On the Necessity of Proving Things

[warpspeedpetey]

Nonsense. I am looking for observable, verifyable evidence. If you cannot provide it, it boils down to your word. And your word is just not enough.

maybe you dont understand what i mean when i say that verification/falsification schemes are self refuting. it means you are using a standard which if you accept, then you must reject it.

christianpost.com/blogs/tentativeapologist/2010/02/prove-god-exists-lowly-theist-or-prove-yourself-a-fool-20/index.html

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

does this make the idea any easier to understand?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You certainly have no idea what you are talking about. At best you could say that the “verifyability” principle has an insuffient underpinning. But it is NOT self-refuting. You cannot “verify” that the “verifyablity principle” contradicts itself. That **would be **self-refuting. **Don’t you even know what “self-refuting” is? Apparently not. **

christianpost.com/blogs/tentativeapologist/2010/02/prove-god-exists-lowly-theist-or-prove-yourself-a-fool-20/index.html

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

how do you like them apples?

as to the Messianic Prophecies, you know what you have to do if you want to debate them, you could have done it any time in the last couple weeks. but you dont…i wonder why?

nothing stopping you, but you.

 

[R_Daneel]

christianpost.com/blogs/tentativeapologist/2010/02/prove-god-exists-lowly-theist-or-prove-yourself-a-fool-20/index.html

how do you like them apples?

as to the Messianic Prophecies, you know what you have to do if you want to debate them, you could have done it any time in the last couple weeks. but you dont…i wonder why?

nothing stopping you, but you.

Answered in detail in the other thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6455632&postcount=90

 

[tonyrey]

II am not interested in refuting unsupported assertions.

You cannot deny that Gandhi followed Christ’s teaching about non-violence…

Of course I do. I’m not the one who maintains (for the sake of argument) that we are God’s puppets.

Good. So how did they become as they did? Due to random chance?

As a result of their own choices and decisions. Are you compelled to remain as you are for the rest of your life?

You are the one who believes all our choices are determined, not me…

I have never said that. So your argument is specious.

You are now asking how they became as they did…

If someone attacks me, I defend myself. And the Catholic Church maintains that self defense is not immoral.

Would you defend yourself if it entails blowing up a building full of people who do not know what is happening?

I am looking for observable, verifiable evidence.

You reject love, moral discernment and spiritual insight as forms of knowledge. So you either believe:

1.They don’t exist or
2. You are the only one who can observe and detect them - unless you can observe and verify what others are thinking…

Which is it?

 

[R_Daneel]

You cannot deny that Gandhi followed Christ’s teaching about non-violence…

Of course I don’t. But peaceful behavior was not invented by Christianity.

As a result of their own choices and decisions. Are you compelled to remain as you are for the rest of your life?

We are all the result of nature, nurture and our own choices. We all inherit certain traits (nature), we are all influenced by our environment (nurture), and we all make our own choices. All these factors are important, so far there is no way to decide which one is more important than the other. Maybe even the question of priority is irrelevant. But, it is a fact, that some people are born very good, peaceful, and full of good nature. Some are the opposite, most are somewhere in-between. You cannot say rationally that the good ones are puppets of God, the bad ones are puppets of Satan, and only the rest are “normal”. A selective “creation” of making only the good ones leads to no logical absurdity, does it?

Would you defend yourself if it entails blowing up a building full of people who do not know what is happening?

Honestly, I don’t know. I would probably sacrifice myself for my loved ones. But fortunately I had never had to make that decision. Of course, your question was loaded and does not have enough details. Self-defense does not necessarily entail “collateral damage”. In some very extreme circumstances it might, but that is a totally separate problem. Suppose, that the blowing up that building would be the only way to save the whole human race, I certainly would blow it up. It is the utilitarian behavior, and has nothing to do with the question at hand.

You reject love, moral discernment and spiritual insight as forms of knowledge. So you either believe:

1.They don’t exist or
2. You are the only one who can observe and detect them - unless you can observe and verify what others are thinking…

Which is it?

Incorrect dichotomy. We can know about love, we can **feel **love, we can **observe **love, we can **exercise **love. The same is true for “moral discernment”. The “spiritual insight” is a meaningless phrase for me. But none of these are “knowledge” nor are they epistemological methods to obtain knowledge - and that is what we are talking about. Everyone can detect these traits, they are expressed in other people’s behavior. We cannot observe the actual neurological processes, we can only infer based upon our observations.

 

[Image_of_God]

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

I have hardly been selectively reading. I have typed what you have said, repeating it to you. I have told you that the answers you have given do not seem logical. How do you show a past event to be scientifically verifiable? Scientifically unverifiable? This is something I don’t understand, because unless a past event if present for testing, I don’t see how this could be done. We can take what we do have and make assumptions as to what probably did happen, but we cannot prove that such a thing did happen by scientific verification schemes.

You have said that there is more evidence for the moonlanding than the Virgin Birth. I presume that what you mean is that there are more reliable eyewitnesses. But how do you know this?

These things you have not answered. It is hardly selective reading. I don’t think I have misconstrued anything you have said.

 

[tonyrey]

But peaceful behavior was not invented by Christianity.

Please cite a non-Christian precept to love your enemies.

We are all the result of nature, nurture and our own choices. We all inherit certain traits (nature), we are all influenced by our environment (nurture), and we all make our own choices.

What enables us to make our own choices?

All these factors are important, so far there is no way to decide which one is more important than the other. Maybe even the question of priority is irrelevant. But, it is a fact, that some people are born very good, peaceful, and full of good nature. Some are the opposite, most are somewhere in-between. You cannot say rationally that the good ones are puppets of God, the bad ones are puppets of Satan, and only the rest are “normal”.

Then it does not make sense to praise or blame people for what they are or what they do.

A selective “creation” of making only the good ones leads to no logical absurdity, does it?

Not if you deny we are responsible for our choices and decisions.

Would you defend yourself if it entails blowing up a building full of people who do not know what is happening?

Honestly, I don’t know. I would probably sacrifice myself for my loved ones. But fortunately I had never had to make that decision. Of course, your question was loaded and does not have enough details.

Loaded? Similar situations often happen during a war. You’re not even sure you would sacrifice yourself for your loved ones, let alone strangers! No wonder you equate Christianity with superstitious stupidity…

Self-defense does not necessarily entail “collateral damage”. In some very extreme circumstances it might, but that is a totally separate problem. Suppose, that the blowing up that building would be the only way to save the whole human race, I certainly would blow it up. It is the utilitarian behavior, and has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Why do you value the human race? Is there anything special about it? Is it simply because you happen to belong to it?
BTW Would you still blow the building up to save everyone if you were in the house?

We can know about love, we can feel love, we can observe love, we can exercise love. The same is true for “moral discernment”. The “spiritual insight” is a meaningless phrase for me. But none of these are “knowledge” nor are they epistemological methods to obtain knowledge - and that is what we are talking about.
Everyone can detect these traits, they are expressed in other people’s behavior. We cannot observe the actual neurological processes, we can only infer based upon our observations.

Why can’t you observe love and moral discernment? Are they too complex? Is it because scientific knowledge is not yet sufficiently advanced?

 

[AlbertBall]

** i will reject it as UNPROVEN! ** post #310

Ok, lets go one point at a time. Unproven is NOT the same as proven or disproven.

 

[AlbertBall]

I have hardly been selectively reading. I have typed what you have said, repeating it to you. I have told you that the answers you have given do not seem logical. How do you show a past event to be scientifically verifiable? Scientifically unverifiable? This is something I don’t understand, because unless a past event if present for testing, I don’t see how this could be done. We can take what we do have and make assumptions as to what probably did happen, but we cannot prove that such a thing did happen by scientific verification schemes.

You have said that there is more evidence for the moonlanding than the Virgin Birth. I presume that what you mean is that there are more reliable eyewitnesses. But how do you know this?

These things you have not answered. It is hardly selective reading. I don’t think I have misconstrued anything you have said.

I have answered this countless times.

Do you people really actually believe there is as much evidence for moon landings as there is for the virgin birth?

It has already been admitted there is physical evidence for the moon landings. Now can someone please present even ONE piece of physical evidence for the virgin birth, JUST ONE!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ok, lets go one point at a time. Unproven is NOT the same as proven or disproven.

youre right.

i fail to see how that makes a difference, though. you just step into another double standard, the moonlanding is unproven, and you accept the veracity of that event.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I have answered this countless times.

Do you people really actually believe there is as much evidence for moon landings as there is for the virgin birth?

yes, as we have told you countless times it all boils down to trust.

It has already been admitted there is physical evidence for the moon landings.

where did this happen? you think you have physical evidence. but you still havent been able to show that you actually do.

Now can someone please present even ONE piece of physical evidence for the virgin birth, JUST ONE!

if we use your standard of evidence then we need only point to the Church of the Nativity, the Relics of the Magi, the Holy Prepuce, the Swaddling Clothes, the Nativity Crib, etc.

 

[AlbertBall]

youre right.

i fail to see how that makes a difference, though. you just step into another double standard, the moonlanding is unproven, and you accept the veracity of that event.

Only in your world is the moon landing unproven, the rest of us, that live in a little place i like to call reality, know that the moon landing has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[AlbertBall]

yes, as we have told you countless times it all boils down to trust.

If you understood science you would know why this statement is utter nonsense, i am not sure why else to tell you.

where did this happen? you think you have physical evidence. but you still haven’t been able to show that you actually do.

You openly admitted there is physical evidence for the moon landings. Apollo capsules, booster rockets, space suits, moon rocks, etc are ALL physical evidence for the landings. Whether you accept the evidence is irrelevant, they ARE physical evidence for the landings.

if we use your standard of evidence then we need only point to the Church of the Nativity, the Relics of the Magi, the Holy Prepuce, the Swaddling Clothes, the Nativity Crib, etc.

“Physical evidence is any evidence introduced in a trial in the form of a physical object, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics.”

A space suit has demonstrable physical characteristics that support moon landings, moon rocks have demonstrable physical characteristics that show the rocks are not consistent with terrestrial rock. Rockets have demonstrable physical characteristics that show a mechanism for traveling to the moon. Apollo capsules have demonstrable physical characteristics that show a mechanism for landing on the moon.

EXACTLY what demonstrable physical characteristics do ANY of the things you presented have that support the idea that mary was a virgin. What demonstrable physical characteristics do swaddling clothes have that support the idea that mary was a virgin? And where are these Swaddling Clothes? Unless you have them to present they ARE NOT physical evidence! Honestly i have wasted far to much time on this, i think everyone other than you can see how absurd this is.

 

[R_Daneel]

Please cite a non-Christian precept to love your enemies.

As I said, this is a unique concept to Christianity. And it is quite stupid. Also it has nothing to do with peaceful resistance.

What enables us to make our own choices?
Then it does not make sense to praise or blame people for what they are or what they do.
Not if you deny we are responsible for our choices and decisions.

Total non-sequitur. It does not pertain to your assertion that genuinely good people would be puppets.

Why do you value the human race? Is there anything special about it? Is it simply because you happen to belong to it?
BTW Would you still blow the building up to save everyone if you were in the house?

In the example I quoted, yes.

Why can’t you observe love and moral discernment? Are they too complex? Is it because scientific knowledge is not yet sufficiently advanced?

Becuase they are internal mental states.

Get back to the topic. This derailment has been going on for too long.

 

[tonyrey]

Please cite a non-Christian precept to love your enemies.

As I said, this is a unique concept to Christianity. And it is quite stupid.
What you regard as stupidity is **the only way **to end vendettas and bloodshed from one generation to the next. No doubt you think hating your enemies is going to lead to lasting peace and harmony… and improve your personality at the same time… in the good old Nazi tradition based on Nietszche’s rejection of Christianity…

Also it has nothing to do with peaceful resistance.

Loving your enemies has nothing to do with peaceful resistance! What do you think motivates peaceful resistance and what is its goal?

Not if you deny we are responsible for our choices and decisions.

Total non-sequitur. It does not pertain to your assertion that genuinely good people would be puppets. you are deliberately obfuscating the issue.** What** enables us to make our choices?

Why do you value the human race? Is there anything special about it? Is it simply because you happen to belong to it?

It is highly significant that you have failed to reply…

BTW Would you still blow the building up to save everyone if you were in the house?
In the example I quoted, yes.

So you do believe in self-sacrifice…

Why can’t you observe love and moral discernment? Are they too complex? Is it because scientific knowledge is not yet sufficiently advanced?

Becuase they are internal mental states.
Get back to the topic. This derailment has been going on for too long.
This is right on the topic. **The most direct evidence we have is our mental state. **
It does not require proof… yet you reject it as evidence!

 

[R_Daneel]

What you regard as stupidity is **the only way **to end vendettas and bloodshed from one generation to the next. No doubt you think hating your enemies is going to lead to lasting peace and harmony… and improve your personality at the same time… in the good old Nazi tradition based on Nietszche’s rejection of Christianity…

No, it is not. Take the centuries-old animosity between the Germans and the French. They still don’t like (much less “love”) each other, but the antagonism has stopped. And, as usual, you can only think in extremes… love and hate… the world is not balck and white. There are shades of grey, too. Between the love and the hate there is a whole spectrum of emotions.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Only in your world is the moon landing unproven, the rest of us, that live in a little place i like to call reality, know that the moon landing has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

your dodging the point. you are using a double standard. simply declaring the moonlanding proven and our claims unproven, doesnt work.

its still a double standard.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you understood science you would know why this statement is utter nonsense, i am not sure why else to tell you.

we do understand ‘science’ and have debunked every appeal to it you have made thus far.

You openly admitted there is physical evidence for the moon landings. Apollo capsules, booster rockets, space suits, moon rocks, etc are ALL physical evidence for the landings. Whether you accept the evidence is irrelevant, they ARE physical evidence for the landings.

no, i pointed out that you think you have physical evidence. simply saying something is evidence is not the same thing as it being evidence.

you simply trust that these things are actual evidence of the moonlanding, when they could just as well be props.

“Physical evidence is any evidence introduced in a trial in the form of a physical object, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics.”

now your moving the goal posts. however, we arent talking about juris prudence trials either.

A space suit has demonstrable physical characteristics that support moon landings,

what would that be?

moon rocks have demonstrable physical characteristics that show the rocks are not consistent with terrestrial rock.

so what? there are 2 different sources for moon rocks other than the moonlanding. the russian luna missions, and more than a hundred pounds of impact ejecta

Rockets have demonstrable physical characteristics that show a mechanism for traveling to the moon. Apollo capsules have demonstrable physical characteristics that show a mechanism for landing on the moon.

and neither of them show that a moonlanding actually happened.

EXACTLY what demonstrable physical characteristics do ANY of the things you presented have that support the idea that mary was a virgin. What demonstrable physical characteristics do swaddling clothes have that support the idea that mary was a virgin? And where are these Swaddling Clothes? Unless you have them to present they ARE NOT physical evidence! Honestly i have wasted far to much time on this, i think everyone other than you can see how absurd this is.

now your trying to move the goalposts again, we are talking the ‘virgin birth’ not the ‘Perpetual Virginity of Mary’.

but let me point out, none of the evidence you present for the moonlanding has any demonstrable physical characteristic that proves the moonlanding.

so again you resort to a double standard, only this time its an imaginary quality that ‘demonstrable physical characteristics’ you claim you have, that we dont. when are you going to admit it? we can keep this up as long as necessary, but you are completley cornered.
the evidence is the same, and none of it proves the moonlanding actually happened. you simply wish to believe it is true, while you wish not to believe that the biblical events are true.

 

[AlbertBall]

but let me point out, none of the evidence you present for the moonlanding has any demonstrable physical characteristic that proves the moonlanding.

so again you resort to a double standard, only this time its an imaginary quality that ‘demonstrable physical characteristics’ you claim you have, that we dont. when are you going to admit it? we can keep this up as long as necessary, but you are completley cornered.
the evidence is the same, and none of it proves the moonlanding actually happened. you simply wish to believe it is true, while you wish not to believe that the biblical events are true.

Do you even read my posts?

I said " characteristics that support the moon landings"

Proven has nothing to do with it. Evidence does not prove but SUPPORTS. These things are physical evidence and their characteristics SUPPORT the moon landings. It is the combined evidence that lets us establish beyond reasonable doubt.

Now either produce some physical evidence for the virgin birth, or just admit there is more evidence for the moon landings than there is for the virgin birth.

 

[AlbertBall]

but let me point out, none of the evidence you present for the moonlanding has any demonstrable physical characteristic that proves the moonlanding.

Where have i ever said they do? However the combination of them all lets us establish the moon landings beyond reasonable doubt, you can me no such combination for the virgin birth for you do not have one single bit of physical, testable, or repeatable evidence for it. Hence the BIG difference in the two claims, and hence why even 70% of this forum does not agree with you. Try posting on a science forum and i would bet that number would be closer to 99%.