And if I was able to take a plane to the Illuminati HQ (if they have one) I would be able to see that they exist. Where is your physical evidence you can observe? Oh, you mean the evidence that scientists have claimed they have observed?
I can't believe you're arguing against proven science and history just to illustrate that a massive global government is controlling us.
As Snatchmasta said, "you simply will refuse to believe they don't exist, even if we prove it logically."
It is, as Snatchmasta also said, begging the question. Circular reasoning.
Begging the question is similar to the fallacy of many questions: a fallacy of technique that results from presenting evidence in support of a conclusion that is less likely to be accepted, rather than merely asserting the conclusion. A specific form of this is reducing an assertion to an instance of a more general assertion which is no more known to be true than the more specific assertion:
All intentional acts of killing human beings are morally wrong.
The death penalty is an intentional act of killing a human being.
You claim that anything decrying the existence of illuminati must actually be supporting them. You claim anything related to the devil, 9/11, and a whole plethora of nonsense must also be supporting, or somehow involved with an illuminati conspiracy. There is no room in your theory for logic.
It's called an example. You put as much faith in your scientists as I do in my research to support the Illuminati. I don't see much argument on your side besides "LOL REALLY ITS SCIENCE MAN CMON!"
As Snatchmasta said, "you simply will refuse to believe they don't exist, even if we prove it logically."
But everyone else does. You're one of many people, on many forums or in many different places, using the same arguments. Most of whom will say that people who don't believe them are either ignorant, or working for the Illuminati.
It's called an example. You put as much faith in your scientists as I do in my research to support the Illuminati. I don't see much argument on your side besides "LOL REALLY ITS SCIENCE MAN CMON!"
I put faith in my FACTS. If you want to go ahead and say the whole world is speculation, then I'm going to laugh my way to the bank, because it's a done deal if you're going to dribble on and on about how the Illuminati is real due to testimony of a few officials.
It's funny, because if we want to take it that far, then an opinion could be a fact, due to the fact that facts can be disputed (even though they're...woops.... FACTS) on the basis that thousands (if not millions) of scientists -- around the globe throughout history -- confirm these things to be true that might not be true.
You do realize you're verging on a slippery slope, right?
You guys are debating the wrong point. Even if the 400 people who "claim" they are in Illuminati are the only 400 members, THEY EXIST. The debatable (don't know if that's a word) part is how big are they, and how powerful are they. 400 People is enough for you to call it a secret society, for if 400 people claim to be a part of a frat, does that frat exist?
You guys are debating the wrong point. Even if the 400 people who "claim" they are in Illuminati are the only 400 members, THEY EXIST. The debatable (don't know if that's a word) part is how big are they, and how powerful are they. 400 People is enough for you to call it a secret society, for if 400 people claim to be a part of a frat, does that frat exist?
In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."
source
You still haven't provided us with any materiel verifying this claim of 400 supporters. If 2.1 BILLION Christians believe in god, does that mean god exists? Many of those christians claim to have at one point communicated with god on a personal level, does that mean god exists as well? The raw testimony of only 400 people means nothing.
It doesn't disprove it either. The christian god MIGHT exist, but I'm going to say it doesn't. Based on my research, all the interviews, articles, coincidences, interviews, etc. etc. etc., I'm going to say the illuminati exist.. Obviously this can go for same as any other religion, but religion can clearly be disproved at many points. (Such as thousands of shit in the bible they obviously has never happened) This isn't the same for the illuminati though.
It doesn't disprove it either. The christian god MIGHT exist, but I'm going to say it doesn't. Based on my research, all the interviews, articles, coincidences, interviews, etc. etc. etc., I'm going to say the illuminati exist.. Obviously this can go for same as any other religion, but religion can clearly be disproved at many points. (Such as thousands of shit in the bible they obviously has never happened) This isn't the same for the illuminati though.
Wrong word bro. And how can you not use 400 testiments about the same oranization, and if their are only 400 members, it doesn't matter they exist... If those 400 are Illuminati then they exist that simple. Whether or not they are as powerful/big is debatable. They do no "believe" the illuminati exists, THEY ARE IN IT.
Wrong word bro. And how can you not use 400 testiments about the same oranization, and if their are only 400 members, it doesn't matter they exist... If those 400 are Illuminati then they exist that simple. Whether or not they are as powerful/big is debatable. They do no "believe" the illuminati exists, THEY ARE IN IT.
No. Its ironic, that on one hand, he's haranguing religion for being implausible, but at the same time he believes in a far fetched harebrained conspiracy theory. Just because 400 people claim to be illuminati, doesn't mean illuminati exist. You also haven't sourced your information.
No. Its ironic, that on one hand, he's haranguing religion for being implausible, but at the same time he believes in a far fetched harebrained conspiracy theory. Just because 400 people claim to be illuminati, doesn't mean illuminati exist. You also haven't sourced your information.
There are plenty of conspiracy theories of our government that have been proven true, however. This, along with everything else that adds up, is enough for me to be convinced that the Illuminati exist.
No. Its ironic, that on one hand, he's haranguing religion for being implausible, but at the same time he believes in a far fetched harebrained conspiracy theory. Just because 400 people claim to be illuminati, doesn't mean illuminati exist. You also haven't sourced your information.
If a Mormon came to you with the Book of Mormon and the Bible and said they were true because one of them was more recent and one was older, and they have a couple hundred thousand members, would you believe them? As Snatchmasta has said (for what, the 4th time?), you're using the same evidence over and over, and refuse to either prove it through your own words, or give outside evidence that doesn't include "LOL READ MY BOOKS".
The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
The burden of proof is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position.
"The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."
He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party. However the incidence of burden of proof is affected by common law, statute and procedure.
The burden of proof is an especially important issue in law and science.
So you're allowed to assume they exist all you want. But to make the claim that they exist, you must prove it to us. Stating "read these books, listen to these 400 testimonies" is about as much proof as my example earlier. The Catholic Church's written statements that the Sun orbits the Earth. People believed that, people witnessed it. But it was proven wrong by the studies of Da Vinci.
Now you could say that we only put faith into Da Vinci's teachings, but then you look at modern science and you realize that maybe there's some truth to this when thousands of scientists, and the entire world seems to agree here.
Of course, everything is subject to change. Scientists said that no particles can go faster than the speed of light. They're now saying they have studies that suggest that there can be particles that can be accelerated past the speed of light.
What you have is called deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning has 3 parts:
Major premise: A fact that is general and is always true
Minor Premise: A fact that is specific to the situation
Conclusion: a conclusion reached from the premises
Example:
All men are mortal
John is a man
John is mortal
So the correct argument for you to make is:
Testimony form others is always true
The Illuminati have testimony regarding it's existence
The Illuminati exist
Notice the red words in the major premise. They are wrong
Your argument is disproven
This is what we learned in school yesterday.
EDIT: Apparantly I misunderstood your position. Sorry.
On the other hand, JC is kinda right when he says there are 400 members of the illuminati.
Technically, anybody can say "hey, Imma go create a group called the illuminati on Facebook" and have a group called the Iluminati. Or make it a nonprofit org or something.
EDIT: Apparantly I misunderstood your position. Sorry.
On the other hand, JC is kinda right when he says there are 400 members of the illuminati.
Technically, anybody can say "hey, Imma go create a group called the illuminati on Facebook" and have a group called the Iluminati. Or make it a nonprofit org or something.
And that's almost what I was trying to get at, in any case. Like "Anonymous". Anyone can say it, and they could even whole-heartedly believe it. But the problem is that there are so many interpretations of the idea that you can't really say what's what.
However, what JC is talking about is 400 members who are prominent figures. People that could have been in positions of power. I really don't delve into the "who's who" in these things, because of the simple fact that the amount of speculation going into it doesn't make it credible to me (Not to say speculation is bad, but the speculation considered to be fact is bad).
This argument has gone nowhere, I may as well go ask a mod to close it because it's just a circular argument on yours and JC's behalf that revolves around this:
Present points/books/speculation
Challenged by opponents
Explain that you need to read the books/listen to the testimony and believe
Continue to be challenged
Repeat 3 and 4 for the past couple pages. You never once give a piece of evidence that can be confirmed apart from testimony (never truly credible unless polygraphed/psycho analyzed), and a book or two.
Illuminati
