Moon landing vs. vrigin birth!

[R_Daneel]

yeah, you admitted it.
you attempted to deny that it didnt by presenting the weak version of verification.

I wonder, what do you smoke to achieve this level of non-comprehension? The incorrect, orginal version does. That is why no one subscribes to it any more. The correct version does not.

please, feel free to explain how this indicates a state of cognitive dissonance?

See right above. Even the meaning of simple, plain English sentences evade you. Presumably, because they are smart, and do not wish to be associated with such a confused “mind”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I wonder, what do you smoke to achieve this level of non-comprehension?

i completely comprehend that statements like this are an attempt to distract by bluster instead of using reason to support your positions

The incorrect, orginal version does.

its not incorrect, its the strong version of verification.

That is why no one subscribes to it any more. The correct version does not.

its not ‘correct’ its simply the weak version of verification. it fails for completely different reasons, which is why almost no one subscribes to it any more.

you supported the strong version for hundreds of posts. why backpedal now?

See right above. Even the meaning of simple, plain English sentences evade you.

how about answering the question? specifically,how does this demonstrate cognitive dissonance? if you need to look it up, feel free. im interested in an actual explanation. the above doent explain any relation to the concept of cognitive dissonance.

Presumably, because they are smart, and do not wish to be associated with such a confused “mind”.

im not the one who has had to have his own argument explained to him tweice in the last 24 hours.

ive noticed that you have given up actual argumentation for now, i hope that means you are doing some research.

 

[R_Daneel]

you supported the strong version for hundreds of posts. why backpedal now?

I have been around these boards much longer than you have, and had similar conversations about the same question. (Way back, when there was no philosophy forum at all.) The same argument has been posted as yours. The one and only difference was that the other party was not a moron, and it took one post to explain that I do not belong to the camp of logical positivism (the “strong version” as you call it). He understood, and that was that. It happened a few times later, and again, every time it took only one post to clear out the misunderstanding.

For you, with your almost nonexistent comprehensive skills (aka. cognitive dissonance), it took weeks and many dozens (maybe hundreds) of post to dawn on you. And then instead of admitting your lack of understanding you keep on asserting that I was talking about the “strong” version and that I am now back-pedaling. Is there no level of intellectual dishonesty that you will not lower yourself into? But I may be wrong here. Maybe you are not intellectually dishonest (after all that would require intelligence), just plain dumb. On second thought, this is more likely.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have been around these boards much longer than you have,

as we both predate computer boards, i dont think you have any basis for this statement. at least i have a few thousand posts on this board alone.

and had similar conversations about the same question. (Way back, when there was no philosophy forum at all.) The same argument has been posted as yours.

of course, this was known before i was born

The one and only difference was that the other party was not a moron,

im sure the other party wasnt.

and it took one post to explain that I do not belong to the camp of logical positivism (the “strong version” as you call it).

funny, but both versions are the result of logical positivism. the weak version is dead because it doesnt provide a way to exclude religious or metaphysical statements. which i am still waiting to demonstrate, if you decide to defend yet another dead theory in the philosophy of science.

He understood, and that was that. It happened a few times later, and again, every time it took only one post to clear out the misunderstanding.

then why did you stick with it for hundreds of posts, and now, apparently arent going to defend the weak verification?

this isnt passing the smell test.

For you, with your almost nonexistent comprehensive skills (aka. cognitive dissonance),

thats not what cognitive dissonance means

it took weeks and many dozens (maybe hundreds) of post to dawn on you.

you only abandoned the strong principle when you had no choice because i kept up the pressure till you were cornered.

And then instead of admitting your lack of understanding you keep on asserting that I was talking about the “strong” version and that I am now back-pedaling.

please, then, post where in philosophical literature where you find the strong and weak versions of verification refered to as ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’

it took a while to catch on, because in your general lack of familiarity with the subject, you kept refering to one and the other as the ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ ones. need i cut and paste those phrases?

but you didnt even do that until you realized that verification is actually self refuting. though i had to post it a great many times. you could have simply read my links the first time i posted them.

Is there no level of intellectual dishonesty that you will not lower yourself into?

better to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, than to admit you didnt know something? please, then post where in philosophical literature where you find the strong and weak versions of verification refered to as ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’

they are both incorrect, in that they both failed.

But I may be wrong here. Maybe you are not intellectually dishonest (after all that would require intelligence), just plain dumb. On second thought, this is more likely.

more bluster. insulting people who demonstrate an insufficiency on the part of your arguments isnt going to make them right. it just shows cognitive dissonance.

and im still waiting for you to defend the weak verification principle.

 

[R_Daneel]

funny, but both versions are the result of logical positivism. the weak version is dead because it doesnt provide a way to **exclude **religious or metaphysical statements.

You probably wanted to say “include”. Don’t you ever re-read your posts before you hit the button? There is no epistemological system that can decide the veracity of meaningless propositions. The statements of metaphysics are either obvious, or they are empty speculations. The propostions of religions do not refer to reality, they reflect wishful thinking.

then why did you stick with it for hundreds of posts, and now, apparently arent going to defend the weak verification?

you only abandoned the strong principle when you had no choice because i kept up the pressure till you were cornered.

Why don’t you go back and quote those posts where I allegedly defended the “strong” version? Apparently you never understood my posts if you think that. No surprise, since you did not understand the difference between the universal and the existential operators - which is the difference between them. You keep on embarrassing yourself.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You probably wanted to say “include”.

no, i meant to say exclude. havent you done any research

There is no epistemological system that can decide the veracity of meaningless propositions.

no one is talking about meaningless propositions.

The statements of metaphysics are either obvious, or they are empty speculations.

no, its a pure logic as any logical system is. you should really stop speaking about subjects you refuse to research.

The propostions of religions do not refer to reality, they reflect wishful thinking.

how do you know this to be the case? id love to hear a defense of weak verification.

hint.

when you weaken the verification principle to “some” statements, it provides no guide to ‘which’ statements.

hence, it allows metaphysical and religious statements. that is why it fails.

but im happy to hear your defense?

Why don’t you go back and quote those posts where I allegedly defended the “strong” version? Apparently you never understood my posts if you think that.

you never said you werent, i repeated that it was self refuting and why for hundreds of posts. you could have addressed it at any point, but you didnt for hundreds of posts.

i dont think that you always meant some other version, because if you did, then you should have mentioned it much quicker.

plus, why would you mean a different, but also long dead version? that doesnt make any sense.

No surprise, since you did not understand the difference between the universal and the existential operators - which is the difference between them.

and yet again, that has nothing to do with ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’. does it? if so please show me in the philosophical literature where it says that?

btw, you gonna defend the weak verification principle? or are we going to argue all the way through the last 40 years of the philosophy of science, until we reach the contemporary thought on the subject, where upon you will claim “thats what i always meant!”

 

[R_Daneel]

no, its a pure logic as any logical system is.

And therefore it is as good as the premises it is built upon. No matter how logical something might be, it is useless if not built upon sound foundation.

you never said you werent, i repeated that it was self refuting and why for hundreds of posts. you could have addressed it at any point, but you didnt for hundreds of posts.

What is this BS? The very first time you brought up that blog as your “evidence”, I immediately clarified, and pointed out that it is **not **what I was talking about. I expicitly explained what I meant. Yet, you kept of repeating the same nonsense. Go back and read it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And therefore it is as good as the premises it is built upon. No matter how logical something might be, it is useless if not built upon sound foundation.

thats right.

but i dont understand how you square this obvious truth with either empiricism or verification/falsification schemes?

they either self refute, or weaken to the point of being useless for the purpose?

What is this BS? The very first time you brought up that blog as your “evidence”, I immediately clarified, and pointed out that it is **not **what I was talking about. I expicitly explained what I meant. Yet, you kept of repeating the same nonsense. Go back and read it.

i didnt present that blog as evidence, you asked for a more specific statement, that was when the bloggers words were introduced, but ive been pointing out that verification/falsification schemes are self refuting, since the first mention of verification, both in this thread and in others. you asked for yet another statement of the principle and thats how we got to the bloggers words.

post #10 in the ‘necessity’ thread, and post # 80 in this thread.

 

[ZDHayden]

In general terms your remarks are correct. However, the question at hand is different. This whole problem came out of the epistemology for historical claims, which cannot be verified in a direct fashion. WSP assested (far too) many times, that the available evidence for the moon landing and the available evidence for virgin birth are “identical”. He keeps saying that it is irrational to accept the claim for the actual happening of the moon landing, while discarding the evidence for virgin birth. That is the topic for this thread.

Evidence for two different events is never identical. I have never understood how people could state that the landing on the moon was not an actual event… But that is a personal difficulty of mine. While I believe that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit and gave birth to Jesus Christ while not knowing (in the Biblical sense) man, said WSP is incorrect in stating that the evidence for both are identical in nature, if that is what you mean. We have texts to support the virgin birth; video feed for the lunar landing. Obviously not identical.

 

[R_Daneel]

Evidence for two different events is never identical. I have never understood how people could state that the landing on the moon was not an actual event… But that is a personal difficulty of mine. While I believe that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit and gave birth to Jesus Christ while not knowing (in the Biblical sense) man, said WSP is incorrect in stating that the evidence for both are identical in nature, if that is what you mean. We have texts to support the virgin birth; video feed for the lunar landing. Obviously not identical.

Thank you. This is **exactly **what I meant. They do not carry the same “convincing” value.

 

[Greg27]

Well, I think to equate the two is wrong for many reasons. The virgin birth is a theological doctrine or belief based on a certain interpretation of events recorded in the Bible, which if true, happened over 2000 or so years ago. These events, if they did in fact happen, also involved a ‘miracle’, a direct intervention by God in history.

The moon landing is a event that occured in very recent history and is much better documented and evidenced than the events which occured in the Bible. With the Gospels, we have writers composing reflective accounts of events that occured some decades in the past, based strongly on the beliefs and traditions the early Christian communities had about Jesus. The idea of a scientific proof or observation would make no sense to someone like the writer of the Gospel of Luke. While Luke’s account is meant to be rational and factual to a certain extent, the Gospel is more than just a plain eyewitness or Journalistic account of events that happened (or were believed to happen).

The Moon landing on the other hand, while difficult and expensive, involved no miracles and was not done or recorded for a theological purpose, nor did it require a miracle from God to accomplish.

 

[davidv]

Well, I think to equate the two is wrong for many reasons. The virgin birth is a theological doctrine or belief based on a certain interpretation of events recorded in the Bible, which if true, happened over 2000 or so years ago. These events, if they did in fact happen, also involved a ‘miracle’, a direct intervention by God in history.

This is not correct. The doctrine is not based on the an interpretation of the Bible. It is based on a historical event which was “recorded” in the oral history of the Church. This type of history has as much validity as that for the moon landing. That one is more believable is not based on the historicity but on ones world view.

The moon landing is a event that occured in very recent history and is much better documented and evidenced than the events which occured in the Bible. With the Gospels, we have writers composing reflective accounts of events that occured some decades in the past, based strongly on the beliefs and traditions the early Christian communities had about Jesus. The idea of a scientific proof or observation would make no sense to someone like the writer of the Gospel of Luke. While Luke’s account is meant to be rational and factual to a certain extent, the Gospel is more than just a plain eyewitness or Journalistic account of events that happened (or were believed to happen).

The Moon landing on the other hand, while difficult and expensive, involved no miracles and was not done or recorded for a theological purpose, nor did it require a miracle from God to accomplish.

Revealing one of the world views that causes the difference in the believability.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Im working massive amounts of overtime for the next 2 or 3 months, and dont have time to replay this and other threads, where i have proven time and again, that one must trust the historical evidence for the veracity of absolutely any event that they did not witness themselves. and, further, that the virgin birth is entirely possible, given technology that we currently understand and use. as Arthur C. Clarkes 1st law demonstrates, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I do not believe in magic, or that what we term “miracles” are magic. i believe it to be processes that we simply do not understand.

given that strong empiricism is self refuting, and that soft empiricism is vague to the point of meaninglessness. there is no reason to believe, as is commonly held, that any of the processes must be empirical in nature.

ergo. atheists, arguing against faith on the basis’ of empiricism, or the alleged impossibility of miracles, are commiting a a string of errors in their logic, namely, the fallacies of incredulity and ignorance, but also a misunderstanding of empiricism, and why it was a historical failure in the philosophy of science.

as i lack the time to deal with continued resistance to well settled areas of intellectual endeavor. i beg interested parties to read this and the other threads where we have spent hundreds of posts dissecting these ideas.

i would also like to point out that all of this is easily researchable over the net, especially the history of empiricism in the philosophy of science. Arthur C. Clarkes 3 laws, and the technologies of quantum teleportation, its near term future applications as well as DNA synthesis and how these currently understood technologies could be conceivably employed to create the Virgin Birth.

if we can concievably do it with modern or at least near term technology, that we currently understand, it is ludicrous to claim that it is impossible.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MAGIC.

i will unsubscribe from this thread, meaning that i will not see any further posts. i am too tempted to spend time i should be working, arguing about these subjects. hopefully in the next couple months some time will free up for these pursuits.

if you have any questions, please email me, and i will reply as oppurtunity allows, usually in the evenings. thanks.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Ok, it is definitely time to put an end to this nonsense. Our resident villager, WSP, keeps on asserting that the evidence for virgin birth (a virgin giving birth to a male offspring) is exactly as valid and convincing as the evidence for the moon landing. He **never **gives any details, just keeps on repeating it, over and over again, whether it is applicable to the thread, or not, thus attempting to derail every thread.

So, come up to the plate, and vote on this issue, if you are so inclined.

Evidence for the Moonlandings.

In the USA, you can still go and see the Apollo Hardware.

There are used Command Modules that are scorched by re-entry, Simulators of the Spacecraft and Guidance computers can be downloaded and you can figure out for yourself how it was done.

Radio Telemetry from the missions was analyzed around the world.

There is television and photographic footage of the missions.

Over 400,000 people were involved in the missions. I don’t know four people who could keep a secret for 40 years, let alone 400,000…

Orbital Mechanics are clearly understood.

Rocket motors can be seen operating in firing payloads into space on a regular basis.

Can anyone tell me a few verifiable details about God?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Im working massive amounts of overtime for the next 2 or 3 months, and dont have time to replay this and other threads, where i have proven time and again, that one must trust the historical evidence for the veracity of absolutely any event that they did not witness themselves.

One must, must one? Why? Why should I accept historical evidence of an event I consider to be utterly improbable?

If I bury a copy of the Matrix, and someone digs it up and watches it in 2000 years, do you seriously think they should accept that as evidence that in 1999 there was an all out war between men and computers from another planet?

Of course not. So why should I have to trust the scribblings of 2000 year old desert dwellers when it is not backed up by any tangible evidence?

I do not believe in magic, or that what we term “miracles” are magic. i believe it to be processes that we simply do not understand.

Your duty, if you do put stock in reason rather than belief or faith, is to suspend judgement until we simply do understand.

given that strong empiricism is self refuting, and that soft empiricism is vague to the point of meaninglessness. there is no reason to believe, as is commonly held, that any of the processes must be empirical in nature.

Find me an example of angular momentum being created out of thin vacuum, or an apple falling up in Earth’s gravity field, if you can?

ergo. atheists, arguing against faith on the basis’ of empiricism, or the alleged impossibility of miracles, are commiting a a string of errors in their logic, namely, the fallacies of incredulity and ignorance, but also a misunderstanding of empiricism, and why it was a historical failure in the philosophy of science.

The philosophy of science is as much use to a scientist as a maths degree is to a billiards player. Logic is always at risk of yielding meaningless results because if you put garbage into your calculus you will always get garbage out. Empirical science must be used to demonstrate that what one’s logic is based on holds water.

as i lack the time to deal with continued resistance to well settled areas of intellectual endeavor. i beg interested parties to read this and the other threads where we have spent hundreds of posts dissecting these ideas.

i would also like to point out that all of this is easily researchable over the net, especially the history of empiricism in the philosophy of science. Arthur C. Clarkes 3 laws, and the technologies of quantum teleportation, its near term future applications as well as DNA synthesis and how these currently understood technologies could be conceivably employed to create the Virgin Birth.

if we can concievably do it with modern or at least near term technology, that we currently understand, it is ludicrous to claim that it is impossible.

None of which alters the fact that there is not one shred of a single datum of evidence that it occurred 2000 years ago. Not a shred of evidence. Proving that something is not impossible and proving that it actually occurred are two vastly different propositions.

It’s not impossible that there’s a tea pot in orbit round Neptune at the moment, but if I was to try to push that idea on you, you would be quite right in pointing out that the likelyhood is so improbable that I would need to provide irrefutable evidence before you would take it seriously.

 

[Moonstruck888]

This is not correct. The doctrine is not based on the an interpretation of the Bible. It is based on a historical event which was “recorded” in the oral history of the Church. This type of history has as much validity as that for the moon landing. That one is more believable is not based on the historicity but on ones world view.

Sorry, no…

The Moon Landings are repeatable. That difference is key.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

One must, must one? Why? Why should I accept historical evidence of an event I consider to be utterly improbable?

If I bury a copy of the Matrix, and someone digs it up and watches it in 2000 years, do you seriously think they should accept that as evidence that in 1999 there was an all out war between men and computers from another planet?

Of course not. So why should I have to trust the scribblings of 2000 year old desert dwellers when it is not backed up by any tangible evidence?

Your duty, if you do put stock in reason rather than belief or faith, is to suspend judgement until we simply do understand.

Find me an example of angular momentum being created out of thin vacuum, or an apple falling up in Earth’s gravity field, if you can?

The philosophy of science is as much use to a scientist as a maths degree is to a billiards player. Logic is always at risk of yielding meaningless results because if you put garbage into your calculus you will always get garbage out. Empirical science must be used to demonstrate that what one’s logic is based on holds water.

None of which alters the fact that there is not one shred of a single datum of evidence that it occurred 2000 years ago. Not a shred of evidence. Proving that something is not impossible and proving that it actually occurred are two vastly different propositions.

It’s not impossible that there’s a tea pot in orbit round Neptune at the moment, but if I was to try to push that idea on you, you would be quite right in pointing out that the likelyhood is so improbable that I would need to provide irrefutable evidence before you would take it seriously.

apparently my attempt to unsubscribe did not work. i will try again.

that said, all the issues that you raise here have been adressed in this thread and others that you can find with the forums search function. thanks.

 

[davidv]

Sorry, no…

The Moon Landings are repeatable. That difference is key.

How so?

Is the assination of Lincoln repeatable? Shall we declare it false as a consequence?
Who has repeated the formation of the Grand Canyon? Are the theories of its formation false?

 

[Moonstruck888]

How so?

Is the assination of Lincoln repeatable? Shall we declare it false as a consequence?
Who has repeated the formation of the Grand Canyon? Are the theories of its formation false?

Actually, yes, canyon formation is repeatable… The grand canyon is not the only canyon on Earth or indeed the solar system…

And yes, the assassination of Lincoln is repeatable, as one John Fitzgerald Kennedy found out much to his supporters chagrin…

 

[davidv]

Actually, yes, canyon formation is repeatable… The grand canyon is not the only canyon on Earth or indeed the solar system…

And yes, the assassination of Lincoln is repeatable, as one John Fitzgerald Kennedy found out much to his supporters chagrin…

So, where and when was the “Grand Canyon” repeated. Where is this second Grand Canyon and what experiment created it.
Kennedy’s assassination did not rekill Lincoln.
Each these things is unrepeatable. Even so, there is truth about them that can be known.