I expect them to make an argument.
So, by "prove", you mean nothing more than "make an argument"? When you say "Prove that
X is the case," you mean nothing more than "[Make an argument] that
X is the case"? If you do mean something more than that, then
what is it?
This is a debate forum. If there are either incapable or unwilling to do that then maybe they need to find another hobby.
So, you consider raging against Christians who don't take your word for it that the earth is round a
hobby?
I don't even remember being asked the question but it doesn't matter. To prove a proposition means that you've established that either the proposition is logically necessary or that the contrary is impossible.
What (if anything) would you say is the difference between
proving the proposition,
P, and
establishing the proposition,
P? Would you not be willing to rewrite the sentence you just wrote thus:
"To prove a proposition means that you've [proven] that either the proposition is logically necessary or that the contrary is impossible"?
Obviously, to say
that would be completely useless. You'd have failed to answer the question, "What is it to prove a proposition?" You would be saying no more than that to prove one proposition is to prove another, different proposition. The question remains unanswered: What is it to prove a proposition?
So, obviously you will not want to say that to establish a proposition is the same thing as to prove the proposition, if you wish to get any use out of saying "To prove a proposition means that you've
established that..."
The difference being that I'm not merely saying it.
But, that's exactly what your opponents will say, with as much ease as you say it. And then, all you'll do is say "But they're wrong when they say it, and I'm right when I say it!" And then, your opponents will say, "No. On the contrary, Clete, you're wrong when you say it, and I'm right when I say it!" And, that sort of pointless game could go on, indefinitely. Like I said in my previous post, the best you'll get out of that sort of exchange is a war, the winner of which is the combatant who can marshal enough exclamation points to his command. And, on the internet, especially, such ordnance is quite cheap, and, for all intents and purposes, infinitely plentiful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have made arguments both refuting the lunatic nonsense that passes for arguments on the flat-earther side...
One from the flat-earther side can, just as easily, fire right back at you:
"I have made arguments both refuting the lunatic nonsense that passes for arguments on the round-earther side..."
...as well as affirmatively establishing my own claims.
Would you say that "affirmatively establishing my own claims" is any different than "affirmatively proving my own claims"? If so, remember that, so far, you've not been able to answer the question, "What is proving?" So, even if you could answer the question, "What is establishing?", you still couldn't say what (if any) difference there is between establishing and proving, since you can't say what proving is.
I have made the arguments over and over and over again and they are all still right here on this thread for anyone who's interested to read.
And, for one simply to read something that you've written is for you to have proven what you've written is true?
They have been consistently ignored and entirely unrefuted if even responded to.
What you say about the things you call your "arguments" is what flat-earthers would say, to you, about the things they call their "arguments". Flat-earthers would say that you have consistently ignored and failed to refute what they call their "arguments"
I am thus reduced to fist pounding.
Hotheaded flat-earthers would, also, say that
you have reduced
them to fist pounding.
Will do, and with much ataraxia.
Again, I don't recall having been asked but I'm not sure that I would have answered anyway.
Oh, well, so much for telling people to "Read the thread", I guess. I asked you:
What (if anything) would you say is the difference between proving the proposition, P, to someone, and convincing them of the proposition, P?
And, your response was:
That depends on the person. Stupid people cannot be convinced of anything that they don't want to believe.
Dishonest people are worse. They knowingly choose to ignore proofs against their position.
Intellectually honest people are convinced by the only means the human mind has for understanding anything, that being sound reason.
Christians are particularly without excuse in this regard. They have no reason to fear the truth and yet these asinine flat earthers refuse to allow sound reason to persuade their minds and they do so in the name of Christianity! It is foolish to the point of being sinful.
So, you're right: you did not answer the question I asked you.
I can think of four classes of people off the top of my head in this regard...
Stupid people are convinced seemingly at random.
Dishonest people are convinced only when they want to be.
Intellectually honest people allow sound reason to persuade their mind.
Otherwise intelligent and honest people who make an error.
You can tell the difference between them by how (or whether) they engage the debate.
Unfortunately, I did not ask you about different sorts of people and stuff. I was asking about the
sine qua non of whatever it is you call "convincing". When you say that a person (whoever he or she may be, whether he or she is "stupid", "intellectually honest", "convinced seemingly at random", "otherwise intelligent", 7' tall, 35 years old, mustachioed, etc.) has been "convinced" of the proposition,
P, what (if anything) are you saying is the case? What (if anything) would you say has occurred, in
every case that a person has been
convinced of the proposition,
P, that has caused that person to go from being not convinced to being convinced?
I think your definition of cause is unnecessarily rigid but I get the point. You however seem to not get the point....
Do you, or do you not, think that, for the proposition,
P, to be
proved to whomever the proposition,
P, is proved to, is for that person to go from
not believing the proposition,
P, to believing it?
Do you, or do you not, think that, for whomever becomes
convinced of the proposition,
P, the
convincing of that person of the proposition,
P, is for that person to go from
not believing
P to believing
P?
There's no convincing me that you don't already know the answer to this asinine question but...
Questions that you can't answer are always asinine, aren't they?
When you tell someone to prove you wrong, you're simply challenging them to engage the debate and to make an argument.
So, according to you, to make an argument is to prove something? By argument, do you mean something like:
All men are morons,
Socrates is a man,
Therefore, Socrates is a moron?
Is that not an argument? And, to make that argument, then, is to prove something? To prove what? That Socrates is a moron?
Here is another argument:
The earth is flat,
Ergo, The earth is flat.
Would you say that, by making that argument--that
valid argument--one is proving that the earth is flat? Of course you wouldn't, since your program is to say that the earth is
not flat. Saying that to make an argument is to
prove something, then, seems like a dead end street in any attempt to say what
proving is. Wouldn't you agree?
It's usually used when whomever you're talking to is pompous and arrogant, as when Soma called me a heretic.
I, for one, never use it...at least, so long as I have my thinking cap on, and am striving to be as consistent as possible with my personal principles, I do not use it. And, I'm quite used to talking to pompous and arrogant people--well, at least on forums.
He's here to show off his education in bible languages and that's all he's interested in doing.
Well, I'm definitely not unsympathetic with you on that point. That's not to say that I, personally, have had much experience with [MENTION=14978]PneumaPsucheSoma[/MENTION]; I can't vouch for whether or not that's what
he does (either some or all of the time), and I couldn't say that that is what "he's here" for. (He says some pretty interesting stuff sometimes...sometimes a bit of peculiar terminology I don't remember having previously encountered. For instance, in some post, he used a very specific theological term, 'aeviternal', that I had to go look up.)
Anyway, indeed, it
is quite annoying when people (at least so long as they try to use it as a crutch in opposing you on some point) do that sort of thing--
especially on internet forums, where, for all anyone knows, the "Professor" is merely a very rudimentary smatterer (like me) at the original languages, and just quick-witted enough, and smart at manipulating Bible language software tools for their purposes....I mean, even that's worth something, too, when it's not used for trying to awe others. But, I say, and I'm sure you'll agree, that it is quite easy to see that such a thing can often be a mere ploy, and a crutch, in the hands of an opponent who knows he/she needs some sort of artificial edge to try to come out of a debate looking less scratched up than he/she might have done without the help of all the majesty of his/her supposed academic achievement.
I have never said, "I proved to you that the earth is round!". What I said was that I have proven that the Earth cannot possibly be flat.
Oh? And why have you never said
that? You
believe that the earth is round, no? Are you not willing to say "I can prove that the earth is round"? If not, why not? You demand that all Christians believe, with you, that the earth is round, but you're not willing to say "I have
proven, and can
prove, that the earth is round"? When a flat-earther Christian says, to you, "Prove that the earth is round, Clete!", what do you say? Do you say, "I can't prove
that! I can
only prove that it is
not flat, but I demand that
you believe that it is
round, because I say it's round! And, if you
don't, I will excommunicate you, thundering down from my lofty throne of wisdom!"
And I meant precisely that. I have rationally established that it is impossible for the Earth to be flat. It is NOT flat - period. That isn't my opinion, my wish, my prayer or my desire. It is an established FACT that I have personally proven.
But, the flat-earther can say, with equal ease, and with an appearance of earnestness and solemnity equal to
your appearance of earnestness and solemnity, that
"I have rationally established that it is impossible for the Earth to [not] be flat. It [IS] flat - period. That isn't my opinion, my wish, my prayer or my desire. It is an established FACT that I have personally proven."
I am more than happy to say that I (me personally) have proven that the Earth cannot be flat.
Whatever. So, would you
not be willing to say, "It has been proved to me that the Earth cannot be flat"?
You want to pretend to discuss epistemology when what you're really doing is playing word games.
You do not think that trying to get to the bottom of whether or not terms like "prove", "proof", "establish", "convince", etc. are meaningful (and, if they are,
what, precisely is meant by them) is relevant to epistemology? You know, it is interesting how much you think like atheists, and other assorted anti-Christian people do. In past times, I've asked very similar questions of many such persons, and your reactions to my questions have been very reminiscent of their reactions to my questions. The "You're just playing word games" shtick is a very common one that they would use. In reality, it's quite the other way around: you're the one playing a game with words. Guessing games: "Try to guess what I mean when I say 'I have proven that....', because I'm not gonna tell you what I mean!" "Just try to guess what I'm requesting you to do when I say 'Prove it!', 'cause it's a secret!"
Well, the exclamation point sure spices things up, doesn't it?
Once again, this is a debate forum. If you're so dumb as to not know how to make an affirmative argument then find something else to do and stop wasting my time with flat-earther stupidity.
If you're so dumb as to not know how to answer simple questions about certain terms that you seem to cherish, and enjoy parroting, such as "prove", "proof", "establish", "convince", etc., well, then....you're wasting your own time by parroting them.
No, really, it's true: you fail, dismally, at epistemology. That being the case, you cannot
but fail, at the most fundamental level, at any other subject--cosmology, for instance. There is no possible way that it can ever be rational to think that cosmology trumps epistemology in importance to mankind. There is no way that an attempt to study the heaven and the earth will
ever be more valuable to mankind than the attempt to study mankind--especially the attempt to study God's gift of our rational mind and what it does and is meant to do.
You knew this entire comment was false when you stated it.
Well, saying things like what you just said is a common way for someone in your position to try (in futility) to save face.
I haven't merely argued against flat-earth stupidity, I have FLATLY falsified it.
What satisfaction do you get from saying that? A flat-earther can, just as easily, and just as earnestly, say to you:
"I haven't merely argued against [round-earth] stupidity, I have FLATLY falsified it."
You want to play word games and think you can talk me into a corner...
Oh, but I
don't think I can talk--or have talked--you into any corner; I've simply watched you talk yourself into a corner, and I've been commentating upon the spectacle of your pride in having stuck yourself in that corner.
...because I asked someone to prove me wrong when everyone who speaks the English language understands that doing so is just another way of telling someone to engage the debate.
So, whenever anybody does whatever it is you call "engaging the debate", you tell them "You've proved me wrong"? Nice.
Well, this isn't my first run around the track.
Which means that you've been going in a circle, perhaps hundreds?, or thousands? of times around without, in all that journey, learning how to think any better, or more rigorously, than you did when you started. Not really something to boast on.
I can tell when someone is an idiot...
Apparently not always.
And it isn't mere tolerance of dissent that I'm raging at. It is blatant and aggressive stupidity being passed off as a biblically valid Christian worldview.
Your un-Biblical worldview is that debating about the shape of the earth and raging at your opponents is far more important than epistemology.
Hippopotamus!
Christians are particularly without excuse in this regard. They have no reason to fear the truth and yet these asinine flat earthers refuse to allow sound reason to persuade their minds and they do so in the name of Christianity! It is foolish to the point of being sinful.
So, the Christians you're talking about--of these, who believe the earth is flat, you're saying that they "fear the truth"?
What truth? The thing that you are telling them is "the truth", that the earth is not flat? Are you saying that
those people believe that the proposition that the earth is not flat is "the truth", but that they fear it? Obviously, they believe that what
you call "the truth" is NOT the truth, but rather, is falsehood. Why, then, would you say that they "fear" something they consider to be falsehood? Would you say that
you fear what
you consider to be falsehood? The flat-earther Christians, they say that what
you call "the truth"--the proposition that the earth is not flat--is a falsehood; do you fear the proposition that the earth is flat, which proposition you consider to be a falsehood?
If you, and others, really wish to try to burn bridges with other Christians over something as petty as their disagreeing with you about the shape of the earth, hey, knock yourself out. I imagine that there are, perhaps, some flat-earth Christians out there who indulge in the same pettiness, from
their standpoint, as you are doing, from
your standpoint, who would reciprocally claim that y'all are willfully promoting something that is a damaging blight on Christianity, and that you should be shunned until you come to see things their way. Well, don't worry about it though--it's no big deal in the eyes of some of us out here (shape-of-the earth-skeptics, like [MENTION=14978]PneumaPsucheSoma[/MENTION] and myself, and even others who are partisans, but tolerant, and other Christians who don't care a whit about the question) who are, thankfully, above such pettiness; you can try to burn your bridge with us, but you won't succeed, since, at the end of the day, you're our Christian brethren!
