On the Necessity of Proving Things

[Image_of_God]

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.

The man has an axe in his head and is covered in blood. That may be fact. But what we are talking about here are events which we arrive at based on such facts.

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.

Let us not jump around. Prove that it does exist or accept that its existence is unproven and simply excepted as self-evidence. Or you could resort to saying it doesn’t exist at all…

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.

Your question presumes that there was a time when the universe did not exist. That is your rational assumption. Since we weren’t there we cannot know for sure.

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

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.

When you talk about something being “untenable in any rational manner”, you are appealing to reason. If you are advocating that I accept the moonlanding based on the reasonableness of its probability, then I think we can agree. However, that would require you to forfeit your (or at least what you claim to be your) empiricism. For then you would be going beyond what concrete objects tell and assuming a number of things.

To say that such a “fraud” such as the projected is impossible is entirely an unproven restraint you’ve placed on the situation at hand.

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.

There is no such thing as something partially happening, if you are speaking of a thing in particular. Either it happened or it didn’t. Either the War of 1812 happened or it didn’t. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. There is no in between whatsoever.

Similarly, if you think more logically, it is not exactly correct to say you are “almost certain” about something (though we permit it because of other reasons). Either you are certain about something and you know that it happened or you are uncertain about something and you do not know whether it happened or not. There is really no such thing as partial certainty.

 

[Image_of_God]

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.

Well, you do not have a choice. When you go above concrete observation, you are taking a philosophical position. Science says nothing as to why things came to be. When you say things came to be randomly and for no real reason, you are taking a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Science also says little about whether God exists or not. When you say he doesn’t exist, you are taking a philosophical position and not a scientific one. Science says nothing about morality and justice. When you say that certain things are wrong and others are right, you are taking a philosophical position, not a scientific one. What science answers is very limited and those who restrict their answers to what only it answers have closed their eyes to most of the truth.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Your playing a stupid game of semantics here, of course i trust. However i am giving you the reasons why i trust.

its not a semantic game, you denied for many, many posts that trust was necessary. now you admit it as though that wasnt a big deal.

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.

double standard, you trust the moonlanding happened, but not that Biblical events happened. in both cases you are down to trusting the ‘evidence’. as you didnt witness the moonlanding, you trust the documentation, or eyewitness testimony about the provenance of the physical artifacts.

yet you dont trust the documentation about the Biblical events.

this is a clear double standard. in both cases you must trust people.

Now you can claim you do not trust the evidence,

i dont personally doubt the moonlanding happened, im pointing out that you must trust the people who make claims, if you didnt witness those claims yourself.

best of luck with that one as items derived from the moon landings are used EVERY DAY.

which item proves the moonlanding happened?

However i do. I trust science,

why? its been wrong about every superseded theory in its history? why would you have faith in a system that repeatedly fails? everything we think we know today, could be ripped apart from just one firing of the big supercollider.

i trust seats of learning, i trust the combined knowledge of the most educated humans on earth.

why? what does an appeal to authority have to do with anything? they can be just as wrong as anyone else.

further, most humans on earth are theists, even the ducated ones. so im not sure thats a great position to take.

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***."

and how doesnt this fit the described situation? sure looks like there was an implication that a courts judgement on the matter would be the final say so, exempting it from criticism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Again i am not to interested in philosophy,

then why have you been discussing the philosophy of science, and epistemology for the last few hundred posts?

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.

science is repeatedly wrong. logic is not.

" 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.

no one is argueing from a ‘scientific’ view point, not even you. science in fact has nothing to do with the issue.

simply because one aspect involves the scientific knowledge necessary to make a moonlanding happened, does not make the question of how we know it hapened, ‘science’

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, you do not have a choice. When you go above concrete observation, you are taking a philosophical position. Science says nothing as to why things came to be. When you say things came to be randomly and for no real reason, you are taking a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Science also says little about whether God exists or not. When you say he doesn’t exist, you are taking a philosophical position and not a scientific one. Science says nothing about morality and justice. When you say that certain things are wrong and others are right, you are taking a philosophical position, not a scientific one. What science answers is very limited and those who restrict their answers to what only it answers have closed their eyes to most of the truth.

yup. i once heard an empiricist called a ‘rival metaphysician with a different dogma.’

ultimately this conversation has nothing to do with the actual practice of science.

 

[R_Daneel]

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

It does not “suggest” anything to me. Does the fact that the value of “pi” is so prevalent “suggest” anything “special” about it? That fact is that we find something “beautiful” if we are constantly exposed to it. There is no intrinsic “beauty”.

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

That has nothing to do with that fact that the standard of beauty is changing all the time.

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

In this age and in some geographic areas they are. So what? They are not universal “constants”.

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.

It is strange that not even the members of the Church adhere to the standards it preaches. Many times in history even the highest ranking members lead a life in dire contradiction to what the Church “offically” taught. Don’t you wonder, why is that? Maybe because some of those teachings are pure nonsense. For example celibacy, which is not mentioned in the Bible, at all.

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.

The trouble is that Jesus’s words are ambiguous. The Bible is ambigious. There are many ways to interpret them, and even the believers cannot come to an agreement. If one looks hard and long enough, almost any point of view will be “supported” by properly selected passages. And you cannot convince even a fellow Christian that your interpretation is correct and his is incorrect - and vice-versa.

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

Again, a true but irrelevant observation.

You remind me of an old joke: “The pilot of a small charter plane is lost in the fog around Seattle. He cannot find the way to the airport. As he circles around, he sees a tall building and someone looking out from an open window. He goes closer and asks: ‘Where am I?’. The guys answers: ‘You are in an airplane’. The pilot nods, and takes a beeline to the airport, and lands successfully. The passangers are very happy, and ask the pilot how could he find the airport. He answers: ‘I asked that guy about our position. He gave me a perfectly true and completely irrelevant answer. So I knew that he must be a Microsoft support engineer! And I knew where the airport was in relation to the Microsoft building’.”

You were contending that some ideas which we find proper and useful are supposed to be “universal”. I deny that. Now you changed your answer that just because something is new it is not necessarily untrue. Are you a Microsoft support engineer?

 

[R_Daneel]

The man has an axe in his head and is covered in blood. That may be fact. But what we are talking about here are events which we arrive at based on such facts.

So facts are undisputable, while the interpretation of facts can differ. And the qustion is how to decide which interpretation is valid, and which is not. Fine. That is in line with the purpose of this thread. That is what epistemology is all about.

Let us not jump around. Prove that it does exist or accept that its existence is unproven and simply excepted as self-evidence. Or you could resort to saying it doesn’t exist at all…

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. “What” exists, or needs to proven to exist?

Your question presumes that there was a time when the universe did not exist.

First it is not “my” question. Second, I consider the question meaningless, because it presupposes that time is independent from the universe.

When you talk about something being “untenable in any rational manner”, you are appealing to reason. If you are advocating that I accept the moonlanding based on the reasonableness of its probability, then I think we can agree. However, that would require you to forfeit your (or at least what you claim to be your) empiricism. For then you would be going beyond what concrete objects tell and assuming a number of things.

Well, of course I presume rationalism. But the point is this: either one accepts that the moon-landing happened, or assumes that all the physical and testimonial evidence is faked. I am appealing to the fact that “secrets” of this kind and of this magnitude cannot be kept secret.

To say that such a “fraud” such as the projected is impossible is entirely an unproven restraint you’ve placed on the situation at hand.

Well, well. Let’s take another example. The air-molecules in a room move randomly. **Theoretically **it is “possible” that all the air molecules just happen to move away from the middle of the room, and crate a perfect vacuum. Mathematically speaking this is not an “impossible” event. Realistically, it will not happen. Not now, not ever. Just like it is possible “theoretically” that all the alleged witnesses engaged in a huge conspiracy and none of them ever revealed the truth. Again mathematically speaking this event is not “impossible”. Realistically it is.

There is no such thing as something partially happening, if you are speaking of a thing in particular. Either it happened or it didn’t. Either the War of 1812 happened or it didn’t. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. There is no in between whatsoever.

Yes.

Similarly, if you think more logically, it is not exactly correct to say you are “almost certain” about something (though we permit it because of other reasons). Either you are certain about something and you know that it happened or you are uncertain about something and you do not know whether it happened or not. There is really no such thing as partial certainty.

But there is. You can imagine that you will win the lottery, but you are not certain. If you know the theory of probabilities, you can even estimate the chance of winning. So there is less than 100% but greater than 0% certainty for the future events.

The past is similar. Either you know that something happened, and then you have 100% certainty, or you don’t know, which means that your certainty is less than 100%. But less than 100% certainty is not total uncertainty. I may not “know” that snow fell last year at the North Pole, but the chances are quite good that it did.

Since you dragged in certainty, probabilities etc. into the discussion, make sure that you know what you are talking about. I am really not interested in a futile discussion akin to the arguments which are spouted by WSP. I am interested in a rational discussion.

 

[AlbertBall]

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…?

I told you it takes 4 years to get a BSC(hons). I have actually sent other members of this forum the research i am currently working on.

 

[AlbertBall]

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

As R Daneel pointed out, your obsession with winning and losing an argument only show your immaturity and childish attitude toward debate. I am starting to think you are a kid, that would explain the low level of education.

 

[AlbertBall]

Well, you do not have a choice. When you go above concrete observation, you are taking a philosophical position. Science says nothing as to why things came to be. When you say things came to be randomly and for no real reason, you are taking a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Science also says little about whether God exists or not. When you say he doesn’t exist, you are taking a philosophical position and not a scientific one. Science says nothing about morality and justice. When you say that certain things are wrong and others are right, you are taking a philosophical position, not a scientific one. What science answers is very limited and those who restrict their answers to what only it answers have closed their eyes to most of the truth.

Great, but what does any of that have to do with the scientific evidence for the moon landings?

 

[AlbertBall]

double standard, you trust the moonlanding happened, but not that Biblical events happened. in both cases you are down to trusting the ‘evidence’. as you didnt witness the moonlanding, you trust the documentation, or eyewitness testimony about the provenance of the physical artifacts.

yet you dont trust the documentation about the Biblical events.

No its not, for one case we have observable, testable, repeatable evidence as well as physical evidence, video evidence, photo graphic evidence, all of which support a process that is 100% understood.

And on the other we have a wild claim made in a book that we know is full of fictional stories, and NOT ONE SHRED of supporting evidence.

HENCE why i “trust” (if you must insist on playing silly semantical games) one and DO NOT TRUST the other.

Its really is simple unless you are an uneducated moron.

Now you can claim that these sources, like NASA, are not trustworthy. However don’t expect anyone with an ounce of intelligence to take you seriously. Again if you have ever written any sort a academic document you would understand that referencing credible sources is an integral aspect of producing reports. However i am not surprised you do not understand, in fact i have come to expect it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I told you it takes 4 years to get a BSC(hons). I have actually sent other members of this forum the research i am currently working on.

yes, but how many do you have? and what is it in?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As R Daneel pointed out, your obsession with winning and losing an argument only show your immaturity and childish attitude toward debate. I am starting to think you are a kid, that would explain the low level of education.

bluster doesnt hide the bare fact that you cannot support thhe argument.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Great, but what does any of that have to do with the scientific evidence for the moon landings?

what ‘scientific’ evidence? how is a physical object or documentation ‘scientific’? it simply is what it is and has nothing to do with the practice of science itself.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No its not, for one case we have observable, testable, repeatable evidence as well as physical evidence, video evidence, photo graphic evidence, all of which support a process that is 100% understood.

you have nothing to support the provenance of these artifacts, other than your trust.

further, understanding or not understanding how a process occurs, says absolutley nothing about whether it did or did not occur.

a bone-through-the-nose-tribesman may say a lightbulb is magic, but we know its not. so when you imply that the plausibility of an event is more or less based on your understanding, you are making the same error as the bone-through-the-nose-tribesman.

your understanding, has nothing to do with the credibility of a claim.

And on the other we have a wild claim made in a book that we know is full of fictional stories,

how do you know the moonlanding isnt a fictional story? you dont you trust that it happened but not the Biblical events. that is the doublwe standard i keep refering to.

and NOT ONE SHRED of supporting evidence.

you mean other than the dozens of books documenting the happenings? other than all the Biblical Archeology artifacts that continue to be found? The entire Holy land is a museum of the faith.

that all seems like evidence to me. but you dont trust it.

HENCE why i “trust” (if you must insist on playing silly semantical games) one and DO NOT TRUST the other.

your just repeating the same arguments, that we have been calling a double standard for a couple weeks.

1. you dont know the provenance of any of what you claim to be evidence.
2. youre ability to understand a process doesnt say anything about its credibility

we alread refuted these.

still a double standard.

Its really is simple unless you are an uneducated moron.

i know, so why dont you get it? you keep bragging about an education but you arent willing to mention what it is in or where you got it.

this is a simple and well known problem, only you dont seem to know that, so how good could that education be?

Now you can claim that these sources, like NASA, are not trustworthy.

dont they recieve hundreds of billions of dollars for their work? isnt that a motivation, to do what is necessary to get it?

this is another double standard, you are quick to believe that the Church had some motive to make up or promote Christianity. yet hundreds of billions of dollars arent any motivation to NASA.

 

[AlbertBall]

yes, but how many do you have? and what is it in?

To be honest its none of your business. .

 

[AlbertBall]

what ‘scientific’ evidence? how is a physical object or documentation ‘scientific’? it simply is what it is and has nothing to do with the practice of science itself.

Yeah the capsule made its own way to the moon, total guess, its amazing it managed to get there.

 

[AlbertBall]

your understanding, has nothing to do with the credibility of a claim.

ONLY IN YOUR WORLD, LOL. Trust me in science understanding a process as EVERYTHING to do with credibility or a claim.

how do you know the moon landing isn’t a fictional story? you don’t you trust that it happened but not the Biblical events. that is the double standard i keep referring to.

I have told you i can accept the evidence that comes from CREDIBLE sources. This is another basic aspect of science and law that you don’t seem to understand.

you mean other than the dozens of books documenting the happenings? other than all the Biblical Archeology artifacts that continue to be found? The entire Holy land is a museum of the faith.

that all seems like evidence to me. but you don’t trust it.

The books which are all heresy and have such great factual stories like Noah’s ark, and the cosmos being created in 7 days. LOL oh yeah REAALLLLLLLLLL credible LOL.

i know, so why don’t you get it? you keep bragging about an education but you aren’t willing to mention what it is in or where you got it.

I have no been bragging i am simply pointing out that you seem to think your lack of eduction is some sort of basis for an argument, it isn’t!

don’t they receive hundreds of billions of dollars for their work? isn’t that a motivation, to do what is necessary to get it?

this is another double standard, you are quick to believe that the Church had some motive to make up or promote Christianity. yet hundreds of billions of dollars aren’t any motivation to NASA.

Can you read, do you make this stuff up in your head, or are you just a lier? Where did i ever say “the Church had some motive to make up or promote Christianity”.

So now your great defense is NASA is involved in some great conspiracy theory, just when i thought this couldn’t get any more ludicrous! Priceless!! LOL

 

[AlbertBall]

The thing you seem to be missing is whether or not you accept the evidence for the moon landings, it is STILL THERE.

You can claim it is fake, however we still have the rockets, the suits, the trajectories, the technology, the physical evidence. So you can say its fake, however i will accept NASAs word over yours. And like it or NOT the evidence IS THERE, IT CAN BE EXAMINED, this again sets it apart from the virgin birth which has no evidence!

 

[tonyrey]

And like it or NOT the evidence IS THERE, IT CAN BE EXAMINED, this again sets it apart from the virgin birth which has no evidence!

1. Where do you find the evidence that physical objects exist?
2. What interprets that evidence?

Until you answer these questions all your assumptions are not worth a farthing!