Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xylix" data-source="post: 504349" data-attributes="member: 9089">There is not enough information to proove it EITHER way...  As  such the burdeon of proof is on both sides.    Inductive arguments are the only method without absolute proof either a statement in some book without a doubt detailing this situation.  This does not exists so only inductive arguments can exist.Like science, inductive arguments do not show anything without a doubt, they merely show something is very likely.For instance an inductive argument is one where an individual attempts to show something is likely to exist.   For instance to proove Santa's disexistance I would :Point out that he could not get everywhere in time.Point out that you can see what you parents buy, and if you are careful you can even show that those labled from Santa where indeed bought by your parents.Point out that no one has ever seen santa, despite visits to the north pole.Point out that they can trace santa's origion, in history.Point ou that in many cultures santa does not exist, and that the childern recieve no presents prooving he does not give gifts to all the good childern.etc....In the end one who is logical is forced to agree, if they agree with the premises that Santa probably does not exist.If they agree with the premises but do not agree they are then being illogical.  There really is not anything you can do about people being illogical.That is true even with a deductive argument, which DOES proove.Nope but they can show it is very questionable.  That is where you where going in your first post.  You had a decent start, and your weak argument would be much stronger in comparrison if you destoyed what there was of mine.Where it is highly questionable a logical person will move on.  Especialy those who house rule everything anyway <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />It is very difficult to convince someone that has no intention of considering your argument short of perfect proof.Which would be about 1/2 of my contenders.  The rest are hard to convince because they have already utterly accepted the premise that only spells with the [death] tag are actually death spells.  Anything else must automatically be thrown out.There is only so much I can do to that premise, because it does have a certain degree of soundness, just like my argument that Death Ward was using the 'pragmatic' definition.To me your assertion that it is only [death] without backing is as pointless as me stating that "Thats not true".   Some addressed this correctly by going down and shoring up their premise to try to make it more acceptable.   This made the argument on your side stronger.Like any good arguer I attacked those premesises to the best of my ability undermining your hard work.However the net result with a Inductive argument is determined by which most people are going to accept as more likely.   To do that one needs to do more than mere defend their argument they need to destroy the opposition.</blockquote>

Verification