It's nice how you are dodging the real definition of proof. Now you want to try and change the definition of proof to satisfy you're thoughts on this issue.

^^ "The real definition"?

Please, do tell me what it is. Maybe you can then educate the entire mathematical community, since we've set up an entire discipline on this sort of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_proof_theo ry for more information, although I suppose the discipline will be made obsolete by the gem that you'll soon reply with.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

^^ "The real definition"?

Please, do tell me what it is. Maybe you can then educate the entire mathematical community, since we've set up an entire discipline on this sort of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_proof_theo ry for more information, although I suppose the discipline will be made obsolete by the gem that you'll soon reply with.

I am not talking about Mathematics...

If person A claims to have an apple and person B doesn't agree until he/she sees proof. Than what should person A do to prove it to person B ?

Originally Posted by Icecream

I have the right of condemning you to Hell.

F*ck the whaaaaaat.

Just so we can get a general idea... like this post if you think Icecream should really stop with the making an ass of himself!

I would say that this is moar for his benefit than for anyone else's, but he'll probably just ragereport this like he does everything few posts that point out how wrong he is. Boo.

Originally Posted by Icecream

Let me summarize this for you and everyone else very simply.

The government claimed they killed Osama during May 1st. When one makes a claim about something physical, they have to show it.

I won't believe in something physical unless it can be proven physically.

I used to have doubts (not certainty of him being born in Kenya) about Obama's birth, but that changed once CNN said and showed that his birth was reported in the newspaper in Hawai the day he was born. (They gave proof, my doubts were eliminated.)

After reading all your other posts I expected more from you on this birth certificate matter. I find it a little strange that all of a sudden Obama shows his birth certificate and kills Osama...and who could predict his approval rating is already way up.

Originally Posted by Amaryll

F*ck the whaaaaaat.

Just so we can get a general idea... like this post if you think Icecream should really stop with the making an ass of himself!

I would say that this is moar for his benefit than for anyone else's, but he'll probably just ragereport this like he does everything few posts that points how how wrong he is. Boo.

Apparently someone said I was an Osama sympathizer. That could get me beaten up by people and get me killed...

Anyway I am getting tired on this issue...

Look it's either picture or it didn't happen. I don't believe physical things unless they can be shown physically. End of story.

Originally Posted by Icecream

I am not talking about Mathematics...

You think you aren't, but you actually are. You've set yourself up nicely for the answer, though, so I'll continue in my response to the next bit.

If person A claims to have an apple and person B doesn't agree until he/she sees proof. Than what should person A do to prove it to person B ?

Ordinarily, I would say that it depends on the circumstance. Since you're speaking of 'the real' definition (which abstracts from circumstance a priori), I was hoping you'd tell me.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

You think you aren't, but you actually are. You've set yourself up nicely for the answer, though, so I'll continue in my response to the next bit.



Ordinarily, I would say that it depends on the circumstance. Since you're speaking of 'the real' definition (which abstracts from circumstance a priori), I was hoping you'd tell me.

Show the damn apple.

This is what Science is about too. It's about showing a proof, results of an experiment. This is why you have a computer right in front of you.

Holy **** this thread is still going on.

Kudos on being able to argue this long, I would've lost interest by now.

^ I'm pretty sure every forumer who has disagreed with you on this thread has provided you with a slew of reasons for the with-holding of images - all of which you proceeded to ignore, of course.

Realise that there's more variables in the system that the 'decision-makers' are considering than whether or not you find their story believable.

As I can't edit - the previous post was meant for icecream.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

^ I'm pretty sure every forumer who has disagreed with you on this thread has provided you with a slew of reasons for the with-holding of images - all of which you proceeded to ignore, of course.

Realise that there's more variables in the system that the 'decision-makers' are considering than whether or not you find their story believable.

You are using the logical fallacy of the majority...

Reasons used in this forum = excuses.

I only accept proof. And those excuses where all rejected including that lamest Islamic burial thing. Islamic burials are only done in the ground.

Look at what I highlighted in your post (pretty sure). That happens where there is a doubt and that's what you are doing. You are assuming things without physical proof, without looking at the apple.

Realize that there's more variables in the system that the 'decision-makers' are considering like making sure that you believe their story.
Tell me what about Mullah Dadullah ?

^ Haha, why was that post flagged?

Originally Posted by Icecream

You are using the logical fallacy of the majority...

Not in the slightest. Using the 'fallacy of the majority' would be asserting that there exists a valid reason for why the Americans didn't release footage because the majority of forumers said so. That's not my point at all. Re-read my post, and you'll see that my point was that you either ignored or did not satisfactorily address the reasons given.

Reasons used in this forum = excuses.

And there's reasons that aren't excuses?

I only accept proof. And those excuses where all rejected including that lamest Islamic burial thing. Islamic burials are only done in the ground.

You rejected that argument on very poor grounds - namely, using the "I am Muslim, and therefore I know the teachings more than any website or source you have access to". That doesn't cut it.

Look at what I highlighted in your post (pretty sure). That happens where there is a doubt and that's what you are doing. You are assuming things without physical proof, without looking at the apple.

I don't know what you're getting it, because 'pretty sure' was meant at the forumers' responses, not at whether or not bin Laden was killed by the Americans. Again, I didn't assert that any of the forumers' responses were valid reasons, merely that you didn't address a single one satisfactorily.

Tell me what about Mullah Dadullah ?

What about him do you want to know?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Mullah+Dadullah

so much fail . X_X