HellVictorinho:



What is everything??

Like all you know and don’t know

Pastafari:
Like all you know and don’t know

There's no such thing as all I know and don't know

HellVictorinho:


There's no such thing as all I know and don't know

You don't know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything.
Do you?

Pastafari:

Because scientists didn’t predict covid19 is not a valid argument against the predictability power of science.

Sir! We are not debating the agreed upon predictability of science here! If science lacked predictability man would never have landed on the moon or sent Juno Probe to Jupiter!

What is in contention here is the ability of scientists to "know what happened 13.8billion years" ago, a claim that I have personally never heard made! Even the "13.8 billion years ago" itself is an estimate at best, as in, as close as we scientist have been able to determine with the tools available to us.

Pastafari:
You don't know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything.
Do you?

What is everything??

budaatum:


Sir! We are not debating the agreed upon predictability of science here! If science lacked predictability man would never have landed on the moon or sent Juno Probe to Jupiter!

What is in contention here is the ability of scientists to "know what happened 13.8billion years" ago, a claim that I have personally never heard made! Even the "13.8 billion years ago" itself is an estimate at best, as in, as close as we scientist have been able to determine with the tools available to us.

Bury me a winner

budaatum:


Sir! We are not debating the agreed upon predictability of science here! If science lacked predictability man would never have landed on the moon or sent Juno Probe to Jupiter!

What is in contention here is the ability of scientists to "know what happened 13.8billion years" ago, a claim that I have personally never heard made! Even the "13.8 billion years ago" itself is an estimate at best, as in, as close as we scientist have been able to determine with the tools available to us.

I have given you clear analogy as to why your argument is fallacious. Go back and read the dead tree analogy.

And who says science cannot tell what happened 13.8billion years ago when all the indices and markers are available to extrapolate that?
It's like assuming that science cannot know what happened during Ordovician-silurian Extinction: 440 million years ago when the all markers are available in form of fossil records.

HellVictorinho:


What is everything??

Everthing you know and don't know

Pastafari:
Everthing you know and don't know

What is everything I know and don't know

HellVictorinho:



What is everything I know and don't know

for example, you don't know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything

Pastafari:
for example, you don't know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything

You are just repeating yourself


You are going round a circle

Answer the question and stop wasting my time

HellVictorinho:


You are just repeating yourself


You are going round a circle

Answer the question and stop wasting my time

You are the person pretending not to know the meaning of everything by making a "loaded question" fallacy

Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely
Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence. You could say that inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general. Much scientific research is carried out by the inductive method: gathering evidence, seeking patterns, and forming a hypothesis or theory to explain what is seen.

Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logical necessities; no amount of inductive evidence guarantees the conclusion. This is because there is no way to know that all the possible evidence has been gathered, and that there exists no further bit of unobserved evidence that might invalidate my hypothesis. Thus, while the newspapers might report the conclusions of scientific research as absolutes, scientific literature itself uses more cautious language, the language of inductively reached, probable conclusions:

What we have seen is the ability of these cells to feed the blood vessels of tumors and to heal the blood vessels surrounding wounds. The findings suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal source of cells for clinical therapy. For example, we can envision the use of these stem cells for therapies against cancer tumors [...].1
http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

Pastafari:
You are the person pretending not to know the meaning of everything by making a "loaded question" fallacy

Everything doesn't mean anything specific

HellVictorinho:


Everything doesn't mean anything specific

Everything means everything specifically

KnownUnknown:
Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely
Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence. You could say that inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general. Much scientific research is carried out by the inductive method: gathering evidence, seeking patterns, and forming a hypothesis or theory to explain what is seen.

Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logical necessities; no amount of inductive evidence guarantees the conclusion. This is because there is no way to know that all the possible evidence has been gathered, and that there exists no further bit of unobserved evidence that might invalidate my hypothesis. Thus, while the newspapers might report the conclusions of scientific research as absolutes, scientific literature itself uses more cautious language, the language of inductively reached, probable conclusions:

What we have seen is the ability of these cells to feed the blood vessels of tumors and to heal the blood vessels surrounding wounds. The findings suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal source of cells for clinical therapy. For example, we can envision the use of these stem cells for therapies against cancer tumors [...].1

I know that all possible evidence has been gathered by you to determine that you have a Nairaland account

Pastafari:
Everything means everything specifically

Repetition doesn't specify

HellVictorinho:



Repetition doesn't specify

Everything is quite specific unless for those who want to be tricky.

Pastafari:
Everything is quite specific unless for those who want to be tricky.

You are still repeating Bla Bla Bla

How did you know I know what you mean by everything



Are you in my head?

Pastafari:

And who says science cannot tell what happened 13.8billion years ago when all the indices and markers are available to extrapolate that?
It's like assuming that science cannot know what happened during Ordovician-silurian Extinction: 440 million years ago when the all markers are available in form of fossil records.

All I can say is claiming to know what happened 13.8 billion years ago sounds so "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", to me.

Pasta. You might consider that I am much less knowledgeable than you and forgive me in my unknowings.

budaatum:


All I can say is claiming to know what happened 13.8 billion years ago sounds so "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", to me.

Pasta. You might consider that I am much less knowledgeable than you and forgive me in my unknowings.

You will get it if you read the gospel I shared with you.
Please read it. Summon the courage, this debate is unnecessary if you can read the book

KnownUnknown:
Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely
Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence. You could say that inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general. Much scientific research is carried out by the inductive method: gathering evidence, seeking patterns, and forming a hypothesis or theory to explain what is seen.

Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logical necessities; no amount of inductive evidence guarantees the conclusion. This is because there is no way to know that all the possible evidence has been gathered, and that there exists no further bit of unobserved evidence that might invalidate my hypothesis. Thus, while the newspapers might report the conclusions of scientific research as absolutes, scientific literature itself uses more cautious language, the language of inductively reached, probable conclusions:

What we have seen is the ability of these cells to feed the blood vessels of tumors and to heal the blood vessels surrounding wounds. The findings suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal source of cells for clinical therapy. For example, we can envision the use of these stem cells for therapies against cancer tumors [...].1

Sources please!

http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/reasoning.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020131074645.htm#:~:text=%22What%20we%20have%20seen%20is,of%20cells%20for%20clinical%20therapy.

HellVictorinho:


You are still repeating Bla Bla Bla

How did you know I know what you mean by everything



Are you in my head?

what's your won definition for everything?

Pastafari:
You will get it if you read the gospel I shared with you.
Please read it. Summon the courage, this debate is unnecessary if you can read the book

I'm afraid I have far more important books to read. I just got Wole Soyinka's new book. I kind of feel I might learn a lot more from that. Remember I said I've tried it before and dumped it. It is required read for some though. Note. I am recommending it.

budaatum:


I'm afraid I have far more important books to read. I just got Wole Soyinka's new book. I kind of feel I might learn a lot more from that. Remember I said I've tried it before and dumped it. It is required read for some though. Note. I am recommending it.

Then you cannot deliberate my beliefs if you don't understand the nitty gritty of my belief.
It's very hard that I gave you the whole answers but you still ask me questions because you don't care the read it.

Pastafari:
Then you cannot deliberate my beliefs if you don't understand the nitty gritty of my belief.
It's very hard that I gave you the whole answers but you still ask me questions because you don't care the read it.

I don't particularly care what anyone believes, Pasta. Especially if its what they believe from reading books. I am an antibeliever, you see, I do not give a flying fuq about the crap people cook in their heads and choose to believe, because I am far too busy understanding my own head.

Please know that I was not asking you for "whole answers", but just for simple answers to "facts" you claimed to be giving. Still, you don't owe me any answers.

Pastafari:
what's your won definition for everything?

[size=8pt][/size]


Everything refers to a group of things such as a group of pencils

A group of stones

What Google calls the 'totality of existence' is just another thing


There's actually no limit to what exists


Someone called otem once confessed to be assuming there's a limit to what exists


I am not assuming

I am telling you that either there's no limit to what exists or there's never anything that exists


The former is true


Or don't you exist as whatever/whoever you are?!??

HellVictorinho:
[size=8pt][/size]


Everything refers to a group of things such as a group of pencils

A group of stones

What Google calls the 'totality of existence' is just another thing


There's actually no limit to what exists


Someone called otem once confessed to be assuming there's a limit to what exists


I am not assuming

I am telling you that either there's no limit to what exists or there's never anything that exists


The former is true


Or don't you exist as whatever/whoever you are?!??

Is this not a fallacy of equivocation?

Pastafari:
Is this not a fallacy of equivocation?

Prove that it is

budaatum:


I don't particularly care what anyone believes, Pasta. Especially if its what they believe from reading books. I am an antibeliever, you see, I do not give a flying fuq about the crap people cook in their heads and choose to believe, because I am far too busy understanding my own head.

Please know that I was not asking you for "whole answers", but just for simple answers to "facts" you claimed to be giving. Still, you don't owe me any answers.

You are still very lost. LordReed please come and beg Buda to read the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster to understand the point.
He's very lost in this conversation

Pastafari:
You are still very lost. LordReed please come and beg Buda to read the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster to understand the point.
He's very lost in this conversation

I guess I'm lost for now. Hopefully, I'll find time for it in the future and become unlost.

HellVictorinho:


Prove that it is

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument