Moon landing vs. vrigin birth!

[warpspeedpetey]

You just postponed the question, instead of answering it. How do you decide whom to trust? If you would trust everyone, you would be hopelessly gullible. If you trust only those whose claim you happen to agree with, you are deluding yourself. If you trust those whose prior testimony you already investigated and found it correct, you rely on the inductive method (which you deny). Moreover, just because someone reported correctly before, it definitely does not guarantee that his current testimony is also correct. He may be mistaken or may be playing a practical joke on you.

If you meet someone, whom you never saw before, of whom you never heard before, and he tells you a really farfetched, out of the ordinary story, what epistemological method do you use to decide whether to trust him or not? Are you going to toss a coin? Is coin toss also a “valid” epistemological method? After all, coin toss actually “works” 50% of the time…

i dont reject the inductive method. i take all claims at face value until i have a good reason to suspect otherwise.

Yes, testimonials are always dubious, if they are not supported by physical evidence.

then you are just trusting the testimony about the physical evidence, at least in situations of historical events you didnt witness.

Why does the legal system exclude the second hand witness testimony?

because the consequences for the defendant can be quite severe.

Your ideas about a “short” time frames are also weird. You admit that a whispered story can be distorted in a few minutes, and you say that the told and retold biblical stories cannot be distorted in many decades?

these many decades are within the lifetime of the original witnesses. even were they not they are still within the lifetime of a generation or two. these arent long timme periods in a n oral tradition.

further, whisper games arent reinforced by a rabbinic tradtion of orality, or by the self correcting mechanisms of a community where errors are corrected by other members of the community.

but considering all this is within the life times of the actual witrnesses, it make the points moot.

The laws of nature are not random games of chance. Gravity does not happen randomly. If you would jump off from the tenth floor unto hard concrete you would have absolutely no chance of surviving.

thats not true. people have survived, even much greater falls.

oddee.com/item_96967.aspx

I tried to explain it to syntax before, but he did not understand it either.

he understood, he is philosophy grad student, he explained it to you, a great many times.

You just swallowed his nonsense hook-line and sinker.

ive known about the problem of induction for a couple decades now.

The funny thing is, that not all games of chance are without “memory”. Blackjack definitely has a built-in memory, until a new set of decks of cards are dealt.

true, maybe thats why im really bad a blackjack, but get lucky with dice sometimes.

And what epistemological method do you use to decide which parts are the Bible are you going to accept verbatim?

i accept them all verbatim.

I know… the infallible word of the Catholic Church. And what epistemological method do you use decide if the Church is right?

the Church accepts them all verbatim itself.

I know… you accept the word of Jesus who entrusted the Church with his legacy. And where do these words are recorded? Wow… in the Bible. What a nice circle.

both the Church and i accept the Bible verbatim, i dont see a circle here.

There was a joke about it, when someone was scolded for relying on circular reasoning, he said: “I prefer to view it as having no loose ends!”.

that is funny

The only epistemological method you offered was the blind acceptance of your word, before you even opened your mouth. That was your alleged “even playing field”.

or you can argue the epistemology out, you refused both options, i just offered the easiest. but if you hadnt tried to impose imossile standards in the first place there wouldnt have been an issue at all.

frankly the real issue is that you think you can embarass me by making public challenges. like that thread, or this one. you keep shooting yourself in the foot, because im not afraid to bite the philosophical bullet. whats true is true, no more, no less.

 

[tonyrey]

You are simply displaying your ignorance of philosophy. Logical positivism was abandoned precisely because the verification principle cannot be established empirically. Do you really believe everything can be explained scientifically?

Once again you are evading the question! Do you really believe **everything **can be explained scientifically? How do you justify the rejection of metaphysics?

That’s exactly my point, because somehow the theologians can’t find an answer scientifically (and in many cases they never will), they resort to all sorts of cunning linguistics and useless semantics, this is not a case of me understanding the philosophy behind it or not, I just reject many aspects of it outright.

What is it? What are “the many aspects”? On what basis do you reject many aspects of it? These vague assertions get you precisely nowhere…Can you provide examples of “cunning linguistics and useless semantics” ?..

The problem with it is, if it can be used by christian theologians to supposedly “prove” some facets of christianity, it can be used by the hindus to supposedly also “prove” aspects of their religions, and it has been done so. In fact the hindus and buddhists may have had a head start with it along with the greeks. Of course, being the all wise philosopher you are, you would have known this.

Which facets of Christianity? Which aspects of Hinduism? In what way did the Hindus and Buddhists and Greeks have a head start ? Only Heaven knows what you’re referring to…

 

[R_Daneel]

i dont reject the inductive method.

You did it many times, and now you don’t? You said that the empirical method is self-refuting. You said that there is a “problem” with induction.

i take all claims at face value until i have a good reason to suspect otherwise.

Still inadequate. On what grounds do you decide that you have a “good reason” to suspect otherwise? This is the problem of epistemology, in case you missed it. How does one separate the sheep from the goats?

because the consequences for the defendant can be quite severe.

Wrong. Physical evidence is admissible, even though the consequences can be very severe. Because the second-hand testimony is dubious and unreliable. Even with the assumption that the people are honestly trying to tell the event they heard of, they make too many mistakes. (And your special pleading about the rabbatical tradition is invalid. Rabbies did not accept the Christian stories in the first place, and still do not accept them. They had no interest in the preservation of stories they considered false from the beginning.)

Even first-hand testimont is only grounds for a guilty verdict, if many, independent witnesses will corroborate it - and one piece of physical evidence will negate the testimony of a thousand alleged witnesses. And it has happened that many people claimed to have witnessed a crime, and they all lied their heads off. The point is that the evidence supports the claim beyond any reasonable doubt.

these many decades are within the lifetime of the original witnesses. even were they not they are still within the lifetime of a generation or two. these arent long timme periods in a n oral tradition.

It sure is. If you would study the canonic gospels, there is a definite trend of embellishment in the stories they tell.

thats not true. people have survived, even much greater falls.

Sure they did. But because of special, very lucky circumstances, not because gravity somehow, magically reversed itself. Do you trust their luck, and attempt to emulate their jump?

he understood, he is philosophy grad student, he explained it to you, a great many times.

Oh, brother. He did not understand that the laws of nature are not at all like the rolls of dice. And you don’t seem to understand it either.

ive known about the problem of induction for a couple decades now.

So, now there is again a problem with induction? In your first paragraph you said the direct opposite. How fast can you change your mind?

i accept them all verbatim.

How interesting. So you accept that the value of “pi” is exactly 3, as the Bible attests? And the world was created in 6, literal days?

the Church accepts them all verbatim itself.
both the Church and i accept the Bible verbatim, i dont see a circle here.

Haha! The Church does nothing if the kind. It picks and chooses, which verses it accepts verbatim, and which ones accepts allegorically, and which ones it rejects outright (example: most of the Levitican moral norms).

or you can argue the epistemology out, you refused both options, i just offered the easiest. but if you hadnt tried to impose imossile standards in the first place there wouldnt have been an issue at all.

This thread is about epistemology. You said that “trust” is an epistemological method. I am still waiting for your in-depth analysis of those questions I posited in my previous post to you. You said that you trust everyone, unless you have a good reason to doubt. What constitutes a “good reason to doubt”? How do you decide between two claimants, whom you never saw or heard before (according to your own words, you trust both of them at the beginning) and who tell you diverging stories of the same event?

This is the heart of epistemology. So, go ahead, and analyze these questions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You did it many times, and now you don’t? You said that the empirical method is self-refuting. You said that there is a “problem” with induction.

empiricism is self refuting, and there is such a thing as the ‘problem of induction’

Still inadequate. On what grounds do you decide that you have a “good reason” to suspect otherwise? This is the problem of epistemology, in case you missed it. How does one separate the sheep from the goats?

 

[R_Daneel]

where did i say those words? didnt i say that is the situation that you are in, regarding any historical event?

Right here, in this thread. I posted:
"R Daneel:

First, we are talking about all those events to which we were not personally observing, regardless when they occurred. **Second, “trust” is not **an epistemological method.

it surely is. you have no evidence or documentation of anything, where you are not trusting someone. if you didnt witness something then it is all a matter of trust.

I was talking about the generic epistemological method to by employed if there is no direct observation, which, of course includes all the events of the past. So, you did claim that “trust” is an epistemological method. When I asked how do you decide whom to trust, you said you trust everyone, until you have doubt. So I was asking how do you decide to have doubts, and now you evade that question.

You are as slippery as an eel in a bucket of slime. However, you can run, but you cannot hide. You wanted to talk about epistemology, and here is your chance. Talk about it. Maybe you don’t even know what epistemology is. It is the branch of philosophy which can be translated as: “how do we know it?”. How do we separate false statements from true ones? What are the ways and means of obtaining knowledge?

The one and only sure way of epistemology is verification. That method is not applicable to unobservable events. Since there is no way to go back and see for ourselves, we must rely on (rely on != trust) testimonials. So far, so good. If the historical event left physical evidence behind (for example a volcanic eruption) we can examine the evidence. Back to the good old verification again. This applies to the moon landing. Where is your physical evidence for the virginity of Mary?

If some alleged events left no physical evidence behind, then we examine the scientific probability of the event. True, science is not infallible, it is not complete, but it is far from being null and void. Then, based upon the current standing of science, some claims are so unlikely that no reasonable person would entertain that claim, no matter how many witnesses assert it. If the claim passes this test (it is not absurd scientifically) then we examine the reliability of the witnesses. Have we ever encountered those witnesses before? Was their testimony compared to other witnesses? The more witnesses we can collect, the more uniform their independent testimonies turn out to be, the more likely the event is. It will never reach 100% certainty, but that is not problem, since science itself does not guarantee it either. That is what I asked for in the thread you so very quickly abandoned, claiming an unequal playing field. What is your claim, specifically? (You did not answer). Who are the supporting witnesses? (You did not answer). Playing eel again?

a good reason to doubt varies by what im being told and its relation to everything else i know. whats so complicated about that?

It is not complicated, it is vague to point of meaningless. You claimed that trust is an epistemological method. As they say: “the devil is in the details”. Get to the details. You say" its relation to everything else I know". Wonderful. How do you know what you think you know? Trust authority? What is authority? We are in the thick of epistemology.

i dont pretend to any certainty, but i most definitely do not use any self refuting ideas to frame my world view.

If you don’t want certainty, then there is no problem of induction.

you sid they couldnt survive, it does happen. as i demonstrated.

Eel in a bucket of slime, again? Don’t evade the point. Is there any good reason to assume that gravitational attraction will ever turn into a gravitational repulsion? Because that is what you and syntax keep asserting, when you talk about the “problem” of induction.

they can also just straight out lie. and they do, but if i have several witness statement generally agreeing, i have a case, and someone is getting locked up. that doesnt guaruntee guilt.

Not in the case of second-hand testimony. Those are still inadmissible. No matter how many witnesses come up with “I heard…”, they will be thrown out of court - because second hand testimony keeps remaining dubious. Do you understand now why second-hand testimonies are rejected? (And “guarantee” still does not spell “guaruntee”. Why don’t you use a spell checker?)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Right here, in this thread. I posted:

i see where you get that, i withdraw the statement. However, i dont think this changes the situation any, your still in the position of trusting.

When I asked how do you decide whom to trust, you said you trust everyone, until you have doubt. So I was asking how do you decide to have doubts, and now you evade that question.

i answered the question, you said it was “inadequate”. you having an opinion, doesnt require me to change my standards.

so again, i trust everyone until i have a reasomn to doubt, there are any number of reasons to doubt and depends on what i am being told.

You are as slippery as an eel in a bucket of slime.

an eel in a bucket of slime?

However, you can run, but you cannot hide.

in case you havent noticed yet i do neither.

You wanted to talk about epistemology, and here is your chance. Talk about it.

i wanted to talk anbout the epistemological issues supporting the impossible standards that you called "reasonable’ in the other thread

Maybe you don’t even know what epistemology …?

did you just now look that up?

The one and only sure way of epistemology is verification.

no its not, verification falsification schemes are false because they are self refuting, as we jhave demonstrated multiple times.

That method is not applicable to unobservable events. Since there is no way to go back and see for ourselves, we must rely on (rely on != trust) testimonials.

there you go, finally said it right.

So far, so good. .

what physical evidence do you have for the moonlanding? none.

you have things you **think **are evidence, because you trust the claim that it is evidence, but as you didnt participate in the moonlandings and the museums acquisition, **you dont know that it is **

which puts you in the exact same place as we, you trust the documentation or claims.

If some alleged events left no physical evidence behind, then we examine the scientific probability of the event.

there is no such thing as scientific probability

True, science is not infallible, it is not complete, but it is far from being null and void.

thats right

Then, based upon the current standing of science, some claims are so unlikely that no reasonable person would entertain that claim, no matter how many witnesses assert it.

thats false.

you just admitted to a flawed measuring stick, now you claim its reasonable to use it to measure anyway.

If the claim passes this test (it is not absurd scientifically)

there is no such thing as scientific absurdity. the idea itself in a system you admitr is incomplete, is aqbsurd.

then we examine the reliability of the witnesses. …

ok

That is what I asked for in the thread you so very quickly abandoned, .

you mean the thread where you set impossible standards, in a debate i didnt ask for? im still ready to debate on that thread just as soon as you either agree to accept my fix, or to argue out the epistemology that supports your impossible standards, but you dont do it.

because you dont want to debate without a sure escape hatch where you can just claim it never happened anyway.;

you call me an ‘eel is bucket of slime’ , but you dodge the debate you tried to start.

It is not complicated, it is vague to point of meaningless.

its not vague at all. it varies by the claim.

You claimed …

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing -Plato

for instance. I accept the laws of logical inference, but i have no way to prove they are true. they seem reasonable to me, and i dont see a flaw in them.

this is diametrically opposed to your position.

you are willing to use false, self refuting, and what you admit are flawed, incomplete standards. in order to reach a conclusion, that you already wanted to reach. having the falseness of those standards demonstrated for you doesnt make you change your mind. so i dont think you are interested in the truth. and after you referenced to the levitical moral codes, i think i know why.

If you don’t want certainty, then there is no problem of induction.

i dont pretend to certainty.

Eel in a bucket of slime, again? Don’t evade the point.

i didnt, i demonstrated that your statement was wrong.

Is there any good reason …

no we dont. dont make stuff up.

we are only pointing out the well known **“problem of induction.”. **

Not in the case of second-hand testimony. .

thats false, there are many circumstances in which hearsay evidence is admitted. it is restricted because the defendant, cannot cross examine the witness, not a just thing considering the consequences possible for the defendant…

one, specifically,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law#Common_misconceptions

declaration against interest:

A statement that would incriminate or expose the declarant to liability to such an extent that it can be assumed he would only make such a statement if it were true. It would be assumed that one would lie to further one’s interests, so a statement against his interests (such as exposing oneself to criminal or civil liability) likely would not be made unless it were true.

as Christianity was illegal for the first three centuries of its existence. on pain of death. ones statements or claims would be a declaration against their interest.

 

[R_Daneel]

i see where you get that, i withdraw the statement. However, i dont think this changes the situation any, your still in the position of trusting.

So, for the record, do you agree now that “trust” is NOT an epistemological method?

so again, i trust everyone until i have a reasomn to doubt, there are any number of reasons to doubt and depends on what i am being told.

In a **specific **case, yes, the reason to doubt would be specific. But that is NOT what I was asking about. I was asking about the overall principle. What is your epsitemological METHOD to separate true from false statements? Do you even understand what I am asking?

i wanted to talk anbout the epistemological issues supporting the impossible standards that you called "reasonable’ in the other thread

It is reasonable to ask what your claim is. It is reasonable to ask how your claim is substantiated. It is NOT reasonable to demand that an unspecified claim without supporting evidence is to be taken - unconditionally.

no its not, verification falsification schemes are false because they are self refuting, as we jhave demonstrated multiple times.

You don’t even know what you supposedly “refuted”. As I said in another thread (where you said the same baloney), at most you could say that these principles are not established according to your liking. But you cannot verify that “verification” is self-contradictory. You cannot “falsify” that “falsifyability” is self-contradictory.

what physical evidence do you have for the moonlanding? none.

The American flag left on the moon… the debris the astronauts left there… the footsteps left in the dust… among many other things. You can build yourself a spaceship, fly up there and see for yourself. What physical evidence do you have for the virginity of Mary? Her unpenetrated hymen? Supported by a due chain of possession by police?

there is no such thing as scientific probability

Since you don’t even know what science is, and you don’t even know what probability is, that claim is just an expression of your ignorance - which is truly “catholic”.

 

[RWMorris]

Miracle: an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

Of course the virgin birth is impossible. That why we call it a miracle.

Landing on the moon is well within man’s ability. It is not a miracle.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So, for the record, do you agree now that “trust” is NOT an epistemological method?

i agree there is no formal method of epistemology called ‘trust’

In a **specific **

 

[R_Daneel]

i agree there is no formal method of epistemology called ‘trust’

Good.

yes, i understand what you meam, and ive answered already. i trust a claim until i have a reason to doubt.

And that answer is still inadequate for two reasons. First, you agreed (right above) that “trust” is not an epistemological method. Second, you still did not specify what general process do you employ to arrive at the conclusion that the time for “trust” is over, and now there is a reason to doubt. That is epistemology. A general method, regardless of the specific circumstances.

In other words, you don’t have an epistemological process to help you to believe, and you also don’t have an epistemological method to doubt. And you wish to talk about epistemology?

you ccould have argued out the epistemology of those standards, you have refused to do that as well.

I only refused your suggested “epistemological method” of blind acceptance of your unreasonable demand: “to accept everything before you even said anything”.

Put it this way, where p is “for any proposition p, a necessary if not sufficient condition for rational assent to p is the ability either to verify or falsify the truth of p” how does one verify or falsify that? One doesn’t. Rather, they accept it or they don’t. But if they accept it then they must reject it and hence the self-referential defeat

I highlighted the error in your quoted text. The author of that blog fell into the usual trap of using the “universal operator” indicriminately. No one says that, therefore the author of that blog built himself a nice straw-man and successfully burned it into the ground. Ho-hum. The exceptions to that rule are the fundamental, basic, self-evident propositions. These basic propositions cannot be verified, and they do not need verification.

These basic propositions are of two kind. Some of them refer to the actual reality, for example: “nature is uniform”, or “the properties of nature (the laws of nature) are uniform”. (The actual reality equals to the physical world in the eyes of materialists, but it also includes the realm of the supernatural for theists). The other kind refers to the abstract systems, like the axioms of mathematics, and the laws of logic. One does not try to apply the laws of logic to logic itself. Also, one does not try to verify empirically that “all even numbers are divisible by two”.

how do you know those things are there? still, no evidence.

The evidence is there. You are simply too lazy to go and personally verify it. By the way, the funny thing is that this verification process (if you would perform it) would also be a proof for the moon landing. After all you would have to land on the moon. Now, if you would build yourself a very powerful telescope, with sufficient magnification, you could do the verifying process from the comfort of your home. The point is that there is verifyable, actual, physical evidence for the moon landing. Not just a hearsay evidence.

as usual, when cornered you try to distract by bluster, inflammatory comments, etc.

Hey, don’t blush. It was you idea to bring up the virgin birth, and the physical verification. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And that answer is still inadequate for two reasons.

‘inadequate’ implies there is some standard. what standard is it your opinion that i should meet?

First, you agreed (right above) that “trust” is not an epistemological method. Second, you still did not specify what general process do you employ to arrive at the conclusion that the time for “trust” is over, and now there is a reason to doubt.

ive explained this already. i take claims at face value until i have a reason to doubt. a reason to doubt is specific to the claim.

That is epistemology. A general method, regardless of the specific circumstances.

no, epistemology is tthe school of philosophy that studies various aspects of knowledge. it is not itself a method.

In other words, you don’t have an epistemological process to help you to believe,

yes, i take claims at face value or "trust’ them until i have a reason to doubt.

and you also don’t have an epistemological method to doubt.

yes, its specific to the claim. does it seem right by what i know? does it violate some axiom i accept? does it contradict logic in some way? andd so on.

And you wish to talk about epistemology?

i want you to support the specific epistemological basis of the impossible standards you set in the other thread.

I only refused your suggested “epistemological method” of blind acceptance of your unreasonable demand: “to accept everything before you even said anything”.

first, that isnt what my terms were at all, only that you accept that the Prophecies were made, and that the account of their fullfillment is true. it nothing but a quick way to fix the problem.

second, you have also refused to argue out the epistemology of your those impossible standars, you simply claimed they were reasonable. you could have you chose not too.

which is why i think that you fear to debate without a set of standards that gauruntee you a win, even if you dont.

that whole thread was nothing but bluster.

I highlighted the error in your quoted text. The author of that blog fell into the usual trap of using the “universal operator” indicriminately. No one says that, therefore the author of that blog built himself a nice straw-man and successfully burned it into the ground. Ho-hum.

this statement itself is a strawman because the universal operator isnt germane to the conclusion of the arguement.

The exceptions to that rule are the fundamental, basic, self-evident propositions. These basic propositions cannot be verified, and they do not need verification. The other kind refers to the abstract systems, like the axioms of mathematics, and the laws of logic. One does not try to apply the laws of logic to logic itself. Also, one does not try to verify empirically that “all even numbers are divisible by two”.

verification/falsification schemes are not axioms or tautologies, they cannot be, because they are self refuting, and therefore we can demonstrate that they are false.

its like you dont think about the obvious before you type.

The evidence is there.

nice assertion, got evidence?

You are simply too lazy to go and personally verify it.

and you would rather bluster than admit being wrong.

By the way, the funny thing is that this verification process (if you would perform it) would also be a proof for the moon landing. After all you would have to land on the moon. Now, if you would build yourself a very powerful telescope, with sufficient magnification, you could do the verifying process from the comfort of your home. The point is that there is verifyable, actual, physical evidence for the moon landing. Not just a hearsay evidence.

wrong, yet again, even if you could view those things from a telescope they wouldnt prove there had been a manned moonlanding anymore than the mars rover proves that there was a manned mission to mars.

Hey, don’t blush. It was you idea to bring up the virgin birth, and the physical verification. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

actually, albertball brought up the virgin birth, and either you or him brought up verification.

 

[AlbertBall]

And presumably those sufficently advanced technologies will enable us to recreate God’s own DNA, and grow our own little pet-Jesuses. Oh, what a marvelous future it will be! Everyone can have a mini-messiah if they so choose.

LOL i spat out my coffee there.

 

[R_Daneel]

ive explained this already. i take claims at face value until i have a reason to doubt. a reason to doubt is specific to the claim.

And you cannot tell on what grounds you accept a specific claim, or reject it.

no, epistemology is tthe school of philosophy that studies various aspects of knowledge. it is not itself a method.

You don’t even know what epistemology means. To translate it into plain English: “how do we know something?”. “What are the ways and means to obtain knowledge?”

yes, i take claims at face value or "trust’ them until i have a reason to doubt.

I don’t believe you. If someone would tell you that they have little, green, but invisible space aliens and want you to come and worship them, you would not “trust” their request for one second. You woul reject it immediately.

first, that isnt what my terms were at all, only that you accept that the Prophecies were made, and that the account of their fullfillment is true. it nothing but a quick way to fix the problem.

No wonder that you are delusional, if you requested that I concede what you wanted to say even before your said anything.

second, you have also refused to argue out the epistemology of your those impossible standars, you simply claimed they were reasonable. you could have you chose not too.

Those “impossible” standards - having external, corroborating evidence - are the one and only way (also universally accepted by historians) to accept or reject historical claims.

this statement itself is a strawman because the **universal operator isnt germane **to the conclusion of the arguement.

Holy cows! You don’t even understand your own argument?

This is what the argument was:

Put it this way, where p is “for ANY proposition p, a necessary if not sufficient condition for rational assent to p is the ability either to verify or falsify the truth of p” how does one verify or falsify that? One doesn’t. Rather, they accept it or they don’t. But if they accept it then they must reject it and hence the self-referential defeat

Now observe the correct form:

Put it this way, where p is “for SOME proposition p, a necessary if not sufficient condition for rational assent to p is the ability either to verify or falsify the truth of p” how does one verify or falsify that? One doesn’t. Rather, they accept it or they don’t.

The original would create a self-referential problem, but no one says that. The correct one does not create a self-referential problem. If you cannot understand even that, you are in even worse position, than I thought. You are truly an embarrasment to the side you are on… Thank God, you are not on my side…

 

[AlbertBall]

no one said the rotation of the earth will stop, i said the sun wont come up. which, one day we know it will not. the sun will evetually burn out and there will be no sunrise, give it a few more cosmological decades and protons will decay and matter will literally evaporate.

yes, even the bare rotation of the earth will stop.

Wait wait wait wait wait! How to you know this?

 

[AlbertBall]

The evidence is there. You are simply too lazy to go and personally verify it. By the way, the funny thing is that this verification process (if you would perform it) would also be a proof for the moon landing. After all you would have to land on the moon. Now, if you would build yourself a very powerful telescope, with sufficient magnification, you could do the verifying process from the comfort of your home. The point is that there is verifyable, actual, physical evidence for the moon landing. Not just a hearsay evidence.

Even better it has been done for WSP, i know i know, there fake!

http://chattahbox.com/images/2009/07/moon_nasa_apollo14.jpg
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/five_sites_anot_4nasa_final.jpg

Now WSP lets see the pictures of marys conception.

 

[Thing]

Do not diss the artist please, he is the greatest. Fra Angelico.



And the Black Madonna traditionally believed to have been painted by St. Luke the Apostle on the wood of the table Jesus the carpenter made.

http://www.ilianrachov.com/ikons/im...tochova.privat collection.hamburg.germany.jpg

 

[AlbertBall]

Do not diss the artist please, he is the greatest. Fra Angelico.

Nice paintings, why have you posted them?

http://marcwolfeart.com/comic/big/SPIDERMAN-PAINTING-1.jpg

 

[Thing]

Nice paintings, why have you posted them?

Account Suspended

…lets see the pictures…

Often paintings attract peoples imagination. Christianity is really the religion of attraction. God calls man.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And you cannot tell on what grounds you accept a specific claim, or reject it.

ihave, several times now.

You don’t even know what epistemology means. To translate it into plain English: “how do we know something?”. “What are the ways and means to obtain knowledge?”

um…no

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/epistemology

e·pis·te·mol·o·gy (-pst-ml-j) KEY

NOUN:

The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

I don’t believe you. If someone would tell you that they have little, green, but invisible space aliens and want you to come and worship them, you would not “trust” their request for one second. You woul reject it immediately.

how does ‘green but invisible’ work?

id accept the claim at face value and ask for their documentation, other witnesses, etc. though as i already have a G-d, i wouldnt go and worshi aliens.

No wonder that you are delusional, if you requested that I concede what you wanted to say even before your said anything.

not at all, it simply fixes the impossible standards you set to guaruntee yourself a victory. you could argue the epistemology of them as well, but so far you have refused. your bluff was called and now all the bluster in the world wont help you, your avoiding debate because you are apparently fearful of defeat without handicapping the opponent

Those “impossible” standards - having external, corroborating evidence - are the one and only way (also universally accepted by historians) to accept or reject historical claims.

Holy cows! You don’t even understand your own argument?

the universal operator still isnt germane to the argument.

This is what the argument was:

Now observe the correct form:

The original would create a self-referential problem, but no one says that. The correct one does not create a self-referential problem. If you cannot understand even that, you are in even worse position, than I thought. You are truly an embarrasment to the side you are on… Thank God, you are not on my side…

youre still dodging. the operator doesnt have a thing to do with the self reffuting nature of verification/falsification schemes.

verification/falsification schemews arent axioms or tautologies. if you accept them, then you must reject them, making them self refutinng and therefore false.

you can keep fighting an argument lost 50 years ago, feel free, im enjoying using this as a demonstration of the weakness of atheisms assumptions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Wait wait wait wait wait! How to you know this?

i trust the physics of it. its not sure a furhter observation may show a big crunch, but its the same either way in result.