Varieties of Theism: Monotheism, Polytheism, Deism, Pantheism, and More

[Cinocard]

Spoiler for Ascaloth:

Petitio principii. Why exactly is "faith" necessary in our everyday activities?

Lol, dont be such a wikipedia fanatic. I just made a statement. I've yet tried to explain it (again). And you already fault me again.

Why is faith necessary in our everyday life? Consider the following dialogue:

Cinocard (C): Ascaloth, you perverted, how can you go take a **** in the male restroom?
Ascaloth (A): Um, because I'm a male?
C: How can you be so sure you are male, Ascaloth?
A: Of course I can. Because I have a ****, and I don't have a ***** and two ****. Wanna check it? (lol).

C: Thank you, it's not necessary though. However. what if you are just a female with some underdeveloped organs, and what down there is not truly a **** but a strange disease, like, a huge cancer, maybe?
A: But it's functioning normally as a ****.
C: then what if its a disease when you have both **** and *****, and **** just lays on top of *****. And by chance the **** and ***** just cooperate and function normally?

A: But there's no such weird disease like that.
C: How can you be so sure that there's no disease like that?
A: Lmao, such a disease doesn't make sense at all.
C: Er, 300 years ago, smallpox didn't make much sense either.
A: Fine, then. Because such a disease has never happened or be recorded in mankind history?
C: But all the doctor, before and now, in the world might have wrongly diagnose it, or some doctor in the past might have realized it and wrote it down, but the historians just misinterpret such works? Surely, no one can be infallibly right?

A: How about because I have a 23rd gene of XY, then? Undoubtedly, that reason must satisfy you, since a male is define as a human with a normal 23rd XY gene, right?
C: Oh, then you have your DNA tested before, then?
A: Uh, no, I've never... (yeah, lets just assume that you've never done it for real ).
C: If so, how can you say that your 23rd gene is XY, Ascaloth?
A:
Scenario1: because I have a giant 4 inch perimeter, 11 inch long freaking **** down here, dumbass
Scenario2: because I...believe.

Yeah, well, I was in a good mood today, so lets leave it at that. I will get a more serious illustration next time if this does not satisfy you

Spoiler for Sigh, Ascaloth again...:

1. Argumentum ad hominem circumstantial. Just because you assert that I'm predisposed to certain bias does not make the points I make any less true.

2. Style over substance fallacy (ad hominem variant). Emphasising whatever failings you might have perceived in my debating style does not hide the fact that you are still marginalizing the content of my argument, and is thus logically fallacious.

NO, you make another straw man in my point. You really need to understand my postS better.

I assert that YOUR SENTENCES MAY UNKNOWINGLY, OR UNINTENTIONALLY "predisposed to certain bias," (which is philosophy is unintelligible in this case), not to prove that the point you make any less true.

It's to prove that: When I said that your posts convey the idea that philosophy is unintelligible, you claimed I made a straw man (because you THINK you never convey that philosophy is unintelligible), I'm just stating that you might did so unconsciously, or might express yourself in the wrong way, therefore even if my interpretation differs from what you intended, it's not fallacious.

3. You have already claimed that I am making arguments which I have never made, and which even you have admitted that I have never explicitly made.

God you are the one who make so many mistakes

I claim that your SENTENCES EXPLICITLY CONTAIN the point (of philosophy being unintelligible) unintentionally (mis-communication, which is your fault in mastering language) OR, yes, OR, unconsciously (not fully aware of your own view, which is also your points).

Then, I was going to show you how those SENTENCES EXPLICITLY CONTAIN what I claim they do. But I haven't been able to start doing it yet, as even before I start you say that it's going to be fallacious, for the very wrong reason.

Wrong direction. Just because philosophy gave rise to science, does not mean that science gives rise to philosophy. Please refrain from confusing cause and effect.

Additionally, argumentum ad verecundiam. Just because the unnamed "scholars" you have quoted are considered as authoritative to you, doesn't mean that they are infallibly right.

No, I NEVER said that science gives rise to philosophy (I'm not so stupid to make such a stupid claim). I said that philosophy gave rise to science (in fact, science is just a huge branch of philosophy), and science is based on philosophy, any work involves philosophy will affect science. If the foundation changes, everything else must follow. Ex: if we can prove that something can be both true and false, all maths, physics... achievements till now automatically default. Like a river, if the upstream changes, the downstream surely must be affected.

May be our fault here is also miscommunication. By "grounding," I mean: effect, importance, role. I said "philosophy should have a grounding in modern science," which means philosophy has a crucial role in modern science, therefore we cannot dismiss classical philosophy as outdated like you said.

Additionally, argumentum ad verecundiam. Just because the unnamed "scholars" you have quoted are considered as authoritative to you, doesn't mean that they are infallibly right.

Well, they are not "unnamed," really. I just don't want to go into details here (if you want me to name them, I will).

And of course, even if they are "named," it doesn't mean they are infallibly right. They are nowhere near that. I meant that their works have its own importance (which is not necessarily right). And to prove how important they are, I will give you an example.

The theory of everything (TOE), which is speculated as the final goal of physics, concerns a lot with the ability of mathematics being exhaustible or not. But Godel's incompleteness theorems (which has a lot to do with philosophy of mathematics, a classical and traditional branch of philosophy) seems to prove (it may be wrong) that mathematics is inexhaustible. Therefore, a TOE should be impossible.

How can something said by you to be outdated (classical philosophy) has such a grave importance to the future of physics, hm?

[Proto]

Hmm... I think I can see where this is going to... just before shits starts flying everywhere, can we agree on a definition of faith, just to assure we are in the same channel?

Originally Posted by faith

belief not resting on logical proof or material evidence.

Because I can see your post being countered with just the words Occam's razor, but maybe I'm understanding something wrong.

Then again you can argue that Occam's razor, reductionism and friends are an act of faith in and of themselves, but then I refer to my previous post

[Anh_Minh]

Cinocard: if we're going to talk about what statement might unconsciously imply, then any statement can mean anything. Are you sure you didn't almost maybe call Ascaloth a mutant squirrel, in the subtext, even by accident? Yes? No? So how about we focus on what we actually write?

No, I NEVER said that science gives rise to philosophy (I'm not so stupid to make such a stupid claim). I said that philosophy gave rise to science (in fact, science is just a huge branch of philosophy), and science is based on philosophy, any work involves philosophy will affect science. If the foundation changes, everything else must follow. Ex: if we can prove that something can be both true and false, all maths, physics... achievements till now automatically default. Like a river, if the upstream changes, the downstream surely must be affected.

That still doesn't make philosophy a science, which means it doesn't dispute the claim that philosophy isn't based on factual evidence. It's also false. Unless the changes in philosophy affect the particular bits that science is based on.

[Cinocard]

All I want to say is that: don't take our "reality," our certainty as granted. We accept that "reality" through a strong foundation of beliefs and faiths.

How do you know for definite that you are you and not a clone of you made up by aliens yesterday? How do you know if your parents are your real, blood-related parents? How do you know if you are not color-blind to a certain set of color? How do you know when you love someone, if you cannot even properly, concretely define what "Love" is? How do you know that if you sleep now, you will wake up tomorrow?

Have you all ever thought about all those possibilities of otherwise, are you all right now able to truly prove that they are impossible to be "fact"? Most people don't. I don't to most of them. Because our life would be so dread and incomprehensible if we have to face all that uncertainty. It may be easier to consider them as extreme stereotype beliefs to understand my point. Deeming stereotype beliefs as facts and ignoring their uncertainty while claiming you are wise and good is, of course, laughable.


It's funny how all those "reality," or "facts" of which "knowledge" (if our knowledge are true knowledge) that we have an understanding of show us their great uncertainty, we ignore those clear uncertainties because we BELIEVE they can't be. But for things that we have almost no access to like God, some can say with a straight face that God does not exist, because beliefs in nonsensical are nonsensical. (Now, I'm an atheist, but I admit that I don't believe in God because I simply BELIEVE God does not exist. But for those who claim the notion that they don't think God exists has nothing to do with beliefs, but with logic and factual science. Hah, those people have yet to fully understand the world --- Not that I fully understand the world, by the way, to avoid certain straw man bashing coming ).

Spoiler for Anh Minh....And Ascaloth?:

That still doesn't make philosophy a science, which means it doesn't dispute the claim that philosophy isn't based on factual evidence. It's also false.

No, I never said philosophy is a science. I said science can be viewed as a huge branch of philosophy. Nor I sad philosophy is based on factual evidence (well in particular subjects it does, like "I think therefore I am," and "I think" is a factual evidence). Metaphysics and epistemology philosophy work on the nature of "factual," and try to seek what is true fact, true reality, true knowledge (lets skip the moral philosophy and such, even though they may actually the branches that have the most practical effects on our everyday life).

Unless the changes in philosophy affect the particular bits that science is based on.

I have said it many times: what do you guys think philosophy of maths and logic are for? I think the TOE (in my last post) serves as a pretty good example of how philosophy can determine the direction for the whole future of physics.

"If we can prove that something can be both true and false, all maths, physics... achievements till now automatically default." I think this one is pretty obvious and relevant to the point I make, too. It is one of the most fundamental axioms of philosophy (and of science), and we automatically accept that it is true. Ain't that faith?

Cinocard: if we're going to talk about what statement might unconsciously imply,

I THINK the obvious idea in Ascaloth's posts were that philosophy is pretty nonsensical and impractical. So I said what I think (without proving it yet), and he instantly bashed me that I would fail anyway. I just defend the bashing. If you tell me to prove that his statements imply such things, to be honest, it's way way back in page 5 or 6 or something and I'm too lazy to reread all that

And sorry if the spoiler background gives anyone trouble to read clearly, but I don't want to make the post too big

[ChainLegacy]

As Proto mentioned, you might want to look up Occam's Razor when you get the chance, Cinocard.

[Cinocard]

As Proto mentioned, you might want to look up Occam's Razor when you get the chance, Cinocard.

I know what it is. I don't encourage over-emphasizing the details importance. If ignorance is bliss, then we should not think too much about everything. Even that said, we use Ockham's razor because it makes the problem easier to solve, it does not make the solution better. And there's a difference in seeing the details, but choosing to ignore it, and being completely ignorant of the details. Also, other factors at times may be insignificant to the problem in question, it does not mean they are ALWAYS insignificant. As I've proven with the example of TOE, when needed, revising those fundamental details that we always assume is crucial.

Anyway, my point in correspondent to this topic is not about we should care about those details or not, but about this:

some can say with a straight face that God does not exist, because beliefs in nonsensical are nonsensical. (Now, I'm an atheist, but I admit that I don't believe in God because I simply BELIEVE God does not exist. But for those who claim the notion that they don't think God exists has nothing to do with beliefs, but with logic and factual science....

Everything else I said is to prove this.

[Quzor]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Even that said, we use Ockham's razor because it makes the problem easier to solve, it does not make the solution better.

Erm...that's precisely what Occam's Razor does.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor, courtesy Wikipedia

the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" or, popularly applied, "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

Occam's Razor has absolutely nothing to do with the problem itself; it deals specifically with the answer.

[Cinocard]

I need to clarify my meaning of "better" here. "Better" does not mean better in an aesthetic or practical way, but "better" means to be able to explain more. Also, let me elaborate this statement:

when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.

Notice the part: "make exactly the same predictions." Lets illustrate it with a simple example:

Problem: prove the relationship between A,C,D,E with B.

Theory 1: If C,D,E remains unchanged, when A changes, B changes into B'. If C,E remains unchanged, but A and D both change, the change in B is unpredictable. If D,E remains unchanged, but A and C both change, the change in B is still unpredictable, and so on.

Theory 2: If everything else remains unchanged, when A changes, B changes into B'.

Theory 3: If C,D,E unchanged, when A changes, B changes into B'. If A,C,E unchanged, when D changes, B changes into B''. If C,E remains unchanged, but A and D both change, B changes into B'''.

Theory 2, using Ockham's razor, may be considered better than the more complex theory 1, when boths' empirical prediction is about between A and B. Theory 3, not using Ockham's razor, is a better solution than theory 2, since it more fully explains the relationship between A,C,D,E and B. However, if the problem was proving the relationship between A and B, theory 2 is clearly more practical than theory 3, hence it's considered better.

Say, Newton's a = F/m is a clear demonstration of Ockham's razor, it is a lot more useful, and is sure easier to test. But is it better than Einstein's General relativity in explaining mass and motion? But at the time Newton came up with his laws, mankind didn't really need to talk about moving at speed of light, nor did mankind had the ability to test it empirically. So at that time, Einstein's theory (when v is significantly small compare to c, we get something similar to Newton's equation) might have been considered "not beautiful."

If you still don't understand my point, perhaps reading the wiki page that you yourself gave me will help. I remember it having some pretty nice elaborations of when and how Ockham's razor works.

[Quzor]

^ This doesn't change the fact that Occam's Razor has no effect on the difficulty of the problem. It simply suggests that the simplest way to describe the answer is the best way.

Lets take an example from the discussion:

Problem: Prove that reality is "real."

Theory 1: Reality is real, intrinsically.

Theory 2: Reality is real because philosophy tells us it is so. The idea "Cogito Ergo Sum" suggests that we are, in fact real, and so we must exist in reality. Because of this, reality must be real.

Theory 1 is the more acceptable answer, because it is the simplest. Theory 2 describes exactly the same thing as Theory 1, except in a more convoluted and roundabout way. There's no reason to extrapolate so far into the "meanings" of words through philosophy and research, when the intrinsic definition of the answer is contained within the word itself.

Essentially, "Real" is the base word of "Reality", which makes reality real. QED.

[Cinocard]

First and foremost, I must say I never disagree with Proto's post, Ockham's razor and whatnot.

Originally Posted by Proto

How do animals are other non-human beings go around life? Do they have an active faith in the principles of reality? Or is it that they just take reality for what it is and don't think twice about it. I think this is exemplifies well the basic difference between religious faith and the so called faith in reality atheists have.

I implicitly refered to such similar things in my posts, such as "Ignorance is bliss," (simplifying things, leaving out the detail without knowing) or "taken 'reality' for granted." If you notice, you can see the similarity between mine and Proto's.

Then I came to prove the "Ignorance of one's own ignorance," as people throw faiths and beliefs out of science like nothing. When I admit my own beliefs, my own ignorance.

And I define "faith" as: anything you say it's true, but not provable. And yeah, I see nothing as definitely provable. So like some of you may have guessed, I'm a skepticism (despite I'm also a realism). I may very well misunderstood everyone's idea here. I can care less about side details like this Ockham's razor discussion, but people still seem to disagree with my basic principles above, so I don't see why I should not go on.

Spoiler for Quzor:

Huh? A theorem most of the time (or always?) does not have the word "because" in it.

"Because" belongs to the solution. You solved the problem "reality is real" by intrinsic method. Which is easy (automatically correct). Then you solve the problem "reality is real" by philosophy which is long and complex. Solution 1 is better than solution 2, because it is shorter and easier. There is no second theorem for me to comment on.

By the way, like you said, reality is real, because it is defined so. So yeah, a problem which is self-evident is a little hard to discuss on. What was truly in question is: Are the things we perceive reality?

Another note: Ockham's razor was not a method, but a principle of "Given the same result, simpler things are better." So the notion is that: if we work with complex things and can only get a small result, why not make the thing simpler in the first place, and work from there? IMO, that method of simplifying things is what is widely understood as Ockham's razor in academia. And I think you guys understand it as so, so I argue as so. A principle (a statement) cannot really make anything "simpler" or "better" or "easier" in the first place.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Spoiler for Ascaloth:

Lol, dont be such a wikipedia fanatic. I just made a statement. I've yet tried to explain it (again). And you already fault me again.

Why is faith necessary in our everyday life? Consider the following dialogue:

Cinocard (C): Ascaloth, you perverted, how can you go take a **** in the male restroom?
Ascaloth (A): Um, because I'm a male?
C: How can you be so sure you are male, Ascaloth?
A: Of course I can. Because I have a ****, and I don't have a ***** and two ****. Wanna check it? (lol).

C: Thank you, it's not necessary though. However. what if you are just a female with some underdeveloped organs, and what down there is not truly a **** but a strange disease, like, a huge cancer, maybe?
A: But it's functioning normally as a ****.
C: then what if its a disease when you have both **** and *****, and **** just lays on top of *****. And by chance the **** and ***** just cooperate and function normally?

A: But there's no such weird disease like that.
C: How can you be so sure that there's no disease like that?
A: Lmao, such a disease doesn't make sense at all.
C: Er, 300 years ago, smallpox didn't make much sense either.
A: Fine, then. Because such a disease has never happened or be recorded in mankind history?
C: But all the doctor, before and now, in the world might have wrongly diagnose it, or some doctor in the past might have realized it and wrote it down, but the historians just misinterpret such works? Surely, no one can be infallibly right?

A: How about because I have a 23rd gene of XY, then? Undoubtedly, that reason must satisfy you, since a male is define as a human with a normal 23rd XY gene, right?
C: Oh, then you have your DNA tested before, then?
A: Uh, no, I've never... (yeah, lets just assume that you've never done it for real ).
C: If so, how can you say that your 23rd gene is XY, Ascaloth?
A:
Scenario1: because I have a giant 4 inch perimeter, 11 inch long freaking **** down here, dumbass
Scenario2: because I...believe.

Yeah, well, I was in a good mood today, so lets leave it at that. I will get a more serious illustration next time if this does not satisfy you

False analogy, misleading vividness, argumentum verbosium. Your little fanfiction is an overblown piece of vividly written dialogue that claims to draw a valid analogy to our discussion, when it does anything but. Please refrain from wasting everyone's time.

NO, you make another straw man in my point. You really need to understand my postS better.

I assert that YOUR SENTENCES MAY UNKNOWINGLY, OR UNINTENTIONALLY "predisposed to certain bias," (which is philosophy is unintelligible in this case), not to prove that the point you make any less true.

It's to prove that: When I said that your posts convey the idea that philosophy is unintelligible, you claimed I made a straw man (because you THINK you never convey that philosophy is unintelligible), I'm just stating that you might did so unconsciously, or might express yourself in the wrong way, therefore even if my interpretation differs from what you intended, it's not fallacious.

You are still sustaining the argumentum ad hominem circumstantial, as well as a correlated Straw Man, here. By interpreting my points in a different way from which I intended, even if you claim that I did it "unconsciously", you are still creating a corruption of my arguments, thus the Straw Man. The fact that the corruption takes the form of an attack on what is supposedly my personal bias simply serves to make it an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial at the same time.

God you are the one who make so many mistakes

I claim that your SENTENCES EXPLICITLY CONTAIN the point (of philosophy being unintelligible) unintentionally (mis-communication, which is your fault in mastering language) OR, yes, OR, unconsciously (not fully aware of your own view, which is also your points).

Then, I was going to show you how those SENTENCES EXPLICITLY CONTAIN what I claim they do. But I haven't been able to start doing it yet, as even before I start you say that it's going to be fallacious, for the very wrong reason.

If even you have admitted that I have never claimed outright what you were accusing me of claiming, then how could I possibly have explicitly made the claim? Please check your dictionary and refresh yourself on the meaning of the term 'explicit', thanks.

Since I have never made any of those claims you accused me of, any attempt of yours to make it look like I did make these claims would simply be a fallacy of quoting out of context, and therefore logically fallacious from the beginning. Your insistence on pursuing this course even when I have extensively outlined the logical flaws in doing so simply shows your bad faith.

No, I NEVER said that science gives rise to philosophy (I'm not so stupid to make such a stupid claim). I said that philosophy gave rise to science (in fact, science is just a huge branch of philosophy), and science is based on philosophy, any work involves philosophy will affect science. If the foundation changes, everything else must follow. Ex: if we can prove that something can be both true and false, all maths, physics... achievements till now automatically default. Like a river, if the upstream changes, the downstream surely must be affected.

Ipse-dixit. Please prove concretely how a philosophical shift in paradigm will lead to a scientific shift in paradigm.

May be our fault here is also miscommunication. By "grounding," I mean: effect, importance, role. I said "philosophy should have a grounding in modern science," which means philosophy has a crucial role in modern science, therefore we cannot dismiss classical philosophy as outdated like you said.

As far as I know, the term "grounding" refers to a basic foundation in something, as far as the dictionary definition went. Of course, it's possible that my dictionary is outdated, so if that's the case, please point me to a dictionary definition which concurs with your definition. If you are unable to do so, you are simply guilty of equivocation.

As for the last sentence....I thought we've already established that I was just attempting to wind Cipher up more than anything?

Well, they are not "unnamed," really. I just don't want to go into details here (if you want me to name them, I will).

And of course, even if they are "named," it doesn't mean they are infallibly right. They are nowhere near that. I meant that their works have its own importance (which is not necessarily right). And to prove how important they are, I will give you an example.

The theory of everything (TOE), which is speculated as the final goal of physics, concerns a lot with the ability of mathematics being exhaustible or not. But Godel's incompleteness theorems (which has a lot to do with philosophy of mathematics, a classical and traditional branch of philosophy) seems to prove (it may be wrong) that mathematics is inexhaustible. Therefore, a TOE should be impossible.

How can something said by you to be outdated (classical philosophy) has such a grave importance to the future of physics, hm?

Ignoration elenchi. Just because what you brought up may be valid in itself, does not necessarily mean that philosophy in general is of great importance to science. What you are attempting here is a mere proof by example, and to illustrate the logical flaws in such reasoning, I only need bring up a counterpoint; just because Godel's incompleteness theorem claims that a Theory of Everything is impossible, does it therefore follow that scientists should regard the pursuit for it as futile? Clearly, while science is the pursuit of falsifiable factual knowledge, philosophy is concerned with the implications of the falsifiable factual knowledge in question; important in itself, that is true, but not necessarily relevant to the scientific method.

Thus, your point is refuted.

You want to keep this up all week? It's your own credibility on the line, after all, not mine.

[Cinocard]

Your little fanfiction is an overblown piece of vividly written dialogue that claims to draw a valid analogy to our discussion, when it does anything but. Please refrain from wasting everyone's time.

Meh, I was in a good mood for some pranks. I expected nothing from it, did not expected you to take it seriously

If even you have admitted that I have never claimed outright what you were accusing me of claiming, then how could I possibly have explicitly made the claim? Please check your dictionary and refresh yourself on the meaning of the term 'explicit', thanks.

Since I have never made any of those claims you accused me of,

Your sentences tell me you made those claims. How can I possibly know what was in your head, if you lied or not? I attack the sentences and that's it. I have to ask you if my interpretation (which I was going to prove that it's correct) adheres to what you intended? No I don't.

I never admitted that you've never made those claim. I was being polite, so I gave you two reasons (unintentionally and unknowingly) because if not then you must be a straight liar, or just doesn't even remember what you wrote.

On another note: in my memory "explicity" can also means: "clearly expressed," "clearly observable," so there's nothing wrong with using explicitly here, honestly. Since it can be replaced by "obviously" and such, and the meaning would not change much.

You are still sustaining the argumentum ad hominem circumstantial, as well as a correlated Straw Man, here. By interpreting my points in a different way from which I intended, even if you claim that I did it "unconsciously", you are still creating a corruption of my arguments, thus the Straw Man. The fact that the corruption takes the form of an attack on what is supposedly my personal bias simply serves to make it an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial at the same time.

See, that again. How can I know what was in your head. I understand what I see. Then I talk to you and you say I understand it wrong, I must not bash it since it will be fallacious. Yeah, right, how can I know if you are not lying, or just forget what you thought back then? What if you truly intended for the sentences to be so?

I was being very patient, so I wait for your reply to see if my interpretation was correct or not (assuming that you would never lie, for example). And you responded that my interpretation was not correct. But no, you didn't freaking stop there, you continued on into accusing me of a bunch of mistakes.

As far as I know, the term "grounding" refers to a basic foundation in something, as far as the dictionary definition went. Of course, it's possible that my dictionary is outdated, so if that's the case, please point me to a dictionary definition which concurs with your definition.

Honestly, I can't, because I don't have a dictionary here. But whatever, you understood my points, so if you try to bent it, you may fall into what you claim as "corruption" yourself.

Ipse-dixit. Please prove concretely how a philosophical shift in paradigm will lead to a scientific shift in paradigm.

Lol, because philosophy works on the axioms of science? Now if philosophy see something new in those axioms, it surely must affect science? I thought this was obvious.

Ignoration elenchi. Just because what you brought up may be valid in itself, does not necessarily mean that philosophy in general is of great importance to science. What you are attempting here is a mere proof by example,

Lol, I know it's an example. But as I expected you to say "please prove concretely how a philosophical shift in paradigm will lead to a scientific shift in paradigm," I provided an example for you? Is that bad of me? Sorry, then, lol.

just because Godel's incompleteness theorem claims that a Theory of Everything is impossible, does it therefore follow that scientists should regard the pursuit for it as futile?

Yeah, many of them regard TOE as futile, actually. Then those who don't agree and continue to pursue, they use philosophy, again, to justify their pursuit.

So, yeah, philosophy is heavily used by both side to justify their reasons. And without a justifiable reason, they just cannot continue to work on what they believe, because they cannot believe in its goal.

So yeah, philosophy is important. And when we are at it, some say that science is in fact just another form of philosophy. I myself don't really agree to that view, yet I cannot completely refute it either. After all, Newton named his physics books as a philosophy book. And there are many other examples (yeah, this is not my proof, don't bash me again for such things, okay? I just give examples to show the weight of the point). Why don't you try to refute this view?

As for the last sentence....I thought we've already established that I was just attempting to wind Cipher up more than anything?

Huh? aren't you saying Classical philosophy is outdated?

You want to keep this up all week?

As if... If each post takes 5 minutes and everyday I have to get 6 posts, it's half an hour per day for this topic.

Final note: please refrain from immediately bashing every single one of my "mistakes." If you want me to explain everything fully in structure with such a topic, it would take no less than a huge essay. You must try to understand yourself that some casual or consequential points are intentionally left out and may be included later upon request. Posting on a forums has its limited.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Meh, I was in a good mood for some pranks. I expected nothing from it, did not expected you to take it seriously

If you would attempt to challenge me on a topic like this, at least now you know that I'm rather humorless when I'm being totally serious. Of course, that usually doesn't apply when I talk about topics less serious than this.

Your sentences tell me you made those claims. How can I possibly know what was in your head, if you lied or not? I attack the sentences and that's it. I have to ask you if my interpretation (which I was going to prove that it's correct) adheres to what you intended? No I don't.

You don't have to ask me anything of the sort; I'm merely analysing your claims on my own accord. Therefore, if you make any claims about my position which is categorically false, it falls upon me to debunk these claims by any means necessary. I have already determined how you were most likely planning to support your claims, and so all I did was to point out the flaws in your logic preemptively.

I never admitted that you've never made those claim. I was being polite, so I gave you two reasons (unintentionally and unknowingly) because if not then you must be a straight liar, or just doesn't even remember what you wrote.

That is an outright lie; you have very clearly agreed with me that I never said anything of the sort. Additionally, you are presenting me with a False Dilemma; by attempting to exclude the possibility that I have never made these claims in the first place, you are trying to force me into a false dichotomy within which you can attempt an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial on me. I can only imagine that you are doing thus out of bad faith against me.

On another note: in my memory "explicity" can also means: "clearly expressed," "clearly observable," so there's nothing wrong with using explicitly here, honestly. Since it can be replaced by "obviously" and such, and the meaning would not change much.

Equivocation (semantic shift variant). If you feel the need to slowly shift the meaning of the word in order to pursue your fruitless course in persecuting my statements now, I can only assume that you never had a solid basis for your claims to begin with.

See, that again. How can I know what was in your head. I understand what I see. Then I talk to you and you say I understand it wrong, I must not bash it since it will be fallacious. Yeah, right, how can I know if you are not lying, or just forget what you thought back then? What if you truly intended for the sentences to be so?

I was being very patient, so I wait for your reply to see if my interpretation was correct or not (assuming that you would never lie, for example). And you responded that my interpretation was not correct. But no, you didn't freaking stop there, you continued on into accusing me of a bunch of mistakes.

If you would attempt to use emotive language to undermine both my claims and my character, I would assume you would be prepared to face complete countermeasures and maximum retaliation from my side. If you would afford yourself the right to attack my reasoning, do you not practise hypocrisy in protesting my right to respond in equal measure, particularly if I can demonstrate the flaws in your reasoning to be valid?

Honestly, I can't, because I don't have a dictionary here. But whatever, you understood my points, so if you try to bent it, you may fall into what you claim as "corruption" yourself.

Just like you claimed earlier, we "miscommunicated" earlier because we were using completely different definitions of certain words. The only reason I have yet to declare your committing yet another fallacy here, is because I am truly unsure whether there is a dictionary reference that supports the meaning you attached to these certain words. Therefore, point me to something concrete supporting your definition and I'll concede, or alternatively, you may concede.

Lol, because philosophy works on the axioms of science? Now if philosophy see something new in those axioms, it surely must affect science? I thought this was obvious.

No, give me concrete proof that a mere change in philosophical viewpoints can completely change the nature of the scientific method, and we'll talk.

Lol, I know it's an example. But as I expected you to say "please prove concretely how a philosophical shift in paradigm will lead to a scientific shift in paradigm," I provided an example for you? Is that bad of me? Sorry, then, lol.

If you are completely ignoring the information I am offering you through the links, as I suspect you are doing, then I have no choice but to point out why I refuse to accept your example as concrete proof; because it is but a singular example, which is not proof of the same thing happening in general, and which I gave a counterpoint to in any case.

Yeah, many of them regard TOE as futile, actually. Then those who don't agree and continue to pursue, they use philosophy, again, to justify their pursuit.

So, yeah, philosophy is heavily used by both side to justify their reasons. And without a justifiable reason, they just cannot continue to work on what they believe, because they cannot believe in its goal.

Ignoratio elenchi. Just because philosophy can be used to justify the pursuit of facts through the scientific method, does not mean that philosophy has a direct influence on the findings that the scientific method can discover.

So yeah, philosophy is important. And when we are at it, some say that science is in fact just another form of philosophy. I myself don't really agree to that view, yet I cannot completely refute it either. After all, Newton named his physics books as a philosophy book. And there are many other examples (yeah, this is not my proof, don't bash me again for such things, okay? I just give examples to show the weight of the point). Why don't you try to refute this view?

I don't intend to, because in a sense, whoever you claim that said that science is another form of philosophy is right in a sense; it actually had its origins in "natural philosophy", which is also why Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was titled as a book on, specifically, "natural philosophy". The term "science" as we know it didn't originate until the 19th Century; what we're arguing about now is this very same modern science, whose main difference from everything before it (including the natural philosophy from which it sprung) is the prevalence of the scientific method. This is the main reason why I, and I would assume anyone else on my side of the debate, would consider philosophy as we know it today, to be distinct from science; the lack of the scientific method.

Huh? aren't you saying Classical philosophy is outdated?

Firstly, I stated that the concept of "God" as an explanation for the gaps still unanswered by science was the outdated concept. Secondly, I did admit that I only stated that simply to rile Cipher up; I had no intention of defending it as a valid argument.

Final note: please refrain from immediately bashing every single one of my "mistakes." If you want me to explain everything fully in structure with such a topic, it would take no less than a huge essay. You must try to understand yourself that some casual or consequential points are intentionally left out and may be included later upon request. Posting on a forums has its limited.

The nature of logical fallacies are that, if you make them, it immediately makes your entire argument invalid. Therefore, I am within my rights to point them out as I see them; if you want me to avoid attempting such a tactic, the onus is on you to provide logically sound arguments.

[Vexx]

This thread is a poster child example of why Debate and Logic should be required subjects in school for all students.

[Cinocard]

I hope you mean something positive for Ascaloth and me here, Vexx

Therefore, if you make any claims about my position which is categorically false. I have already determined how you were most likely planning to support your claims, and so all I did was to point out the flaws in your logic preemptively

Be sure to answer this in the next post, if you still have the patience to go on: Why is it categorically false? Because you didn't mean anything of the sort when you wrote them?

See, if you had actually let me try to work on in, then being able to point of my mistake after, I would have lived with it. But you "already determined" what I was going to do, and you deemed it as fallacious, hence saying I already committed a Straw Man. Don't you see how wrong it is?

That is an outright lie; you have very clearly agreed with me that I never said anything of the sort.

No, no, no, no, not again. We are being in a circular motion or sth.

I said: you made your point something of the sort, but the reason you refuse to accept it now is because you said so unintentionally (1) or unconsciously (2) or you just lie (3) or just changed your mind and don't even remember exactly what you wanted to say (4). I've always maintained: you did said something of that sort.

Then I ask you if you acknowledge the ideas I saw in your sentences as same or different from your ideas, because I'm only interested in ideas, and if your and mine is the same, I saw no need to pursue further. Because that would only result in you admitting to be (1) or (2) or (3) or (4) when you said them. But if your present ideas are the same as mine, it's enough.

by attempting to exclude the possibility that I have never made these claims in the first place,

No, as I just said above, I might go on to prove, linguistically, that your sentences consisted of those "claims." If I had tried to prove it, and if you had refute it soundly, then obviously the possibility that you have never made those claims becomes a fact. But we've never done that, because you said

Any such deduction of the points I have made would nevertheless be a corruption of the original meaning of said points, and thus you would still be committing a Straw Man. Therefore, I would advise you to desist from pursuing a deduction of this nature

See it clearly? I was going to prove they are not corrupted or anything, strictly linguistics, at the least. But you instantly deemed it as impossible. So we have been stuck there ever since.

All I was arguing was for a justified reason to prove that "the possibility that I(Ascaloth) have never made these claims in the first place," is false. But if you already say that it's gonna be wrong before I even start, why do I bother?

Equivocation (semantic shift variant). If you feel the need to slowly shift the meaning of the word in order to pursue your fruitless course in persecuting my statements now, I can only assume that you never had a solid basis for your claims to begin with

Dictionary.com. "Explicitly." You can see they say "Readily observable" or "Fully and clearly expressed" if you scroll down a little

If you would attempt to use emotive language to undermine both my claims and my character, I would assume you would be prepared to face complete countermeasures and maximum retaliation from my side.

There are times things are so obvious in my opinion, yet we go nowhere. I list out the possibility of you lying not to undermine anyone or anything, just to list out every possible reasons that I can think of that make you "refuse to accept it(the claims) now."

The only reason I have yet to declare your committing yet another fallacy here, is because I am truly unsure whether there is a dictionary reference

Yup, you are tempted here to prove I was wrong, linguistically, right. But when I was going to do the same earlier, you categorized me instantly as corrupting your sentences and meaning, right? Honestly, can't you see the similarity?

No, give me concrete proof that a mere change in philosophical viewpoints can completely change the nature of the scientific method, and we'll talk.

Lol, if logic turns out to be wrong, then the nature of the scientific method also turns out to be wrong?

If you are completely ignoring the information I am offering you through the links, as I suspect you are doing, then I have no choice but to point out why I refuse to accept your example as concrete proof

Yeah, I think I made a mistake there, understanding "concrete" as "constituting an actual thing or instance." A concrete proof can sometime be understood as a specific example (you can look up in any dictionary). So I said what I said.

But I think we all agree that "concrete" should have been understood kinda like proving it definitely, generally. So another "miscommunication," but this time the bad is on my part.

Just because philosophy can be used to justify the pursuit of facts through the scientific method, does not mean that philosophy has a direct influence on the findings that the scientific method can discover.

No, no. Of course if tomorrow Ford produced full solar cars and philosophers found out that 1+1 can be equal 2 OR 3, solar cars are still solar cars, and they still better for the environment, despite that if 1+1=3, all the theorem used to build the cars become fundamentally wrong. Philosophical change of views has little to do with our everyday life, honestly. Like how when Einstein discovered general relativity, we still fall with a force of F=mg.

A scientific discovery is a discovery. If it's empirically correct, then even if it's actually fundamentally wrong there's no real impact to its practical usage. And philosophy tends to do with "little things" (which are actually big in meaning (not practical meaning) if we think about it), so it often has no easily-observable impact to the discovery of science.

But in the long run science can get only so far with a shaky, limited and fundamentally wrong foundation, I think we can all agree with that. Philosophy started the engine of science, refines those foundations, and thus enable science to advance further in the future than what it can.

Think about it. Philosophy is like a guideline. I can say that all prominent scientists belong to a school of philosophy and way of thinking.

modern science, whose main difference from everything before it (including the natural philosophy from which it sprung) is the prevalence of the scientific method.

Um, the so-called "scientific method" is directly "invented" in philosophy (coined by philosophers, supported by them, and become schools in philosophy (pragmatism, behaviorism and such), and based on philosophical grounding (if you read how modern philosophers defend and support scientific method). So saying that it belongs to philosophy kinda makes sense to, doesn't it?

And if someone says: "to think is to be philosophical," everything that makes you think hard automatically belongs to philosophy. So it's very hard to argue against.

Firstly, I stated that the concept of "God" as an explanation for the gaps still unanswered by science was the outdated concept. Secondly, I did admit that I only stated that simply to rile Cipher up; I had no intention of defending it as a valid argument.

Hm, I remember that you explicitly said in a concrete sentence that "classical philosophy is outdated" or sth like that. I may try to reread the posts later to find out where it is. Not sure who is right here, since we both only "remember" anyway. But anway, at least we can get something out of our way.

The nature of logical fallacies are that, if you make them, it immediately makes your entire argument invalid. Therefore, I am within my rights to point them out as I see them; if you want me to avoid attempting such a tactic, the onus is on you to provide logically sound arguments

Lol, then if I write something then include in my post something (very dumb) like: "to reduce the post length, supports may be included later," You will instead of saying I succumb to those mistake immediately, say "how about you give me your support now," right? At least it has a nicer ring to it. Most of the time I'm fully aware of what my post is still lacking. But it's hard to say all in one post, so to be thrown at my face with a bunch of wiki links right away doesn't feel nice.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Be sure to answer this in the next post, if you still have the patience to go on: Why is it categorically false? Because you didn't mean anything of the sort when you wrote them?

See, if you had actually let me try to work on in, then being able to point of my mistake after, I would have lived with it. But you "already determined" what I was going to do, and you deemed it as fallacious, hence saying I already committed a Straw Man. Don't you see how wrong it is?

You already committed the Straw Man when you first argued that I was claiming something I was never intending to claim; that by any account is misrepresentation of my original points, and thus the said logical fallacy. Therefore, any attempt of yours to try and put weight behind your accusation merely amounts to supporting what was already logically fallacious to begin with.

Quite apart from pointing out the flaws in your logic, I am actually also trying to save the both of us some time here, pal. I am only accusing you of committing one logical fallacy now; if you insist on pursuing this course, on your head be it for potentially provoking me to drown you under a barrage of your own logical fallacies.

No, no, no, no, not again. We are being in a circular motion or sth.

I said: you made your point something of the sort, but the reason you refuse to accept it now is because you said so unintentionally (1) or unconsciously (2) or you just lie (3) or just changed your mind and don't even remember exactly what you wanted to say (4). I've always maintained: you did said something of that sort.

Then I ask you if you acknowledge the ideas I saw in your sentences as same or different from your ideas, because I'm only interested in ideas, and if your and mine is the same, I saw no need to pursue further. Because that would only result in you admitting to be (1) or (2) or (3) or (4) when you said them. But if your present ideas are the same as mine, it's enough.

So in other words, you are continuing to assert that I claimed what you interpreted me to have claimed, despite my already having denied it and having pointed out the logical fallacy behind your reasoning. That by any definition is a Proof by Assertion, because you are stubbornly refusing to consider the possibility that I have never claimed anything of the sort, and trying to force me into a False Dilemma where to you, "I did (1)" or "I did (2)" without considering the possibility that "I didn't".

It's frankly appalling how far you can take your bad faith against me. Seriously, sod off.

All I was arguing was for a justified reason to prove that "the possibility that I(Ascaloth) have never made these claims in the first place," is false. But if you already say that it's gonna be wrong before I even start, why do I bother?

Like I've already pointed out above, such an attempt would only be a Straw Man of my actual arguments, and thus logically fallacious no matter which every way you try to "prove" it. So really, no, you don't have to bother.

Dictionary.com. "Explicitly." You can see they say "Readily observable" or "Fully and clearly expressed" if you scroll down a little

I note "Fully and clearly expressed", which your usage of the word "grounding" was anything but.

There are times things are so obvious in my opinion, yet we go nowhere. I list out the possibility of you lying not to undermine anyone or anything, just to list out every possible reasons that I can think of that make you "refuse to accept it(the claims) now."

In other words, you are merely perpetuating a series of argumentum ad hominem circumstantial against me. Noted.

Yup, you are tempted here to prove I was wrong, linguistically, right. But when I was going to do the same earlier, you categorized me instantly as corrupting your sentences and meaning, right? Honestly, can't you see the similarity?

The difference between you and me is that I can recognize when I don't have a clear-cut case against you, and thus resist temptation. That, I'm afraid, seems to be more than can be said about you.

Lol, if logic turns out to be wrong, then the nature of the scientific method also turns out to be wrong?

Meaningless statement. I asked for concrete proof, not yet another logical fallacy.

Yeah, I think I made a mistake there, understanding "concrete" as "constituting an actual thing or instance." A concrete proof can sometime be understood as a specific example (you can look up in any dictionary). So I said what I said.

But I think we all agree that "concrete" should have been understood kinda like proving it definitely, generally. So another "miscommunication," but this time the bad is on my part.

Admission of error accepted.

A scientific discovery is a discovery. If it's empirically correct, then even if it's actually fundamentally wrong there's no real impact to its practical usage. And philosophy tends to do with "little things" (which are actually big in meaning (not practical meaning) if we think about it), so it often has no easily-observable impact to the discovery of science.

But in the long run science can get only so far with a shaky, limited and fundamentally wrong foundation, I think we can all agree with that. Philosophy started the engine of science, refines those foundations, and thus enable science to advance further in the future than what it can.

Think about it. Philosophy is like a guideline. I can say that all prominent scientists belong to a school of philosophy and way of thinking.

Petitio principii. You are assuming that philosophy has the capability to prove that the foundations of modern science are fundamentally wrong, when it has anything but.

Um, the so-called "scientific method" is directly "invented" in philosophy (coined by philosophers, supported by them, and become schools in philosophy (pragmatism, behaviorism and such), and based on philosophical grounding (if you read how modern philosophers defend and support scientific method). So saying that it belongs to philosophy kinda makes sense to, doesn't it?

And if someone says: "to think is to be philosophical," everything that makes you think hard automatically belongs to philosophy. So it's very hard to argue against.

Ipse-dixit. Please cite your sources.

Lol, then if I write something then include in my post something (very dumb) like: "to reduce the post length, supports may be included later," You will instead of saying I succumb to those mistake immediately, say "how about you give me your support now," right? At least it has a nicer ring to it. Most of the time I'm fully aware of what my post is still lacking. But it's hard to say all in one post, so to be thrown at my face with a bunch of wiki links right away doesn't feel nice.

You say the last sentence like you think I give a damn about your feelings.

Again, the onus is on you to provide logically sound arguments, if you want me to stop picking your arguments apart for fallacies. I don't really care how you do it.


P.S. I have a midterm to study for. Don't be surprised if I don't appear here for a while; this takes up far too much time of mine as it is.

[Anh_Minh]

Cinocard: if you really want out of the loop, how about you actually try to prove your point, instead of claiming you could, but for some reason won't? In fact, why didn't you do it in the first place?

Also, if you're the only one to see that interpretation, and it requires a long explanation based on Old English and obscure grammatical points, I'm not sure how the qualifier "explicit" applies.

[Cinocard]

Cinocard: if you really want out of the loop, how about you actually try to prove your point, instead of claiming you could, but for some reason won't? In fact, why didn't you do it in the first place?

Because before I was going to do it, my "opponent" already claimed I was going to fall anyway. So accepting hes right will make all the proof later mumbo jumbo, because it will automatically fail, as the accepted premised said, no?

When I ask him something along the line of: "you know that you are saying philosophy is unintelligible." If he answered: "yes, because it is," I will start my argument from there.

And if he said: "yeah, I said that, but I change my mind now," or "may be you just misinterpret it," or "may be I didn't construct my post carefully," I can say: "yeah whatever, your idea there does not contradict mine, then," live with it, and move on.

But what did he say? He immediately said something like: "straw man" and intentional "corruption of ideas" and wiki link and whatnot at my face. So I retaliated.

Spoiler for Ascaloth:

You already committed the Straw Man when you first argued that I was claiming something I was never intending to claim; that by any account is misrepresentation of my original points, and thus the said logical fallacy.

What you truly intended to claim has no importance. No one can verify what you really wanted to say back then. What's important is your sentences you wrote.

Linguistically, I believe it's possible to interpret your sentences as what I claimed they are. It can be failed, but why does it categorically fail?

So in other words, you are continuing to assert that I claimed what you interpreted me to have claimed, despite my already having denied it

I see, we have been having such a big disconnection in the discussion. I do not defend for now, I defend for what was back then, Acaloth. Reread the last part of page 9.

Spoiler for Log:

Originally Posted by Cinocard

As far as I can see, You have been screaming that philosophy is stupid and has no whatsoever connection with natural science?

Then on the next you immediately replied:

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Straw Man;

Had you, prior to my post, denied anything? No. So the me at the time that wrote that post had no idea about it. At that point, with a single sentence expressing my interpretation of your post (I even politely used "as far as I can see" and not a claim, mind you), you accused me of straw man right away.

I note "Fully and clearly expressed", which your usage of the word "grounding" was anything but.

What da ya mean?

In other words, you are merely perpetuating a series of argumentum ad hominem circumstantial against me. Noted.

You don't fully understand either "argumentum ad hominem circumstantial," or my point.

Why do you refute me? If you are rational (which you are), it must have a reason:
1. What I claimed your sentences claim is wrong. Your points were different, and your sentences really does fully convey your points. Thus, you refute.
2. What I claimed your sentences claim is correct, but your sentences points differ from what you expected (unknowingly or unintentionally). Thus, you refute.
3. What I claimed your sentences claim is correct, but you don't want to admit it (lying). Thus you refute.
4. What I claimed your sentences claim is correct, but you just don't even remember what you wanted to say back then. And you thought what it's saying according to me now is wrong. So you refute.

The premise is: Is my interpretation of your sentences correct or wrong? What goes after absolutely does not add weight to the truth of the premise. Therefore, it's not argumentum ad hominem circumstantial.

On the other hand, you claimed that "your points were different," (A) but what your points were does not concern what meaning your sentences have, therefore, it does not concern if "your sentences really does fully convey your points" (B). But you have been claiming (A) to refute (B), which is not right.

The difference between you and me is that I can recognize when I don't have a clear-cut case against you, and thus resist temptation. That, I'm afraid, seems to be more than can be said about you.

You have yet to try focusing your attack on the linguistics part.

But neither do I.

I argue, because I didn't do it, but you still accuse me something out of it.

I asked for concrete proof, not yet another logical fallacy.

Why is it a fallacy? I think "if logic turns out to be wrong, then the nature of the scientific method also turns out to be wrong" is a fully developed statement.

Petitio principii. You are assuming that philosophy has the capability to prove that the foundations of modern science are fundamentally wrong, when it has anything but.

Before Godel, people think mathematics is exhaustible. After Godel, people think not.

So the foundation of mathematics turned out to be wrong.

Hence, the statement: "philosophy does not have the capability to prove that the foundations of modern science are fundamentally wrong" is false. Then the result is that the statement: "philosophy has the capability to prove that the foundations of modern science are fundamentally wrong."

You can say I commit a black-or-white fallacy here, only if you can derive a third situation differ from both "have the capability" and "not have the capability."

Ipse-dixit. Please cite your sources

I supppose you don't read any of John Dewey's or William James's books, then.

Heck, use the wiki link you gave me. Read carefully, you can see most of the name mentioned were philosophers. Then scroll down to the part: "Model of scientific inquiry." Pragmatism right there. Then go on to the "Philosophy and sociology of science" part. Next, go to the "history of scientific method" page, and see how philosphers over centuries have defended built that system.

You say the last sentence like you think I give a damn about your feelings

That, you have a point there.

[Proto]

Oh c'mon, if you are going to continue with the fallacies galore, at use use the funny ones. I want to see a Chewbacca defense!! (yes, that was a sarcasm. If someone quotes the article for appeal to ridicule I will go and smack him personally)

Ahemm... back to seriousland, maybe we should get back to discuss about (ctrl-c)Varieties of Theism: Monotheism, Polytheism, Deism, Pantheism, and More(ctrl-v). You know, being on topic and what not. This meta discussion has gone on so long that I'm starting to believe we should just start another thread about it or something.

---

One of the problems I've seen in folklore like views of the universe that add a little spirit to every little being and thing of the universe (ala Shinotism) or that speak of a superior greater force that is composed of the union of all the separate individual consciousness in an environment (the Gaia hypothesis) is that, while they are colourful they do nothing to further explain the inner workings behind how the universe is what it is. AKA, if we were to apply Occam's razor here, such folklore vision of the universe would be the first to fall out before more pragmatic and minimalist explanations.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Cinocard

Ascaloth, I will respond later. No time now.



Because before I was going to do it, my "opponent" already claimed I was going to fall anyway. So accepting hes right will make all the proof later mumbo jumbo, because it will automatically fail, as the accepted premised said, no?

No. You see, the proper response to someone predicting you'll fail is to prove him wrong by succeeding. What you did was waste everyone's time by refusing to do so. I note that you still haven't tried. How long has it been?

When I ask him something along the line of: "you know that you are saying philosophy is unintelligible." If he answered: "yes, because it is," I will start my argument from there.

And if he said: "yeah, I said that, but I change my mind now," or "may be you just misinterpret it," or "may be I didn't construct my post carefully," I can say: "yeah whatever, your idea there does not contradict mine, then," live with it, and move on.

So you totally failed to steer the conversation because you relied on sketchy interpretation of someone's words and refused to even acknowledge the possibility that you were the one in the wrong. Why didn't you move on and either try to prove your case or concede?

But what did he say? He immediately said something like: "straw man" and intentional "corruption of ideas" and wiki link and whatnot at my face. So I retaliated.

Yes, which is his way of saying "I didn't say what you claim I said". Which is a perfectly reasonable answer - unless you prove otherwise.