Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They are proven facts, even though you can't believe it.
|
You can't have proven facts without proof. And not only do you lack proof, but you lack any evidence whatsoever in support of any of your or your father's claims. |
You keep saying that but I don't agree. You know his reasoning as to why he believed the eyes aren't a sense organ, and he gave a very clear demonstration as to why man's will is not free. Then he showed in detail how the two-equation works because of how conscience works. These were very astute observations. If his observations were sound, then everything that follows from his reasoning is also sound. Someone can describe accurate observations, which do not require the kind of empirical proof that you are demanding, although this will be the ultimate proof when these laws of our nature create the kind of world that was never thought possible. |
Every single step of his reasoning is fallacious and he didn't make any observations. You are still conflating the two meanings of 'observation', and your father's claims don't qualify by either one. His claims about vision were based on complete ignorance of actual science, along with further claims about infant and canine vision which were neither true nor even relevant. His 'demonstration' regarding free will was based upon a complete ignorance of compatibilism and the fallacy of inferring meaningful conclusions from a tautological premise. And his explanation of his two-sided non-equation was based on completely unsupported assumptions about conscience that he had no evidence for whatsoever. You still don't have a single scrap of supporting evidence for any of his claims, still less anything amounting to actual proof. |
He was not ignorant about science. His claims were accurate. Infant and canine vision are very relevant because dogs do not recognize their masters from a picture, and they should if the eyes are a sense organ. Infants do not focus their eyes until they receive further stimuli from the other senses, which indicates that no images from the external world are being interpreted by the brain allowing vision to occur.