Search results

Call it OCD, but that would be Annetts :P

Not this again

You haven't studied philosophy, have you? The rules are simple: use reason and logic.

haha mealymouthed ahaha

dude no... just.. no

Firstly, I don't think Beazley is bland at all :P Though I think he ought to bring a more polished image to the ALP rather than the underdog, battler image that has been so prevalant in Labor. Secondly, I think it virtually impossible that Australia would vote in a female PM at this time. I...

I will attempt to clean this up: 1. Suppressed premises in any argument which are controversial, or not likely to be believed by the whole audience of the argument, makes the argument fallacious. 2. Your point is that everything is controversial, making that rule impossible. 3. That...

thanks, but I only pop back in again every 500 posts or so, just to keep the monster I created in order :P

I'm suing for defamation!

The example was simply to prove a point: you do not believe something unless you have proof/reason to. If faith is lack of proof, then you do not have (propositionally) a reason to believe it. I would say it is more arrogant to believe something you have no proof of, believing it to be right...

I already said "notwithstanding extreme epistemological questions." You're taking it way too far there. Are you really going to disagree that a water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom? That is what we mean by a fact. Look, it really is a basic convention of argument...

Logic and reasoning are underlying what I am getting at. 1+1=2 is always going to mean the same thing to us, or to aliens. The label may be different, but it is indepedant of humans. Even if these methods are human constructs, they are the absolute best methods we have. Like I said, humanity has...

Humanity has found answers more accurate and more detailed through the application of reason than by any other means. We can prove that 1+1 = 2. We can prove the Earth is so many metres away from the sun. We can prove that Agassi beat Dent tonight. We can prove things through the process of...

It is convenient to set straight what is not a material fact, ie. the content of the Bible. Notwithstanding extreme epistemological questions, this is a fact: A water molecule is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.

"Wonder" indeed, as for one to believe in something without any proof is a miraculous phenomenon of self-deception: if there is no reason for the belief, why would one have the belief? Answer with something more substantial than "faith", because what that really equates to is, "I don't have any...

Belief without proof is pure foolishness. What's to stop me believing in the great flying goat-god Gorgamel? I don't have any proof, but hey I believe it. Call me crazy but I highly doubt you'd be willing to believe in it too. Likewise if I said I'd been abducted by aliens, you'd want to have...

haha u coming to our law fac frigid?

Faith is belief in something without proof. By definition faith is NOT proof.

Hardly - commercial law matters far exceed the amount of tort claims. (Even more so now - in NSW, after Bob Carr and friends imposed the Civil Liabilities Act. Personal injuries claims in particular have seen a dramatic decrease.)

I would rep you just for having Kristin Kreuk in your avatar, but I must spread my love around first :D