egvrich wrote:You have precisely proven my point ...
Why is it that the burden of proof is on the people who believe something is rotten in Denmark?
Whereas the naysayers don't have to disprove anything? They get to simply say, "you guys are all wrong." And because they said it, it MUST be the reality.
So, unfortunately when you are dealing with cretins and philistines, they don't even understand what the correct counter-argument to what we are asserting, would be, IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY TO MAKE IT!!!
1. It (black box items) all affects us equally
OR potentially
2. The effects are as limited as SoM claims they are
Sorry DjmacB but you also unwitting gave Rich the reason why its almost impossible to be proven- since none of us have access to the actual code and ALL MATHEMATICAL POSSIBILITIES exist, it would take virtually a mountain of evidence to PROVE such at thing ie.not much different than 'proving' god or gods exist.
I know you in particular would rather engage in ad hominem attacks rather than use logic.
PS- these sorts of inanities are another reason I miss Bruce on here. He'd have shut down some of this stupidity with logic and even potentially found any existing weaknesses in my assertions as well.
PPS- macb- I actually understand thats not how you meant to use the teapot analogy, and that it is not actually about proving the existence of god- but unfortunately you just can't seem to grasp that you keep misusing the analogies you are trying to make-- sad, isn't it?