On the Necessity of Proving Things

[warpspeedpetey]

None of the things you listed landed any support to your claim. You listed trash, with no explanation as to why they supported you claim.

according to your rules of evidence they do. they are all artifacts of the event. of course here is your double standard yet again, your artifacts support the idea that a moon;landing happenned, my artifacts are trash.

double standard.

E.G. Birth robes. LMAO how on EARTH do births robes support the claim the mother was a virgin.

the same way a space suit supports that a moonlanding happened.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You may well be, but you clearly are NOT more educated than me in science, for you have shown time and time again that you don’t even have the most basic understanding of science.

Again i was not bragging i was pointing you that your argument is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. You do not understand science, you are ignorant of science, and due to your lack of scientific education you think you are correct.

i have a pretty good science education. but my world view is colored by logic and philosophy. i like science, and see it exactly as it is, a collection of techniques that allow us to investigate the properties of the physical world. but i also understand that science is nothing more than that, it is not a measure of ‘truth’. it doesnt speak to anything more than the mere physical. we havent discussed any science at all. we probably wouldnt disagree on any matter of actual science. but you keep conflating ‘science’ with epistemology, and the philosophy of science.

 

[tonyrey]

A typical evasion which reveals inability to explain the prime source of all human knowledge, an obsession with material things and ignorance of what is most precious in life… an “answer” which is not worthy of a person! and has revealed your priorities - with TVs at the very top of your list…

The list was in no order. However if you cannot see the befits that TV’s have brought to society i am not sure what to say to you.
“TVs, Cars, Planes, Modern Medicine, Computers…”
You did not intend to put your examples in any particular order but you wrote them as they came into your mind and you would hardly have left what you think is the most important till last… You even put Modern Medicine after TVs, Cars and Planes!

The prime source of human knowledge is the scientific method. This is an undisputed fact.

You are mistaken. The **prime source **of human knowledge is what you are **know directly: your thoughts, feelings and perceptions. You infer **that things exist but you know you exist. Sometimes we imagine things exist but we cannot imagine we are thinking. If we weren’t thinking we wouldn’t know anything at all…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Again this has been clearly explained to you, just because there are processes we do not understand DOES NOT MEAN every wacky claim is just a process we do not understand. DUH!

no of course not. but what does that leave us with?

1. the Apostles practiced magic

• i dont believe in magic

1. the Apostles and witnesses were lying

• nobody suffers for decades only to be tortured to death for what they knew to be a lie.

i dont see either of these as a credible possibility

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Again WSP, which you keep dodging…

We KNOW the bible is full of nonsense, talking snakes, world wide floods, cosmos created in 7 days. So we know the bible is NOT a credible source. So given the bible is full of fictional stories give me reason why i should believe the virgin birth is not also a fictional story?

thats just it, we **do not know **that the Biblical events didnt happen. first, the fallacy of incredulity prevent one from dismissing them because one cant imagine a way they might have occured. second, not every story is considered literal. this isnt a science text nor is every book a historical text. and the same documetnation, and evidence i have already provided is why you should consider the virgin birth an actual event.

can you tell me that these events are impossible, or that science is so settled that that we can exclude them as possibilities? of course not. in fact i have demonstrated several times that these events are conceivable given our current understanding of science, much less any greatly advanced technology.

it all boils down to clarkes 3rd law in this case

 

[Image_of_God]

As you wish. Though you are mistaken. To accept them would not force you to accept anything. Those requiremets are broad enough to allow meaningful discourse, and narrow enough to avoid meaningless posts. But, as you say, you don’t accept them, so I thank you for your answer.

I am glad we cleared it up at the beginning and not after a plethora of futile posts.

Just out of curiousity, which ones do you find unacceptable? All of them? Some of them? But don’t reply if you don’t want to.

I’m very honored to reply back to you.

What is that you wish to talk about?

1. there are basic axioms, postulates, principles which are not articles of faith.

This term here I cannot agree with. If these things are not analogous to what we’d call “articles of faith” prove them. Otherwise, you simply accept them because you find them to be reasonable. For the sake of empiricist argument, I cannot accept something anything simply because you’ve told me to. You must prove it to me.

1. the current world-view may change in the future, but for now it is the basis of consideration, with the proviso that it may change, if warranted.

I can only partially accept this term. I understand that what we know now is all we have to go on. But at the same time, it is illogical and dishonest to ignore the possibility that such worldviews are wrong. This fact must always be taken in to account. As I mentioned previously, it is okay to believe in such, but then that would be something like faith.

1. empiricism is a method of making hypotheses about reality. It is not a method employed by the exact sciences.

Please inform me as to what are “the exact sciences”.

1. only in the exact sciences does one prove anything. To prove something is to show a logical chain which ends at the basic axioms and postulates.

Of course, this would require me to simply believe the basic axioms and postulates. Again, following the empirical line of argument, I cannot do this without some proof that they are true. If, however, you wish that I place my faith in these axioms and postulates, that is a very different matter which requires the creation of arbitrary doctrines (what some would call dogmas).

1. in the natural sciences one substantiates or verifies a hypothesis, or falsifies it.

I have little to disagree about with this term.

1. rational and logical thinking is not to be abandoned. (They are not the same.)

What do you mean by “rational and logical thinking”. It is very obvious that our ideas of such thinking is not the same. If I accept this term, then I would be forfeiting my philosophical position.

 

[AlbertBall]

can you tell me that these events are impossible, or that science is so settled that that we can exclude them as possibilities? of course not. in fact i have demonstrated several times that these events are conceivable given our current understanding of science, much less any greatly advanced technology.

Yeah i can, a world wide flood did NOT happen. Fact.

 

[AlbertBall]

• nobody suffers for decades only to be tortured to death for what they knew to be a lie.

Then i guess you best start practicing Islam for they are offing themselves at a massive rate.

 

[AlbertBall]

Quote:
E.G. Birth robes. LMAO how on EARTH do births robes support the claim the mother was a virgin.

the same way a space suit supports that a moonlanding happened.

I think this is as good a place to end this as any. Clearly we do not look at the world in the same way. If you really believe that then there is nothing i can say.

 

[Image_of_God]

Again WSP, which you keep dodging…

We KNOW the bible is full of nonsense, talking snakes, world wide floods, cosmos created in 7 days. So we know the bible is NOT a credible source. So given the bible is full of fictional stories give me reason why i should believe the virgin birth is not also a fictional story?

As I have mentioned previously, here you commit the error of imposing a certain kind of uniformity on nature that has never been (nor ever can be) empirically verified. It goes something like this: “Since the snakes that I’ve seen and the snakes that I’ve heard about from people that I trust never talked, that means that there has never been a snake in the history of the world that has ever talked.” It would be better for you say that you don’t believe that snakes talk, rather than to say that you know they don’t based on your very small realm of observation.

 

[AlbertBall]

As I have mentioned previously, here you commit the error of imposing a certain kind of uniformity on nature that has never been (nor ever can be) empirically verified. It goes something like this: “Since the snakes that I’ve seen and the snakes that I’ve heard about from people that I trust never talked, that means that there has never been a snake in the history of the world that has ever talked.” It would be better for you say that you don’t believe that snakes talk, rather than to say that you know they don’t based on your very small realm of observation.

Ok i am not even going to discuss talking snakes. Dear me.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yeah i can, a world wide flood did NOT happen. Fact.

who says a ‘worldwide’ flood happened? is it in a protestant Bible or something?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Then i guess you best start practicing Islam for they are offing themselves at a massive rate.

what? a suicide bomber isnt suffering for decades only to be tortured to death in support of what they know to be a lie.

they blow themselves up in a war. just like kamikazes did in WWII

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think this is as good a place to end this as any. Clearly we do not look at the world in the same way. If you really believe that then there is nothing i can say.

if the mere presence of a spacesuit, is evidence that a moonlanding happened, than it seems completely fair to make the comparison.

 

[Image_of_God]

Ok i am not even going to discuss talking snakes. Dear me.

This is an evasion from the topic at hand. Yet what I said strikes at the heart of your beliefs. Beliefs are exactly what they are, though you would rather cover them underneath the false cloak of science. Yes, indeed, a number of unsubstantiated claims are at the heart of your beliefs which you constantly call “science”.

This idea of uniformity, the heart of the “science” you practice, has never been verified. Last anyone knew, there are no scientific laws dictating the actions of animals.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ok i am not even going to discuss talking snakes. Dear me.

all kinds of birds talk, so we know its not an impossibility physiologically. we can make a snake appear to talk any number of ways. CGI, animatronics. heck, we even got remote control.

check this out

youtube.com/watch?v=Xk_7eTGF0N4&feature=player_embedded
youtube.com/watch?v=dSCLBG9KeX4&feature=player_embedded
youtube.com/watch?v=G-jTkqHSWlg&feature=related

if we can figure this stuff up now, who knows what more advanced processes will be performed later?

i suspect that a talking snake would be nothing to these kind of scientists in a century or so.

 

[AlbertBall]

if the mere presence of a spacesuit, is evidence that a moonlanding happened, than it seems completely fair to make the comparison.

Yes it is supporting evidence. Space suits detail a mechanism, and provide the ability for man to walk on the moon. Robes do nothing for the claim a virgin got pregnant.

And i am not discussing a talking snake, this conversation is ludicrous enough already.

 

[R_Daneel]

This term here I cannot agree with. If these things are not analogous to what we’d call “articles of faith” prove them. Otherwise, you simply accept them because you find them to be reasonable. For the sake of empiricist argument, I cannot accept something anything simply because you’ve told me to. You must prove it to me.

I have two questions here. I don’t know what the phrase “to prove” means to you, and I don’t know what the word “faith” means to you. To cut down on waiting time, I will tell you what they mean to me, and then (maybe) we can go on.

To prove: means to reduce something to the basic, fundamental level.
Faith: to believe something for what there is no convincing, supporting evidence.
It is well established in Hebrews 11:1 - “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

I realize that the second definition is somewhat ambiguous and subjective, since it contains the word: “convincing” and the word “evidence”. Obviously the term “convincing” is subjective. The word “evidence” can mean different things to different people. In my vocabulary, “convincing evidence” is something that substantiates an assertion “beyond any reasonable doubt”.

Yet another question: how can one “prove” the laws of logic? The three laws (identity, non-contradiction and the excluded middle) are so fundamental that they form the basis of all proofs. To say that they are based on faith is incorrect. We accept them, because denying them would be self-contradictory. How can one “prove” that 1 + 1 = 2? Even the idea to “proving” something like this is preposterous.

If one wishes to avoid infinite descent, all processes of “proving” must start from some point. Since those starting points are the basis of all proofs, they cannot be “proven”. However, that does not make them articles of faith. They don’t even resemble to articles of faith. They are not “assurance of things foped for”, they are not “convictions of things not seen”.

I can only partially accept this term. I understand that what we know now is all we have to go on. But at the same time, it is illogical and dishonest to ignore the possibility that such worldviews are wrong. This fact must always be taken in to account. As I mentioned previously, it is okay to believe in such, but then that would be something like faith.

The current standing of science is always tenuous. And I allowed for that, when I say that no one thinks that science is “done”. However, the currently accepted theories of science will be up for revision, if and only if there is convincing evidence (see above), that such a revision is warranted, by some new observation. To say that everything we know today is uncertain, because of the possibility that some part of it might need revision in the future would lead to universal skepticism.

Please inform me as to what are “the exact sciences”.

Any and all axiomaticaly based systems, like mathematics.

Of course, this would require me to simply believe the basic axioms and postulates. Again, following the empirical line of argument, I cannot do this without some proof that they are true. If, however, you wish that I place my faith in these axioms and postulates, that is a very different matter which requires the creation of arbitrary doctrines (what some would call dogmas).

Actually, it was the definition of the word “to prove”.

I have little to disagree about with this term.

Sounds good. But why the term “little”? Why not “nothing”?

What do you mean by “rational and logical thinking”. It is very obvious that our ideas of such thinking is not the same. If I accept this term, then I would be forfeiting my philosophical position.

I will illustrate it with an example of “valid” and “sound” logical reasoning.

A valid logical reasoning would be:

Premise: “All elephants can play the violin”
Premise: “Jumbo is an elephant”.
Corollary: “Therefore Jumbo can play the violin”.

However, this is not a sound logical reasoning, because it does not rest of a sound foundation.

A sound logical reasoning would be:

Premise: “All elephants are mammals”
Premise: “Jumbo is an elephant”.
Corollary: “Therefore Jumbo is a mammal”.

I am sure you see the difference.

 

[AlbertBall]

I am sure you see the difference.

Don’t hold your breath. LOL

 

[R_Daneel]

As I have mentioned previously, here you commit the error of imposing a certain kind of uniformity on nature that has never been (nor ever can be) empirically verified. It goes something like this: “Since the snakes that I’ve seen and the snakes that I’ve heard about from people that I trust never talked, that means that there has never been a snake in the history of the world that has ever talked.” It would be better for you say that you don’t believe that snakes talk, rather than to say that you know they don’t based on your very small realm of observation.

Since Albert did not wish to pick up this glove, I will, just for the fun of it. The reason has nothing to do with induction, rather it is the corollary of the law of identity. A snake is an animal, which has certain characteristics, one among them is that it does not have proper vocal chords to utter words. The law of identity declares that “everything is itself”, and no one of sound mind would dispute it. A talking snake is not a snake any more.

End of reasoning.