On the Necessity of Proving Things

[R_Daneel]

I think you misunderstood me. Evidence can be looked at in a variety of ways. It can be looked at scientifically or philosophically, etc. If you look at the topic at hand in a purely scientific manner, then of course you will think the evidence is not the same. But if you look at the evidence philosophically, and get the bigger picture, you will realize that evidence is meaningless without an interpreter of that evidence. Evidence never has spoken for itself.

Look at a pool of blood on the sidewalk next to a bleeding person with an axe in his head. What need is there for an interpreter of the evidence? And there is absolutely noo need for dragging philosophy into this picture.

In every case, it is necessary for someone to put an interpretation on that evidence. No wonder that various scientific theories have come out of the same evidence.

Now, this is a correct observation, except it has nothing to do with the question at hand. Those different theories all pertain to the explanation of the event, not the event itself.

You have, for some reason, avoided the post (or at least avoided addressing it) where I note your contradiction on absolute certainty. You claimed that such a thing doesn’t exist. Yet, at the same time, you claim that the moonlanding happened with absolute certainty. If you reject the idea of absolute certainty, then the moonlanding did not happen for certain and you believe it did.

You are confusing the different aspects of “absolute” certainty. Yes, there is absolute certainty in the abstract sciences.

Let’s play a thought experiment here. Assume that the whole moon landing was a fake. It was a “vast conspiracy” of thousands and tens of thousands of people. They were able to hold this secret for over many decades. Not one whisper was allowed to escape.

Do you know the old adage about the secret? “A secret is only a secret if only one person knows it”. If he tells it to someone else, it is not a secret any more, because eventually, someone will spill the beans, if for nothing else, then for the notoriety and money he could get out of it. It is a psychological not just scientific impossibility that such a secret could have been held “sub rosa” for any length of time. So there is no contradiction at all.

 

[R_Daneel]

If I may ask: What at all is objective about your assessment? Saying that Beauty is a subjective assessment might very well be your own subjective assessment. Either way, we must claim that objectivity begins somewhere.

Yes, objectivity is paramount. Facts are objective. Their assessment of the facts (beauty and ugliness) is subjective. This is **proven **by the examples I gave.

Both you and tonyrey’s definition of Beauty might very well be different.

Possible. I would not know what his definitoin might be. Mine is simple. For anyone “beauty” is what he declares beautiful. Music, pictures, art, nature, etc… all create changes in our brain structure. Some of these changes we find pleasant, others unpleasant. (As you know, there is a pleasure and a pain center in the brain. Stimulating them one can evoke pleasure or pain. Due to different brain sctructure the same event may produce different results.) No need to appeal to some “supernatural” aspect.

 

[Image_of_God]

Look at a pool of blood on the sidewalk next to a bleeding person with an axe in his head. What need is there for an interpreter of the evidence? And there is absolutely noo need for dragging philosophy into this picture.

This is the most excellent time to prove our point.

1. The person could have done that to himself.
   a. It could have accidentally fell on him (perhaps he was doing something stupid).
   b. He could have done it on purpose (maybe suicide).
2. Perhaps the next door neighbor did it to him (He did not like him).
   a. Perhaps both of them were doing something stupid where he got killed.
   b. Perhaps the neighbor hated him and killed him.
3. Perhaps his wife did it to him.
   a. Perhaps she found him cheating on him and wasn’t too happy about it.
   b. Perhaps she was cheating on him and didn’t want him to find out about.
   c. Perhaps she was a golddigger and wanted to kill him so she could get the money.
   d. Perhaps she hired someone to do it.
4. Does this man work at all?
   a. Perhaps this man has a coworker who did not like him.
   b. Perhaps he was going to reveal some bad things about a coworker and that person
   felt threatened.
   c. Perhaps the boss of the business did not like him and decided to kill him.
5. Perhaps someone else killed him…

You see, just looking at the evidence, without any final conclusions, the possibilities are infinite. Now, not all of this evidence appears logical, but that again confirms what we’ve been saying. You are then dealing with what reasonably and probably happened. You cannot prove that the above possibilities, logical and illogical, did not happen because you weren’t present when the man was murdered.

Now, this is a correct observation, except it has nothing to do with the question at hand. Those different theories all pertain to the explanation of the event, not the event itself.

In order for an event to be explained, you assume that the event really did happen. There are a variety of theories about how the universe came to be, based on what evidence we have. How do we even know that the universe was created, or not, save by analyzing and interpreting the evidence.

You are confusing the different aspects of “absolute” certainty. Yes, there is absolute certainty in the abstract sciences.

I presume that you know what Albert and I were talking about when he said this. We were talking about historical events.

Let’s play a thought experiment here. Assume that the whole moon landing was a fake. It was a “vast conspiracy” of thousands and tens of thousands of people. They were able to hold this secret for over many decades. Not one whisper was allowed to escape.

Do you know the old adage about the secret? “A secret is only a secret if only one person knows it”. If he tells it to someone else, it is not a secret any more, because eventually, someone will spill the beans, if for nothing else, then for the notoriety and money he could get out of it. It is a psychological not just scientific impossibility that such a secret could have been held “sub rosa” for any length of time. So there is no contradiction at all.

Here, you are appealing again to my reason, not proving that it did happened purely by evidence and without any assumptions whatsoever (which you claim can be done). Resorting to psychological scenarios (by the way, psychology is a science which is still misunderstood and very controversial in many respects) does not help prove your point which is purely empirical.

 

[Image_of_God]

Yes, objectivity is paramount. Facts are objective. Their assessment of the facts (beauty and ugliness) is subjective. This is **proven **by the examples I gave.

Possible. I would not know what his definitoin might be. Mine is simple. For anyone “beauty” is what he declares beautiful. Music, pictures, art, nature, etc… all create changes in our brain structure. Some of these changes we find pleasant, others unpleasant. (As you know, there is a pleasure and a pain center in the brain. Stimulating them one can evoke pleasure or pain. Due to different brain sctructure the same event may produce different results.) No need to appeal to some “supernatural” aspect.

Ah, very well then.

 

[R_Daneel]

This is the most excellent time to prove our point.

1. The person could have done that to himself.
   a. It could have accidentally fell on him (perhaps he was doing something stupid).
   b. He could have done it on purpose (maybe suicide).
2. Perhaps the next door neighbor did it to him (He did not like him).
   a. Perhaps both of them were doing something stupid where he got killed.
   b. Perhaps the neighbor hated him and killed him.
3. Perhaps his wife did it to him.
   a. Perhaps she found him cheating on him and wasn’t too happy about it.
   b. Perhaps she was cheating on him and didn’t want him to find out about.
   c. Perhaps she was a golddigger and wanted to kill him so she could get the money.
   d. Perhaps she hired someone to do it.
4. Does this man work at all?
   a. Perhaps this man has a coworker who did not like him.
   b. Perhaps he was going to reveal some bad things about a coworker and that person
   felt threatened.
   c. Perhaps the boss of the business did not like him and decided to kill him.
5. Perhaps someone else killed him…

You see, just looking at the evidence, without any final conclusions, the possibilities are infinite. Now, not all of this evidence appears logical, but that again confirms what we’ve been saying. You are then dealing with what reasonably and probably happened. You cannot prove that the above possibilities, logical and illogical, did not happen because you weren’t present when the man was murdered.

You are running too far, too soon. I was only concerned about the fact that there is a body, an axe and the blood. This is a fact, which needs no interpretation. The who, why, when and how are still to be resolved, for sure. But you said (if I am not mistaken) that even the fact can be questionable. And that is what I am disputing, in this example. To go further, one needs to do more research. Fingerprints, DNA, etc… but that is a totally different problem.

In order for an event to be explained, you assume that the event really did happen. There are a variety of theories about how the universe came to be, based on what evidence we have. How do we even know that the universe was created, or not, save by analyzing and interpreting the evidence.

I doubt that the presented problem: “how the universe came into existence” is a valid, legitimate problem. Even the question is incorrect. Before one can ask “how”, one must look at the question: “did you universe ‘come’ into existence”? Or does it simply exist? The possible answer is loaded with problems, more precisely the problem or fallacy of composition. It is incorrect to assume that “casuation”, “time”, “space” etc. are applicable to the universe. Space, time, matter, energy, causation are only defined within the universe. They cannot be held as “absolutes”. That would be the outdated Newtonian worldview, rendered obsolete by quantum theories.

I presume that you know what Albert and I were talking about when he said this. We were talking about historical events.

Yes, I know. But here is the question: “when does the past start”? One century ago? One year ago? One hour ago? One second ago? Asimov had a wonderful science fiction story about the subject: “The dead past”. He argues that the “dead past” is just a euphemism for the “living present”. As soon as the information reaches us (and even light is not infinitely fast) it is already “past”, it is already “history”.

Here, you are appealing again to my reason, not proving that it did happened purely by evidence and without any assumptions whatsoever (which you claim can be done). Resorting to psychological scenarios (by the way, psychology is a science which is still misunderstood and very controversial in many respects) does not help prove your point which is purely empirical.

My assumption in the thought experiment is simple: human psychology shows with an incredible amount of certainty that it is impossible to keep a secret for any extended period of time where there are tens of thousands people involved in keeping it a secret. Psychology is really in its infancy. But it is quite reliable in some respects. And this is one of them.

I agree that there is no “absolute certainty” without observation. But the difference between a certainty of “1” and the certainty of “0.999999999999999999…9999” is insignificant. Philosophers may argue about it, but that only proves that philosophers live in an ivory tower, separated from real life. And their assessment is irrelevant.

 

[R_Daneel]

is this yet another fallacious appeal to authority? as though you can show your argument is correct because you assert that a court would side with you and not me?

It is not an appeal to authority. It is an opportunity for you to prove your assertion, namely that the evidence for the moon landing and the virgin birth is indentically compelling. By submitting to the test I suggested you have the opportunity to prove it in the court of law. Why hesitate? Go for it!

not only is this a logical fallacy, its based on an insupportable assertion, that assumes the truth of an argument you have lost!

Your obsession with “winning” and “losing” only shows your childish and immature attitude. The more you repeat it, the more obvious it becomes.

 

[Image_of_God]

You are running too far, too soon. I was only concerned about the fact that there is a body, an axe and the blood. This is a fact, which needs no interpretation. The who, why, when and how are still to be resolved, for sure. But you said (if I am not mistaken) that even the fact can be questionable. And that is what I am disputing, in this example. To go further, one needs to do more research. Fingerprints, DNA, etc… but that is a totally different problem.

All that I did was capitalize on an excellent opportunity to prove what both WSP and I have been saying. Looking at the “evidence”, there are countless possibilities to what exactly happened. Either way, some assumption has to be made as to what happened to him because we didn’t see what happened to him. It is the same thinking towards any event we did not see, including historical ones.

That said, you are rationalizing on what I call an “unproven truth”, namely, that what we see and feel truly exists. If that is unproven, it has to be assumed to be true. You will probably disagree with me even though there is no other alternative.

I doubt that the presented problem: “how the universe came into existence” is a valid, legitimate problem. Even the question is incorrect. Before one can ask “how”, one must look at the question: “did you universe ‘come’ into existence”? Or does it simply exist? The possible answer is loaded with problems, more precisely the problem or fallacy of composition. It is incorrect to assume that “casuation”, “time”, “space” etc. are applicable to the universe. Space, time, matter, energy, causation are only defined within the universe. They cannot be held as “absolutes”. That would be the outdated Newtonian worldview, rendered obsolete by quantum theories.

You are merely saying what I said in a more sophisticated manner. We simply don’t know what happened to the universe before man came to be. We assume, based on what we see now, and what we know, what happened. There is nothing wrong with what I said.

Yes, I know. But here is the question: “when does the past start”? One century ago? One year ago? One hour ago? One second ago? Asimov had a wonderful science fiction story about the subject: “The dead past”. He argues that the “dead past” is just a euphemism for the “living present”. As soon as the information reaches us (and even light is not infinitely fast) it is already “past”, it is already “history”.

Time is a mystery. We don’t know the nature of it. Any claims of certainty in this respect is simply that of belief.

My assumption in the thought experiment is simple: human psychology shows with an incredible amount of certainty that it is impossible to keep a secret for any extended period of time where there are tens of thousands people involved in keeping it a secret. Psychology is really in its infancy. But it is quite reliable in some respects. And this is one of them.

But what about those people who do keep secrets all their lives?
Psychological theories about any particular thing are often so uncertain that there are so many of them for one thing. Even still, this is not empirical evidence, which is what you have claimed all truth can be found by. It is a theory.

I agree that there is no “absolute certainty” without observation. But the difference between a certainty of “1” and the certainty of “0.999999999999999999…9999” is insignificant. Philosophers may argue about it, but that only proves that philosophers live in an ivory tower, separated from real life. And their assessment is irrelevant.

In “real life”, you are either absolutely certain, or you are not certain at all. There is no room in between. And that is where trust, belief and faith all come in.

 

[Image_of_God]

It is not an appeal to authority. It is an opportunity for you to prove your assertion, namely that the evidence for the moon landing and the virgin birth is indentically compelling. By submitting to the test I suggested you have the opportunity to prove it in the court of law. Why hesitate? Go for it!

Your obsession with “winning” and “losing” only shows your childish and immature attitude. The more you repeat it, the more obvious it becomes.

R Daneel, my good sir. If only you knew the beauty that comes from a soft answer.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is not an appeal to authority.

yes it is, you said or implied that an authority figure, the court or judge, would side with you. and there fore you are right.

that is the classical logical fallacy.

 

[greylorn]

Upon review, this is a pretty sorry thread. The OP has yet to be addressed, but has spurred a volley of irrelevant comments.

To bring the thread back onto point, here are a few items worth considering:

There is no “necessity to prove things,” except in the context of individual or collective human minds who find their beliefs threatened by the purveyors of other beliefs who

a. Claim that your beliefs should be proven, and
b. have sucked you into thinking that their beliefs are proven

Those who believe in an atheistic philosophy about the nature of being which we cannot mention on this site without being banned (it begins with Dar… and ends with …ism) have messed with the minds of Christians and derivative sects, convincing them that non-D beliefs are non-scientific, and therefore of no value.

You’ve bought into that nonsense. You’ve been dumb enough to let their beliefs into your schools, and to accept them yourself without having read a single word of the original writings, accepting them based upon your agreement with the agreement of others. But that cannot come as a surprise, since all Christians derive their beliefs from the agreement of others— almost no one reads original material, and of the few who do, fewer question it.

The reality is that philosophy “D” has not been proven, and contains no scientifically verifiable principles.

It masquerades as a science (physics is a real science). It is a religion, a belief system, exactly as Catholicism is a belief system.

The only difference between the two sides is that the Catholic Church admits to being a religion, a belief system— whereas Dwn–ism pretends to be a science.

So long as you insist upon remaining so ignorant that you allow the D—inist claims to be treated as science, you have lost credibility. Might as well admit that Greek mythology was right on.

It is unfortunate that the CAF has banned discussion of this issue, for by doing so, they have given the “win” to the purveyors of scientific nonsense. This is not a surprise. The Catholic Church set the initiative for the “let’s not talk about it, maybe it will go away” method of dealing with deeply fundamental problems back in the 17th century when it got Galileo (a tired, seriously ill old man who had found some truth) to recant ideas which are now recognized as the foundations of physics, by threatening him with an Inquisition, and later by sentencing him to a lifetime of house arrest.

Ideas of a fundamental nature remain under house arrest. 'Tis a sign of the times.

This pretty much means that everyone who buys into conventional beliefs which are based upon the agreement of others are certain to be wrong. Join the crowd, and don’t worry. When your life goes belly up, you can blame everyone and every belief system with whom you’ve agreed.

 

[tonyrey]

Insanity is the hallmark of those who are utterly convinced that everything which is beautiful and precious in the universe has emerged for no reason or purpose whatsoever from atomic particles which lack hindsight, insight, foresight, feeling, aesthetic appreciation, moral values or self-control…

Beauty is a subjective assessment. The scent of a flower is disgusting to a dog. The smell that dogs find “pleasurable” is quite a stink to us. One person may think that the Nibelung Ring is the most beautiful music ever, for others it is cacophony. Some love Picasso’s pictures, others hate it.
You are obviously unacquainted with the Golden Ratio and aesthetic principles of harmony, symmetry and proportion but that is understandable…

What about all that is precious? Is that also an **entirely **subjective illusion?

Further distortion of the truth. During the Dark Ages it was the Church which preserved the heritage of Greek and Roman knowledge and culture, established the first universities, schools, hospitals, orphanages and hospices, and then promoted the development of science and international law. Science was and is based on the belief that the universe is intelligible and that human beings have the power to grasp and comprehend its laws. Where there has been no philosophical and theological background no such progress has occurred.

Partially true and not relevant. You seem to have glossed over the atrocities of the Inquisition, somehow.
Your criterion of relevance is determined by what you want to believe - with **no **explanation of why it is irrelevant…

You also imagine that the crimes of a minority negate the value of all the good that the members of the Church have done for over two thousand years…

Opinions are an inadequate foundation for human rights and moral principles - as we see contemporary society with its millions of abortions and flagrant disregard for human life .

Only in your opinion.
Not only mine but that of any civilised person who does not dismiss the right to life as a human invention…

“everything”! Please provide evidence of your claim…

All they have to do is read your posts.
Unsubstantiated invective which merely demonstrates your inability to respond rationally.

You value freedom more than security yet you regard it as nothing more than a nice concept! Don’t you think freedom is more important than “a fact of nature” - assuming that it is not a fact of any description… ?

False dichotomy. I do value freedom over security. But that has nothing to do with my regard for the facts of nature.

This statement confirms the fact that you regard freedom as no more than an arbitrary human idea.…

(Do you regard that as a distortion of what you have said? If so why?)

I regard it as total misunderstanding.
And you cannot or will not explain why, thereby undermining the credibility of your argument…

A reductio ad silentium in order to evade a** reductio ad absurdum **

 

[tonyrey]

Ideas of a fundamental nature remain under house arrest. 'Tis a sign of the times.

 

[AlbertBall]

You know what? You can try and bring a lawsuits - about the moon landing, and about the virgin birth. You can get your “experts” to argue that they are equally supported. And see what happens. It is a strong possibility that it will be thrown out of court on account that it is frivolous. But maybe not. And when the dust settles, you will stand there with egg on your face. And rightfully so. Of course, afterwards you would give a press conference and declare to the laughing public that you just “won” that lawsuit. What a joke you are.

Exactly, all we get from WSP is “I’ve done this, I’ve shown that, I’ve destroyed this”. When is actual fact all he has shown how completely uneducated his is.

 

[R_Daneel]

All that I did was capitalize on an excellent opportunity to prove what both WSP and I have been saying. Looking at the “evidence”, there are countless possibilities to what exactly happened. Either way, some assumption has to be made as to what happened to him because we didn’t see what happened to him. It is the same thinking towards any event we did not see, including historical ones.

Right. But the **facts **presented are not in doubt, are they? The explanation might be tenuous, but that is not the same. We can talk about it, if you so choose.

That said, you are rationalizing on what I call an “unproven truth”, namely, that what we see and feel truly exists. If that is unproven, it has to be assumed to be true. You will probably disagree with me even though there is no other alternative.

I do not disagree with the concept, I do disagree with the wording. Yes, we “could” be brains in a vat, and all the perceived external reality “could” be fed us by connecting wires. Where does such an assumption lead? Precisely nowhere. It would be the quintessential empty speculation.

You are merely saying what I said in a more sophisticated manner. We simply don’t know what happened to the universe before man came to be. We assume, based on what we see now, and what we know, what happened. There is nothing wrong with what I said.

In my eyes, there is. I think that the question: “how did the universe come to existence?” is exactly as valid as the question: “what is to the north from the North Pole?”. Or maybe the question: “when did you stop beating your wife?”. Or maybe: “is the taste of the color green soft or loud?” They are all correctly formed linguistic structures, without any meaning whatsoever. It is a waste of time to posit such questions, and expect an answer to them.

Time is a mystery. We don’t know the nature of it. Any claims of certainty in this respect is simply that of belief.

Certainly there are interesting questions about time. Theoretically the equations pertaining to time should allow it go “both ways”. Yet, it does not.

But what about those people who do keep secrets all their lives?
Psychological theories about any particular thing are often so uncertain that there are so many of them for one thing. Even still, this is not empirical evidence, which is what you have claimed all truth can be found by. It is a theory.

All I wanted to show that the assumption of having a “vast conspiracy” about a faked moon landing is untenable in any rational manner. Precisely because people want fame and recognition, they would “spill the beans”. Yes, **one **person is able to keep a secret. As soon as he starts telling about it to anyone else, it ceases to be a secret. And, no, I did not intend this to be an evidence for the moon landing. It was just a short remark to show the impossibility that it was a “fraud”, supported by a conspiracy.

In “real life”, you are either absolutely certain, or you are not certain at all. There is no room in between. And that is where trust, belief and faith all come in.

I disagree totally. Real life is not black and white. And this is the fundamental disagreement between us. I wonder if it can be reconciled? I have my doubts.

 

[AlbertBall]

the exact same situation we are in. you have to trust at some point.

Your playing a stupid game of semantics here, of course i trust. However i am giving you the reasons why i trust. I trust the moon landings for a variety of reasons all of which i have clearly explained. I HAVE NO REASON TO TRUST THE BIBLE! I trust the moon landings due to the mountains of evidence that support them. Now you can claim you do not trust the evidence, best of luck with that one as items derived from the moon landings are used EVERY DAY. However i do. I trust science, i trust seats of learning, i trust the combined knowledge of the most educated humans on earth.

Oh and you best look up appeal to authority, because it seems this is yet another area where you have zero education.

"On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true.* The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism**."*

 

[AlbertBall]

I think you misunderstood me. Evidence can be looked at in a variety of ways. It can be looked at scientifically or philosophically, etc. If you look at the topic at hand in a purely scientific manner, then of course you will think the evidence is not the same. But if you look at the evidence philosophically, and get the bigger picture, you will realize that evidence is meaningless without an interpreter of that evidence. Evidence never has spoken for itself. In every case, it is necessary for someone to put an interpretation on that evidence. No wonder that various scientific theories have come out of the same evidence.

You have, for some reason, avoided the post (or at least avoided addressing it) where I note your contradiction on absolute certainty. You claimed that such a thing doesn’t exist. Yet, at the same time, you claim that the moonlanding happened with absolute certainty. If you reject the idea of absolute certainty, then the moonlanding did not happen for certain and you believe it did.

Again i am not to interested in philosophy, because to be frank when i comes to knowledge nothing comes closed to science (however that is another debate). I do not claim absolute certainty, i claim beyond reasonable doubt.

" If you look at the topic at hand in a purely scientific manner, then of course you will think the evidence is not the same"

And that is exactly what i am doing, and so is WSP and he is claiming the evidence is the same. Which we can all agree, except WSP, that from a scientific point of view (which is what i am claiming) that is utterly absurd.

 

[R_Daneel]

You are obviously unacquainted with the Golden Ratio and aesthetic principles of harmony, symmetry and proportion but that is understandable…

Obviously? (Stop making assumptions, if you would. You only reveal your own ignorance.) I was lecturing about it for many years. It is amazing how many places the ratio shows up in nature. From the shell of snails, to the proportions on the human body, to the sunflower, and zillions of other places. It is intricately connected to the Fibonacci numbers, and to the binomial theorem, among others.

The reason that most people find it so beautiful, is derived from the fact that we are surrounded by this ratio all the time. Yet, not everyone finds it “beautiful”. Personally I consider a slightly more elongated rectangle more appealing than the one with the perfect Golden Ratio. Think about the difference of “beauty standards” in the medieval times and today. Look at all those Madonnas with their bulging eyes (due to iodine deficiency in the drinking water). Look at the “perfect female body” according to the current standards. Very different, aren’t they?

What about all that is precious? Is that also an **entirely **subjective illusion?

I am not sure what you ask for? Certainly “precious” is a subjective assessment.

You also imagine that the crimes of a minority negate the value of all the good that the members of the Church have done for over two thousand years…

Actually, I don’t. I am willing to give credit, where credit is due. But the well-deserved credit for the good and commendable actoins of the Church does not hide that atrocities committed by the Church; the latest being of attempting to protect and hide those pedophile priests. The Church is also composed of fallible human beings, with their good and bad sides. Let’s look at the facts, and praise when deserved, and condemn what that is deserved. You wish to give credit for those actions which you (and many others) consider in-line with the perceived teachings of Christianity, and simply discard the rest as a twisted interpretation of the other parts of the same teaching. That is truly a cherry picking and double standards.

Not only mine but that of any civilised person who does not dismiss the right to life as a human invention…

And a relatively recent idea, too.

 

[tonyrey]

It is amazing how many places the ratio shows up in nature. From the shell of snails, to the proportions on the human body, to the sunflower, and zillions of other places. It is intricately connected to the Fibonacci numbers, and to the binomial theorem, among others.

Its frequency suggests that it is related to the efficiency and success of that ratio…

The reason that most people find it so beautiful, is derived from the fact that we are surrounded by this ratio all the time. Yet, not everyone finds it “beautiful”. Personally I consider a slightly more elongated rectangle more appealing than the one with the perfect Golden Ratio.

“slightly” suggests that a greater deviation would be less attractive and that the ratio is a sound principle.

Think about the difference of “beauty standards” in the medieval times and today. Look at all those Madonnas with their bulging eyes (due to iodine deficiency in the drinking water). Look at the “perfect female body” according to the current standards. Very different, aren’t they?

In many ways current standards are distorted by advertising. Popular taste is often an unreliable guide.

Differences of opinion do not prove that they are all false!

What about all that is precious? Is that also an entirely subjective illusion?

I am not sure what you ask for? Certainly “precious” is a subjective assessment.

Do you deny that life, truth, freedom, justice and love are precious?

You also imagine that the crimes of a minority negate the value of all the good that the members of the Church have done for over two thousand years…

Actually, I don’t. I am willing to give credit, where credit is due. But the well-deserved credit for the good and commendable actions of the Church does not hide those atrocities committed by the Church; the latest being of attempting to protect and hide those pedophile priests.

Corruptio optima pessima… If the survival of the Church had depended on the moral integrity of its members it would have perished within a few hundred years - like the Roman Empire.

The Church is also composed of fallible human beings, with their good and bad sides. Let’s look at the facts, and praise when deserved, and condemn what that is deserved.

Indeed!

You wish to give credit for those actions which you (and many others) consider in-line with the perceived teachings of Christianity, and simply discard the rest as a twisted interpretation of the other parts of the same teaching.

Not at all. I have pointed out that the criterion of true Christianity is whether it corresponds to what Jesus said and the way He lived and died. To torture and kill in His name is obviously a distortion of His teaching.

Not only mine but that of any civilised person who does not dismiss the right to life as a human invention…

And a relatively recent idea, too.

The theory of relativity is relatively recent too! The truth of an idea is not related to how old it is…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Exactly, all we get from WSP is “I’ve done this, I’ve shown that, I’ve destroyed this”. When is actual fact all he has shown how completely uneducated his is.

in case you havent noticed, you lost the argument. unless you have a new position to offer?

btw, you have dodged telling us what your degree is in, how many years it takes or semester credit hours.

i wonder why…?

 

[Image_of_God]

Upon review, this is a pretty sorry thread. The OP has yet to be addressed, but has spurred a volley of irrelevant comments.

To bring the thread back onto point, here are a few items worth considering:

There is no “necessity to prove things,” except in the context of individual or collective human minds who find their beliefs threatened by the purveyors of other beliefs who

a. Claim that your beliefs should be proven, and
b. have sucked you into thinking that their beliefs are proven

Those who believe in an atheistic philosophy about the nature of being which we cannot mention on this site without being banned (it begins with Dar… and ends with …ism) have messed with the minds of Christians and derivative sects, convincing them that non-D beliefs are non-scientific, and therefore of no value.

You’ve bought into that nonsense. You’ve been dumb enough to let their beliefs into your schools, and to accept them yourself without having read a single word of the original writings, accepting them based upon your agreement with the agreement of others. But that cannot come as a surprise, since all Christians derive their beliefs from the agreement of others— almost no one reads original material, and of the few who do, fewer question it.

The reality is that philosophy “D” has not been proven, and contains no scientifically verifiable principles.

It masquerades as a science (physics is a real science). It is a religion, a belief system, exactly as Catholicism is a belief system.

The only difference between the two sides is that the Catholic Church admits to being a religion, a belief system— whereas Dwn–ism pretends to be a science.

So long as you insist upon remaining so ignorant that you allow the D—inist claims to be treated as science, you have lost credibility. Might as well admit that Greek mythology was right on.

It is unfortunate that the CAF has banned discussion of this issue, for by doing so, they have given the “win” to the purveyors of scientific nonsense. This is not a surprise. The Catholic Church set the initiative for the “let’s not talk about it, maybe it will go away” method of dealing with deeply fundamental problems back in the 17th century when it got Galileo (a tired, seriously ill old man who had found some truth) to recant ideas which are now recognized as the foundations of physics, by threatening him with an Inquisition, and later by sentencing him to a lifetime of house arrest.

Ideas of a fundamental nature remain under house arrest. 'Tis a sign of the times.

This pretty much means that everyone who buys into conventional beliefs which are based upon the agreement of others are certain to be wrong. Join the crowd, and don’t worry. When your life goes belly up, you can blame everyone and every belief system with whom you’ve agreed.

I think you agree with what both WSP and I have been saying this whole time.