UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2015, 06:17 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 06:06 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 05:53 PM)Free Wrote:  The combined testimonies of such a large group of people who are credible in the identification of aircraft definitely warrants serious consideration to support the possibility.

Sure, a couple of kids claiming to see an object over a lake performing unusually should be dismissed. But this is nothing like that.

Large groups that have had a chance to talk to each other about what they saw creates a confirmation bias.

Absolutely it does.

That does not appear to be the case in this scenario though. An aerial object was seen hovering over Gate C17 at Chicago O'Hare Airport. It was described as an aircraft of unknown design and origin.

Some of the witnesses later speculated about what it could be, but at the time that they were witnessing it all they could determine about it was that is was an aircraft of some sort.

The aircraft was reported numerous times from different people, including a pilot flying near the airport at the time.

People witnessed this thing as an aircraft initially, and it wasn't until it blew a hole in the clouds as it accelerated into orbit that any idea of it possibly being alien was mentioned.

In short, it was an unknown aircraft at the beginning, but at the end it was the aircraft's performance that fuelled speculation of it possibly being alien in origin.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 06:20 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  I dealt with your assertion that "oral evidence isn't evidence" head on, and demonstrated how it is in fact considered evidence.

You really didn't.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  Assuming no other possibilities again? Oh my, but your fallaciousness blinds you to other possibilities:

1. Perhaps they are from earth.

Bigfoot.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  2. Perhaps they are from within our own solar system.

No evidence that any other planetary body could support a sufficiently technologically advanced civilization, let alone that one actually does.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  3. Perhaps they are nomads.

Which solves precisely zero problems.

We've been over these before.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  Hence, we can surmise as possible that any intelligent alien life existing in other parts of the universe could have evolved technologically beyond what we humans are currently capable of understanding.

Space wizards.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  For you to make the comparison valid, demonstrate with any evidence how a supernatural/metaphysical/divine existence of something we can regard as God can exist.

Demonstrate that a technologically advanced civilization could exist alongside us on Earth without our knowledge, that Mars or Europa or another planetary body within the solar system harbors intelligent, technologically-advanced life, or that a "nomadic" species of aliens could possess all the abilities necessary to leave no evidence of their passing except a bunch of drugged-out idiots screaming about little green men.

Or, failing that, just demonstrate that even a single one of your precious "eyewitness testimonies" is anything other than utter drivel.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  Yeah okay, so tell that to the Canadian justice system that imprisons people for death threats based upon eyewitness testimony.

It doesn't.

You are an idiot.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
11-09-2015, 06:20 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 06:17 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 06:06 PM)pablo Wrote:  Large groups that have had a chance to talk to each other about what they saw creates a confirmation bias.

Absolutely it does.

That does not appear to be the case in this scenario though.

Speculation.

Not evidence.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 06:50 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 06:54 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
So let's move along here and try something.

Let us assume that the following was true:

"12 people, very familiar with aircraft, observed an aircraft hovering over Chicago O'Hare Airport that was described as being metallic grey in colour, approximately 35 feet in diameter, having an unknown oval design, and therefore it's origin unknown. They described the aircraft's performance as something that greatly exceeded any performance of any aircraft they have ever seen, as they claim the object went from earth to orbit in about 2 seconds, creating a perfect circular hole in the clouds."

Okay, now assuming that what they seen was an aircraft, then what type of aircraft can match the description above?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 06:51 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 03:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh hello there, pointless red herring. How are the waters today?

That's a lie.

It happens, rather, to be true, but even if it weren't, if I claimed it in good faith, I cannot, by definition, be lying.

Words mean things, Free. Try to use the correctly.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  I dealt with your assertion that "oral evidence isn't evidence" head on, and demonstrated how it is in fact considered evidence.

The only red herring here is your false accusation of one.

And that's a straw man.

Can you try harder? Please? This would be ever so much more interesting if you did.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:"Humans have travelled 400000 kilometres therefore aliens can travel hundreds of light-years".

Wait, no. That's insane troll logic.

Assuming no other possibilities again?

No, but you seem awfully ready to deny them.

I invite you to consider why nobody thinks your, ah, "case", is even remotely compelling. Please give it some thought.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  Oh my, but your fallaciousness blinds you to other possibilities:

1. Perhaps they are from earth.
2. Perhaps they are from within our own solar system.
3. Perhaps they are nomads.

And you think non-human artifact-building intelligences from within the solar system, let alone from this very planet, are more likely?

Despite the complete and utter lack of material evidence?

And you call this plausible?

Wow. Can I have some of that toke, Free? It must be real strong stuff.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  We can also use mankind's technological evolutionary progress as evidence to demonstrate how intelligent life within the universe can also evolve to create newer technologies in regards to such things as space travel.

"A did X, therefore B can do Y".

Nope. Still insane troll logic.

Shitty analogies don't actually prove anything, Free.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  Hence, we can surmise as possible that any intelligent alien life existing in other parts of the universe could have evolved technologically beyond what we humans are currently capable of understanding.

I too can make things up. Do you have any evidence for this?

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:cf God.

You don't want to play that game.

For you to make the comparison valid, demonstrate with any evidence how a supernatural/metaphysical/divine existence of something we can regard as God can exist.

Not supernatural, merely beyond the limits of our present knowledge. Many possible definitions of God fall comfortably within that range.

After all, you yourself literally just acknowledged that non-human intelligent entities might possess abilities "beyond what we humans are currently capable of understanding". Are you even listening to yourself?

If you start declaring things to exist within that void, you cannot unilaterally pick and choose among them.
(at least, not with any justification - but that's never been what you've bothered, has it?)

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  And then when you are done doing that, demonstrate how this God you can dream up can possibly be compared to an aerial object, described as physical, with a distinct shape, and with manoeuvrability can in any way be compared to your God.

Dude, I'll own your fucking ass if you want to play this game. Go for it.

Direct eyewitness evidence of its intervention. Are four billion religious believers wrong? That's an awful lot of eyewitness testimony to dismiss, Free.

Oh? What's that, you say? Some eyewitnesses are not reliable? That's big of you to admit that. But didn't you explicitly say, repeatedly, in this very thread, that more eyewitnesses = more evidence? Indeed so! But you do not actually believe this. Well, shucks - it almost looks like there are other criteria involved.

I fervently dream of your learning to apply them consistently. I am not holding my breath.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:You're presupposing the validity of testimony based on whether it agrees with beliefs you already hold.

That's not rational, it's cherry-picking.

No, not at all.

Although I do indeed hold beliefs, they have nothing to do with how I evaluate the validity of the testimony. The testimony is evaluated based upon many factors, and none of it has anything to do with what I believe.

I gawp in slack-jawed awe at the size of your intellectual blind spot.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Hearsay isn't sufficient to obtain a conviction.

Yeah okay, so tell that to the Canadian justice system that imprisons people for death threats based upon eyewitness testimony. Perhaps you can convince them to change the laws according to your version of what constitutes evidence.

You never know; you might get lucky?

Hearsay is not evidence. Unsubstantiated rumours are not evidence.
(I was going to ask, do you understand the difference, but this thread and its ilk abundantly show that no, by sweet jesus, you do not)

If you can provide me a single example of a criminal conviction - based purely on unsubstantiated statements and in the absence of corroborating evidence - I'll be your right-hand True Believer™.

If. Get to it. I'll wait.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote: I could file charges against you right now, alleging you threatened me. How seriously would they be taken?

That depends on who witnessed the threat, now wouldn't it? With just you and me involved, you wouldn't have much of a chance when its just my word against yours.

But hey, what do you think the odds would be of you getting a conviction against me if 12 eyewitnesses took the stand on your behalf?

Gasp!

Did a light bulb just go off in your head?

The odds are still zero.

You don't seem to understand how the process actually works.

Absent corroborating evidence, a simple repetition of assertions does not make them more compelling.

Which you yourself admit repeatedly, in your categorical dismissal of dozens of phenomena, all of which are well-attested by numerous, sincere, qualified eyewitness accounts. Shall we review them once more for the class?

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Notwithstanding that courtroom proceedings do not decide reality.

If that was the case, then murders never really happened. Nobody really broke into a store. No crime ever really happened.

Oh hi there, shambling straw man! How are you today?

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:You're equivocating.

Is that how you intend to get out of this?

"Get out of" you being demonstrably disingenuous?

Yes.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Something as a possible specific explanation requires a priori substantiation.

Check! Done that!

"HAHA U CANT PROOF ITS NOT THEREFORE I M SO SMRT LOLOLOL"

Oh, wait. That's not a compelling argument.

Maybe try to come up with a better one? It's okay; I'll wait.

(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Ignorance and the unknown do not demonstrate possibility.

But we are not ignorant, hence possibility is demonstrated.

"I don't know therefore I do" is not getting any more compelling, friendo.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 07:36 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 06:50 PM)Free Wrote:  So let's move along here and try something.

Let us assume that the following was true...

Or - here's a thought - we could not.

This is really the most idiotic argument I've ever seen. "Let us assume that they were all right and it was a craft of some sort, so that we can get down to the meat of speculating baselessly about where it might have come from"?

Really?

Thank you for making it so painfully clear that you are not actually interested in being rational here.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
11-09-2015, 08:19 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 08:56 PM by Free.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 06:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  That's a lie.

It happens, rather, to be true, but even if it weren't, if I claimed it in good faith, I cannot, by definition, be lying.

No, it isn't true.

But if not a lie, and possibly a claim- albeit wrong- in good faith, I stand corrected.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  I dealt with your assertion that "oral evidence isn't evidence" head on, and demonstrated how it is in fact considered evidence.

The only red herring here is your false accusation of one.

And that's a straw man.

Can you try harder? Please? This would be ever so much more interesting if you did.

Demonstrate the truth claim of both the red herring and the strawman and then we can talk.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  Assuming no other possibilities again?

No, but you seem awfully ready to deny them.

I invite you to consider why nobody thinks your, ah, "case", is even remotely compelling. Please give it some thought.

Good grief, are you attempting to use the Bandwagon Fallacy here? Really? You do not need to sink this low, for I respect that you are too intelligent for that type of behaviour.

And ...assuming "nobody?"

You seem to enjoy taking broad sweeps with that brush of yours.

You do not speak for everyone, I assure you.

Big Grin

Quote:
(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  Oh my, but your fallaciousness blinds you to other possibilities:

1. Perhaps they are from earth.
2. Perhaps they are from within our own solar system.
3. Perhaps they are nomads.

And you think non-human artifact-building intelligences from within the solar system, let alone from this very planet, are more likely?

Despite the complete and utter lack of material evidence?

And you call this plausible?

Wow. Can I have some of that toke, Free? It must be real strong stuff.

Nice red herring. Nice ad hom.

Have we turned over every stone on earth yet, let alone our solar system?

You think an extraterrestrial visitation from another star system is more likely rather than non human intelligent life existing within our own solar system, when you already ridiculed the extraterrestrial possibility?

Interesting. Tell me why a interstellar visitation is more likely as opposed to non human intelligence within our own star system.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  We can also use mankind's technological evolutionary progress as evidence to demonstrate how intelligent life within the universe can also evolve to create newer technologies in regards to such things as space travel.

"A did X, therefore B can do Y".

Nope. Still insane troll logic.

Shitty analogies don't actually prove anything, Free.

And your horrible math grossly misrepresents by position, I suppose, as a feeble and meager attempt to ridicule. Or did you not notice the transitive verb "can" to indicate possibility?

It might work if it stated "A did X, and possibly B did Y"

Now, that is more intellectually honest.

Agreed?

Quote:
(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  Hence, we can surmise as possible that any intelligent alien life existing in other parts of the universe could have evolved technologically beyond what we humans are currently capable of understanding.

I too can make things up. Do you have any evidence for this?

Firstly, did you not notice the verb "surmise?"

We humans, and other life forms on earth, are evidence of intelligent life existing in the universe. We can reason with this evidence how it may be possible for other non human intelligent species to evolve elsewhere in the universe.

We are evidence, and from that evidence we can reasonably surmise.

Quote:
(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  For you to make the comparison valid, demonstrate with any evidence how a supernatural/metaphysical/divine existence of something we can regard as God can exist.

Not supernatural, merely beyond the limits of our present knowledge. Many possible definitions of God fall comfortably within that range.

Nope, sorry but you don't get to change the rules. My description of God above is the most common description known, and is what is generally regarded to be the one most of us here are atheistic about.

Quote:After all, you yourself literally just acknowledged that non-human intelligent entities might possess abilities "beyond what we humans are currently capable of understanding". Are you even listening to yourself?

Yeah about that ... just try to explain to your dog about how the computer works and see what kind of reaction you get.

Go ahead. Then, fill us in on the details of that very interesting "discussion."

Big Grin

Quote:
(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  And then when you are done doing that, demonstrate how this God you can dream up can possibly be compared to an aerial object, described as physical, with a distinct shape, and with manoeuvrability can in any way be compared to your God.

Dude, I'll own your fucking ass if you want to play this game. Go for it.

Direct eyewitness evidence of its intervention. Are four billion religious believers wrong? That's an awful lot of eyewitness testimony to dismiss, Free.

You are so alive with these false comparisons today!

Were 4 billion witnesses interviewed to see if their stories all said the exact same thing?

Are you attempting to use a hypothetical scenario regarding 4 billion religious people claiming something about their god, to compare to 12 eyewitness of an aircraft and other available evidence?

Really?

Big Grin

Quote:Oh? What's that, you say? Some eyewitnesses are not reliable?

Where? The two kids with no experience with aircraft at the lake? Yep, I did say that.

Quote:That's big of you to admit that. But didn't you explicitly say, repeatedly, in this very thread, that more eyewitnesses = more evidence?

Yes I did, imagine the more credible witnesses the better! Now compare 12 mature witnesses highly experienced with aircraft to two kids with no experience with aircraft.

Do the math, champ.

Big Grin


Quote:
(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  Yeah okay, so tell that to the Canadian justice system that imprisons people for death threats based upon eyewitness testimony. Perhaps you can convince them to change the laws according to your version of what constitutes evidence.

You never know; you might get lucky?

Hearsay is not evidence. Unsubstantiated rumours are not evidence.
(I was going to ask, do you understand the difference, but this thread and its ilk abundantly show that no, by sweet jesus, you do not)

Multiple eyewitness oral evidence is very good evidence.

You have no hope here attempting to use the Fallacy of Understatement with your attempt to understate the situation as "unsubstantiated rumours" and mere "hearsay."

Your fallacies are obvious, and it's like playing Whack-A-Mole with you.

Quote:If you can provide me a single example of a criminal conviction - based purely on unsubstantiated statements and in the absence of corroborating evidence - I'll be your right-hand True Believer™.

If. Get to it. I'll wait.

If you can prove that the 12 witnesses' statements are unsubstantiated and false, I will allow you to remain as my dignified and well respected bitch.

Big Grin

Quote:
(11-09-2015 05:47 PM)Free Wrote:  That depends on who witnessed the threat, now wouldn't it? With just you and me involved, you wouldn't have much of a chance when its just my word against yours.

But hey, what do you think the odds would be of you getting a conviction against me if 12 eyewitnesses took the stand on your behalf?

Gasp!

Did a light bulb just go off in your head?

The odds are still zero.

You don't seem to understand how the process actually works.

Absent corroborating evidence, a simple repetition of assertions does not make them more compelling.

It makes it more compelling when the oral testimony is made from 12 different people, all stating virtually the same thing.

Please tell me you won't embarrass yourself over this more than you already have. It's gotten to the point that it's past ridiculous now.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 09:36 PM (This post was last modified: 11-09-2015 09:40 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  Please tell me you won't embarrass yourself over this more than you already have. It's gotten to the point that it's past ridiculous now.

It certainly has.

The fact that you make statements like "prove that they were wrong and I'll let you be my bitch" and cite apologetics websites in order to try and prop up your pathetic arguments isn't even entertaining any more. You started the thread silly, then moved into insulting and actively stupid, and then kept going.

I'd say that your posts seem to be almost self-parodying, if it weren't so blindingly obvious that you mean every single stupid thing that you say.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
11-09-2015, 11:40 PM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 06:17 PM)Free Wrote:  People witnessed this thing as an aircraft initially, and it wasn't until it blew a hole in the clouds as it accelerated into orbit that any idea of it possibly being alien was mentioned.

In short, it was an unknown aircraft at the beginning, but at the end it was the aircraft's performance that fuelled speculation of it possibly being alien in origin.

'Cos human eyes can now determine when an object is orbital... at least if there's 12 of 'em and they're all expert aviators Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
12-09-2015, 12:11 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  Demonstrate the truth claim of both the red herring...

Bringing up irrelevancies is a red herring.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  ... and the strawman and then we can talk.

Misrepresenting others is a straw man.

You did both exactly where I said you did.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:No, but you seem awfully ready to deny them.

I invite you to consider why nobody thinks your, ah, "case", is even remotely compelling. Please give it some thought.

Good grief, are you attempting to use the Bandwagon Fallacy here? Really? You do not need to sink this low, for I respect that you are too intelligent for that type of behaviour.

So, you can use transparently awful appeals to popularity, but no one else can?
(not that that even was - fallacy fallacy much?)

If I were adamant in maintaining a position that a forum full of skeptics saw as ludicrously credulous, I would hope that the experience would prompt some introspection. You evidently do not possess that faculty. Oh, well.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  And ...assuming "nobody?"

You seem to enjoy taking broad sweeps with that brush of yours.

You do not speak for everyone, I assure you.

Who here has been convinced by your drivel?

Show of hands, guys. Let me know!

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  Have we turned over every stone on earth yet, let alone our solar system?

And the reason you can't see the dragon in my garage is 'cuz he's invisible, Free.

Give me a fucking break.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  You think an extraterrestrial visitation from another star system is more likely rather than non human intelligent life existing within our own solar system, when you already ridiculed the extraterrestrial possibility?

Interesting. Tell me why a interstellar visitation is more likely as opposed to non human intelligence within our own star system.

Since there is no evidence, it's irrelevant - my entertaining your vacuous unsubstantiated "speculation" accomplishes nothing.

If we first assume a whole bunch of facts not in evidence, I suppose I could muster an opinion. Why should I bother?

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:"A did X, therefore B can do Y".

Nope. Still insane troll logic.

Shitty analogies don't actually prove anything, Free.

And your horrible math...

That's not math, it's a syllogism.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  ... grossly misrepresents by position, I suppose, as a feeble and meager attempt to ridicule. Or did you not notice the transitive verb "can" to indicate possibility?

It might work if it stated "A did X, and possibly B did Y"

Now, that is more intellectually honest.

Agreed?

That's an irrelevant distinction. A fallacious conclusion doesn't become valid just because you try to hide behind maybes.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:I too can make things up. Do you have any evidence for this?

Firstly, did you not notice the verb "surmise?"

We humans, and other life forms on earth, are evidence of intelligent life existing in the universe. We can reason with this evidence how it may be possible for other non human intelligent species to evolve elsewhere in the universe.

We are evidence, and from that evidence we can reasonably surmise.

That's not how evidence works, Free.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Not supernatural, merely beyond the limits of our present knowledge. Many possible definitions of God fall comfortably within that range.

Nope, sorry but you don't get to change the rules.

There are no rules. Because you're explicitly talking about unknowns.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  My description of God above is the most common description known, and is what is generally regarded to be the one most of us here are atheistic about.

Your definition doesn't mean shit to other people. They, as it turns out, have their own.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:After all, you yourself literally just acknowledged that non-human intelligent entities might possess abilities "beyond what we humans are currently capable of understanding". Are you even listening to yourself?

Yeah about that ... just try to explain to your dog about how the computer works and see what kind of reaction you get.

Go ahead. Then, fill us in on the details of that very interesting "discussion."

Thanks for throwing in a non sequitur?

You can't explicitly invoke things we don't understand and then go on to pretend you know what that set contains.

Not without looking like an idiot, that is.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Direct eyewitness evidence of its intervention. Are four billion religious believers wrong? That's an awful lot of eyewitness testimony to dismiss, Free.

You are so alive with these false comparisons today!

Were 4 billion witnesses interviewed to see if their stories all said the exact same thing?

Are you attempting to use a hypothetical scenario regarding 4 billion religious people claiming something about their god, to compare to 12 eyewitness of an aircraft and other available evidence?

Really?

I think, if you really, really tried, you might just find a religious statement of faith that more than 12 people would agree too, Free. Does that make it more compelling? Why or why not?

You can't even abandon your presuppositional aircraft, for fuck's sake. And you think that makes you look any better than the other flavours of presuppositionalist out there?

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Hearsay is not evidence. Unsubstantiated rumours are not evidence.
(I was going to ask, do you understand the difference, but this thread and its ilk abundantly show that no, by sweet jesus, you do not)

Multiple eyewitness oral evidence is very good evidence.

Oh, sweet child, it is not. Of course, you've already rejected the oral accounts of multiple eyewitnesses many times over.

... except when it comes to your own pet presupposition. Oh, well.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  You have no hope here attempting to use the Fallacy of Understatement with your attempt to understate the situation as "unsubstantiated rumours" and mere "hearsay."

A handful of garbled and contradictory accounts - remember upthread when the report on O'Hare explicitly stated what you, in your infinite wisdom, explicitly claimed it didn't? - most assuredly is nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay.

I'm sorry you don't like it, Free, but words mean things, and that's what those ones happen to mean.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  Your fallacies are obvious, and it's like playing Whack-A-Mole with you.

I defy you to substantiate a single allegation of fallacy.

You're pretty fast to leap on the accusation, though, because it's certainly way easier than substantive responses.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:If you can provide me a single example of a criminal conviction - based purely on unsubstantiated statements and in the absence of corroborating evidence - I'll be your right-hand True Believer™.

If. Get to it. I'll wait.

If you can prove that the 12 witnesses' statements are unsubstantiated and false, I will allow you to remain as my dignified and well respected bitch.

Ah - blatant evasion. You made an explicit claim about how our legal system works, Free. Are you going to substantiate it, or are you going to pretend you never made it?

But no, for those of us in the real world, uncorroborated rumour is not, in fact, considered evidence, let alone the part where the courtroom metaphor is pathetically belaboured.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:The odds are still zero.

You don't seem to understand how the process actually works.

Absent corroborating evidence, a simple repetition of assertions does not make them more compelling.

It makes it more compelling when the oral testimony is made from 12 different people, all stating virtually the same thing.

No, it isn't, and no, they didn't.

(11-09-2015 08:19 PM)Free Wrote:  Please tell me you won't embarrass yourself over this more than you already have. It's gotten to the point that it's past ridiculous now.

It's cute when a bumbling fuckwit like you tries to play condescending. Did something mean crawl up your ass this morning? You've really dialed up the douchebag in this thread. You've been plenty wrong and misguided before, but not so rudely.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: