If proof doesn't exist for the things you say then you are an irrational human being.

We all know this anyway

The concept of something being a fact because the notion doesn't exist is lost on you, isn't it?

The sharp minds of 606 strike again.

Let me make this really easy for you.

If someone asked you which colour is better; red or blue, and you said that it's not possible to prove it either way, what would you say if they then said 'if proof doesn't exist for the things you say then you are an irrational human being.'?

You absolute tool.

Dear oh dear, if you argue god exists you can't ask other people to prove he doesn't. Are you religious too Winston?

Of course there are some things that you can ask for proof for.

But there are some things that are subjective and cannot be proven.

This is one of them.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 33 seconds ago
Let me make this really easy for you.

If someone asked you which colour is better; red or blue, and you said that it's not possible to prove it either way, what would you say if they then said 'if proof doesn't exist for the things you say then you are an irrational human being.'?

You absolute tool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with your analogy is that you already stated red is better. I didn't state either is better because I'm aware that it's not possible to prove it either way.

You really are tying yourself in knots

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 seconds ago
Of course there are some things that you can ask for proof for.

But there are some things that are subjective and cannot be proven.

This is one of them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It can't be proven, but you made a statement based on the idea that it can be proven.

E.g., "God exists"

" there's never a case where refereeing has prevented a team from winning the league. "

comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 33 seconds ago
Let me make this really easy for you.

If someone asked you which colour is better; red or blue, and you said that it's not possible to prove it either way, what would you say if they then said 'if proof doesn't exist for the things you say then you are an irrational human being.'?

You absolute tool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with your analogy is that you already stated red is better. I didn't state either is better because I'm aware that it's not possible to prove it either way.

You really are tying yourself in knots
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus wept, you are so stupid it's pain.

'Red is better' = 'Refereeing decisions cost us the league'

I'm giving you an example to help see if your tiny brain can comprehend my point.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 55 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 33 seconds ago
Let me make this really easy for you.

If someone asked you which colour is better; red or blue, and you said that it's not possible to prove it either way, what would you say if they then said 'if proof doesn't exist for the things you say then you are an irrational human being.'?

You absolute tool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with your analogy is that you already stated red is better. I didn't state either is better because I'm aware that it's not possible to prove it either way.

You really are tying yourself in knots
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus wept, you are so stupid it's pain.

'Red is better' = 'Refereeing decisions cost us the league'

I'm giving you an example to help see if your tiny brain can comprehend my point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't make that statement

You have asserted " there's never a case where refereeing has prevented a team from winning the league. "

Can your tiny brain comprehend this?

I know that ffs.

But it's the same thing.

I didn't realise were quite this thick, but okay then:

"there's never a case where refereeing has prevented a team from winning the league"

=

"there's never been a case where one colour is better than another"

When someone says 'prove it' to either of those statements, they are a moron.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
I know that ffs.

But it's the same thing.

I didn't realise were quite this thick, but okay then:

"there's never a case where refereeing has prevented a team from winning the league"

=

"there's never been a case where one colour is better than another"

When someone says 'prove it' to either of those statements, they are a moron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


"there's never been a case where one colour is better than another"

is tantamount to

"there's never been a case where you can decide where refereeing has prevented a team from winning the league"

not

"there's never a case where refereeing has prevented a team from winning the league"

No it's not.

It's not about whether you can decide or not.

No matter what data you have access to and the time you have, it's an impossibility to credibly conclude that refereeing has prevented a team from winning a league.

That's a fact.

If A > B cannot be determined then you cannot determine A < B

A > B = Refereeing decisions cost us the league
B < A = Refereeing decisions didn't cost you the league

You did not state A>B cannot be determined.

You stated A<B

This is false.

It's simple first order logic. And you've been destroyed. Now run along and pray for redemption.

I take it you never studied statistics then?

I can absolutely make that statement because both of those statements above cannot be made with any factual basis.

It's impossible because of the subjectivity i.e. there's no facts to base it on.

What are you struggling with here?

It's not statistics, it's predicate calculus

"If you don’t win the league it’s because you’re not good enough."

"there's never a case where refereeing has prevented a team from winning the league"

Are false statements according to your own argument.

I'd ask you what you're struggling with but it's clear that you have an IQ I can step over,.

The example above is included in stats, actually.

They're accurate statements and I've repeatedly explained why.

As usual, you've made a complete fool out of yourself because you are just not intelligent enough.

You're just making up nonsense gibberish and throwing out insults because you lost the argument.

If someone says god exists, the correct response is that it can't be proved. You've responded with god doesn't exist.

Unfortunately your brain is unable to wrap its head around the truth values of propositions in a logical framework. It's that simple.

comment by TopForm (U15726)
posted 28 seconds ago
You're just making up nonsense gibberish and throwing out insults because you lost the argument.

If someone says god exists, the correct response is that it can't be proved. You've responded with god doesn't exist.

Unfortunately your brain is unable to wrap its head around the truth values of propositions in a logical framework. It's that simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm responding in kind... check your previous reply.

The issue you're missing is this has nothing to do with not being able to be proven.

You could have access to all the data, all the games, as much time as you need - nothing would enable you to prove it, because it's an impossibility.

Much like whether one colour is better than another.

That is why anyone who makes the claim can be told that it absolutely is not true. Because it can't be true. It can't exist.

You're just talking gibberish now. You might as well be claiming 1>2 you're so illogical.

Everything you write is unprovable nonsense.

And there it is.

You can't debate the point, you can't admit I'm right.

Of course I can't debate with someone who doesn't understand logic.

Except my last point is absolutely logical, and it's completely ruined you.

I think the penny has dropped with you that this isn't a case that you don't have the information available to prove it, it's the fact that it does not actually exist because it's entirely subjective.

"You could have access to all the data, all the games, as much time as you need - nothing would enable you to prove it, because it's an impossibility.

Much like whether one colour is better than another."

You're the clown that still claims one is better than another.

You keep undermining yourself repeatedly but don't realise it.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 55 seconds ago
Except my last point is absolutely logical, and it's completely ruined you.

I think the penny has dropped with you that this isn't a case that you don't have the information available to prove it, it's the fact that it does not actually exist because it's entirely subjective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bit you did claim the information was available to prove it, hence why you made a statement asserting that.

How many times are you going to demonstrate your own ignorance here

- "If you don’t win the league it’s because you’re not good enough."

- "there's never a case where refereeing has prevented a team from winning the league"


" it's entirely subjective."