On the Necessity of Proving Things

[sidbrown]

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. .

No. You are wrong. Escape velocity is a concept that depends on the conservation of energy. It is that velocity where the kinetic energy equals the negative gravitational potential energy, giving the body a total mechanical energy of zero. Then as that kinetic energy is traded for potential as distance from the planet increases the object slows down but does not stop short of infinite height.
Conservation of energy only applies in the absence of air resistance

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

no, you described the process, you didnt prove it occurred.

which is why i pointed out that simply knowing or not knowing how something works, doesnt prove that it did or did not happen, it only shows that its possible

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!

your evidence in that regard is the same as mine, you demonstrated how the moonlanding might have occured, and i demonstrated how the virgin birth might have occured.

if simply demonstrating that something is possible counts as evidence, than we do have the same evidence.

yet you reject the virgin birth and accept the moonlanding. but they are both demonstrably possible. a clear double standard.

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”.

where did i say that empirical evidence is self refuting? i certainly didnt mean to imply that a rock, a bird, or a stalk of grass, is self refutinng in some strange way.

i am saying that the empirical claim is false because it is self refuting.

 

[AlbertBall]

No. You are wrong. Escape velocity is a concept that depends on the conservation of energy. It is that velocity where the kinetic energy equals the negative gravitational potential energy, giving the body a total mechanical energy of zero. Then as that kinetic energy is traded for potential as distance from the planet increases the object slows down but does not stop short of infinite height.
Conservation of energy only applies in the absence of air resistance

Fair enough, i will take your word for it, as i am not a rocket scientist and have far to much on my plate right now to look in to the matter in more detail. Besides, like i said the point of the post the point of the post was to demonstrate the difference between the two evidences the technicalities are none too important.

 

[AlbertBall]

no, you described the process, you didn’t prove it occurred.

which is why i pointed out that simply knowing or not knowing how something works, doesn’t prove that it did or did not happen, it only shows that its possible

Science never “PROVES” anything, anyway i tend to reject the notion of absolute certainty. However whether you like it or not the process does SUPPORT the claim. So i don’t claim proof, i am telling you way one is universally** accepted **and the other is not.

your evidence in that regard is the same as mine, you demonstrated how the moon-landing might have occurred, and i demonstrated how the virgin birth might have occurred.

WHEN??? You have not mentioned ONE detail!!!

if simply demonstrating that something is possible counts as evidence, than we do have the same evidence.

No it supports and like i said in the FIRST post, we could look in to ALL the other SUPPORTING evidence in the same detail!

yet you reject the virgin birth and accept the moon-landing. but they are both demonstrably possible. a clear double standard.

WHAT!! ok demonstrate to me how the virgin birth might of happened??

i am saying that the empirical claim is false because it is self refuting.

I am not sure what you are talking about here?

Let be honest here, you don’t REALLY think there is as much evidence for the virgin birth as you do for the moon landings do you???

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Science never “PROVES” anything, anyway i tend to reject the notion of absolute certainty.

me too.

However whether you like it or not the process does SUPPORT the claim.

it does support the idea that the moonlanding is possible, but not the idea that the moonlanding actually occured.

So i don’t claim proof, i am telling you way one is universally** accepted **and the other is not.

but the moonlanding is not universally accepted. in fact some places, like Russia, have a widespread disbelief, amounting to more than a quarter of the population

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

the truth is that neither is universally accepted.

so it would still be a double standard to accept the moonlanding and not the Biblical events on the basis of universal acceptance.

WHEN??? You have not mentioned ONE detail!!!

WHAT!! ok demonstrate to me how the virgin birth might of happened??

havent you been reading my posts? way back in post #300

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

if you review this very short video, you will see that we can currently teleport items, and expect to be able to teleport DNA in the next decade or so.

we already know that DNA can be synthesized, and we know it can be teleported.

that makes a virgin birth entirely conceivable.

but even that doesnt matter, because knowing how a process occurs doesnt say anthing about whether or not it is possible, or whether or not it happened.

Let be honest here, you don’t REALLY think there is as much evidence for the virgin birth as you do for the moon landings do you???

i think it is just as possible as a moonlanding, i demonstrated why above.

 

[AlbertBall]

i think it is just as possible as a moonlanding, i demonstrated why above.

Thats not what i said though (however again i do not agree), anyway i really really can’t be bothered talking about his anymore. I would say it would be fair to say we can agree the evidences are not the same, however you feel they are equally justified. I do not. I am happy to leave it at that. For more than anything, text is not only far to time consuming, but it make its impossible to pin one down.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Thats not what i said though (however again i do not agree), anyway i really really can’t be bothered talking about his anymore. I would say it would be fair to say we can agree the evidences are not the same, however you feel they are equally justified. I do not. I am happy to leave it at that. For more than anything, text is not only far to time consuming, but it make its impossible to pin one down.

im not happy to leave it at that. but i recognize a time constraint, i am likely to have one at some point also.

the argument will still be here, i use it alot, so feel free to jump in later.

 

[AlbertBall]

im not happy to leave it at that. but i recognize a time constraint, i am likely to have one at some point also.

the argument will still be here, i use it alot, so feel free to jump in later.

Well can you answer one question? How can you claim that supporting evidence that observable, testable, repeatable, and understood, is the same as evidence that is not observable, testable, repeatable, or understood?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well can you answer one question? How can you claim that supporting evidence that observable, testable, repeatable, and understood, is the same as evidence that is not observable, testable, repeatable, or understood?

because, being observable, testable, repeatable or being understood doesnt have anything to do with the veracity of a claim.

say i claimed to eat at the local diner. that claim is repeatable and testable because you can eat at a diner. you also understand how i could have eaten at a diner. but you cant observe any historical event.

and yet, none of that verifies that i really did eat at a diner. it says nothing about the veracity of my claim at all.

you cannot tell whether a claim is true or false because you understand it, or its repeatable or testable.

which is why i keep pointing out that verification/falsification systems are self refuting and make a poor standard of truth.

you seem focused on the particulars of the epistemological argument, the moonlanding, but the same argument applies to every historical event. the particulars really dont matter, we could be talking about the American Revolution, or the original Magna Carta. the particulars are simply for the purpose of demonstration.

but ive said all this before.

 

[AlbertBall]

because, being observable, testable, repeatable or being understood doesnt have anything to do with the veracity of a claim.

NO! It does, like it really really REALLLLLLLY does!!!

However like i said, " I would say it would be fair to say we can agree the evidences are not the same, however you feel they are equally justified."

Like i said lets leave it at that, however if you do not agree i can explain using your diner example?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

i can explain using your diner example?

please.

 

[sidbrown]

It seems to me that the way a scientist goes about verifying things is different from the way that a historian would. For example, the early history of Rome as attributed to Diocles of Peparethus is generally accepted as reliable because of what Quintus Fabius Pictor had to say about it, but I don’t see this as a scientific verification.

 

[R_Daneel]

It seems to me that the way a scientist goes about verifying things is different from the way that a historian would. For example, the early history of Rome as attributed to Diocles of Peparethus is generally accepted as reliable because of what Quintus Fabius Pictor had to say about it, but I don’t see this as a scientific verification.

That is right. History is not a science, it is a more-or-less accurate description of what supposed to have happened. We cannot go back in time and verify for ourselves. When it comes to a historical claim, there are two aspects that must be considered:

1. The nature of the claim - what is the claim about.
2. The list of witnesses, and their reliability.

For 1) the difference between the moon landing (or the Second World War, or the Holocaust) and the alleged miracles in the Bible is huge. Those magical biblical events go against the whole accumulated data obtained by the natural sciences. And the scientific data can be verified, and gets verified millions of times every day. To draw a parallel between them and to claim that they are somehow on equal footing is the sign that the claimant is completely uneducated and a literal fool.

For 2) the amount and reliability of the witnesses the difference is ever greater. Millions of witnesses, all from different points of view, a plethora of physical evidence for the moon landing (or the Second World War, or the Holocaust) compared to a handful of unknown witnesses, none of whom actually witnessed the events, they wrote down the stories many decades after their alleged occurrence. Millions of witnesses, who have no agenda, who come from a different background, compared to a dozen, who had their agenda, fueled by their acceptance of unbelievable stories. These handful of authors were surrounded by meticulous recordkeepers, none of whom had anything to say about those “amazing” miraculous events. Not even the execution of Jesus was recorded, much less his miraculous return from the dead.

And to call these two events of being equally substantiated? Einstein said: “There are two things which are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity. And I am not sure about the Universe”.

 

[AlbertBall]

please.

"say i claimed to eat at the local diner. that claim is repeatable and testable because you can eat at a diner. you also understand how i could have eaten at a diner. but you cant observe any historical event"

Ok firstly it is not repeatable and testable ‘just’ because you can eat at a diner (that is NOT the repeatable, testable aspect of the evidence). However lets say for what ever reason one really had to verify you were at that diner. Like say you shot someone in the diner.

We could start of with interviewing the staff, and getting witness statements.
We could then check CCTV in the area.
We could check the the diner for DNA, hair etc
We could check for finger prints.
We could check for murder motive.

So say we turn up the cctv evidence, much like the video evidence for the moon landings. We find repeatable and testable scientific evidence, like we have for the moon landings.
We turn up a motive for murder.

Now none of the things prove 100% that you were there, however much like the moon landings they substantiate the claims of the eye witnesses.

Your defense in the court is then “the cctv is a fake, and you cannot tell whether a claim is true or false because you understand it, or its repeatable or testable.”

Dude you would be laughed out of town then sent to jail for a long time.

Further more our modern society is built around the fact they you CAN tell whether a claim is true or false because you understand it and its repeatable AND testable.

I am afraid to say it cannot be summed up better than it was by R Daneel “To draw a parallel between them and to claim that they are somehow on equal footing is the sign that the claimant is completely uneducated and a literal fool.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It seems to me that the way a scientist goes about verifying things is different from the way that a historian would. For example, the early history of Rome as attributed to Diocles of Peparethus is generally accepted as reliable because of what Quintus Fabius Pictor had to say about it, but I don’t see this as a scientific verification.

yup, but many atheists want a scientific verification.

 

[R_Daneel]

yup, but many atheists want a scientific verification.

As usual, you don’t understand the difference between the two “legs” of accepting a historical claim. First, it is necessary that the event itself - regardless of when it was or is supposed to happen - be scientifically credible. Second, that the witness should have credibility.

Using you diner scenario, let’s consider two claims.

In the first one, the claim is that someone heard from someone else that in the diner he saw 2 zombies and 3 space aliens, who arrived on unicorns, and were consuming manna which fell from heaven. When it came to paying time, they produced a sparkling diamond weighing 100 pounds and then disappeared into thin air.

In the second one someone asserts that he saw the Prime Minister eating steak in that diner. He also provides 20 journalists, who made video footage of the event, which was also presented on live TV the night before.

According to your malformed arguments, the two events have equal credibility. Neither of them can be verified directly, in both we have to rely on second hand testimony. You keep saying that we have no justification in accepting the second claim, and discarding the first one. I advise you to seek professional help.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That is right. History is not a science, it is a more-or-less accurate description of what supposed to have happened. We cannot go back in time and verify for ourselves. When it comes to a historical claim, there are two aspects that must be considered:

1. The nature of the claim - what is the claim about.

this is absolutely false, this is the point where they would like to introduce the need for scientific verification.

1. The list of witnesses, and their reliability.

ok

For 1) the difference between the moon landing (or the Second World War, or the Holocaust) and the alleged miracles in the Bible is huge. Those magical biblical events go against the whole accumulated data obtained by the natural sciences.

not at all.

not understanding the process that caused an event to occur doesnt make it magic, any more than a bone-through-the-nose-tribesman can claim a lightbulb is magic, because he doesnt understand the process.

let us all admit, right now, there is no such thing as magic. what is there? processes we dont yet understand. hence clarkes 3rd law.

**3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. **

which means, that the ‘miracles’ of the Bible were simply process that we simply dont understand yet.

And the scientific data can be verified, and gets verified millions of times every day.

and has nothing to do with it because it doesnt say anything about whether an event occured or not, or even whether its possible or not.

To draw a parallel between them and to claim that they are somehow on equal footing is the sign that the claimant is completely uneducated and a literal fool.

then it must be really frustrating to keep losing this argument to me.

For 2) the amount and reliability of the witnesses the difference is ever greater. Millions of witnesses, all from different points of view, a plethora of physical evidence for the moon landing …

there are only 27 astronauts who witnessed the moonlanding, and 12 people who actually landed on the moon.

compared to a handful of unknown witnesses,

we have a good idea who they were. especially for books 2000 to 3800 years old.

none of whom actually witnessed the events

this is utterly false. do you have any evidence for this assertion?

they wrote down the stories many decades after their alleged occurrence.

since when do people write stories down before they happened? every true story must necessarily be written after the facts.

especially when you could be killed, just for having it in your possession.

Millions of witnesses, who have no agenda, who come from a different background,

no millions of witnesses to the moonlanding. 27, only 12 actual, physical witnesses.

as the people who actually believe the moonlanding was a hoax point out, the rest could have been shot on a soundstage in houston, or faked in another way.

it seems obvious to you that the Biblical events were faked, but you deny that very same possibility for the moonlanding.

this is a double standard.

compared to a dozen,

hey! the same number that actually landed on the moon!

who had their agenda,

what agenda could that possibly be? to be killed for something they knew was a lie? to suffer for decades before being tortured to death over it?

fueled by their acceptance of unbelievable stories.

they witnessed these ‘miracles’, and then they performed these ‘miracles’ theselves.

These handful of authors were surrounded by meticulous recordkeepers

no they werent, most people at the time couldnt read or write.

, none of whom had anything to say about those “amazing” miraculous events. Not even the execution of Jesus was recorded, much less his miraculous return from the dead

.

of course not, the only scribes in the area belonged to the sanhedrin, the same institution who had Christ Crucified. they were charged with keeping Judaism, Orthodox. why would they keep records proving themselves not only wrong, but the killers of the foretold Messiah.

And to call these two events of being equally substantiated?

apparently they were.

even had the same number of actual witnesses.

Einstein said: “There are two things which are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity. And I am not sure about the Universe”.

right back atchya

 

[R_Daneel]

let us all admit, right now, there is no such thing as magic. what is there? processes we dont yet understand. hence clarkes 3rd law.

**3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. **

which means, that the ‘miracles’ of the Bible were simply process that we simply dont understand yet.

This is another nonsense claim. The process does not go both ways. An advanced technology may seem “miraculous” to someone uneducated, but that does not mean that any “miracle” will become an application of a higher technology. You have no proof for that - and you cannot have any, since that would imply omniscience. Maybe you claim even that, who knows? What you keep saying is just another example of a confused mind. And, no it is not fustrating to see that you believe that you “won” an argument. It is merely amusing.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

"say i claimed to eat at the local diner. that claim is repeatable and testable because you can eat at a diner. you also understand how i could have eaten at a diner. but you cant observe any historical event"

Ok firstly it is not repeatable and testable ‘just’ because you can eat at a diner (that is NOT the repeatable, testable aspect of the evidence). However lets say for what ever reason one really had to verify you were at that diner. Like say you shot someone in the diner.

We could start of with interviewing the staff, and getting witness statements.
We could then check CCTV in the area.
We could check the the diner for DNA, hair etc
We could check for finger prints.
We could check for murder motive.

So say we turn up the cctv evidence, much like the video evidence for the moon landings. We find repeatable and testable scientific evidence, like we have for the moon landings.
We turn up a motive for murder.

Now none of the things prove 100% that you were there, however much like the moon landings they substantiate the claims of the eye witnesses.

Your defense in the court is then “the cctv is a fake, and you cannot tell whether a claim is true or false because you understand it, or its repeatable or testable.”

Dude you would be laughed out of town then sent to jail for a long time.

this isnt the analogy we agreed to use. however, let me demonstrate how easily this might be faked.

i was in the diner the day before, i had words with a regular customer, wearing a hat and coat. the next day, the manager, whose wife was cheating with that regular customer, dressed in the same hat and coat, turned back the date on the video recorder, and shot him. framing me, in order to kill his romantic rival.

see, when you claim the Biblical events are fake, but then deny that any other historical event from the moonlanding, to the diner can be faked, your applying a double standard of evidence.

Further more our modern society is built around the fact they you CAN tell whether a claim is true or false because you understand it and its repeatable AND testable.

no its not.

please tell me how you think that being or not being testable or repeatable disproves the claim that an event occured?

I am afraid to say it cannot be summed up better than it was by R Daneel “To draw a parallel between them and to claim that they are somehow on equal footing is the sign that the claimant is completely uneducated and a literal fool.”

right back atchya!

 

[AlbertBall]

This is another nonsense claim. The process does not go both ways. An advanced technology may seem “miraculous” to someone uneducated, but that does not mean that any “miracle” will become an application of a higher technology. You have no proof for that - and you cannot have any, since that would imply omniscience. Maybe you claim even that, who knows? What you keep saying is just another example of a confused mind. And, no it is not fustrating to see that you believe that you “won” an argument. It is merely amusing.

I have to admit, the level of stupidity needed to claim the evidence for the bible claims is the same as the evidence for the moon landings actually gives me a sort head when think about it. I honestly think he has to be trolling, i fail to see how anyone can be that uneducated.