On the Necessity of Proving Things

[AlbertBall]

No. I’m being completely serious. If god wrote a tome, the least he could do was help science in a tangible way, if only a token gesture to show that the bible was divinely inspired. Such a trivial cost to convert large swathes of scientific thinkers. It is illogical to exclude.

Reminds me of… youtube.com/watch?v=zOfjkl-3SNE

Haha i guess that makes us the angels!!!

 

[AlbertBall]

why do you think those things should be in the Bible?

if you want some sort of massive proof. then the mathematics of messianic Prophecy is convincing to a number of mathematicians.

The thing is the bible does make such claims, its just that it get this wrong so they are ignored.

 

[Syntax]

Well firstly many of the “theories” on our list are were not derived from the scientific method. In fact most of them were not, however the ones that were, were not mistakes they were the best explanation given the available evidence. I mean how on earth can you call Newtons Laws mistakes? Are you kidding?

uhh…don’t all scientific theories propose to be the best explanations given the available evidence? In what other way is a scientific theory constructed? Do you have some naive thought that scientific theories themselves are directly given in the empirical data or something?

And have you been living under a rock since the Special and General Theories of Relativity were proposed? STR says Newton’s Laws of motion are false because there are no independent frames of reference such as absolute space and absolute time from which to measure an object’s absolute velocity or absolute acceleration. And GTR says Newton’s Law of Gravity is false because gravity is not some magical “force” acting instantaneously across point A and point B. Rather, gravity is simply the curvature of space-time structure due to large massive bodies, and happens not to be instantenous. Newtons laws are applicable to our tiny little terrestrial plane because they work on smaller scales, but on larger cosmological scales Newton’s Laws don’t work at all. So it is not that both theories are true. No. One just happens to “work” in smaller scopes.

So it is certainly not the case that the original Newtonian meanings of “motion,” “space,” “time,” and “gravity” were “conserved” or “refiend” across this theory-change, but rather totally abandoned because there is not any resemblence between the theoretical terms used in the past and the theoretical terms used now.

 

[Schn]

Sure. But so what? I am saying God’s intentions would certainly change the validity of your expectations that the Bible ought to give you the pythagorean theorem.

Pythagoras’ theorem wouldn’t be that notable. People were using Pythagorean triples to construct right angles long before then.

And like Warpspeed said, the Bible is not a scientific manual. It’s a story of God’s history and his relationship with his people, so it is inappropriate to ask it to give you scientific answers anyway.

Strawman again. All I’m looking for is a factoid to prove authenticity. Why wouldn’t you want that too? A way to know for sure?

Sure. But so what? All relationships presuppose the existence of the other.

Conversely, all relationships have a pre-condition requiring the other exists. Relationships that do not fit this are called delusions or imaginary friends. Because you think you have a relationship with someone doesn’t mean they exist in any meaningful way.

And relationship in prayer being “unfalsifiable” is not vice of prayer, but a virtue.

Wat. How is unfalsifiability ever a virtue?

Your empirical categories have no applications in relationships. This is exactly my point about taking up the challenge. You either won’t do it, or you treat it as a way of testing whether or not God exists.

Well when you suggest it as the way to determine whether God exists, you can’t blame someone for taking the challenge in that manner.

 

[Syntax]

Conversely, all relationships have a pre-condition requiring the other exists. Relationships that do not fit this are called delusions or imaginary friends. Because you think you have a relationship with someone doesn’t mean they exist in any meaningful way.

lol. Of course mere possession of having a belief doesn’t entail that belief is true. No one said this. But I can have transcendental non-empirical evidence that justifies me in believing that God exists and that I have a relationship with Him. Just as I have empirical evidence that my mother exists and empirical evidence that I communicate with her, so I am justified in believing I have an actual relationship with her.

Also, you just flat out assume that our belief “God exists” is on par with beliefs like “Santa Claus exists” without having any means yourself for determining whether this comparison is accurate. So you have no justification for believing this. After all, how would you know this anyway since you apparently lack the belief that “God exists” in the first place? Also, I seriously doubt you have some priviledged access to the content of my own belief that I don’t have.

Wat. How is unfalsifiability ever a virtue?

You are applying epistemic notions where they don’t apply Falsifiability is only an epistemic virtue for science, not relationships. Falsifiability is not even a virtue for mathematical or logical proofs because they are supposed to be, by nature, unfalsifiable–that is precisely their virtue and why we call them “necessary” proofs.

So I am saying that my relationship with God is, in principle, unfalsifiable because it is not a relationship whose reality can be determined empirically. And unfalsifiability of this relationship is a virtue because it means our relational bonds with God are that much stronger.
Schn'6328787:

Well when you suggest it as the way to determine whether God exists, you can’t blame someone for taking the challenge in that manner.

I didn’t say this; you did. You explicitly asked how relationships are determined. I said you enter into them. So perhaps a person needs to change his or her attitude with respect to what a relationship with God requires. It doesn’t require proof, it requires love.

 

[AlbertBall]

uhh…don’t all scientific theories propose to be the best explanations given the available evidence? In what other way is a scientific theory constructed? Do you have some naive thought that scientific theories themselves are directly given in the empirical data or something?

And have you been living under a rock since the Special and General Theories of Relativity were proposed? STR says Newton’s Laws of motion are false because there are no independent frames of reference such as absolute space and absolute time from which to measure an object’s absolute velocity or absolute acceleration. And GTR says Newton’s Law of Gravity is false because gravity is not some magical “force” acting instantaneously across point A and point B. Rather, gravity is simply the curvature of space-time structure due to large massive bodies, and happens not to be instantenous. Newtons laws are applicable to our tiny little terrestrial plane because they work on smaller scales, but on larger cosmological scales Newton’s Laws don’t work at all. So it is not that both theories are true. No. One just happens to “work” in smaller scopes.

So it is certainly not the case that the original Newtonian meanings of “motion,” “space,” “time,” and “gravity” were “conserved” or “refiend” across this theory-change, but rather totally abandoned because there is not any resemblence between the theoretical terms used in the past and the theoretical terms used now.

Newtons laws of motion work brilliantly under certain conditions. I’m guessing you didn’t watch the video, which explains this and will save me a alot of typing. These laws have NOT been abandoned, and are still taught at every major university in the world.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Oh, I’m sure a footnote somewhere stating e = mcc or something wouldn’t be too hard.

ok, if we follow this reasoning, then wouldnt the people of the late 1700’s have been convinced by an explanation of the caloric theory? or maybe the emitter theory? or Luminiferous aether in the late 1800’s?

all these theories have been superseded by further observation. wouldnt that then have cast doubt of the veracity of the books in the Bible? of course.

all theories, even E=MC2 are subject to revision by new observations. what if we fire up the collider at cern and find out that like every theory of the past, we were wrong?

no, it seems to me that G-d, being quite wise, understood that the march of science was no sure thing. so if any theory were included and then later overturned or altered from what was written that would be a real problem.

so instead he used Messianic Prophecy, something that can be understood by everyone from an illiterate shepherd to the most advanced mathematician.

simply brilliant.

Firstly, were these prophecies written before the events occurred?

yes, we have scientic evidence they were.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls

Secondly, how can I be objectively certain that they did occur?

im not sure what you mean by “objectively certain” the only thing i could find on the phrase was this

alwayslearn.com/Objectivism/Objective%20Certainty.htm

OBJECTIVE CERTAINTY

The objective concept of certainty means that you have total confidence in the context of everything that you know , i.e. your own knowledge.

You have substantial evidence to support something.
After a determined effort to find it, you have nothing to oppose it.
You are fully justified in regarding it as a certainty in the context of your knowledge. Go on to the next problem.
If, later on you find an error, rethink the issue and fix up your thinking accordingly. YOU CAN ONLY BE CERTAIN IN YOUR OWN CONTEXT OF KNOWLEDGE, AND REQUIRING MORE OF YOURSELF DOESN’T MAKE ANY OBJECTIVE SENSE.

do you mean this?

if not i suppose you may mean just “certain”

in that case i would say you can be as certain of it as any other historical event you did not witness. from the existence of the original magna carta, to the moonlanding, you must simply trust the evidence you have at hand.

in this case, the people who witnessed the Messianic Prophecies fulfillment in Christ, were later Martyred, they gave their lives for what they knew to be true.

unlike modern cults where people commit suicide on the basis of some false belief or charismatic leader. the Apostles and the Martyrs suffered for decades prior to their torturous deaths. some as slaves, some as vagabonds, beaten, jailed, chased out of town, stoned, spit on, disrespected, etc. but their witness and the “miracles” that they performed led thousands of others to be persecuted and Martyred for the Faith themselves.

all of the bad things that happened to them could have been avoided simply by not preaching, or by deconverting when threatened. all of them could have just ignored what they had seen, and lived normal, average, comfortable lives for the times in which they lived.

but they didnt, they suffered, and died horribly instead, their witness and miraculous acts causing many others to do the same.

hence the statement that “the blood of Christians is seed” kill us, persecute us, and from that evil, G-d will raise a forrest of Christians.

i think that is the best reason to accept that these things happened.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You should have read the whole thing. Here is the correct quotation:

I highlighted the pertinent part: “SOME”. This is the **existential operator **(∃), and not the **universal operator **“ALL” (∀).

first it isnt a logical argument, its a statement that is the opinion of the author of the article.

ergo, operators have nothing to do with it. frankly, im not sure why you would make this statement.

second we arent talking about soft empiricisms, we are talking about the hard empirical claim that knowledge only arises from the senses.

if you are a soft empiricist, then we have nothing to argue about. we can then begin the discussion of how we know G-d exists, without claims for some particular empirical evidence.

only i dont think youre a soft empiricist, because we wouldnt even be having this conversation.

The philosophical stance you disagree with (and I would concur) is properly called “logical positivism” (sometimes it is called neo-positivism) which is a variant of empiricism - but **not **the same.

actually its scientific realism. logical positivism is pretty much a dead idea now.

I am an empiricist.

just for future reference, exactly what kind of empiricist are you then?

Now, have we wasted enough time on this nonsense? I think it is time to eat crow my friend and move on. Maybe you never heard of logical positivism and what separates it from regular empiricism. Now you do. There is no reason to dig in your heels and stick to your incorrect definition.

as we have repeatedly shown that we are using the correct definition, and on top of that you have cited an essentially dead epistomological position instead of the current one we are refuting, as a straw man, id suggest that we arent the ones ready for dinner.

At least we have a definition of “faith” that we can agree upon. Now do you offer “faith” as an “alternative” epistemological tool to arrive at knowledge?

actually, thats “belief”. “faith” is a theological virtue.

we dont need alternative epistemological tools to the logical contradiction of the empirical claim. we can use the same rules of logical inference that we always have. hard empiricism is the intruder, long before the formal expressions of empiricism, Euclid used logic for his 3D geometry.

*when were you planning to answer post #12?

 

[Schn]

ok, if we follow this reasoning, then wouldnt the people of the late 1700’s have been convinced by an explanation of the caloric theory? or maybe the emitter theory? or Luminiferous aether in the late 1800’s?

all these theories have been superseded by further observation. wouldnt that then have cast doubt of the veracity of the books in the Bible? of course.

all theories, even E=MC2 are subject to revision by new observations. what if we fire up the collider at cern and find out that like every theory of the past, we were wrong?

no, it seems to me that G-d, being quite wise, understood that the march of science was no sure thing. so if any theory were included and then later overturned or altered from what was written that would be a real problem.

so instead he used Messianic Prophecy, something that can be understood by everyone from an illiterate shepherd to the most advanced mathematician.

simply brilliant.

You forget that since he is omniscient, he could predict which theories are ultimately correct, and just include one of those.

yes, we have scientic evidence they were.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls

That’s good.

im not sure what you mean by “objectively certain” the only thing i could find on the phrase was this

alwayslearn.com/Objectivism/Objective%20Certainty.htm

do you mean this?

if not i suppose you may mean just “certain”

I meant where is your objective evidence that the prophecies occurred.

in that case i would say you can be as certain of it as any other historical event you did not witness. from the existence of the original magna carta, to the moonlanding, you must simply trust the evidence you have at hand.

The magna carta and the moonlanding are documented far more strongly than any of the prophecies. Secondarily, neither contradict science, like a virgin birth would. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

in this case, the people who witnessed the Messianic Prophecies fulfillment in Christ, were later Martyred, they gave their lives for what they knew to be true.

unlike modern cults where people commit suicide on the basis of some false belief or charismatic leader. the Apostles and the Martyrs suffered for decades prior to their torturous deaths. some as slaves, some as vagabonds, beaten, jailed, chased out of town, stoned, spit on, disrespected, etc. but their witness and the “miracles” that they performed led thousands of others to be persecuted and Martyred for the Faith themselves.

all of the bad things that happened to them could have been avoided simply by not preaching, or by deconverting when threatened. all of them could have just ignored what they had seen, and lived normal, average, comfortable lives for the times in which they lived.

but they didnt, they suffered, and died horribly instead, their witness and miraculous acts causing many others to do the same.

hence the statement that “the blood of Christians is seed” kill us, persecute us, and from that evil, G-d will raise a forrest of Christians.

i think that is the best reason to accept that these things happened.

Psychologists, especially those dealing with memory, know that human testimony is weak, unreliable, and prone to suggestion. They also know (as a walk through a mental institute will reveal) that humans can retain completely illogical convictions with relative ease. It is also possible that the later writers simply fit their works to the earlier ones.

 

[Syntax]

You forget that since he is omniscient, he could predict which theories are ultimately correct, and just include one of those.

“Could” does not entail “would.” Ignoring what Warpspeed is saying, I’ve just noticed what’s going on. You are just assuming the conditional statement (1) is true, without offering any reason for believing it. (3) is the inevitable conclusion of your premise (1), but you haven’t offered any support for (1):

(1) If the Bible is Divinely inspired, then God would have put at least one correct scientific/mathematical theory in the Bible.
(2) God did not put at least one correct theory in the Bible.
(3) Therefore, the Bible is not Divinely inspired.

There’s simply no reason to think (1) is true unless you are pretending to construe God’s own intentions, a being whom you admit you don’t any access to anyways since you lack a belief in God. And if you don’t have a justified belief about what God’s actual intentions were with respect to inspiring the writings of the Bible, then how can you be justified in believing that he *would have *done something different?

I’ve already given my reasons for thinking (1) is false in another post. But I find it interesting that you haven’t given any reason for thinking (1) is true! We can go around and around debating the truth-value of (1), but it is not going to solve any problems here if we all disagree.

 

[Schn]

“Could” does not entail “would.” Ignoring what Warpspeed is saying, I’ve just noticed what’s going on. You are just assuming the conditional statement (1) is true, without offering any reason for believing it. (3) is the inevitable conclusion of your premise (1), but you haven’t offered any support for (1):

(1) If the Bible is Divinely inspired, then God would have put at least one correct scientific/mathematical theory in the Bible.
(2) God did not put at least one correct theory in the Bible.
(3) Therefore, the Bible is not Divinely inspired.

There’s simply no reason to think (1) is true unless you are pretending to construe God’s own intentions, a being whom you admit you don’t any access to anyways since you lack a belief in God. And if you don’t have a justified belief about what God’s actual intentions were with respect to inspiring the writings of the Bible, then how can you be justified in believing that he *would have *done something different?

I’ve already given my reasons for thinking (1) is false in another post. But I find it interesting that you haven’t given any reason for thinking (1) is true! We can go around and around debating the truth-value of (1), but it is not going to solve any problems here if we all disagree.

1. is true because it would single handedly convince most current skeptics that the bible is true. And God loves his creations, right? He wouldn’t want us to go to hell when all he has to do is slip e=mcc on some secluded footnote?

 

[Syntax]

1. is true because it would single handedly convince most current skeptics that the bible is true. And God loves his creations, right? He wouldn’t want us to go to hell when all he has to do is slip e=mcc on some secluded footnote?

No. You are begging the question in the** bold-faced ** piece I highlighted above. You are saying (1) is true because that it is true that God would have put true theories in the Bible would convince other atheists. But you still need support that this is what, in fact, God himself would have done. The premise is about God’s intentions alone, not about the effect his intentions would have on atheists.

Furthermore, you are also assuming another premise about God’s intentions, namely:

If God loves his creatures, then how *would *have put e=mcc in the bible.

…another conditional statement that needs support.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You forget that since he is omniscient, he could predict which theories are ultimately correct, and just include one of those.

how do you know that we are currently aware of an ultimately true theory? even if He did give an ultimately true theory, then how could you tell without knowing if the current state of scientific knowledge has an ultimately true theory?

im trying to point out that unless you know an ultimately true theory, then you wouldnt be able to recognize it in one of the books of the Bible.

for instance if i told you to find “Bob” in a crowd of people, unless you knew what Bob looked like, you could walk right by Bob and never know that Bob was right there.

i think Messianic Prophecy, the reason Christianity exists, is a much better indicator of something that can only come from the Divine. it is something that would hold true for anyone in any age. no matter their level of education, or their place in time. it speaks loudly to everyone.

I meant where is your objective evidence that the prophecies occurred.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallus_(historian

this man refers to the darkness at the ressurection. its interesting, but not conclusive proof.

but if youre looking for some conclusive physical evidence of any historical event, there is no such thing. i mean, i could show you 30 pieces of silver and say that this is the money judas was paid to betray Christ, but you wouldnt have a way to know if thats true. not even if you asked about it the next day after the event, much less 2000 years later.

i think the best evidence is the existence of a Church, the Apostles and the Martyrs.

The magna carta and the moonlanding are documented far more strongly than any of the prophecies.

i argue this one alot. one cannot prove the moonlanding happened. you can trust me on this, or we can go through the whole argument, but in the end, everything you consider evidence, from the videos, to the return module, you have to trust someone when they say that it occured. its no different a situation for the Biblical claims. or any historical claim that we didnt witness ourselves. ultimately you have to trust that the evidence wasnt arranged and that the people making the claims are shooting straight with you.

they dont have the original magna carta they only have a few copies, the Bible is actually several dozen entirely different books that were all compiled into one cannon because they are all sources that talk about mans relationship to G-d. i think 72 or so sources are a pretty good verification of that relationship.

Secondarily, neither contradict science, like a virgin birth would. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

we dont know that virgin birth violates science, we can only say that we dont understand the process by which it occurred. i want to be clear here, i dont believe in magic or miracles. i dont think any rational person can. however, if you went to the amazon and showed an uncontacted, bone through the nose tribesman a light bulb, they would probably scream in terror at something that looks magical to them because any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic.

clarkes laws make a good representation of the idea

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke’s_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.

scientific knowledge has never been, and most likely never will be a settled field. we could fire up a particle collider at cern tomorrow, and have a whole new understanding of the universe an hour later.

Psychologists, especially those dealing with memory, know that human testimony is weak, unreliable, and prone to suggestion. They also know (as a walk through a mental institute will reveal) that humans can retain completely illogical convictions with relative ease.

the Apostles in particular not only lived with Christ for 3 years, they participated in the miracles that occurred, and then performed their own miracles for decades after the Ressurection. its hard to imagine it to be a case of suggestion. nor does it seem reasonable that they were 13 crazy people, that simply fooled everyone around them for decades, and did so for no reason, and nobody was wise to it.

It is also possible that the later writers simply fit their works to the earlier ones.

thats an impossible charge to defend against for any historical event. i mean, take the moonlanding again, how do we know that NASA didnt fake it on a soundstage in houston for a bigger budget from the congress?

if you want to make a conspiracy claim, that would require a lot of evidence, not just the possibility that it could be done.

 

[Schn]

There’s snipped bits, but what was there was replied to.

how do you know that we are currently aware of an ultimately true theory? even if He did give an ultimately true theory, then how could you tell without knowing if the current state of scientific knowledge has an ultimately true theory?

for instance if i told you to find “Bob” in a crowd of people, unless you knew what Bob looked like, you could walk right by Bob and never know that Bob was right there.

Discovering a theorem is a different problem to testing whether a theorem is true. An example is a classic boolean satisfiability problem. Creating a solution from scratch is computationally difficult, while verifying that it is a correct solution is easy.

i think Messianic Prophecy, the reason Christianity exists, is a much better indicator of something that can only come from the Divine. .

Which is still let down by the weakest link in the chain, that is, that writers could easily falsify or fit future actions to the previous prophecy. A scientific or mathematical theorem would be degraded if modified by the ignorant. Conversely, anyone that can write can embellish a story.

but if youre looking for some conclusive physical evidence of any historical event, there is no such thing. i mean, i could show you 30 pieces of silver and say that this is the money judas was paid to betray Christ, but you wouldnt have a way to know if thats true. not even if you asked about it the next day after the event, much less 2000 years later.

And so you admit that your belief hinges on whether or not a chain of writers felt like souping up the story.

i think the best evidence is the existence of a Church, the Apostles and the Martyrs.

This goes for any religious society, and I’m sure you don’t think they’re all true.

i argue this one alot. one cannot prove the moonlanding happened. you can trust me on this, or we can go through the whole argument, but in the end, everything you consider evidence, from the videos, to the return module, you have to trust someone when they say that it occured. its no different a situation for the Biblical claims. or any historical claim that we didnt witness ourselves. ultimately you have to trust that the evidence wasnt arranged and that the people making the claims are shooting straight with you.

Of course you can’t prove anything. A conspiracy theory could theoretically exist for anything. However, the evidence for going to the moon is much much stronger than anything biblical. You have financial documentation, it’s scientifically plausible, you have thousands of living witnesses to shuttle takeoffs, you have people that claim to have landed on the moon still alive. You have samples from the moon, you have videos of men on the moon. Sure, any of these could be fabricated, but in combination, the evidence if overwhelming. What have you got for Jesus? A single book, with no evidence of authenticity over any other book set in that time period, fact or fiction.

they dont have the original magna carta they only have a few copies,

And what about the legal effects of the magna carta. I’m sure they are still being felt, really.

the Bible is actually several dozen entirely different books that were all compiled into one cannon because they are all sources that talk about mans relationship to G-d. i think 72 or so sources are a pretty good verification of that relationship.

Ok so the various Star Trek novels are pretty good evidence of Vulcans. I’m sure there’s more than 72.

we dont know that virgin birth violates science, we can only say that we dont understand the process by which it occurred. i want to be clear here, i dont believe in magic or miracles. i dont think any rational person can. any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic.

clarkes laws make a good representation of the idea

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke’s_three_laws

The savage does not understand a light bulb. Conversely, we understand reproduction quite thoroughly, and we know you need sperm, obtained from a man, in order to conceive a child. God could have done in-vitro, but doing it without modern equipment is impossible. And “because he’s god” is just a special pleading fallacy cop out.

scientific knowledge has never been, and most likely never will be a settled field. we could fire up a particle collider at cern tomorrow, and have a whole new understanding of the universe an hour later.

Which is a strength, not a weakness.

the Apostles in particular not only lived with Christ for 3 years, they participated in the miracles that occurred, and then performed their own miracles for decades after the Ressurection. its hard to imagine it to be a case of suggestion. nor does it seem reasonable that they were 13 crazy people, that simply fooled everyone around them for decades, and did so for no reason, and nobody was wise to it.

This story can be fabricated by any good author.

thats an impossible charge to defend against for any historical event. i mean, take the moonlanding again, how do we know that NASA didnt fake it on a soundstage in houston for a bigger budget from the congress?

if you want to make a conspiracy claim, that would require a lot of evidence, not just the possibility that it could be done.

It’s very easy to take an old book and write a new one consistent with it. That’s only one faking. For NASA to fake the moon landings, not only would they have to falsify video, but make a fake shuttle, secret the astronauts out, blast off, and then secret the shuttle who knows where. That’s like 5 fakings more un-fake than yours already.

 

[tonyrey]

Only the perceptions received via the senses are direct information. No one interprets that information in precisely the same way as another person.

How else do we get direct information from the external world? By telepathy?

How do you differentiate between the signal and its perception?

The light waves received by the retina and the sound waves received by the ear drum are distinct from the nerve impulses and their interpretation by the brain.

The existence of our minds is an incontrovertible fact whereas every physical object is a provisional mental construct which may be modified in the light of future discoveries.

Not the existence of the object, but the properties of it.

Do you mean the existence of the object is an incontrovertible fact? If so please explain how you know **for certain **that a particular object exists?

One cannot rationally maintain the concept that we are only “brains in vats”.

Who said we are? No one is denying the existence of external objects. The success of science is ample evidence of the value of empirical evidence but it is also evidence of the power of the mind without which science would not exist…

Well, here we have 100% agreement. Especially since you now contradict your previous proposition, where you said that the existence of external objects is not an “incontrovertible fact”.

It is not an incontrovertible fact like logical and mathematical truths (solipsism is logically possible) but the degree of probability that external objects exist is so high that it can be ignored.

Rats have no self-knowledge. Small children have no self-knowledge. Even some adults have no self-knowledge. Yet they all experience things, and learn from them. If they don’t learn their life will be cut short.

The absence of self-knowledge in rats, children and imbeciles does not alter the fact that self-knowledge is the basis of all rational activity. Rats, children and imbeciles are not responsible for the success of science!

Now you deny the objective existence of the external world again.

False! Not to have direct access to the external world is not to deny that it exists…

And, as a matter of fact, we do not have direct access to our stream of consciousness. Most of our thought process happens in the sub-conscious. And this fact can be demonstrated.

You are contradicting yourself! “Most of our thought process happens in sub-conscious” implies that we are conscious of **some **of our thought processes. We have immediate, direct access to our stream of consciousness - and we can also discover much of what occurs subconsciously…

There is always the possibility of error where human beings with finite intelligence are concerned.

Contradicted by your own assertion that we have direct access to our own mental constructs. Can we be wrong in assuming that we have consciousness? If we cannot, then there is at least one thing, where we are “infallible”.

**In normal circumstances **we are infallible with regard to what we are thinking and feeling but not when we are under the influence of such factors as alcohol, drugs, hypnosis or mental disorders like schizophrenia. It remains a fact that direct knowledge of ourselves is the most fundamental form of knowledge we have and more significant than inferred knowledge of external objects…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Discovering a theorem is a …

im not sure how this moves the ball this isnt a logic problem per se. if you dont know if a theory is true, and you cannot because new observation can invalidate atheory at any time. how can it be reasonab le to assume at any point, that one knows a theory is ultimately true?

and since one cannot know that, one couldnt recognize it in Scripture anyway, it makes the idea that it is appropriate for G-d to include a scientific theory moot, doesnt it?

Which is still let down by the weakest link in the chain…

scientific hoaxes occur all the time. it doesnt just take the ignorant, pons and fleishman? piltdown man? and the list goes on.

thats the same weakness that any claim which one does not witness themselves suffers from, it could all be faked. take that far enough and you just wind up in the matrix.

And so you admit that your belief hinges on whether or not a chain of writers felt like souping up the story.

only in so much as the same problem applies to absolutely any historical claim. can you prove the moonlanding hapened? is your belief then not justified anyway? even though the weakest link is the fact that there is a motivation for NASA to have faked it?

further, as a metaphysician, i believe in G-d as a matter of logic, even were i never exposed to organized religion, i would still believe in the existence of a god, of some kind.

This goes for any religious society, and I’m sure you don’t think they’re all true.

Messianic Prophecy of this type is limited to Christianity.

Of course you can’t prove anything. A conspiracy theory could theoretically exist for anything. .

the moonlanding i simply more recent. give it 2000 years and see how much physical evidence survives from the moonlanding. you could make almost the same claims if you were living right after the Ressurection, in fact those similar claims are the basis of Christianity. just as people today are very sure the moonlanding happened, back then people were sure that the Ressurection had happened. even better than mere documentation or purported physical evidence, they could see the Apostles demonstrating miracles, then they saw the Apostles suffer for decades only to be martyred torturously and not recant even in the face of that.

And what about the legal effects of the magna carta. I’m sure they are still being felt, really.

and that is a very good reason to believe there was an original magna carta that actually existed. just as i think the Church is a very good reason to accept the Messianic Prophecies as true. the Church, Christianity in general is the effect of these coming true.

Ok so the various Star Trek novels are pretty good evidence of Vulcans. I’m sure there’s more than 72.

no one claims that they are factual however.

The savage does not understand a light bulb.

we actually dont need a male. we can clone from existing animals into the womb of a female. given the appropriate technology we could build DNA up from the base elements, given even more advanced technology we could cause such a thing to be done from from manipulation of the genetic material of a female. even further technology may allow it to be done wirelessly, like some form of quantum entaglement advanced to something like a star trek beaming device. it seems to me that a “virgin birth” is, simply a matter of technology so advanced that we dont understand at this point how it might be done. but i assure you, it need not involve any actual “magic”

a tribesman understands light as a flame, the sun, and lightning, not as a bulb that can be turned on and off. in the same way we understand reproduction by the forms we currently understand. not by all possible forms of reproduction.

Which is a strength, not a weakness.

for the utility of science yes it is. i like my truck, medicines, my TV, etc.

but for the idea that science is the ultimate source of knowledge, no, it demonstrates that the scientific method

the trouble comes when people think that science says anything about the biblical claims or the existence of G-d. it doesnt, but its such a common idea, that it is assumed by many before they have a chance to really think it out.

This story can be fabricated by any good author.

but any story can be.

It’s very easy to take an old book and write a new one consistent with it. That’s only one faking.

the New Testament is about 27 books actually, mostly written by different authors, at different times and places. that would require a conspiracy theory to be true.

For NASA to fake the moon landings, not only would they have to falsify video,

it was shot on a soundstage in houston according to some theories.

but make a fake shuttle, secret the astronauts out, blast off, and then secret the shuttle who knows where. That’s like 5 fakings more un-fake than yours already.

there was no shuttle during the moonlandings. they use rockets. but all that could be faked. there are people quite devoted to the idea actually.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

im not saying they are right, im only pointing out that the claims for the moonlanding are not really any different in kind from Biblical claims. so when you asked for objective evidence to support the occurence of the Messianic Prophecy, its meaningless. there is no such thing as indisputable evidence for any historical event.

rejecting that implies a double standard of evidence. for events that we wish to be true, as compared to the ones that we wish to be not true.

in a sense of basic fairness, we need to have a level playing field for all claims. thats the point im trying to make.

 

[Schn]

I’m just going to split this over two posts. I made some trim attempts which were abandoned.

…and since one cannot know that, one couldnt recognize it in Scripture anyway, it makes the idea that it is appropriate for G-d to include a scientific theory moot, doesnt it?

You forget that an all powerful being would know what theories would be recognised. Therefore he can place both a profound and recognisable theory.

scientific hoaxes occur all the time. it doesnt just take the ignorant, pons and fleishman? piltdown man? and the list goes on.

thats the same weakness that any claim which one does not witness themselves suffers from, it could all be faked. take that far enough and you just wind up in the matrix.

Then you have to rationalise with probability. And generally, the more events that must be faked, and the more difficult it is to fake the events, the greater the probability that the event did happen.

only in so much as the same problem applies to absolutely any historical claim. can you prove the moonlanding hapened? is your belief then not justified anyway? even though the weakest link is the fact that there is a motivation for NASA to have faked it?

See above, with the evidence we have observed, the chain of fakings is enormous, and difficult. The probability that it didn’t happen is close to zero. Applying this probability to the writings, the probability that none of the writers embellished anything is close to nil. Therefore, the probability that events occurred as published is also close to zero.

further, as a metaphysician, i believe in G-d as a matter of logic, even were i never exposed to organized religion, i would still believe in the existence of a god, of some kind.

Unfalsifiable unless you were raised in seclusion.

Messianic Prophecy of this type is limited to Christianity.

Special pleading.

the moonlanding i simply more recent. give it 2000 years and see how much physical evidence survives from the moonlanding. you could make almost the same claims if you were living right after the Ressurection, in fact those similar claims are the basis of Christianity. just as people today are very sure the moonlanding happened, back then people were sure that the Ressurection had happened. even better than mere documentation or purported physical evidence, they could see the Apostles demonstrating miracles, then they saw the Apostles suffer for decades only to be martyred torturously and not recant even in the face of that.

No, they’ll have thousands of photographs, video, documentation. Not to mention the technological impact of the moon landings means that they also have access to space travel.

and that is a very good reason to believe there was an original magna carta that actually existed. just as i think the Church is a very good reason to accept the Messianic Prophecies as true. the Church, Christianity in general is the effect of these coming true.

Nope, it is only evidence for the writings existing. That they document actual events is still unfounded.

no one claims that they are factual however.

But if they did, you would believe Vulcans exist? lol.

 

[Schn]

The second part of the post:

we actually dont need a male. we can clone from existing animals into the womb of a female. given the appropriate technology we could build DNA up from the base elements, given even more advanced technology we could cause such a thing to be done from from manipulation of the genetic material of a female. even further technology may allow it to be done wirelessly, like some form of quantum entaglement advanced to something like a star trek beaming device. it seems to me that a “virgin birth” is, simply a matter of technology so advanced that we dont understand at this point how it might be done. but i assure you, it need not involve any actual “magic”

a tribesman understands light as a flame, the sun, and lightning, not as a bulb that can be turned on and off. in the same way we understand reproduction by the forms we currently understand. not by all possible forms of reproduction.

But the question still remains, why not the far more plausible answer that it never happened and the writers fabricated a virgin birth. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The savage is right to be skeptical at first contact. However, when he is taught about electricity and shown how it works, that’s the evidence that is level with the extraordinariness of the light bulb.

for the utility of science yes it is. i like my truck, medicines, my TV, etc.

but for the idea that science is the ultimate source of knowledge, no, it demonstrates that the scientific method

the trouble comes when people think that science says anything about the biblical claims or the existence of G-d. it doesnt, but its such a common idea, that it is assumed by many before they have a chance to really think it out.

Of course you can’t apply the scientific method experimentally to an unfalsifiable claim. All unfalsifiable claims are on the same level, with science. That is, highly improbable unless there is evidence of it’s existence. A small teapot could be orbiting Mars. Unfalsifiable and not really analysable by science, yes. Probable? No way.

but any story can be.

Which is why you should ask for more evidence than writing for any extraordinary claims.

the New Testament is about 27 books actually, mostly written by different authors, at different times and places. that would require a conspiracy theory to be true.

Chain stories don’t need conspiracies.

it was shot on a soundstage in houston according to some theories.

If video itself was the only evidence, then, yes, it would be shakier. But there is much more than that.

there was no shuttle during the moonlandings. they use rockets. but all that could be faked. there are people quite devoted to the idea actually.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

And they can be unashamedly called morons. For every part of the journey, you have multiple pieces of evidence. All are fakable, but the suggestion that they are all fake is moronic.

im not saying they are right, im only pointing out that the claims for the moonlanding are not really any different in kind from Biblical claims. so when you asked for objective evidence to support the occurence of the Messianic Prophecy, its meaningless. there is no such thing as indisputable evidence for any historical event.

rejecting that implies a double standard of evidence. for events that we wish to be true, as compared to the ones that we wish to be not true.

in a sense of basic fairness, we need to have a level playing field for all claims. thats the point im trying to make.

There is no double standard. That standard is how many pieces of evidence (and how difficult are they to fake) for each thing. A chain story versus many pieces. Scientific documentation, actual space vessels, samples from the moon, other missions to the same place, many living witnesses. Yes, 100 years from now the evidence will diminish as living witnesses die, but the weight of the other evidence is sufficient.

 

[AlbertBall]

1. We used known existing technology to put man on the moon.
2. That technology was created by 100s of companies, all of which have it fully documented.
3. We have 10s of 1000s of eye witnesses that are still ALIVE TODAY that saw the event. Including those that WERE ON THE MOON.
4. We have VIDEO EVIDENCE of the event.
5. We have has multiple landings of man on the moon, ALL equally witnessed and documented.
6. We have brought pieces of the moon to earth.
7. We have all the equipment to return to the moon on earth.
8. There are satellites in space (which is proven every time you use your phone)
9. We have the space station in space (which i can SEE WITH MY OWN EYES)
   10.There are NO claims made about the moon landings which we cannot observe on a daily basis. (i.e burning bushes chatting, and dead people coming back to life).
10. **Every single detail of the process is entirely documented, fully understood understood and natural. **

To even try and claim the moon landings and religion should be viewed in the same light is absurd to the highest degree!

 

[R_Daneel]

To even try and claim the moon landings and religion should be viewed in the same light is absurd to the highest degree!

Very true. But don’t forget that some people would answer the question: “what is the probability that I win the jackpot?” by answering: “it is 50% - it will either happen or it will not”. They have no idea what probability means, they have no idea what supporting evidence means. All they have is their blind faith, and instead of proudly wearing it as a badge, they try (very inadequately and feebly) to equate their evidence (one set of fairy tales) with ironclad, objective, verifyable evidence running into hundreds of volumes. One must almost (but not quite!) feel sorry for their self-imposed blindness.