Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 04:06 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 05:02 PM by Chas.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Actually, I summed up cjlr's fundamental flaw in his argument as my last post and left him to it.

His fundamental flaw was maintaining that the universe was the exception to the causal principle without justification.

When asked why the universe was the exception by me, he simply stated because it does not apply to the universe! Facepalm

His whole argument was based on circular reasoning which is logically fallacious.

No, you've misunderstood. His objection is not that the universe is an exception, it is your unwarranted, unevidenced assertion that it is not.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
23-05-2014, 04:31 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:53 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Causality as observed in the extant universe as an artifact of such cannot be applied prior to the existence of causality itself.

This is a fancy way of saying: "Yea, causality is something only found within the universe, and as such, there could not be a cause outside of the universe to bring it into existence."

Which leaves you with the absurd position that the universe just came into being literally from non-being uncaused which is worse than magic.

When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least you have the Magician, and the hat!!! Big Grin

If one says that the universe is the exception to the rule and that it came into existence literally without a cause, from nothing is like saying that rabbits can just pop into existence without a magician, without a hat and literally from NOTHING!

It then becomes inexplicable why anything and everything does not just pop into being! Blink

What makes "nothing" so discriminatory that only universes can pop into being uncaused?

In order to deny premise one, one has to arbitrarily state that the universe is the exception to the causal principle which is fallacious.

It simply is not a tenable intellectual position.

(23-05-2014 03:53 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  The premise does not apply to conditions prior to the universe,

Once again, merely stating this without support is neither an undercutting or rebutting defeater. We have to have some reason to think this is true.

(23-05-2014 03:53 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  causality seems to not always be a liner cause -> effect relationship at the quantum level, which is the level of a singularity.

But the motions of elementary particles described by statistical quantum mechanical laws, even if uncaused, do not constitute an exception to this principle, which is what you are hinting at.

Noted philosopher Quentin Smith who has objected to this same premise himself even admits:

These considerations "at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x's position from q1 to q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles." "The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe," Philosophy of Science 55:39-57. Pg 50

So the objection from quantum mechanics falls.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 04:33 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 04:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The above is an attempt to undercut the warrant for the metaphysical causal principle by saying: "Well, the principle may obtain for everything in the universe, but when it comes to the universe itself, the principle does not obtain."
Your reason?

There is no "warrant" for a woo-woo principle, nor have you demonstrated it to be true, nor has anyone here agreed that it is. Fail.

One dos not have to "undercut" what is not there, or what has not been proven, or demonstrated.

(23-05-2014 04:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You say that a cause requires absolute spacetime. But why?

More idiotic questions from Germy Wanker. Why ? Because cause precedes effect, you fucking idiot. Do you have a system where effect precedes cause ? Show it to us.

(23-05-2014 04:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Why must a causal agent i.e. that which brings about an effect, ONLY exist in physical spacetime?

Nice try. That's NOT what I said. Causality requires cause to precede effect by definition.

(23-05-2014 04:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It seems to me that what you are doing is simply begging the question for a materialistic naturalistic worldview. A materialist would heartily agree with you. Many atheists here who are naturalists may indeed agree and you would not have to support your assertion if talking with them. But if what you intend is to present a persuasive rebutting defeater of premise one, you cannot just say: "Yeah well, causes can ONLY exist within absolute spacetime." You have to support that assertion because it is a truth claim. And anyway, how could you possible know that causes can ONLY exist in absolute spacetime?

The usual drivel from a Presuppositionalist who has nothing valid. YOU have demonstrated NOTHING that is not "natural", (the "supernatural"). I realize you idiot cannot think outside your little box, but if you expect to discuss your crap, the LEAST you can do is demonstrate it's validity. You have NOT EVEN begun to do that, Wanker.

I have NO "burden".


cause
kôz/
noun
noun: cause; plural noun: causes

1.
a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
"the cause of the accident is not clear"
synonyms: source, root, origin, beginning(s), starting point; More
mainspring, base, basis, foundation, fountainhead;
originator, author, creator, producer, agent
"the cause of the fire"
antonyms: effect, result
reasonable grounds for doing, thinking, or feeling something.
"Faye's condition had given no cause for concern"
synonyms: reason, grounds, justification, call, need, necessity, occasion; More
excuse, pretext
"there is no cause for alarm"
2.
a principle, aim, or movement that, because of a deep commitment, one is prepared to defend or advocate.
"she devoted her life to the cause of deaf people"
synonyms: principle, ideal, belief, conviction; More
object, end, aim, objective, purpose, mission;
charity
"the cause of human rights"
3.
a matter to be resolved in a court of law.
an individual's case offered at law.
synonyms: case, suit, lawsuit, action, dispute More
"he went to plead his cause"

verb
verb: cause; 3rd person present: causes; past tense: caused; past participle: caused; gerund or present participle: causing

1.
make (something, typically something bad) happen.
"this disease can cause blindness"
synonyms: bring about, give rise to, lead to, result in, create, produce, generate, engender, spawn, bring on, precipitate, prompt, provoke, trigger, make happen, induce, inspire, promote, foster; More
literarybeget, enkindle
"this disease can cause blindness"
antonyms: result from

Everything about the word REQUIRES absolute spacetime, OR it's devoid of meaning.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-05-2014, 04:37 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 04:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The above is an attempt to undercut the warrant for the metaphysical causal principle by saying: "Well, the principle may obtain for everything in the universe, but when it comes to the universe itself, the principle does not obtain."
Your reason?

There is no "warrant" for a woo-woo principle, nor have you demonstrated it to be true, nor has anyone here agreed that it is. Fail.

One dos not have to "undercut" what is not there, or what has not been proven, or demonstrated.

(23-05-2014 04:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You say that a cause requires absolute spacetime. But why?

More idiotic questions from Germy Wanker. Why ? Because cause precedes effect, you fucking idiot. Do you have a system where effect precedes cause ? Show it to us.

(23-05-2014 04:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Why must a causal agent i.e. that which brings about an effect, ONLY exist in physical spacetime?

Nice try. That's NOT what I said. Causality requires cause to precede effect by definition.

(23-05-2014 04:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It seems to me that what you are doing is simply begging the question for a materialistic naturalistic worldview. A materialist would heartily agree with you. Many atheists here who are naturalists may indeed agree and you would not have to support your assertion if talking with them. But if what you intend is to present a persuasive rebutting defeater of premise one, you cannot just say: "Yeah well, causes can ONLY exist within absolute spacetime." You have to support that assertion because it is a truth claim. And anyway, how could you possible know that causes can ONLY exist in absolute spacetime?

The usual drivel from a Presuppositionalist who has nothing valid. YOU have demonstrated NOTHING that is not "natural", (the "supernatural"). I realize you idiot cannot think outside your little box, but if you expect to discuss your crap, the LEAST you can do is demonstrate it's validity. You have NOT EVEN begun to do that, Wanker.

I have NO "burden".


cause
kôz/
noun
noun: cause; plural noun: causes

1.
a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
"the cause of the accident is not clear"
synonyms: source, root, origin, beginning(s), starting point; More
mainspring, base, basis, foundation, fountainhead;
originator, author, creator, producer, agent
"the cause of the fire"
antonyms: effect, result
reasonable grounds for doing, thinking, or feeling something.
"Faye's condition had given no cause for concern"
synonyms: reason, grounds, justification, call, need, necessity, occasion; More
excuse, pretext
"there is no cause for alarm"
2.
a principle, aim, or movement that, because of a deep commitment, one is prepared to defend or advocate.
"she devoted her life to the cause of deaf people"
synonyms: principle, ideal, belief, conviction; More
object, end, aim, objective, purpose, mission;
charity
"the cause of human rights"
3.
a matter to be resolved in a court of law.
an individual's case offered at law.
synonyms: case, suit, lawsuit, action, dispute More
"he went to plead his cause"

verb
verb: cause; 3rd person present: causes; past tense: caused; past participle: caused; gerund or present participle: causing

1.
make (something, typically something bad) happen.
"this disease can cause blindness"
synonyms: bring about, give rise to, lead to, result in, create, produce, generate, engender, spawn, bring on, precipitate, prompt, provoke, trigger, make happen, induce, inspire, promote, foster; More
literarybeget, enkindle
"this disease can cause blindness"
antonyms: result from

Everything about the word REQUIRES absolute spacetime, OR it's devoid of meaning.

[Image: 10395804_826107267416757_2290387024604324327_n.jpg]

I believe this is the problem.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Revenant77x's post
23-05-2014, 04:51 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:50 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 03:42 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Actually, I think it a step in the right direction that people here are even entertaining the argument.

I think it a step in the right direction that people are engaging in intellectual, honest discussions instead of hurling obscenities and insults and one line quips.

The KCA is an argument that theists of all stripes use to argue for a cause of the universe. That is it.

Christians have additional arguments, lines of evidence that can supplement this argument.

That is my problem, are you trying to prove there is a god or prove that a specific god is the one that exist. Using this can at best allow a possibility of a deity. However this does not help in the probability of a deity because there is no objective evidence to support said claim. If you want to show that the bible god Yahweh is the real god then you must prove him in an objective way using predictions, observations, and can withstand peer-review in a scientific journal.

No. This argument is not to prove any deity exists. That is not why I use it.

It is not really to "prove" anything. It is an argument for a cause of the universe. That is it.

I use it primarily with people to show them what one has to believe if they deny either of the premises. IOW, what the cost is for denying premise one or two.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 04:56 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 04:37 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no "warrant" for a woo-woo principle, nor have you demonstrated it to be true, nor has anyone here agreed that it is. Fail.

One dos not have to "undercut" what is not there, or what has not been proven, or demonstrated.


More idiotic questions from Germy Wanker. Why ? Because cause precedes effect, you fucking idiot. Do you have a system where effect precedes cause ? Show it to us.


Nice try. That's NOT what I said. Causality requires cause to precede effect by definition.


The usual drivel from a Presuppositionalist who has nothing valid. YOU have demonstrated NOTHING that is not "natural", (the "supernatural"). I realize you idiot cannot think outside your little box, but if you expect to discuss your crap, the LEAST you can do is demonstrate it's validity. You have NOT EVEN begun to do that, Wanker.

I have NO "burden".


cause
kôz/
noun
noun: cause; plural noun: causes

1.
a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
"the cause of the accident is not clear"
synonyms: source, root, origin, beginning(s), starting point; More
mainspring, base, basis, foundation, fountainhead;
originator, author, creator, producer, agent
"the cause of the fire"
antonyms: effect, result
reasonable grounds for doing, thinking, or feeling something.
"Faye's condition had given no cause for concern"
synonyms: reason, grounds, justification, call, need, necessity, occasion; More
excuse, pretext
"there is no cause for alarm"
2.
a principle, aim, or movement that, because of a deep commitment, one is prepared to defend or advocate.
"she devoted her life to the cause of deaf people"
synonyms: principle, ideal, belief, conviction; More
object, end, aim, objective, purpose, mission;
charity
"the cause of human rights"
3.
a matter to be resolved in a court of law.
an individual's case offered at law.
synonyms: case, suit, lawsuit, action, dispute More
"he went to plead his cause"

verb
verb: cause; 3rd person present: causes; past tense: caused; past participle: caused; gerund or present participle: causing

1.
make (something, typically something bad) happen.
"this disease can cause blindness"
synonyms: bring about, give rise to, lead to, result in, create, produce, generate, engender, spawn, bring on, precipitate, prompt, provoke, trigger, make happen, induce, inspire, promote, foster; More
literarybeget, enkindle
"this disease can cause blindness"
antonyms: result from

Everything about the word REQUIRES absolute spacetime, OR it's devoid of meaning.

[Image: 10395804_826107267416757_2290387024604324327_n.jpg]

I believe this is the problem.

And indeed it would be a huge problem if that was what the proponent of the Kalam argues.

But the proponent of the Kalam does not argue that everything must have a creator.

Rather, the proponent argues that:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, which is far more defensible. In fact, you will not see this objected to except for in these types of settings.

No one walks around in life expecting things to just pop into existence from nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 05:07 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 05:11 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no "warrant" for a woo-woo principle, nor have you demonstrated it to be true, nor has anyone here agreed that it is. Fail.

Premises need to be shown more plausibly true than their negation. Objectors present either undercutting defeaters or rebutting defeaters to try to show that the negation of the premise is more plausible.

Several people have offered these and I have addressed them.

(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  One dos not have to "undercut" what is not there, or what has not been proven, or demonstrated.

One has to offer some type of defeater if they wish to reject a premise in an argument. Saying: "I disagree, or, your premise has not been proven!" simply does not qualify as a defeater.



(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Because cause precedes effect, you fucking idiot. Do you have a system where effect precedes cause ? Show it to us.

Not at all. I agree. Cause precedes effect. But how does that answer my question?

Why is existing in spacetime a necessary attribute of a causal agent?

(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The usual drivel from a Presuppositionalist who has nothing valid. YOU have demonstrated NOTHING that is not "natural", (the "supernatural"). I realize you idiot cannot think outside your little box, but if you expect to discuss your crap, the LEAST you can do is demonstrate it's validity. You have NOT EVEN begun to do that, Wanker.

LOL, neither of the two premises when being defended require me to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. This is simply a red herring.



(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Everything about the word REQUIRES absolute spacetime, OR it's devoid of meaning.

This once again assumes materialism is true. You would have to present an entire separate argument for it.

The cause of the spacetime manifold, all matter and all energy (the universe) cannot exist in spacetime. To maintain it would, is to be left with the absurd position that spacetime (wherein this cause would have to exist according to you ) existed prior to the coming into existence of spacetime! Unsure
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 05:31 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 09:43 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 05:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Premises need to be shown more plausibly true than their negation. Objectors present either undercutting defeaters or rebutting defeaters to try to show that the negation of the premise is more plausible.

There is nothing even remotely "plausible" about your woo-woo. Fail. Nothing has to be said about a premise which has no supporting evidence. I realize you can only think in the bullshit of your Presuppositionalism. I don't give a shit. There is no "woo-woo" and YOU have provided nothing to use that crap as a "premise".

(23-05-2014 05:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Several people have offered these and I have addressed them.

You have not.

(23-05-2014 05:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  One has to offer some type of defeater if they wish to reject a premise in an argument. Saying: "I disagree, or, your premise has not been proven!" simply does not qualify as a defeater.

No. There is no reason to accept the premise. By your crap logic if I said MY premise is that Pink Unicorns created the universe, YOU would have to defeat that. Don't be ridiculous.

(23-05-2014 05:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Not at all. I agree. Cause precedes effect. But how does that answer my question?

You're not that stupid. Think about it. If something happens BEFORE something else it REQUIRES time. I see from this you're just playing games here. Trolling for Jebius. You're a dishonest troll, copying shit from your Apologitics notebook, whether it applies or not. You think if you say "something" it's better than nothing. Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding.

(23-05-2014 05:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Why is existing in spacetime a necessary attribute of a causal agent?

See what you just agreed to, idiot.

(23-05-2014 05:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  LOL, neither of the two premises when being defended require me to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. This is simply a red herring.

YOU said there was a metaphysical "principle". Indeed YOU must demonstrate it.

(23-05-2014 05:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  again assumes materialism is true. You would have to present an entire separate argument for it.

I do not. It's the default. We see it all around us. Are you blind.

(23-05-2014 05:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The cause of the spacetime manifold, all matter and all energy (the universe) cannot exist in spacetime. To maintain it would, is to be left with the absurd position that spacetime (wherein this cause would have to exist according to you ) existed prior to the coming into existence of spacetime!

Thank you.
Therefore the conclusion is you must shut your yap, and say NOTHING further, rather than use a word ("cause") which YOU agreed has meaning ONLY IN spacetime. Your statement is meaningless. The word "cause" which MUST (as you have agreed) "precede" effect, cannot be used in a non-temporal environment. Many have attempted to explain this to you. You are too dense to get it. A "cause" is MEANINGLESS (which as YOU have agreed MUST PRECEDE effect), IF there is no spacetime. You can't Special Plead your "cause", and expect that the term has meaning IF YOU exempt it from YOUR OWN FUCKING definition.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-05-2014, 05:38 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 05:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no "warrant" for a woo-woo principle, nor have you demonstrated it to be true, nor has anyone here agreed that it is. Fail.

Premises need to be shown more plausibly true than their negation. Objectors present either undercutting defeaters or rebutting defeaters to try to show that the negation of the premise is more plausible.

Several people have offered these and I have addressed them.

The premises you have are not plausible because they assume too much.

Quote:
(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  One dos not have to "undercut" what is not there, or what has not been proven, or demonstrated.

One has to offer some type of defeater if they wish to reject a premise in an argument. Saying: "I disagree, or, your premise has not been proven!" simply does not qualify as a defeater.

They are assumptions. Assumptions without evidence can simply be rejected.

Quote:
(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Because cause precedes effect, you fucking idiot. Do you have a system where effect precedes cause ? Show it to us.

Not at all. I agree. Cause precedes effect. But how does that answer my question?

Why is existing in spacetime a necessary attribute of a causal agent?

What part of the word 'before' don't you understand? Time must exist for 'before' to have any meaning.

Quote:
(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Everything about the word REQUIRES absolute spacetime, OR it's devoid of meaning.

This once again assumes materialism is true. You would have to present an entire separate argument for it.

Non sequitur. How does that follow?

Quote:The cause of the spacetime manifold, all matter and all energy (the universe) cannot exist in spacetime. To maintain it would, is to be left with the absurd position that spacetime (wherein this cause would have to exist according to you ) existed prior to the coming into existence of spacetime! Unsure

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
23-05-2014, 05:46 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 05:58 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 05:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no "warrant" for a woo-woo principle, nor have you demonstrated it to be true, nor has anyone here agreed that it is. Fail.

Premises need to be shown more plausibly true than their negation. Objectors present either undercutting defeaters or rebutting defeaters to try to show that the negation of the premise is more plausible.

Several people have offered these and I have addressed them.

(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  One dos not have to "undercut" what is not there, or what has not been proven, or demonstrated.

One has to offer some type of defeater if they wish to reject a premise in an argument. Saying: "I disagree, or, your premise has not been proven!" simply does not qualify as a defeater.



(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Because cause precedes effect, you fucking idiot. Do you have a system where effect precedes cause ? Show it to us.

Not at all. I agree. Cause precedes effect. But how does that answer my question?

Why is existing in spacetime a necessary attribute of a causal agent?

(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The usual drivel from a Presuppositionalist who has nothing valid. YOU have demonstrated NOTHING that is not "natural", (the "supernatural"). I realize you idiot cannot think outside your little box, but if you expect to discuss your crap, the LEAST you can do is demonstrate it's validity. You have NOT EVEN begun to do that, Wanker.

LOL, neither of the two premises when being defended require me to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. This is simply a red herring.



(23-05-2014 04:33 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Everything about the word REQUIRES absolute spacetime, OR it's devoid of meaning.

This once again assumes materialism is true. You would have to present an entire separate argument for it.

The cause of the spacetime manifold, all matter and all energy (the universe) cannot exist in spacetime. To maintain it would, is to be left with the absurd position that spacetime (wherein this cause would have to exist according to you ) existed prior to the coming into existence of spacetime! Unsure

1. Your premises assume a preternatural/supernatural agent existing, as "nature" is of the existing universe, due to the assumption that causality existed prior to the universe that is, itself, a causal network, and the only reason causality exists in the first place. You propose an unmoved mover existing prior to nature :. a supernatural entity by default, with the additional quality of "is uncaused," which is special pleading.

2. You cannot demonstrate the supernatural exists :. Naturalism is the default rational position of any logical or scientific speculation; see Ockham's razor.

3. The first premise is presumptive, and only contains "began to" exist in order to sneak in the unmoved mover/supernatural entity. The opening premise cannot contain the conclusion :. The argument is circular.

If you can't wrap your head around this, many community colleges offer night classes, including logic 101, and it would behoove you to take one.

If this doesn't sum things up for you, I'm going to hand the mic to George for the closing statement:

http://youtu.be/N8gXUUtZ0gw

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: