It sounds like a dumb statement made by @NY_G_PA2. These fools will say anything to sell their religion. Anything. They’re worse than a damn car salesman.
1 Like
Can you cite an example of biblical accuracy?
Having disavowed organized religion over 40 years ago, I’ve mostly studied the Bible from a secular, deconstructionist mindset set and can’t think or many, if any.
Are you asking me to prove the fact that human intellect is finite due to that fact that each us has a limited set of facts?
Really?
After I just said I don’t have the capability to prove anything given that new facts are always coming in, any one of which will prove me wrong.
Tell you what, do you claim you can formulate any statement of absolute truth and which can be established beyond not just reasonable but ALL doubt?
If so, I’d love to hear it and prove you wrong.
And you sound like an illiterate hack who can’t or didn’t read the part where I said I’m utterly areligious.
Deliberate sophistry? Like myself @Nyarlathotep was not disputing your opening premise, but the demonstrably false conclusion you drew from that fact.
The emboldened part is demonstrably erroneous, and does not follow from your premise. Anyone can prove the volume of a sphere, they don’t need to be omniscient.
Deliberate?
So now you have proof of my motivations?
You really must be omniscient.
Perfect spheres are artificial constructs so finding the volume of one is tantamount to saying how heavy a unicorn is.
BTW, are you trying to prove Mark Twain’s point about the futility of arguing with fools?
It was a question clearly, not a claim, hence the question mark at the end, which can be seen clearly even in your clipped quote. Though your misrepresentation of it as a claim does now seem more obviously like deliberate sophistry, and I need not be omniscient to infer that.
This is pretty obvious goal post shifting, and this was just one example, all accepted scientific theories are irrefutable facts, and yet no one is omniscient. No one, not even science is claiming they are immutable of course, but they are established beyond any doubt, leaving room for doubt does not mean there is any doubt.
Why don’t we leave the ad hominem insults alone.
Your claim is demonstrably wrong, we can and have established many things as irrefutably true, just because we can’t deal in immutable absolutes doesn’t mean all claims are dubious, or that there is any doubt about the truth of irrefutable scientific facts like species evolution. This is a well worn canard of religious apologetics, so it has been addressed here many times of course.
2 Likes
Check your facts. No scientist ever claims to have proven anything and all scientific laws are conditional.
The fact is that the goalposts have always been shifting due to the further exploration of the reality.
And all I’ve asked is that you name one. For example, prove you’ve ever done anything that wasn’t motivated by emotions.
Oh, and now you want to leave out the ad hominem.
Priceless
Check my post, this is a straw man as I never used the word proven in a scientific context, the word is a misnomer you are trying to hide this sophistry behind. I quite specifically stated that all scientific ideas are not immutable, and that they must remain tentative in the light of new evidence, but that this does not mean they are not irrefutable facts. You seem to be hiding behind the misnomer of the word prove, and I am suspecting more and more that this is deliberate sophistry, judging from the way you are quoting my responses.
I gave you an example in that post, species evolution, and you have dishonesty ignored it, using a partial quote? How about the earth is not flat or at the centre of the universe, there’s three irrefutable facts for you.
I have used no ad hominem, and I encourage you to do the same.
2 Likes
strawman 
3 Likes
I didn’t ask you to prove anything. It seems you are having trouble reading and understanding what people are writing.
3 Likes
One day at uni I sat for a midterm and the exam only had one question, demanding you PROVE the volume of a sphere is 4/3 * π * r³. I managed to figure out a way to do it.
Now just to be clear, as @NY_G_PA2 is bound to ask, you’re not claiming to be omniscient right? 
2 Likes
LOL. Apparently this website is omniscient also; their proof is extremely similar to my method. However, theirs is slightly simpler/better imo; so maybe they are extra omniscient.[satire]
1 Like
Again, it it obvious you’re only interested in argumentation given that human history is littered with supposedly “irrefutable” facts which are now considered old wives tales, alchemy or pseudoscience.
That is, to consider any fact sacrosanct when one does not have all the facts, and given that new facts are constantly coming in, is as dogmatic as believing the Bible is the word of god because the Bible says it must be the word of god.
And BTW, no, it is not ad hominem to ask if you are trying to prove Mark Twain correct given that the question is obviously rhetorical.
It’s a debate forum??
So what? How does this alter the fact that species evolution is an irrefutable fact exactly? I’m starting to think you don’t know what irrefutable means.
What a silly lie, I never said anything was sacrosanct, In fact I quite specifically said more than once that all scientific facts remain tentative in the light of new evidence. I offered you three irrefutable facts after you asked for one, and anyone can go back to my post and see you are now lying to avoid addressing the fact they disprove your risible original claim, just how deep are you going to dig this pit?
Here is the post you were responding to showing clearly you lied when you implied I considered them sacrosanct:
Making an unevidenced assumption new facts might be discovered doesn’t remotely mean species evolution is not now an irrefutable fact? The hilarity of you suggesting new facts might change the shape and position of the earth speaks for itself, dear oh dear…
I never said it was, I cautioned you to leave ad hominem alone as the inference of the quote was pretty clear. You then lied and implied I had used ad hominem, and now you are spinning it again. My advice remains the same, leave it alone.
OMG!!! I nearly pooped myself. Someone really does not know their fallacies. It’s like saying 'Water is wet." and someone shouting out 'Straw man." One of the most absurd comments I have seen on the site.