire game is frame imposition.

[Skepdick]

Oh, so you're a scientist now. Did you get bored with being a policeman?

=

=

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-sharing

[Will Bouwman]

Oh, so you're a scientist now. Did you get bored with being a policeman?

=

=

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-sharing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks

[Skepdick]

Oh, so you're a scientist now. Did you get bored with being a policeman?

=

=

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-sharing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks

Bollocks to your bollocks

Negation is free. Proof of negation isn't. Something atheists don't seem to grok.

P.S I misspelled your name on purpose.

selfie.png

[Will Bouwman]

P.S I misspelled your name on purpose.

Ah, so you're a policeman who deliberately falsifies evidence. Good luck persuading anyone that you are also a scientist.

[Skepdick]

P.S I misspelled your name on purpose.

Ah, so you're a policeman who deliberately falsifies evidence. Good luck persuading anyone that you are also a scientist.

The nitpicker is heading for the ad-hominem now

Shame, you can't escape your programming - can you?

IF can't find counter-evidence to hurtful words THEN attack person.

As predicted by the OP title. Comes with the turf of truth-seeking, I guess.