I know without a doubt there is no god

God helps those who can't help themselves as well.

I didn't say the messiah, I said God. (don't know if you are starting a tangent here... the messiah is not responsible for the messiahs message, God is)

God is responsible for the shaping and molding of our will. The actions of our will (that we deem 'bad') are part of the flow of will God has caused and guided.

That's sorta silly.

 

How do you really know anything? Just because you can sense it, is it real? What defines reality? How to you explain life in a positive way? That is to say... how do you explain life without saying "Life is NOT.... (something)," and instead say "Life IS... (whatever...)."

With those few questions in mind, how do you NOT know something, or know something does NOT exist? Show me someone who knows something for certain, and I'll show you a fool. Show me someone who knows nothing, and I'll show you a genius. Knowledge of existence isn't any more relevant to life than knowledge of the mechanics of a soap bubble. In fact, I would say it's less. Now unlearning all that you thought you knew? Perhaps that's the real value of Knowledge... I wouldn't know, but that's my own idea as of this time...

You don't know anything about God even if you can "prove" that God does or does not exist. I seriously doubt anyone can prove anything beyond their own experience in the world, and just because something is or isn't real for you, doesn't necessarily mean something is or isn't real for someone else. Don't claim to know anything... especially about something so infinitely vast as God. It makes God's followers angry and people get hurt over things like that... The same is true for people who try to convert non-believers by telling them that God does exist... Like it or not, believe in it or not, the idea of God holds truth for some people out there. Then again, so does the idea that God doesn't exist. Neither one is in the right to try and convert the other. Perhaps it is better to simply accept a difference in perception, and then to move on from such trivial arguments? I can't claim to really know any of this, but for now I believe that the questions we seek answers for aren't in the existence of a God or not, rather they deal more with understanding our own place in the greater scheme of things. Like I said though... I really don't know, but that's my guess...

 

Plato ("Socrates") is fucking with your head. Show me someone who can be convinced that they know nothing and I will show you a moron.

 

And you know everything? If you want to show me a moron, I'll gladly accept your personal photographs...

 

No.

My comment wasn't an ad hominem bent on making you feel bad. I just pointed out that your idea was moronic, and quite possible a joke that plato liked to pull on his 'students', convincing them to proudly say they know nothing (which is obviously negated by this statement, claiming you know nothing is essentially claiming that you have knowledge that you know nothing (duhhh)).

I'm gonna drool on my keyboard for about 15 minutes....

 

"Show me someone who knows something for certain, and I'll show you a fool. Show me someone who knows nothing, and I'll show you a genius"

Seems trite and a quick way to look wise and intellectual.

To know nothing is to be open to everything. To know something for certain does not create a fool, knowing something for certain and blocking out other information is the action of a fool. Misinterpreted, perhaps, as in its literal sense, as Kharkov explains, is erroneous.

lostblackdog
because my experience is subjective in no way degrades its actuality. Perhaps it is not your reality, but within my abilities I will define and observe MY reality.

Also why does observing what life is NOT invalidate one's valuation of life?

What I sense is real. How do you define reality without your senses? What I percieve is real enough anyways to base my beliefs upon it. Perceptions of reality are invariable to the collective of whom experience it. But MY reality is not invariable (aside from stoned or sober). My reality is what it is and I feel I have the obligation to understand it as best I can.

 

Lazarus
Duh. If you invalidate an idea you are establishing it's negation. To invalidate the idea that the sun is green is to establish that the sun is NOT green - a negative. You're already conceding my point.

Lazarus...
So sorry ..occam conceeds nothing
Occam did not include the rest because he thought it was obvious.

The rest is..

" And when humans CANNOT invalidate a proposed positive.
It becomes a human fact"


Occam

Ps.
Occam is a patient person.
But such as
[quote you]
"I dont have to suffer your life as an idiot..you do"

Are not the comments of wounded ego?

If occam is an idiot,,,then why argue with him?
Finding your level?

 

Your additional point is irrelevant. The very fact that we can invalidate an idea is what I'm talking about - that's what proving a negative is. You've already conceded my point but you refuse to recognize it.

As for why I'm arguing with you: I can't stand listening to idiocy without responding - I'm too passionate about philosophy to do that, and I especially can't stand listening to idiocy which is in direct response to something I myself have said.

Wounded ego my ass. Your comments are getting shorter and shorter because you refuse to address any of my criticisms. Try again - here - I'll even post them again for you:

And:

And:

Concluding in:

Waiting. Waiting for days now, in fact.


- Laz

 

Kharakov: As far as my idea being moronic... I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess that you must be a smarter man than I am, and therefore I should bend over and kiss your genius ass. Did you ever consider that perhaps Plato wanted his students to remain humble and realize that they didn't know everything there is to know... unlike some people out there.....

You never cease to amaze me with your infinite wisdom and your insecure way of always bringing people down... way to go. I hope your mommy's proud.

Thumontico: As far as you saying I'm wrong - who died and made your paradigm king? Who made mine king either? No one. No one knows anything for certain because nothing in this world can be proven. Read some Karl Popper and a lil' Kuhn and call me in the morning.... just kidding. All we have are educated guesses on how reality works. Now then, let's take states of the mind that we might go under when we get drunk or stoned.... what's to say that some of the things you perceive are not real? Yes, that's through your senses, but that's usually something perceived from something other than the five senses.

What can the five senses tell us? Only five things about an object if even that many. Could there be things that transcend the five senses that we do not sense? Are there things of this world that exist but we do not perceive them or cannot perceive them? That's the reason I say I know nothing... I guess I rely on the same senses and empirical data that you do, but then again... what happens when it's internalized and translated in the mind? We don't really know, but we have a good guess. Therefore, we don't really know anything... and by thinking we know something, we all too often close the doors of individual perception and go with what our particular paradigm agrees with. Therefore, we are always closing the doors and blocking other options simply because they don't fit within our paradigms for reality. That's why I made my above statement... not to sound wise at all. I would never claim to be wise at all, rather I would claim to have my eyes opened to different views, although I am unsure of how to interpret most of them based on the paradigms I have grown with that I am continually tearing down.

All in all, I'm agreeing with a lot of what you said, but I'm also calling you to transcend the five senses and look for more within yourself. Perhaps it sounds crazy, but how do you know until you have tried. That is where the metaphysical realm comes into our lives.... That which is "Beyond Physics." Greek root word Meta- Beyond and Physics. You aren't stupid, so don't tell me I'm wrong, and don't tell anyone their wrong... unless that person is our President... in which case I'll forgive you. Instead, tell your opinion and realize that you only know things based upon YOUR paradigm, and to shoot down another paradigm is to be a fool. That blocks information and data that might mean you have to reshape your paradigm, but in the end, you'll begin to gain a better understanding of the truth. To look at something from only one angle is a very egotistical action, and we all know what happens when we allow egotism to controll us... we get baby republicans and slavery... mmmm... injustice!

I'm not saying you're stupid or even trying to call you out and be a jackass like some of the people here, and I'm sorry if I might have hinted at that earlier, but this is all in good fun because I like debating egotism and paradigms. I'm just asking you to take that extra step and transcend what you think you know, and look for answers to the questions you know you don't know.

As far as why I don't accept negative explanations of things, I simply want to know what you think something IS rather than what it ISN'T. For instance... tell me what freedom IS rather than what it ISN'T and you'll be one of the first in a long time...

Peace.

As far as the atheists go... you guys keep doing your own thing. I don't understand why you would want to live that way, and I'm not going to discredit you, but I will say that I find it funny that while atheism is on the rise, it's also the path that loses the most members each year. I wonder if my kids will be atheists because they believe in it, or because all the cool kids are doing it... oh well... it's just a phase.

 

Lazarus

Fair enough

Occam does not exist.
a universal negative?

Quote you
"A universal contradiction can be proven if that thing under consideration contradicts itself"

If it is,, then why not simply call it what it is ,, a contradiction.
If universal neatives can only be contradiction.

Then 'proving a universal negative' is a big way of saying 'contradiction'.
Maybe you are 'too' passionate about philosophy.
And are impressed by big sounding concepts that are actually
simple.

Also,, occam points out that 'i reason therefore i exist'
Is the only "absolute fact" known to humans.
Thus ' i do not exist' is the only absolute contradiction.
Or, 'universal negative' as you like to call it..

So occam will conceed that there is one absolute contradiction
one 'universal negative' that can be proven.

But ,, as nothing beyond 'i reason therefore i exist'
Can be shown logically to be an absolute fact...
Then it cannot be shown to be an contradiction.
[universal negative]

Occam

PS..Sorry if you had to wait for 'days' for reply..
Occam has 3 lifetimes worth of things to do.
And only one lifetime to do them in..
So if talking to you on hairsplit definitions gets shoved down the list of what is important.
Then he hopes you understand.

 

That is pretty much what I am saying. I would not say that someone knows something for certain is a fool, necessarily, however. Because no matter how certain one claims to be, their credibility is ultimately reliant on the invariability of subjective observation. Which is not all that reliable when you reduce it to its core. But to my point, to rely on something, and to be certain of it, is possible for all intents and purposes of a given situation. And most importantly to be certain does not imply, necessarily, the blocking out other information or possibilities. So to be certain is to rely on a guess or estimation or some other subjective valuation to begin with. The man that labels himself certain is only certain to a reducible degree, and therefore, logic and reason applied, only possesses the knowledge of a probability.

Which leads into:

Yes we all function under presupositions. The line between them is probablity and improbability. I say I am certain this chair exists I am merely recognizing that the neural input I recieve (touch, sight, perhaps hearing, perhaps any of them really) is probably accurate in its portrayal of what I have been conditioned to recognize as a chair. My mind organized the information and formed as my perception what appears to be a chair. I accept that, but I do not deny the possibility that the chair is a dragon, necessarily. And upon stimuli indicating such I would accept its existence as a dragon. However, to say the chair (or dragon) has a soul is presupposing that another realm exists outside our ability to percieve. However, I presuppose that the chair does not have a soul (as I presuppose I do not). So we both presuppose something with no epistemological grounding. I presuppose my understanding of my surrounding to what I percieve, while I understand the probability does exist that something I cannot percieve, in fact, exists. So essentially, I presuppose a non spiritual world (subjective observation) and will continue to until given reason otherwise. But that is not to say when I experience something strange (spiritual) I will immediately accept the epistemologically unfounded valuations of those who experienced something similar in the past. The likelihood is that instead of there actually existing another realm (spiritual, perhaps), in fact, I or whoever, is hallucinating in some fashion. In fact unless it is completely original, the argument can be made that it is likely a hallucination influenced by your already present perceptions what a spiritual experience might be like. Whether they interpret a surge of happiness to be the product of divine presence (or what have you), it is ultimately more likely that the endorphin levels in the person's synapes was induced by an explainable phenomena of this reality. That is to say, in any case, I will accept what can be logically explained to an acceptable degree before I accept spiritual occurence to an illogical degree.

So I accept the possibility that there is something I cannot percieve and leave myself completely open to such an experience. But will not determine necessarily the existence of what the human race has determined the existence of that particular subject(soul, or whatever the unoriginal experience is, assuming it is not original) Yogananda believed (I think), that the connection between the soul or life energy or prana (I don't remember) was some part of the brain. So naturally, presupposing that this is a perceptive organ, would lead one to accept the possibility of such a connection and subsequently a soul. If it was determined true by scientific means, I would then be obligated to realize that IT is a reasonable phenomena, reasonably explained. But assuming an experience with no actual physical evidence is REAL is presupposing dangerously. I presuppose my beliefs on probability, many base their's on improbable phenomena that could be reasonbly and rationaly explained in this reality. But they disreguard that, for they are certain that what they have experienced is necessarily what they describe. And thus presuppose too much, and stake their morality and entire perceptions of reality on said presupposition . So I am not denying the possibility, I am denying the probability.

Perhaps I am over simplifying your point, but would it not be "being able to do what you want to do"?

I don't know any atheists in my non-internet forum interaction, so I cannot agree necessarily that it is on the rise. However, I do doubt that a real atheist would actually be concerned with the perceptions of others, to the point of renouncing their belief. I would guess that a person may realize the non existence of god, realize how shitty it is without Him, and go back to theism, for it is more comfortable. But I do doubt even that possibility.

 

No you aren't and neither am I. Hopefully you don't go around telling people "I know nothing" while feeling intellectually superior to them.

Apparently. I won't argue with this.

No. That wasn't what Plato was doing. I will tell you a story that should shed light on this matter:

There once was a very pious man who became a saint. He lived a good life, did good deeds, and eventually was to make his way to heaven. However, there was a bit a trouble in this mans youth, when he was wild and lustful. One day the man saw a beautiful woman bathing in a stream and said aloud "I would give the soul of my little toe to make love to her for one night". The devil popped out of a bush and said "Done."

In heaven, many years later, this saint was sitting among flowers and angels moaning in pain. Another man walked up to him and said "What is wrong, everything is perfect here, this is the first I have heard anyone cry in pain since I have arrived." The saint said "Well, the devils daughter has the soul of my toe do to a wild act I commited during my youth. Every once in a while she takes out the soul of my toe and squeezes it and forms it into different shapes." Socrates looked over at the saint slyly and said "Give's a whole new meaning to PlayDough, doesn't it?"

Thank you. Are you sure you are not brought down by your own insecurity?

 

Perhaps I should have posted in the psychic forum because I think everyone who has read Kharakov's genius posts before, was able to predict exactly how he would respond. You're right again though old friend... I'm not sorry at all. Maybe I'll have to spell it out for you now so you don't get confused later, but I was being sarcastic, but then again, so were you... Honestly man, let people shed some light on here without you trying to be all witty and smart, and surprise us all for once. Oh, and one more thing... I never feel intellectually superior to anyone, hell, not even to an infant. Perhaps some of the greatest wisdom is lost rather than gained? I don't know... I simply challenge people to look beyond what they think they know because I've never met someone who can explain everything I want answers for. With that being said, you nor I know the truth of the world, and that's all I'm looking for. You're little anecdote was slightly humerous, but saints and Plato really have nothing to do with each other. I hope santa brings you a firetruck for Christmas because you're going to need one hell of a ladder to get over yourself man... seriously


Thumontico, I think you have a very firm ground for your beliefs, and I am happy that you have found an understanding of the world that works for you. It really is rare to find someone who can actually defend their position so well without getting into petty quarrels like above, and I certainly commend you on that. The only reason I said the thing about Atheists at the bottom of my post (and I almost considered not doing that as I think it would draw away from my central message), was because I am a student of Sociology, and I actually have done research on the acceptance and denial of atheism in today's society. I'll agree with you on a lot of what you said, but I think that perhaps the soul is more than just a physical place, rather I believe it is simply the energy in our bodies... magnetic, electrical... who knows... I think that when we die the energy goes somewhere, but I don't know where... It supposedly can't be created or destroyed, so perhaps there is some sort of metaphysical occurence that happens rather than us simply dying, but I don't know how much I believe in some diety controlling my spirit after death.

Have you ever dabbled in researching Native American or Pagan theology and actually looking at multiple sources? Not saying I want to convert you or anything, but I find that many people tend to only have exposure to the Christian idea of God, and not the gods that other faiths and practices tend to lean to. Even Christians lean to the idea of multiple gods or representations of God... I don't really have a structured faith, rather I just respect and acknowledge the existence of these masculine and feminine energies in our world and in life. I don't really have a name for any God I worship, and I don't really worship, rather I accept the energies and live my life according to how things feel intuitively rather than necessarily how they should work out.

Take my organ I got for instance. I saw it at a house my college bought, and I offered to take it off their hands and pay them $200 for it. I knew the organ would be mine, and I even knew it would be in the room I currently occupy, but did I understand the image that suddenly popped in my mind? Hell no. It was a feminine image with a blue room and my friend Jeffrey was there.... a friend I hadn't heard from in 5 months, and yet he was my best friend... he's just had some issues with parents and cellphones. A few weeks later, they painted the room blue, and I saw the image again, but the organ was gone and they were selling it at an auction I heard. I dismissed the image and then the people in my dorm started using the extra room as "the sex room." Out of the blue, dead serious man, but I'm sure you'll be very speculative of this... my friend Ted came back from Iraq, Jeffrey got lost and ended up down the interstate from the school and he called my phone as soon as I saw Ted show up to surprise me from Iraq, and it was the Autumnal equinox. Jeffrey was a practicing metaphysician and he taught me a lot of his stuff, but man... if you knew this guy you would be in chills to hear what happened next. We all hung out that night, and Jeffrey had a little to drink and smoke, and he ended up wanting to have sex in the sex room with his new girlfriend. They did their thing and Jeffrey was a little weak (about 5'8" and 95 lbs) so he decided to go outside to throw up, but he didn't make it... Jeffrey threw up right across the hall from the sex room, and all over the door of my old roomate who's door he has thrown up on accidentally three times in the last three years.... He had no idea it was that guy's room, but damn, it was hilarious. I got my friend's puke all cleaned up while he took a shower in commons bathroom and disposed of his personal item from his previous activity, and then he had his woman drive him home and he stayed there for two more days.

I got up the next day to find a very troubled suitemate holding Jeffrey's pentagram necklace... one with blue stones embedded into the surrounding astrological symbols. He said Jeffrey had left that along with a soiled condom in the bathroom, but that he had taken care of the condom and he handed me the pentagram so i could give it back to Jeffrey. You have to understand that Jeffrey would find this hilarious to read back on... this guy is truly indescribable.

Later that day I planned to call him, but I ended up having to entertain some other guests who came for a football game, so I couldn't really get around to calling him, so I planned to on Sunday. Sunday was interesting... my guests left and I sat there and read the Da Vinci Code from cover to cover throughout the whole day on Sunday. I simply couldn't put it down, nor could I stop looking up paintings and buildings to see the symbolism Dan Brown was talking about. I meant to call him again, but I didn't and I put it off till Monday morning.

Later that next morning, I think it was around 9:30 after my first class, I got a call from a friend of Jeffrey's parents who told me that Jeffrey had been killed in a car accident. What sucked was that I had my cellphone still in my hand with it ringing on his end, trying to tell him to come get his pentagram that I was staring at right as my roomate handed me the room phone that I didn't answer because it's usually his girlfriend. I was totally and utterly floored at that moment, and I didn't know what to do.

After the funeral and dealing with losing my best friend... it took a few good weeks of trying to understand why he lived his life the way he did.... I finally realized that I needed to move out of that room and into my own room so I could begin to understand myself and my life. I looked all over campus for an available single room, but the only one open was the "sex room," and I didn't want to really move in there. Since I had already filed a complaint though, I really had no choice other than to move, so I took my things and moved into this tiny ass room a fifth of the size of my old room. The walls were blue, Jeffrey's pentagram was blue, and so was my mood... I didn't like it at all... not to mention my friend was still a virgin before he had sex in here... He held out for someone he thought was worthy... that's the kinda guy he was... he had opportunities gallore, but no... he waited... it's like he knew he was about to go. He left me that pentagram I think... I never saw him take it off in all the time I knew him, and that was a long long time... it was like a part of him.

Jeffrey knew how much I loved to play the organ, and he knew that I could never afford one either, but man... I'll be damned if it wasn't 13 days after I moved in here that I picked up the exact same organ I had seen in the house, at a local church-owned thrift store. They said it was broken, but I could have it for $10. I had $12.47 on me at the time, so I got it and two shirts. We're talking a church sized organ... not a pipe organ, but it's about 4 feet high and just as wide with two stacked keyboards and 30 something presets. I figured out how to fix the organ in the thrift store without even knowing anything about organs, and I know have it sitting in my room, under my bed that I raised up on cinder blocks, and I fuck with you not... if you leave it on and don't mess with it, sometimes it'll play three notes in a weirdass chord: B, D, and F. Those are the initials for our band we had called Black Dog Familia... kinda like my alias here. I dropped out to go solo for a while, but then that changed, but I kept the name. Anyways... I have the organ under my bed man, and I know this all sounds like a lot of candy for a nickel, and I wouldn't believe someone telling me all this shit, but seriously man... it's enough to convince me that Jeffrey knew about the organ, not to mention the image I had of the organ in this room... The image wasn't exactly how it is right now... in fact, the image I saw was in this room, but the only thing in here was the organ... no furniture... still though. I can't deny the metaphysical realm of intuition, but that's just me....

Keep doing what works for you though man. It sounds like you have a good overall understanding, and if you didn't read all that above... I totally understand man. Peace

 

I read your last post, and agree with all you said. I too have had experiences like that, and even a number of precognitive dreams. These are dreams that later come true, but they are not premonitions, cuz I never know which dreams will happen later, and not deja vu, cuz I don't feel it has happened before ( just to clarify what precognitive meant.)
I could share many synchronistic events from my life if you want. This year has been a very full one. They have happened in an unprecedented number.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I totally believe you and agree with you.

 

Thanks man, I'm happy I'm not the only one out there who wonders these kinds of things. I'd love to hear about your experiences man!

Peace

 

(1) You prove a universal negative BY something being a contradiction - they aren't the same thing, and so no, you cannot use them synonymously.

(2) A "univeral negative" is not a "big-sounding concept" in philosophy. It's one of the basics of logic - if you knew anything, or retained any knowledge from those "thousands of books" that you've read, you'd know that.

(3) Your argument from scepticism doesn't accomplish anything beyond questioning the idea of human certainty. And yet I've never supported the idea of certainty in any of my posts. This in fact ties into omniscience. We cannot say anything is an "absolute fact" because we do not know the complete nature of reality, and thus cannot know anything for certain. But just because there exists a human epistemic limitation does not mean that we cannot posit knowledge claims - and I've already shown you that just because we aren't omniscient doesn't mean we cannot prove a negative.

I agree that certainty is not a possibility for humans. But that doesn't contribute anything toward our discussion. You're attempting to retreat into solipsism and radical scepticism - but in that case, reason and logic don't apply (you can't apply it to anything because of the consequences of philosophical scepticism). The issue here isn't whether or not we can obtain certainty - but rather whether or not, assuming human beings live in an objective reality and have certain reasonable methods of gaining knowledge, we can disprove something. I've already shown numerous ways in which we can.

(4) Your "P.S." conveniently ignores that you've replied to me half a dozen times in this conversation - and throughout those posts you will not find a single objection to my criticisms. THAT is what I was talking about. I've been waiting for you to actually address my objections to your support of this myth, and for days you've been avoiding the issue, writing petty replies that have gotten shorter and shorter as you've made further moves to avoid my arguments.

And in fact, in your last post here, you've only addressed one of my objections - that if a thing is contradictory, it is disproven. You still have not responded to my argument against your requirement for omniscience, you have not responded to the other ways in which I've shown a negative can be proven, and you have not responded to my pointing out that your position is self-defeating. So I'm actually STILL waiting for a full reply to my posts.

- Laz

 

Lazarus

1]If a thing is a universal negative because it is a contradiction...
then the definition of universal negative is 'a contradiction'.

If it is not , then a universal negative is what?

2] It is a big sounding concept to those who do not dwell in philosophical circles. 'Objective and subjective' are big sounding concepts to the majority of peole occam knows...
Occams path is to pass on his understanding to others...
So he uses plain english to describe concepts.
This a thread of wisdom that occam has picked up from all those books.
And life.

3] There is one absolute fact...'I reason therefore i exist'
To argue against it...is to prove it,,absolutely.

4] OK..occam is going to simplfy this continuing saga
Everything you propose is correct.

Occam can argue with none of your ideas...
He has to suffer his life as an idiot.you dont...
And idiots dont understand such things as universal negatives...

Adios

Occam

 

LostBlackDog

Why?

You have done what few will do..
Tell an honnest story about yourself...
And what you have experienced.

Such a post is worth a million posts on personal sophistry

Occam spent many years trying to weild a group of people into a band...
Eventually we played many gigs...
But it fell appart....as 99% do.

The coincidence is...'Black dog' was 'always' the first song.

Occam

 

A universal negative is to state that something "does not" or "is not", etc. - it is the opposite of a "positive statement", which affirms that something "is" or "does."

Examples:

Positive statement: Occam owns a pair of brown shoes

Negative statement: Occam does not own a pair of brown shoes.


My argument is that if a positive statement says that:

Positive: The all black, white unicorn exists.

Then the negative statement: The all black, white unicorn does not exist - is proven true, because we know according to the law of non-contradiction that a thing with contradictory properties cannot exist.

So you see, there is a difference between what a universal negative is, and what a contradiction is. A contradiction is one way to prove a universal negative, but they are not the same thing. There are also those other ways of proving a negative that I listed before. One of those is via route of hypothesis. For instance, let us say that there is a hypothesis that:

Positive: The small white mouse stole Occam's brown shoes - and that is why he cannot find them.

We can disprove this (i.e. we can prove a negative) by instead proving that:

2nd Positive: Occam misplaced his shoes at his friend's house - and that is why he cannot find them.

Which leaves us with the proven negative:

Negative: The small white mouse did not steal Occam's brown shoes.

If you have not heard of terms such as "objective" and "subjective" - or at least you and your friends consider these to be concepts that you are not very familiar with yet, then you shouldn't continue to nay-say me in a discussion such as you have here without first researching the issue up a bit.

- Laz

 

I just had to add my two cents worth. I was taught that it is a scientifically expedient course of action to try to prove something is wrong, rather than to prove it is correct. If you have the choice of two experiments, and one is designed to support a colleagues theory, while the other is designed to refute it, the latter is more useful. If it is successful, and disproves his theory, then you have a very solid basis for the claim that it is an incorrect theory.
On the other hand, the first experiment, if successful, may support his findings, but this does not prove that his theory cannot be disproven, and so is less valuable as a tool.
I hope that came out right. I will summarize by saying that, given the choice, one's most useful path to try first is the one that has the possibility of disproving the theory in question.
If anyone can expand on this or correct me, that would be great.

So if I say I am not dead, nor pregnant, that would then be a double universal negative, so then does it become a positive? lol