On the Necessity of Proving Things

[tonyrey]

What postulate is being used when one proves that 1 + 1 = 2 by referring to the simple addition of two objects, say one dot plus one dot equals two dots ?

A superb question, Sid! The postulate is that atomism is false. We can understand reality only if we consider objects in relation to one another. 1 + 1 are considered together and not in isolation. They produce a new entity and prove that analysis needs to be supplemented by synthesis.

Life is valueless, meaningless and purposeless if it is explained by dissecting it into its components and regarding it as merely a product of particles.** A collection of units does not explain unity…**

 

[AlbertBall]

I for one will stand beside him and say that many who rail against Church and her followers, hold to a double standard when it comes to what counts as evidence.

Ok against my better judgement I am going to go over this ONE last time.

The claim is the evidence for the claims made in bible is as substantial as the evidence for the moons landings.

Before I present the evidence let me explain the one fundamental and MOST IMPORTANT difference between the two evidences. The evidence for the moon landings is observable, testable, repeatable, and the processes involved are UNDERSTOOD.

Now anyone that understands this and need not read any further, but for those who require an explanation read on…

So evidence:
• Rockets
• Satellites
• Computers
• The ISS
• The space shuttle
• Interplanetary probes
• Hubble
• And so on

Let’s look at rockets in more detail so as to explain why the evidence nothing like the same.

How do rockets work? “A rocket in its simplest form is a chamber enclosing a gas under pressure. A small opening at one end of the chamber allows the gas to escape, and in doing so provides a thrust that propels in the opposite direction. A good example of this is a balloon. Air inside a balloon is compressed by the balloon’s rubber walls. The air pushes back so that the inward and outward pressing forces are balanced. When the nozzle is released, air escapes through it and the balloon is propelled in the opposite direction.”

Newton’s laws of motion

The fundamental laws of mechanical motion were first formulated by Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727), and were published in his Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica. They are:
Every body continues in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line except insofar as it is compelled to change that state by an external impressed force.

The rate of change of momentum of the body is proportional to the impressed force and takes place in the direction in which the force acts.

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. More compactly, dp / dt = F

Calculus, invented independently by Newton and Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), plus Newton’s laws of motion are the mathematical tools needed to understand rocket motion.
And we end up here.

Conservation of momentum leads to the so-called rocket equation, which trades off exhaust velocity with payload fraction. Based on the assumption of short impulses with coast phases between them, it applies to chemical and nuclear-thermal rockets. First derived by Konstantin Tsiolkowsky in 1895 for straight-line rocket motion with constant exhaust velocity, it is also valid for elliptical trajectories with only initial and final impulses. Conservation of momentum for the rocket and its exhaust leads to:

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/~jfs/neep602.lecture8.trajectories.97/img7.gif

The rocket equation shows why high exhaust velocity has historically been a driving force for rocket design: payload fractions depend strongly upon the exhaust velocity, as shown at right.

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/~jfs/gif/ChemicalPayload.gif

The next question is how do rockets reach escape velocity?

Well it is understood that mass is related to gravity, the earth has a large mass and therefore pulls things towards its centre. In order to escape the gravitational pull of the earth an object must be travelling greater than escape velocity. Escape velocity is calculated by:



Now this is looking at a very general level, one could spend years researching such things.

So where does this leave us. Well that is looking at ONE aspect of the evidence in a small amount to detail. What we find is of course a full understanding behind the principles that guide the technology. We could do the same for ANY aspect of the moon landings. And here is the GREAT thing, if you doubt any of the above (because you are too lazy, or lack the ability, to get an education) all you have to do is take a trip to Florida and watch one in action, of even better jump on to E-Bay and buy one.
Now if you want me to accept the evidence for the bible claims then can we look at it in the same detail. My question to those who believe if it is this…

How did god get the virgin mary pregnant? Please provide similar details as above. I want to know what method he used to transfer his ½ of the DNA, and if he didn’t then explain to me why jesus did not need 50% of his DNA. Please NOTE my claim is the evidence is NOT the same because one process IS FULLY UNDERSTOOD and the other IS NOT! So answers like he did it by magic, or he doesn’t need DNA he is god and goddidit will NOT DO. I want details!!! Now either provide them or please stop posting such tripe the evidence for the claims in the bible are as substantial as the evidence for the moon landings!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ok against my better judgement I am going to go over this ONE last time.

The claim is the evidence for the claims made in bible is as substantial as the evidence for the moons landings.

that is not the claim! the claim is.

atheists use a different standard of evidence for Biblical events than they do for other historical events they didnt witness.

Before I present the evidence let me explain the one fundamental and MOST IMPORTANT difference between the two evidences. The evidence for the moon landings is observable, testable, repeatable,

being able to repeat a historical event has no bearing on whether or not said historical event happened.

also

verification/falsification systems are self refuting and therefore false standards of evidence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Verification-_and_falsification-principles

Verification- and falsification-principles
The statements “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified” and “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically falsified” are both claimed to be self-refuting on the basis that they can neither be empirically verified nor falsified

and the processes involved are UNDERSTOOD.

so what? the march of science shows that many things that we havent understood in the past, were simply the result of processes that we didnt understand.

after all, a bone-through-the-nose-tribesman doesnt understand the principle that makes a lightbulb work, yet we know they do.

whats to say that things we think are impossible right now, will later turn out to simply be the result of a process that we dont yet know about or understand?

the fact that we do or do not understand a process has no bearing on whether or not said process occurred

first, you are basically admitting to a double standard here, one based on demonstrably irrational ideas.

holding to these easily refuted ideas are why you keep losing this argument, i know that you really, really, really, really, really, want these to be true. but that just doesnt make it so, and considering that such a situation was described in a video you linked me too, i have a hard time understanding how you expect us to believe that this isnt cognitive dissonance?

Now anyone that understands this and need not read any further, but for those who require an explanation read on…

So evidence:
• Rockets
• Satellites
• Computers
• The ISS
• The space shuttle
• Interplanetary probes
• Hubble
• And so on

So where does this leave us. …

please, tell us how any of this proves the moonlanding did or didnt happen?

hint, it doesnt.

being able to repeat a historical event has no bearing on whether or not said historical event happened.

Now if you want me to accept the evidence for the bible claims then can we look at it in the same detail. My question to those who believe if it is this…

why? because…

the fact that we do or do not understand a process has no bearing on whether or not said process occurred

How did god get the virgin mary pregnant? Please provide similar details as above. I

let me take a crack at this. applying clarkes 3rd lawd and a little sci fi tech

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three “laws” of prediction:

1.When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

want to know what method he used to transfer his ½ of the DNA,

He used a method similar to a star trek transporter, to beam the DNA directly into one of Marys eggs.

we know this is possible because it has been described in Discovery Channel Magazine aug. 2008 by the physicist michio kaku, in this **very short video ** he explains we will be able to transport DNA in the near future. he also demonstrated the method on the show, ‘physics of the impossible’ or 'sci fi science" if i remember the title right.

youtube.com/watch?v=-FqLCLooayM

and if he didn’t then explain to me why jesus did not need 50% of his DNA. Please NOTE my claim is the evidence is NOT the same because one process IS FULLY UNDERSTOOD and the other IS NOT! So answers like he did it by magic, or he doesn’t need DNA he is god and goddidit will NOT DO. I want details!!! Now either provide them or please stop posting such tripe the evidence for the claims in the bible are as substantial as the evidence for the moon landings!

there is no such thing as ‘magic’ there are merely processes and technologies we dont yet understand.

i certainly dont believe in magic. do you?

http://randysright.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/head_in_sand.jpg

 

[AlbertBall]

You claimed it was a double standard for me to accept the moon-landings and reject the bible. I have explained to you why i accept the moon-landings. And i have provided evidence that support the 1,000,000 of living eye witnesses, the people who were on the moon, and the FILM FOOTAGE we have of the event.

I HAVE NEVER EVER EVER said if we don’t understand something that means it did not happen. However we DO understand how people get pregnant, it takes both a MALE AND FEMALE see cell. What you are claiming is the impossible! That god magiced his sperm into mary. And you cannot provide any sort of explanation as to how he did it, that is why i reject your claim. BECAUSE as far as we are currently aware IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, and until you provide any sort of explanation as to how it is in fact possible, i will reject it as UNPROVEN!

Anyway like i said I’m not overly interested in discussing this subject. As R Daneel said even most of the religious are cringing at your claims, it is horrible when one is associated with such ignorance.

I love this…"please, tell us how any of this proves the moon-landing did or didn’t happen?

hint, it doesn’t."

Firstly when did i ever say prove? I SAY… SUPPORT! Hint you really need to get an eduction in science before further discussing the subject. LIKE REALLLLLLY!!

I mean really if you can see the difference between comparing observable, testable, repeatable, understood processes, with claims that go against EVERYTHING we KNOW about the universe, then you truly are beyond help.

 

[sidbrown]

Ok against my better judgement I am going to go over this ONE last time.

The claim is the evidence for the claims made in bible is as substantial as the evidence for the moons landings.

Before I present the evidence let me explain the one fundamental and MOST IMPORTANT difference between the two evidences. The evidence for the moon landings is observable, testable, repeatable, and the processes involved are UNDERSTOOD.

Now anyone that understands this and need not read any further, but for those who require an explanation read on…

So evidence:
• Rockets
• Satellites
• Computers
• The ISS
• The space shuttle
• Interplanetary probes
• Hubble
• And so on

Let’s look at rockets in more detail so as to explain why the evidence nothing like the same.

How do rockets work? “A rocket in its simplest form is a chamber enclosing a gas under pressure. A small opening at one end of the chamber allows the gas to escape, and in doing so provides a thrust that propels in the opposite direction. A good example of this is a balloon. Air inside a balloon is compressed by the balloon’s rubber walls. The air pushes back so that the inward and outward pressing forces are balanced. When the nozzle is released, air escapes through it and the balloon is propelled in the opposite direction.”

Newton’s laws of motion

The fundamental laws of mechanical motion were first formulated by Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727), and were published in his Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica. They are:
Every body continues in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line except insofar as it is compelled to change that state by an external impressed force.

The rate of change of momentum of the body is proportional to the impressed force and takes place in the direction in which the force acts.

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. More compactly, dp / dt = F

Calculus, invented independently by Newton and Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), plus Newton’s laws of motion are the mathematical tools needed to understand rocket motion.
And we end up here.

Conservation of momentum leads to the so-called rocket equation, which trades off exhaust velocity with payload fraction. Based on the assumption of short impulses with coast phases between them, it applies to chemical and nuclear-thermal rockets. First derived by Konstantin Tsiolkowsky in 1895 for straight-line rocket motion with constant exhaust velocity, it is also valid for elliptical trajectories with only initial and final impulses. Conservation of momentum for the rocket and its exhaust leads to:

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/~jfs/neep602.lecture8.trajectories.97/img7.gif

The rocket equation shows why high exhaust velocity has historically been a driving force for rocket design: payload fractions depend strongly upon the exhaust velocity, as shown at right.

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/~jfs/gif/ChemicalPayload.gif

The next question is how do rockets reach escape velocity?

Well it is understood that mass is related to gravity, the earth has a large mass and therefore pulls things towards its centre. In order to escape the gravitational pull of the earth an object must be travelling greater than escape velocity. Escape velocity is calculated by:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/b/3/2b3e815e042743a723c5888f8e23f09e.png

Now this is looking at a very general level, one could spend years researching such things.

So where does this leave us. Well that is looking at ONE aspect of the evidence in a small amount to detail. What we find is of course a full understanding behind the principles that guide the technology. We could do the same for ANY aspect of the moon landings. And here is the GREAT thing, if you doubt any of the above (because you are too lazy, or lack the ability, to get an education) all you have to do is take a trip to Florida and watch one in action, of even better jump on to E-Bay and buy one.
Now if you want me to accept the evidence for the bible claims then can we look at it in the same detail. My question to those who believe if it is this…

How did god get the virgin mary pregnant? Please provide similar details as above. I want to know what method he used to transfer his ½ of the DNA, and if he didn’t then explain to me why jesus did not need 50% of his DNA. Please NOTE my claim is the evidence is NOT the same because one process IS FULLY UNDERSTOOD and the other IS NOT! So answers like he did it by magic, or he doesn’t need DNA he is god and goddidit will NOT DO. I want details!!! Now either provide them or please stop posting such tripe the evidence for the claims in the bible are as substantial as the evidence for the moon landings!

No, I think you are wrong and your equation for escape velocity is not correct, because it doesn to take into account the force due to air friction.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You claimed it was a double standard for me to accept the moon-landings and reject the bible.

you are applying a double standard are you not? otherwise you would be accepting the event in the Bible occurred. you may give us a reason for this double standard, but is still a double standard.

I have explained to you why i accept the moon-landings.

and i have pointed out how the basis for each of these reasons is irrational.

And i have provided evidence that support the 1,000,000 of living eye witnesses,

there are no millions of witnesses to the actual moonlanding, there are only 27.

the people who were on the moon,

there are only 12.

funny thats the same number as there are of the Apostles. yet those 12 witnesses arent reliable. yet another double standard.

and the FILM FOOTAGE we have of the event.

can you prove it wasnt shot on a soundstage in houston?

thats the claim of people who deny the moonlanding ever happened.

see, you are unwilling to admit that your evidence for the moonlanding is not any different in kind from that of the moonlanding. even though i have repeatedly demonstrated that it could just as easily be faked as you claim the Biblical events were.

but you believe the moonlanding happened, and you deny that the Biblical events happened.

a clear double standard of evidence. one for the claim you wish to believe is true, and one for the claims wish not to believe is true.

I HAVE NEVER EVER EVER said if we don’t understand something that means it did not happen.

really? because in the next 2 sentences you make that very claim. when you say

What you are claiming is the impossible! That god magiced his sperm into mary

make up your mind already

However we DO understand how people get pregnant, it takes both a MALE AND FEMALE see cell.

actually, it takes nothing more than the technology or process to create the matter and arrange it into the proper configuration.

even now it only takes a couple of stem cells and a lab. the march of science you know.

What you are claiming is the impossible! That god magiced his sperm into mary.

not at all, didnt you watch the video? we can currently teleport items, and expect at the current rate of progression to be able to teleport DNA in a decade or so.

it is obviously possible.

Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three “laws” of prediction:

1.When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

And you cannot provide any sort of explanation as to how he did it, that is why i reject your claim.

i just pointed out that it is already something we can do. didnt you watch the video?

BECAUSE as far as we are currently aware IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, and until you provide any sort of explanation as to how it is in fact possible, i will reject it as UNPROVEN!

actually i just did, didnt you watch the video where the very famous physicist michio kaku demonstrates the current state of teleportation and that we expect to be able to teleport DNA in the next decade or so?

so i have shown that it is possible, that teleportation is occuring right now. didnt you watch the video?

Anyway like i said I’m not overly interested in discussing this subject.

this is what happens everytime you lose this argument. you cant back it up and then try to ignore it

As R Daneel said even most of the religious are cringing at your claims, it is horrible when one is associated with such ignorance.

um…no they arent. they know i dont really doubt the moonlanding occured, they know its a demonstration of an epistemological argument.

and if they dont. they will.

but notice R Daneel doesnt really engage in this fight?

I love this…"please, tell us how any of this proves the moon-landing did or didn’t happen?

hint, it doesn’t."

when did i ever say prove? I SAY… SUPPORT…

your playing word games, how does any of that support a moonlanding happened then?

I mean really if you can see the difference between comparing observable, testable, repeatable,

ive pointed out several times that this is a falsee standard of truth because it is self refuting. ignore it all you want, but belief in something that is self refuting is irrational. just in my very last post. why do you keep ignoring it?

being able to repeat a historical event has no bearing on whether or not said historical event happened.

verification/falsification systems are self refuting and therefore false standards of evidence.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-re…ion-principles

understood processes, with claims that go against EVERYTHING we KNOW about the universe, then you truly are beyond help.

you just said

I HAVE NEVER EVER EVER said if we don’t understand something that means it did not happen.

so which is it?

simply because we dont understand how these events were acheived, says nothing about whether they actually occured or not.

your statement is no different than a bone-through-the-nose-tribesman screaming at a lightbulb and calling it impossible because it violates everything he knows about the universe.

what we currently know about the universe places no restraints on what is possible. at all. this is repeatedly demonstrated by the march of science.

are you telling me that we have reached some state of knowledge about science where we can exclude any new information? because they should stop all
experimentation then. good luck with that.

 

[AlbertBall]

No, I think you are wrong and your equation for escape velocity is not correct, because it doesn to take into account the force due to air friction.

Why would it need to take in to account air resistance??

 

[AlbertBall]

warpspeedpetey, i really cannot be bothered going over this again. I mean how can I argue with this…???

"you are applying a double standard are you not? otherwise you would be accepting the event in the Bible occurred. you may give us a reason for this double standard, but is still a double standard."

*The term double standard, coined in 1912,[1] refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another.[2] A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain applications (often of a word or phrase) are perceived as acceptable to be used by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when used by another group.

A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or other distinction. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards. The proverb “life is not fair” is often invoked in order to mollify concerns over double standards.
There is a distinction to be made between double standards and hypocrisy, which implies the stated or presumed acceptance of a single standard a person claims to hold himself or herself accountable to, but which, in practice, may be disregarded.*

How on earth can i be applying a double standard when i clearly EXPLAINED why i a accept one and reject the other.

Honestly, this level of stupidity makes debate impossible, and it is a total waste of my time.

Can you really not see the difference between someone making a claim, then clearly explaining every process and principle behind he claim, everyone of which fits perfectly into the knowledge of humanity, and someone making a claim that goes against EVERYTHING we KNOW, and when they are asked to explain how their claim happened they answer “i don’t know but it just did, goddidit.”??

Honestly, its time to get a grip. For this level of ignorance is really starting to make my head hurt, which TBH i think was, and is, your only goal. For i cannot believe anyone can be that stupid.

 

[sidbrown]

Why would it need to take in to account air resistance??

Air resistance is a force which acts contrary to the thrust of the rocket and it has a small effect which diminishes as you get further from the surface of the earth. So your argument does not give the exact escape velocity since it does not take air resistance into account. The actual escape velocity will be slightly more than what you have stated.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

"you are applying a double standard are you not? otherwise you would be accepting the event in the Bible occurred. you may give us a reason for this double standard, but is still a double standard."

The term double standard, coined in 1912,[1] refers to any set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another.[2] A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain applications (often of a word or phrase) are perceived as acceptable to be used by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when used by another group.

A double standard, thus, can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or other distinction. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards. The proverb “life is not fair” is often invoked in order to mollify concerns over double standards.
…

this is juris prudence, concerning groups of people under color of law. what does this have to do with a double standard of evidence?

this is what im refering to a double standard of evidence not of groups of people before the law.

debunkingskeptics.com/doublestandards.php

PseudoSkeptics often use double standards in their reasoning and methodology. For example, they say anecdotal evidence and testimonials are invalid. Yet when such testimonials are on their side, they are counted as evidence that there was no paranormal activity involved

How on earth can i be applying a double standard when i clearly EXPLAINED why i a accept one and reject the other.

just because you explain why you have a double standard doesnt make it any less hypocritical. i keep pointing out how your basis for double standards are irrational, logically contradictory, etc.

its not ok to have a double standard of evidence.

Honestly, this level of stupidity makes debate impossible, and it is a total waste of my time.

what stupidity? im pointing out the huge gaping holes in the arguments that you and many other atheists make, the same ones i used to make. but at some point intellectual honesty overcomes cognitive dissonance, and one sees the world in a whole new light.

Can you really not see the difference between someone making a claim, then clearly explaining every process and principle behind he claim, everyone of which fits perfectly into the knowledge of humanity, and someone making a claim that goes against EVERYTHING we KNOW,

simply because we do not understand a process does not have any bearing on whether it occurred, or even whether or not it is possible.

claims do not have to comport with our current state of scientific understanding. imagine if a freind named Bob claimed there would be a moonlanding to Descartes. by the understanding current to his time, he would say that they were making wild claims, impossible by EVERYTHING humanity KNEW at the time. as Bob would be unable to demonstrate the process by which the moonlanding was done, Descartes could claim its impossible. but we know now, that he would be wrong. the moonlanding was possible. even though it went against everything he knew at the time.

in the same way, when you claim that some process or event is impossible because it seems so, in the light of our current understanding. you do not know this to be true, anymore than Descartes would really have known if a moonlanding was possible.

therefore,

the validity of a claim has nothing to do with our current state of scientific understanding.

this is what clarkes 3rd law demonstrates

**

1.When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

**

and when they are asked to explain how their claim happened they answer “i don’t know but it just did, goddidit.”??

in the previous example, Bob did not know the mechanism by which the moonlanding could have occured and could not describe it, yet even without the knowledge of how it was done, Bob was right a moonlanding is possible. if Bob said NASAdidit, he would have been right, no matter his understanding of NASAs’ methods.

i assume you have seen ‘star trek’, right? in star trek, they can beam people to from ship to shore. we can currently beam or ‘teleport’ simple atoms, and soon DNA. so we know that it is possible. there is a conceivable way, even given current technology, that the virgin birth could have occurred. it is not impossible, even given our current understanding of scientific knowledge.

Honestly, its time to get a grip. For this level of ignorance is really starting to make my head hurt, which TBH i think was, and is, your only goal. For i cannot believe anyone can be that stupid.

what ignorance? you havent bothered to refute my arguments. thats what im waiting on. instead, you just call them stupid or ignorant. thats not a reutation, thats a classic sign of cognitive dissonance.

 

[AlbertBall]

Air resistance is a force which acts contrary to the thrust of the rocket and it has a small effect which diminishes as you get further from the surface of the earth. So your argument does not give the exact escape velocity since it does not take air resistance into account. The actual escape velocity will be slightly more than what you have stated.

I know exactly what air resistance is. Air resistance will have absolutely no effect of calculating the escape velocity of a mass. It would have an effect when you are working out the amount of force needed in order to get an object to escape velocity, however that is not the same thing.

Besides that was not the even the point of my post, the point was to demonstrate why the two evidences are not the same.

 

[AlbertBall]

OMG! Ok i am going to take my time here and try to be as clear as i possibly can.

Right by your defination…

“PseudoSkeptics often use double standards in their reasoning and methodology. For example, they say anecdotal evidence and testimonials are invalid. Yet when such testimonials are on their side, they are counted as evidence that there was no paranormal activity involved.”

However as you can CLEARLY see in my post i did NOT present anecdotal evidence and testimonials! You are presenting anecdotal evidence and testimonials. Therefore I AM NOT APPLYING A DOUBLE standard. I am not sure how i can make that any clearer.

You then say just because we do not understand something does not make it impossible. Which of course i agree with. HOWEVER until we DO understand something it is ABSURD to try an claim anything about it. We do not KNOW there is not a tea pot orbiting Mars, however that does not mean there IS a tea pot orbiting Mars. Furthermore as i explained to you WE DO know how people get pregnant, and in every singles case EVER recorded which is BILLIONS it took both male and female sex cells. So if you are going to claim that an invisible god somehow magiced sperm into a virgin, then i am going to require some sort of explanation as to how this happened before i believe it. Until then it will reject your claim as unproven.

"claims do not have to comport with our current state of scientific understanding. imagine if a friend named Bob claimed there would be a moon-landing to Descartes. by the understanding current to his time, he would say that they were making wild claims, impossible by EVERYTHING humanity KNEW at the time. as Bob would be unable to demonstrate the process by which the moon-landing was achieved, Descartes could claim its impossible. but we know now, that he would be wrong. the moon-landing was possible. even though it went against everything he knew at the time."

And descartes would be quite right in being skeptical, however if your friend “bob” took with him all the details of the moon-landings including blue prints, mathematical models etc, and showed him a mini rocket in action. Then I’m pretty sure Descartes would re-think his skepticism.

Then you putter out some nonsense about empirical evidence being self refuting, this is another claim that is so absurd it makes my head hurt.

Firstly nobody claims that empirical evidence its the best form of evidence because it can be tested empirically. The reason empirical evidence is consider the best form of evidence is down to results. The results of empirical evidence speak for themselves. And guess what we can compare the results of empirical evidence against the results of other evidence, and that WOULD BE testing EMPIRICAL evidence EMPIRICALLY! So i your claim that empirical evidence cannot be tested empirically is not only utterly meaningless as it has NO bearing on the quality of the results produces using empirical evidence, BUT IT IS ALSO WRONG!

This can be clearly seen if you had even bother to read YOUR OWN link…

*"The statements "**statements *are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified" and “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically falsified” are both claimed to be self-refuting on the basis that they can neither be empirically verified nor falsified"

this is worlds away from your utterly ridiculous claim that empirical evidence is self refuting. I really do wonder why i waste my time, for even when this is clearly explained to you, you just let it go in one ear and out the other, and i have no doubt you will be spouting the same nonsense on other threads years from now.

 

[R_Daneel]

Let’s be precise. Virgin birth is not impossible, it has been demonstrated on lower life forms in labs, by exciting the egg with mechanical or chemical means. However, to have a MALE offspring from such an activity is totally ABSURD. The offspring would be a genetic equivalent of the mother. Short of “magic” it simply cannot happen. But believers do not admit believing in magic - they call it a “miracle” or a “mystery”. Bah, humbug!

 

[AlbertBall]

Let’s be precise. Virgin birth is not impossible, it has been demonstrated on lower life forms in labs, by exciting the egg with mechanical or chemical means. However, to have a MALE offspring from such an activity is totally ABSURD. The offspring would be a genetic equivalent of the mother. Short of “magic” it simply cannot happen. But believers do not admit believing in magic - they call it a “miracle” or a “mystery”. Bah, humbug!

Yeah i should probality have been more specific, as WSP loves to nit-pick and play silly games, even although he can tell us one detail regarding his own claims.#

Oh and WSP you might like this video regarding the claims of the bible …

youtube.com/watch?v=aKauSITtnFA&feature=PlayList&p=24681A95D9EB88C6&index=15&playnext=9&playnext_from=PL

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s be precise. Virgin birth is not impossible, it has been demonstrated on lower life forms in labs, by exciting the egg with mechanical or chemical means. However, to have a MALE offspring from such an activity is totally ABSURD. The offspring would be a genetic equivalent of the mother. Short of “magic” it simply cannot happen. But believers do not admit believing in magic - they call it a “miracle” or a “mystery”. Bah, humbug!

You prefer to have unswerving faith and confidence in a **blind **plenipotentiary which just happens to exist for no reason whatsoever but which has the mysterious, colossal and magical power to perform the greatest miracle of all: the creation of life in all its richness and beauty… Yet none are so blind as those who **will **not see…

 

[R_Daneel]

You prefer to have unswerving faith and confidence in a **blind **plenipotentiary which just happens to exist for no reason whatsoever but which has the mysterious, colossal and magical power to perform the greatest miracle of all: the creation of life in all its richness and beauty… Yet none are so blind as those who **will **not see…

Since that “blind watchmaker” actually exists for all to see, it does not require any “faith” whatsoever. And being blind and without purpose it does not condemn all those who don’t care about its existence to everlasting pain, misery and suffering. It does not require mindless worship and rituals, it does not care either way. It gets out of the way and lets us operate as we please. You know what, if “it” would be a “he” I would find him a good and decent fellow.

But I agree with your last sentence, none are so blind as those who do not want to see. At least we agree on something… or do we?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

QUOTE=AlbertBall;6425287]OMG! Ok i am going to take my time here and try to be as clear as i possibly can.

Right by your defination…

“PseudoSkeptics often use double standards in their reasoning and methodology. For example, they say anecdotal evidence and testimonials are invalid. Yet when such testimonials are on their side, they are counted as evidence that there was no paranormal activity involved.”

However as you can CLEARLY see in my post i did NOT present anecdotal evidence and testimonials! You are presenting anecdotal evidence and testimonials. Therefore I AM NOT APPLYING A DOUBLE standard. I am not sure how i can make that any clearer.

you did provide anecdotal evidence. remember all those witnesses? that is the only evidence you presented for the moonlanding, the rest was just descriptions of various mechanisms involved.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Scientific_context

In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as:

“information that is not based on facts or careful study”[2]
"non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts"[3]
"reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"[4]
**“casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis”[5]
“information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically”/**QUOTE]

You then say just because we do not understand something does not make it impossible. Which of course i agree with. HOWEVER until we DO understand something it is ABSURD to try an claim anything about it. We do not KNOW there is not a tea pot orbiting Mars, however that does not mean there IS a tea pot orbiting Mars. Furthermore as i explained to you WE DO know how people get pregnant, and in every singles case EVER recorded which is BILLIONS it took both male and female sex cells. So if you are going to claim that an invisible god somehow magiced sperm into a virgin, then i am going to require some sort of explanation as to how this happened before i believe it. Until then it will reject your claim as unproven.

no one said magic, i said teleportation that science is currently doing. i had a physicist give you explanation of both current and expected progress in teleportation. on what grounds do you this empirical evidence?

"claims do not have to comport with our current state of scientific understanding. imagine if a friend named Bob claimed there would be a moon-landing to Descartes. by the understanding current to his time, he would say that they were making wild claims, impossible by EVERYTHING humanity KNEW at the time. as Bob would be unable to demonstrate the process by which the moon-landing was achieved, Descartes could claim its impossible. but we know now, that he would be wrong. the moon-landing was possible. even though it went against everything he knew at the time."

And descartes would be quite right in being skeptical, however if your friend “bob” took with him all the details of the moon-landings including blue prints, mathematical models etc, and showed him a mini rocket in action. Then I’m pretty sure Descartes would re-think his skepticism.

only Bob doesnt have any of that, and Descartes would stilll be wrong claiming that a moonlanding was impossible because it didnt fit his then current knowledge of science.

Then you putter out some nonsense about empirical evidence being self refuting, this is another claim that is so absurd it makes my head hurt.

the empirical claim that knowledge only arises from the senses, is knowledge itself that does not arise from the senses.

entire books have been written on the subject by philosophers of science. so tell me, why is this wrong. can you point to any peice of empirical evidence that says, we can only gain knowledge from our senses?

Firstly nobody claims that empirical evidence its the best form of evidence because it can be tested empirically. The reason empirical evidence is consider the best form of evidence is down to results. The results of empirical evidence speak for themselves. And guess what we can compare the results of empirical evidence against the results of other evidence, and that WOULD BE testing EMPIRICAL evidence EMPIRICALLY! So i your claim that empirical evidence cannot be tested empirically is not only utterly meaningless as it has NO bearing on the quality of the results produces using empirical evidence, BUT IT IS ALSO WRONG!

This can be clearly seen if you had even bother to read YOUR OWN link…

verification/falsification schemes are self refuting as well, see below.

"The statements

“**statements **are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified” and “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically falsified” are both claimed to be self-refuting on the basis that they can neither be empirically verified nor falsified"
tha
this is worlds away from your utterly ridiculous claim t empirical evidence is self refuting. I really do wonder why i waste my time, for even when this is clearly explained to you, you just let it go in one ear and out the other, and i have no doubt you will be spouting the same nonsense on other threads years from now.

then to disprove me, bertrand russell, all logicians, and most philosophers of science, please provide the empirical evidence that says that knowledge only arises from the senses?

no one else has ever found any, you will be the first.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Let’s be precise. Virgin birth is not impossible, it has been demonstrated on lower life forms in labs, by exciting the egg with mechanical or chemical means. However, to have a MALE offspring from such an activity is totally ABSURD. The offspring would be a genetic equivalent of the mother. Short of “magic” it simply cannot happen. But believers do not admit believing in magic - they call it a “miracle” or a “mystery”. Bah, humbug!

no magic, miracles, or mystery here.

im not even talking about a clone. we are currently teleporting atoms for 100 miles, we expect in the next decade or so to be able to teleport DNA, as described by the physicist michio kaku, in the video i posted.

He used a method similar to a star trek transporter, to beam the DNA directly into one of Marys eggs.

we know this is possible because it has been described in Discovery Channel Magazine aug. 2008 by the physicist michio kaku, in this very short video he explains we will be able to transport DNA in the near future. he also demonstrated the method on the show, ‘physics of the impossible’ or 'sci fi science" if i remember the title right.

youtube.com/watch?v=-FqLCLooayM

the virgin birth of a male is conceivably within our reach using currently understood technology. we know that DNA, along with other chemicals and structures can be synthesized and we know they can be teleported.

its conceivable, no magic, no miracles needed

see, i dont believe in magic, or miracles. i believe in clarkes 3rd law.

Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three “laws” of prediction:

1.When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[tonyrey]

Since that “blind watchmaker” actually exists for all to see, it does not require any “faith” whatsoever.

It requires an inordinate amount of faith to believe in an inanimate plenipotentiary whose origin is nebulous, whose **power **far exceeds that of a rational being and whose **destiny **lacks any meaning, value, reason or purpose…

And being blind and without purpose it does not condemn all those who don’t care about its existence to everlasting pain, misery and suffering.

It cannot even explain the capacity for consciousness, feeling and thought - which suits you down to the ground because you can discard your scruples in order to get your own way all the time by regarding others as freaks of nature and treating them accordingly. It makes you exempt from the guilt of inflicting pain, misery and suffering on anyone who stands in your way. Those who exist by chance have no rights, do they?

]It does not require mindless worship and rituals, it does not care either way. It gets out of the way and lets us operate as we please. You know what, if “it” would be a “he” I would find him a good and decent fellow.

It is an ideal sorcerer for those who prefer to worship themselves and have absolute power to operate as they please, making themselves the measure of all things and owing allegiance to no one but themselves. They honour their blind plenipotentiary as a good and decent fellow because it is ignorant of their existence and they have unrivalled freedom to invent their own values and purposes to suit themselves even though they destroy others in the process… Their watchwords: Liberty, equality and fraternity for number one! Let my kingdom come! Let my will be done! Amen.

But I agree with your last sentence, none are so blind as those who do not want to see. At least we agree on something… or do we?

Your blindness is the result of intellectual pride based on the dogmatic assumption that you have penetrated to the heart of reality and have privileged insight into the ultimate cause of development… like an ant imagining it has exhausted all the possibilities!

 

[AlbertBall]

you did provide anecdotal evidence. remember all those witnesses? that is the only evidence you presented for the moon-landing, the rest was just descriptions of various mechanisms involved.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Scientific_context

In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as:

“information that is not based on facts or careful study”[2]
"non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts"[3]
"reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"[4]
"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"[5]
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"

Ok so you do not understand what constitutes evidence. I am not surprised. I provided clear supporting testable evidence that support the moon landings, it is not my fault you do not know what is considered supporting evidence.

*** Bob would be unable to demonstrate the process by which the moon-landing was achieved."***

No he would say UNPROVEN, as i am saying to you, UNPROVEN. AND THIS IS THE WHOLE ****** POINT. I AM DEMONSTRATING THE HOW THEY WERE ACHIEVED WHICH IS WHY MY EVIDENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS YOURS!!! NOT THE SAME!!! You have to be trolling!

only Bob doesn’t have any of that, and Descartes would still be wrong claiming that a moon-landing was impossible because it didn’t fit his then current knowledge of science.

but he would be 100% correct in saying bobs claim was UNPROVEN!!!

the empirical claim that knowledge only arises from the senses, is knowledge itself that does not arise from the senses.

Empiricism philosophy and and empirical evidence in science are not the same, and YOU KNOW FINE WELL, AS I ALWAYS DO, i am talking about science. Besides you said empirical evidence was self refuting, this has NOTHING to do with the “empirical claim that knowledge only arises from the senses”. You are all over the shop you can’t even keep to your own points let alone address mine, in academia you would be getting a big fat fail!