BF2S Forums Claim anything, I'll prove it wrong

yeah way more than 1 loaz. as for that one zimmer did, haha replace him

so you're insulting my country? yeah whatever

I like must your answers +1 for you

I have two eye's.

Where do you get that stuff?

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

This is not the most useless, pointless, and annoying thread over 15 pages long.

here my friends, is the decisive argument for the ability to -1 people to be reinstated.

[Hive]-Twist wrote:

Statement: God doesn't exist.

I am god, i exist

WinterWayfarer wrote:

WinterWayfarer wrote:

If there is absolutely nothing that can be proven right, then we can't prove anything wrong in the first place.

Topal63 please explain how you came to the conclusion that it is self-contradictory. :)

I already explained it in detail, or I thought so, my bad. D'oh!

1.) It's an absolute statement - and those are almost always wrong. Your statement needs to be properly qualified (with the correct logical dependency modifier).
2.) It would not contradict itself, as much as it does, if the middle was modified to absolutely right.
3.) It would not contradict itself, as much as it does, if the end was modified to absolutely wrong.

WinterWayfarer wrote:

If there is absolutely nothing that can be proven right, then we can't prove anything wrong in the first place.

4.) Nothing can't be compared to anything.
5.) It should be "If anything absolutely can not be proved true then anything can't be absolutely disproved."
6.) Once corrected it is a common type of internally self-contradictory (or simple) false statement.
7.) It might be impossible to guarantee independent perfect absolute precision in truth (it actually isn’t necessary though, as it just needs to be qualified correctly), but it is easier to prove an absolute error.

1337 is not 0. It is not a partial error of precision that 1337 + 0 = 0. Or approximately equals 0. As a magnitude of error it is not either infinitesimal nor is it partial. It is completely, or rather absolutely, wrong. It is far easier to be absolutely wrong than it is generally right.

8.) Statements like this are common in logic/philosophy - at first glance they seem to make sense. But of course they don’t. They imply a inane type of tautology of: is and is not in the same statement. Can such a statement answer its own question? No. The first part is an assumption (there are two actually). One assumption in error is the absolute. As I explained many truths are actually dependent-truths (not absolute thus they are not-independent of proper logical qualification). The other error is that the statement conclusion is merely a restatement of the first assumption. As in: if it is not-true then it is false. But not-true is what false means - so there is no conclusion, and effectively nothing is actually stated.

9.) Any: thing, theory, statement, idea, does not have to be absolutely proved. It has to be properly qualified with the appropriate logical modifiers to make the statement or statements correct.

Saying X = X, is far different than,
Saying X = X, with a precision of value in X to 3 decimal places.

_______

P.S.It is always cool to ask me explain myself. It is all in good fun. Else I would just ignore the whole idea of participation in any thread (or the forum as well). If these typed words had the sound of my voice they would sound more playful and less analytic than typed words do. So you just have to imagine they are meant to be read with a light cheerful attitude. I mean that. :)

I think you already know that...

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-09 16:28:32)

Prove The German Jewish genocide wrong, (German second world war genocide) The Final solution Genocide ....I dare you.

The variable c in e=mc (squared) refers to the constant speed of light.

I don't know the BB code for superscript, but you know the equation I am referring to.

disprove this:

Doctor Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb was a 1964 comedy film directed by Stanly Kubric and starring Peter Sellers that parodied the Cold War and the idea of mutual assured destruction.

Last edited by doctastrangelove1964 (2007-05-11 17:10:27)

My BF2s Member name is Monkeyman911

teek22 wrote:

Disproce this:
everything is made up of atoms which has a central nucleus and electrons orbitting it!

Easily disproved. It hasn't been proven yet, I have gone over this in this topic.
Most science is based on theory, there is no "truth" about it. People just take it for granted, like we take "sugar is sweet" for granted.
If we found a substance, material, solid, whatever tomorrow - a new one, a fascinating one - there is a chance that the "atom" theory will not work with this certain material, so there goes that theory right down the drain.
Just like Steven Hawkings theories of Space Physics ( I really cannot remember the specific name), they were disproven when people thought he was correct; by himself.