On the Necessity of Proving Things

[Image_of_God]

Not at all, where i only accept things which can be substantiated.

And how things from the past are substantiated is what you have not defined.

“You can’t verify anything without first seeing it.” I am afraid this is just incorrect. Ok lets use a murder as an example. Some kills someone, nobody saw it. However we find the accused’s DNA at the scence, we find the murder weapon in this house, we find the victims DNA in the trunk of the accused’s car. We find the victims body, we wind the accused’s car tracks next to the site, we find CCTV evidence that shows the accused’s car in that area near the time.

You are still working with common sense and assumptions here. The fact of the matter is, DNA on a weapon is not infallible. It is not nonexistent that things like this get mixed up and an innocent person ends up being declared guilty. Apart from personal eyewitness, we don’t know exactly what happened. We take the things we do have and we make logical assumptions based on them. But the fact that they are not always correct proves that it is not as absolute as you are making them to be. Because we are making assumptions based on what we have, and we did not see the event ourselves, there is a very real chance that we could be wrong.

Did anyone witness the murder? NO. Has the murderer been verifed beyond any reasonable doubt? YES!

There is a doubt gap between seeing a murder and knowing that it happened and concluding that it happened based on evidence from the scene. Without seeing the murder, there is still room for doubt.

In fact the WHOLE point of science is to verify that which we DID NOT OBSERVE!

Then why do we study plants and stars and other things? These are things that we do observe and the study of them is part of science. If we could verify what happened at the beginning of the world, there would be no need for theories.

Sorry but i am red up repeating myself, go re read the thread i have explained this COUNTLESS times.

Whatever you have said is NOT proof, it is a claim and nothing more.

Nope seeing is beleiving, seeing is NOT KNOWING!

Then why do you claim that the miracles of Jesus did not occur with the certainty that you have. At least acknowledge that you have some uncertainty and that your belief that they didn’t occur is a matter of belief, not fact.

"Once the Nicea Council meeting was underway Constantine demanded that the 300 bishops make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. Constantine commanded them to create a “creed” doctrine that all of Christianity would follow and obey, a doctrine that would be called the “Nicene Creed,” upheld by the Church and enforced by the Emperor. The bishops voted to make the full deity of Christ the accepted position for the church. The Council of Nicea voted to make the Trinity the official doctrine of the church. However, the Council of Nicea did not invent these doctrines. Rather, it only recognized what the Bible taught, and systematized the doctrines."

The bolded should suffice to answer your claim.

What does this quote have to do with the books of the Bible anyway? This makes no reference to how they were simply voted in. The process is much more complicated than that.

 

[Image_of_God]

Its hearsay, plain and simple. Not eye witness.

St. Luke says that the writings are based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses. You, not even there, claim that they are hearsay and not eyewitness. What proof do you have for this? For, since Luke actually received the testimonies, he is certainly more believable in this point.

 

[Image_of_God]

But here is what you seem to be missing, they are not saying that empirical evidence is self refuting, but the STATEMENT is self refuting. LIke the moon landings there is a BIG difference!

What you have basically said this whole entire time is that if something is true or is not true based on whether it can be verified by things we have today or not. The event occurred years ago before you were born. Yet, you continue to claim that you are so sure that it can be verified. This is interesting because if it weren’t for the eyewitness accounts we would never know that these events occurred. We know these events occurred because we believe the eyewitnesses to be trustworthy, no other reason whatsoever. No evidence, not even eyewitnesses can prove the events true beyond doubt, which you continue to claim can be done. Nothing. We simply have to believe that what people are saying is true. And in this we are guided by reason. There is simply no getting around this. Even in murder cases, we have to step beyond the evidence and make logical assumptions. They are logical, but nonetheless assumptions, which means we do not know for sure whether they are true or false.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yep and when you demonstrate that you understand what constitutes evidence i might take you seriously.

ev·i·dence (v-dns) KEY

NOUN:

**A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: ***The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. *

Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner’s face.

**Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. **

were you thiking that it meant concrete or empirical?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But here is what you seem to be missing, they are not saying that empirical evidence is self refuting,

of course they arent, a rock, a weed, a tree…none othese things are self refuting. that goes without saying

but the STATEMENT is self refuting.

the empirical statement is self refuting, we have established that many times.

LIke the moon landings there is a BIG difference!

im not sure what your saying. are you under the impression that we think that empirical evidence itself is self refuting? of course not.

we are only talking about statements like the one i stated above.

“claim X is true/not true, proven/not proven because it is not or cannot be verified”

we arent saying that empirical evidence itself, is self refuting, but statements from it like the one above are.

if you thought that we were saying that the actual evidence itself is self refuting, that would explain why you keep insisting that empiricism isnt self refuting.

here is an atheist explaining it.

Empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting. For, however it may be formulated, it must involve some general proposition about the dependence of knowledge upon experience; and any such proposition, if true, must have as a consequence that itself cannot be known [empirically]. While, therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be know to be so.

- bertrand russell

 

[R_Daneel]

1. Do agree that it is a fact that there is an immense amount of unnecessary suffering and bloodshed caused by the ignorance, selfishness, greed and lust for power on the part of human beings?

Yes, I certainly agree. But these are not the only causes of the “bad things”. There is poverty, which is partially due to greed, but also partially due the lack of available resources. And please don’t tell me that there are enough resources.

1. Do you agree that it is a fact that the only solution is to liberate them from those vices?

In principle I agree. However, there are many different ways to achieve that - and I would not agree with all of them. Maybe if you would give the details, I could give a more specific answer.

Just a few examples of how to do that:

1. Institute a very strong police state, where everyone would be monitored all the time, and any deviants would be subject to immediate, harsh punishment. That would eradicate the vices, all right. But I would not agree with this method.
2. Keep educating the people, teach them to respect others, and give them ample resources, so they will not have to turn to crime out of desperation. If someone sees his child starving, he may resort to stealing - but that is understandable. This is a good solution, in my eyes.
3. Turn all the people to become good, God-fearing Catholics, and they will most probably not commit bloodshed - though they may still engage in child-abuse (as the example of those Catholic clergymen clearly proves).
4. The only surefire way would be that God would change our entire mental setup, to erase all the negative aspects of our personality. He could turn us all into good, decent human beings, without coercing us to be good. We would all **want **to be good, because that would be our basic personality trait.

But this is all personal musings, my opinion. What is your suggestion, how should that liberation be achieved?

 

[tonyrey]

1. Do agree that it is a fact that there is an immense amount of unnecessary suffering and bloodshed caused by the ignorance, selfishness, greed and lust for power on the part of human beings?

There could be enough resources if human beings used their intelligence and considered the interests of humanity as a whole.

2. Do you agree that it is a fact that the only solution is to liberate them from those vices?

In principle I agree. However, there are many different ways to achieve that - and I would not agree with all of them. Maybe if you would give the details, I could give a more specific answer.
Just a few examples of how to do that:

1. Institute a very strong police state, where everyone would be monitored all the time, and any deviants would be subject to immediate, harsh punishment. That would eradicate the vices, all right. But I would not agree with this method.

Why not?

1. Keep educating the people, teach them to respect others, and give them ample resources, so they will not have to turn to crime out of desperation. If someone sees his child starving, he may resort to stealing - but that is understandable. This is a good solution, in my eyes.

It is a good solution but it has not proved to be sufficient if we are to judge from the state of the world…

1. Turn all the people to become good, God-fearing Catholics, and they will most probably not commit bloodshed - though they may still engage in child-abuse (as the example of those Catholic clergymen clearly proves).

Corruptio optima pessima. Being a Catholic is no guarantee of virtue but it is clearly more of a safeguard than being an anarchist, nihilist or megalomaniac…

1. The only surefire way would be that God would change our entire mental setup, to erase all the negative aspects of our personality. He could turn us all into good, decent human beings, without coercing us to be good. We would all want to be good, because that would be our basic personality trait.

We’re back to God’s puppets! Would you be satisfied with cupboard love? Or a partner who is compelled to toe the line at every instant? A virtuous zombie who had no moral defects whatsoever?

But this is all personal musings, my opinion. What is your suggestion, how should that liberation be achieved?

I have already pointed that the finest role model and the noblest moral teaching known to the world is that given to us by the man who chose to die to show us that only genuinely unselfish love is the answer to evil. It takes courage to let oneself be crucified… But don’t confuse that with meekness and weakness. Forgiving our enemies and turning the other cheek has to be counterbalanced by denouncing the hypocrites who exploit the poor and driving the profiteers out of the Temple. If there were more men and women like Gandhi and Mother Teresa the world would be a far juster and happier place…

BTW All this is directly relevant to the OP:

“I think that there has been an unfortunate underestimation of intuition and other things excluding the intellect in many materialist and empiricist circles. Intuition is vital to any philosophy. Things must just be known. So, if this is the case, why should the revealed truths of Christianity be thrown away? Why can’t faith and reason work together? Why does the intellect and the intuition have to be separate in our search for Truth?”

 

[R_Daneel]

There could be enough resources if human beings used their intelligence and considered the interests of humanity as a whole.

That is just an assumption. However, even if it were true, and if all humanity would work together, it would not eliminate the pain and misery from natural disasters.

It is a good solution but it has not proved to be sufficient if we are to judge from the state of the world…

It has never been actually tried. Just like the cooperation has not been tried either.

Corruptio optima pessima. Being a Catholic is no guarantee of virtue but it is clearly more of a safeguard than being an anarchist, nihilist or megalomaniac…

… or sociopaths, or fanatics… But these are not the only options, are they?

We’re back to God’s puppets! Would you be satisfied with cupboard love? Or a partner who is compelled to toe the line at every instant? A virtuous zombie who had no moral defects whatsoever?

This is simply not true. These are not puppets, just very good people. They can imagine the atrocities, but have no desire to commit them.

I have already pointed that the finest role model and the noblest moral teaching known to the world is that given to us by the man who chose to die to show us that only genuinely unselfish love is the answer to evil. It takes courage to let oneself be crucified… But don’t confuse that with meekness and weakness. Forgiving our enemies and turning the other cheek has to be counterbalanced by denouncing the hypocrites who exploit the poor and driving the profiteers out of the Temple. If there were more men and women like Gandhi and Mother Teresa the world would be a far juster and happier place…

You contradict yourself. Those role models you mention are exactly the type I had in mind, and you don’t assert that they were puppets, do you? Besides, based upon the current state of the world, the sacrifice of Jesus was not a roaring success either. And there are many examples that different versions of Christians fought bloody wars among each other, yet they all professed to be the followers of Jesus. Furthermore, one does not have to be a Christian or Catholic to lead a helpful, moral life. I am sure you know that.

BTW All this is directly relevant to the OP:

“I think that there has been an unfortunate underestimation of intuition and other things excluding the intellect in many materialist and empiricist circles. Intuition is vital to any philosophy. Things must just be known. So, if this is the case, why should the revealed truths of Christianity be thrown away? Why can’t faith and reason work together? Why does the intellect and the intuition have to be separate in our search for Truth?”

No one denies the necessity and usefulness of intuition. It is always the first step in acquiring new idea, whether it turns out to be true, or not. But if one stops there, and does not seek ways and means to verify that the intuition is correct or not, then intution is just wishful thinking. (I do not mean this in any derogatory way.) And those alleged revealed truths have a whole lot of contradiction and real nonsense built into them. I am tempted to give examples, but that might derail the thread.

 

[DPMartin]

What you have basically said this whole entire time is that if something is true or is not true based on whether it can be verified by things we have today or not. The event occurred years ago before you were born. Yet, you continue to claim that you are so sure that it can be verified. This is interesting because if it weren’t for the eyewitness accounts we would never know that these events occurred. We know these events occurred because we believe the eyewitnesses to be trustworthy, no other reason whatsoever. No evidence, not even eyewitnesses can prove the events true beyond doubt, which you continue to claim can be done. Nothing. We simply have to believe that what people are saying is true. And in this we are guided by reason. There is simply no getting around this. Even in murder cases, we have to step beyond the evidence and make logical assumptions. They are logical, but nonetheless assumptions, which means we do not know for sure whether they are true or false.

But consider my friend does he have a point on this, 2+2=4 5000 yr’s ago and is verifiable today.

Why isn’t what you say provable today? Since the Word of God is Truth, then the Truth is today just as then. This not to say what your trying to get across is not valid. But what is to be witnessed today?

 

[AlbertBall]

the empirical statement is self refuting, we have established that many times.

                                                                                                  - bertrand russell

You are mixing up empiricism and empirical evidence. I am, and always have been, talking about empirical evidence when i have been trying to explain to you why the two evidences are are NOT the same.

 

[davidv]

You are mixing up empiricism and empirical evidence. I am, and always have been, talking about empirical evidence when i have been trying to explain to you why the two evidences are are NOT the same.

How are they not the same? In both cases there is documented eye witness testimony. No one on this thread is an eyewitness, near as I can tell. So on what basis is the evidence different in kind? Obviously they will be different in details as the reported events are different.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You are mixing up empiricism and empirical evidence. I am, and always have been, talking about empirical evidence when i have been trying to explain to you why the two evidences are are NOT the same.

you are mixing up empirical evidence from the statement you use it to make. the 2 evidence are the same. we have physical evidence and documentation, so do you. i dont know why this isnt clear to you.

your making the statement that ours is false and yours is not, but you dont have a basis for it. thats why we keep calling it a double standard.

 

[AlbertBall]

How are they not the same? In both cases there is documented eye witness testimony. No one on this thread is an eyewitness, near as I can tell. So on what basis is the evidence different in kind? Obviously they will be different in details as the reported events are different.

Go re-read the thread i am not going through this 100 times.

 

[AlbertBall]

you are mixing up empirical evidence from the statement you use it to make. the 2 evidence are the same. we have physical evidence and documentation, so do you. i dont know why this isnt clear to you.

your making the statement that ours is false and yours is not, but you dont have a basis for it. thats why we keep calling it a double standard.

What statement do i use to for empirical evidence?

Brilliant so you are admitting there is **physical evidence **and documentation for the moon-landings. People present your physical evidence for the virgin birth.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What statement do i use to for empirical evidence?

anytime you say some claim is unproven because it doesnt have empirical evidence or it isnt verified, et al. these are statements we have been talking about this whole time. its not that you use statements as empirical evidence, how would that even be possible? you must be joking.

Brilliant so you are admitting there is **physical evidence **and documentation for the moon-landings.

ive never denied that you think you have physical evidence for the moonlanding. ive denied that you know it is physical evidence of the moonlanding. as we have pointed out, for every historical event you are in the position of trusting the witnesses.

People present your physical evidence for the virgin birth.

sure, pick up your Bible, its documented.

 

[Image_of_God]

But consider my friend does he have a point on this, 2+2=4 5000 yr’s ago and is verifiable today.

Why isn’t what you say provable today? Since the Word of God is Truth, then the Truth is today just as then. This not to say what your trying to get across is not valid. But what is to be witnessed today?

My good friend, I don’t agree with you on this. But, what I am asking is: “How do you go about proving this?” How do you prove that 2+2=4? You can’t. It’s something that must be taking to be self-evident and it is by reason that we know this. I think it is similar with the Word of God being Truth. He has always been Truth. But we cannot prove this. We simply believe God because we know that he is trustworthy.

My talk about witnesses has more to do with historical events. We believe them to be true because we believe the witnesses of them to be telling the truth.

 

[Image_of_God]

Go re-read the thread i am not going through this 100 times.

The reason why we keep bringing it up is because you have not answer satisfactorily. You keep saying that there is more evidence for the moonlanding than the Virgin Birth. We have answered that the only reason you know either happened is because of eyewitness testimonies. You say that the people who saw the moonlanding were eyewitnesses while the people who saw the Virgin Birth were merely hearsayers. I have asked you how you distinguish eyewitnesses from hearsayers in reference to historical events. You have not answered. When you say that there is evidence for the moonlanding, we continue to tell you that all that evidence would mean nothing if there weren’t any eyewitnesses (note that we have much evidence about how the Earth formed, but will still don’t know for sure what happened because nobody was there at the time). Even with the evidence, certain assumptions have to be made about what happened. Hence, evidence gives rise to the probability of, but does not prove anything happened beyond doubt. Evidence is what makes our beliefs more reasonable. It gives us confidence in our assumptions. It does not prove anything beyond doubt.

No one can prove to you that the Virgin Birth did happen. We don’t know for sure whether it happened or not. You have no evidence that it didn’t though you make it seem like you do. However, if you are to be truly honest with yourself, you would admit that you* believe* that the Virgin Birth didn’t happened and that you don’t know for sure that it didn’t. Your claim that the Virgin Birth didn’t happen because we cannot scientifically test it today is untrue. Do you mean that because we can’t observe something today, that means it never happened? For if that is what you mean, then you are imposing on nature and history a uniformity that has never been empirically verified.

 

[AlbertBall]

The reason why we keep bringing it up is because you have not answer satisfactorily. You keep saying that there is more evidence for the moonlanding than the Virgin Birth. We have answered that the only reason you know either happened is because of eyewitness testimonies.

I honestly do not know what to say, its like nobody reads the posts. I just can’t answer this sort of selective reading.

 

[AlbertBall]

anytime you say some claim is unproven because it doesn’t have empirical evidence or it isn’t verified, et all. these are statements we have been talking about this whole time. its not that you use statements as empirical evidence, how would that even be possible? you must be joking.

No, it is the statement about empirism that is self refuting, this has nothing to do with empirical evidence, which is anything but self refuting.

Ive never denied that you think you have physical evidence for the moon landing. Ive denied that you know it is physical evidence of the moon landing. as we have pointed out, for every historical event you are in the position of trusting the witnesses.

? How could i not know it is physical evidence for the moon landings, what do eye witnesses have to do with it?

sure, pick up your Bible, its documented.

Do you know what physical evidence is? The bible as best would be documented evidence, and it not even that.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I honestly do not know what to say, its like nobody reads the posts. I just can’t answer this sort of selective reading.

the honest thing to say, would be. “wow, youre right, i hadnt thought of it like that.”

easy peasy lemon squeezy.