Post by Caligastia on Jun 5, 2009 21:36:21 GMT -5
>>>>and yet you are the one and only one in this conversation that has used the words "lies" or "liar,"
Perhaps you should read back and review what you actually said.
>>>Unsurprisingly, you skewed focus away from the point: I cannot establish you to be true or untrue
You will
>>And yet you ask me to judge the body of HQ based upon that?
Regarding the draft and proof.
You asked, I answered. If you don't like the answer - don't ask the question.
I've not asked you to judge anything. In fact, I've not asked for anything.
>>That isn't how logic or reasoning or the scientific method works, and you can't change those methods to suit your mode of delivery.
No, according to you logic and the scientific method are judged in accordance with what you are willing to see, accept and believe. Unfortunately, I'm not in the belief business.
>>If I stood in the Lair with the facts at hand in order to judge them, I would likely be moved. But I don't see you inviting me over anytime soon...
In the extended period of time you've been visiting HQ - you've never once asked and you're right - at this point - there's no invitation. I've already tested whether or not the place would have a result on your mentality type and deem it to be a pointless effort. You could discuss the matter with those who have been there but then you'd have to accept the idea that first person eye witness testimony to be of value. Courts do, but I suspect you have a 'yes but' ready to say otherwise.
>>>In the scientific world, for something to be considered a valid treatment effect, the statistical likelihood that the effect was caused by something other than the intended variable must generally be less than 5%. For more extremely singular treatments that cannot be generalized to the population, that value is usually less than 1%. That kind of thinking is ingrained in me because of the work that I do, so that is how I judge this situation.
For this analysis to be correct - you'd have to first prove that God exists (within a statistical possibility), that the Bible information provided in the Revelation Code has a statistical probability of being accurate and that you are a person equipped to make those judgements.
Were we to take all of the people born in the last 2500 years and allow that is the pool that could have broken the code (or discovered the Lair) and factor that only one has, the numbers are billions to one and well outside the probability factors of your assumptions. It follows, that your assumptions can never be proven.
On the other hand, if we apply Holmsian logic - once you've eliminated the obvious, that which remains, no matter how improbable, must be true, we arrive at a point where determinations can be made. You've attempted to promoted a fixed game that can only end in failure.
>>>You say that you have not stated a premise, but you invoke logic and reason at every turn. Premises are the foundation of reasoning. Your implied but stated premise is "Robert Burgess has experienced extraordinary events A, B, and C;" "Based on their qualities, extraordinary events A, B, and C are only likely to occur to a person who is Caligastia;" "therefore Robert Burgess is Caligastia." Whether or not that is the path the reasoning followed, without events A, B, and C being observable by me or others outside of the Advens, the argument cannot be tested, replicated or externally validated. For that reason, I go back to my point, I do not think that I am reasonable judge of whether you are a "liar" or not, nor did I ever claim to be.
This quote well illustrates the fixed game aspect. 'Other than the Advens'. In dismissing first person eye witness testimony - you establish your own bias and agenda.
It is not, and never has been, my intent to turn this place into a tourist attraction and were I to have done so, the one poor avenue of access would have been shut down (not to mention people would have been hurt or killed). The access point could not have handled the traffic. Nor am I inclined to indulge idle curiosity. Accurate photos have been taken for the point of sharing with others. If you choose to believe otherwise - that's your call. Stephen (and others) have shared their thoughts publically. In the light of the fact that no one asks anything of you or anyone else (money in particular), you also can not establish a motivation for promoting a falsehood to support an incentive for lies.
The point here is that you have been shown what I've been willing to share and it is not an inconsequential body of evidence. If it doesn't do it for you - I'll live.
>> So why did you want me to prove you wrong? I don't feel you sufficiently answered that.
I offered you the opportunity to confront and prove your case. You've declined.
Where you are concerned, I've established my case from your own words and you might have noted I do have a retention span greater than a chimp. Whether you accept that analysis or not - is your call. As I've said, I don't have a dog in this fight.
The point of the offer was to force this relationship to the bottomline and it has.
This is where I bust your act.
As your version of logic could not produce anything logical, so also is the decision making process you use in life. You wait until a winner appears to have a high degree of probability and then you decide what's right or wrong dependant upon your expectation of that winner - and pick your sides accordingly.
It follows that your oath to the Constitution is meaningless. You equate obedience to the orders of a corrupted and evil government as your service to your oath and no matter how much evidence appears that they're doing their best to kill that Constitution, you'll wait until a winner seems apparent and then decide what that oath 'really' meant.
Character and integrity are no where in the equation.
Were we to alter history to suit your methods, Patrick Henry would have said "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" right after Cornwallis surrrendered at Yorktown. It fails to inspire.
The true patriots put their necks on the line for what was right knowing full well that failure would end up waltzing matilda.
Perhaps you should read back and review what you actually said.
>>>Unsurprisingly, you skewed focus away from the point: I cannot establish you to be true or untrue
You will
>>And yet you ask me to judge the body of HQ based upon that?
Regarding the draft and proof.
You asked, I answered. If you don't like the answer - don't ask the question.
I've not asked you to judge anything. In fact, I've not asked for anything.
>>That isn't how logic or reasoning or the scientific method works, and you can't change those methods to suit your mode of delivery.
No, according to you logic and the scientific method are judged in accordance with what you are willing to see, accept and believe. Unfortunately, I'm not in the belief business.
>>If I stood in the Lair with the facts at hand in order to judge them, I would likely be moved. But I don't see you inviting me over anytime soon...
In the extended period of time you've been visiting HQ - you've never once asked and you're right - at this point - there's no invitation. I've already tested whether or not the place would have a result on your mentality type and deem it to be a pointless effort. You could discuss the matter with those who have been there but then you'd have to accept the idea that first person eye witness testimony to be of value. Courts do, but I suspect you have a 'yes but' ready to say otherwise.
>>>In the scientific world, for something to be considered a valid treatment effect, the statistical likelihood that the effect was caused by something other than the intended variable must generally be less than 5%. For more extremely singular treatments that cannot be generalized to the population, that value is usually less than 1%. That kind of thinking is ingrained in me because of the work that I do, so that is how I judge this situation.
For this analysis to be correct - you'd have to first prove that God exists (within a statistical possibility), that the Bible information provided in the Revelation Code has a statistical probability of being accurate and that you are a person equipped to make those judgements.
Were we to take all of the people born in the last 2500 years and allow that is the pool that could have broken the code (or discovered the Lair) and factor that only one has, the numbers are billions to one and well outside the probability factors of your assumptions. It follows, that your assumptions can never be proven.
On the other hand, if we apply Holmsian logic - once you've eliminated the obvious, that which remains, no matter how improbable, must be true, we arrive at a point where determinations can be made. You've attempted to promoted a fixed game that can only end in failure.
>>>You say that you have not stated a premise, but you invoke logic and reason at every turn. Premises are the foundation of reasoning. Your implied but stated premise is "Robert Burgess has experienced extraordinary events A, B, and C;" "Based on their qualities, extraordinary events A, B, and C are only likely to occur to a person who is Caligastia;" "therefore Robert Burgess is Caligastia." Whether or not that is the path the reasoning followed, without events A, B, and C being observable by me or others outside of the Advens, the argument cannot be tested, replicated or externally validated. For that reason, I go back to my point, I do not think that I am reasonable judge of whether you are a "liar" or not, nor did I ever claim to be.
This quote well illustrates the fixed game aspect. 'Other than the Advens'. In dismissing first person eye witness testimony - you establish your own bias and agenda.
It is not, and never has been, my intent to turn this place into a tourist attraction and were I to have done so, the one poor avenue of access would have been shut down (not to mention people would have been hurt or killed). The access point could not have handled the traffic. Nor am I inclined to indulge idle curiosity. Accurate photos have been taken for the point of sharing with others. If you choose to believe otherwise - that's your call. Stephen (and others) have shared their thoughts publically. In the light of the fact that no one asks anything of you or anyone else (money in particular), you also can not establish a motivation for promoting a falsehood to support an incentive for lies.
The point here is that you have been shown what I've been willing to share and it is not an inconsequential body of evidence. If it doesn't do it for you - I'll live.
>> So why did you want me to prove you wrong? I don't feel you sufficiently answered that.
I offered you the opportunity to confront and prove your case. You've declined.
Where you are concerned, I've established my case from your own words and you might have noted I do have a retention span greater than a chimp. Whether you accept that analysis or not - is your call. As I've said, I don't have a dog in this fight.
The point of the offer was to force this relationship to the bottomline and it has.
This is where I bust your act.
As your version of logic could not produce anything logical, so also is the decision making process you use in life. You wait until a winner appears to have a high degree of probability and then you decide what's right or wrong dependant upon your expectation of that winner - and pick your sides accordingly.
It follows that your oath to the Constitution is meaningless. You equate obedience to the orders of a corrupted and evil government as your service to your oath and no matter how much evidence appears that they're doing their best to kill that Constitution, you'll wait until a winner seems apparent and then decide what that oath 'really' meant.
Character and integrity are no where in the equation.
Were we to alter history to suit your methods, Patrick Henry would have said "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" right after Cornwallis surrrendered at Yorktown. It fails to inspire.
The true patriots put their necks on the line for what was right knowing full well that failure would end up waltzing matilda.
