@Snidely_Whiplash@Black_Rabbi@RenegadeScoutr@voxday
Them make an argument from evidence:
(a) what obvious falsehood did I state?
(b) what syllogism did I fail to understand? (you lying f—k)
Let me help you out a bit. So, I know you morons rely on supernaturalism, faith as equivalent to testimony, sophistry, and innumeracy, plus rather extraordinary ignorance of mathematics, in pilpul, critique, lying and denying.
But I suppose that you grasp that a syllogism constiutes a subset of the logic of inference, and within that logic of inference, a reliance on sets, and the failings of sets withing the logic of inference:
(a) all syllogistic arguments are predicated on assummed premises
(b) all such arguments are justificationary
(c) proofs are a statement of internal consistency only.
(d) there is no closure in (verbal) logic regardless of internal consistency
(e) closure requires operational logic – because operational logic tests causality.
(f) and so on the contrary, all set logic then at best is falsificationary with ‘proof’ limited to trivialities.
But of course, if you understood what you claim to, you would know that these are basic findings of the 20th century. And that’s just a quick sketch.
( And yes the audience of intelligent folk find these bitch-slaps to your infantile arrogance the subject of humor.)
So. Man up.