The Day The Earth Stood Still

Actually, I haven't:

Regardless, I'm glad you see my point now.

You see, I failed (in your view) to distinguish conception and reality simply because I don't hold that the latter has any meaning. Which is to say, there is no 'reality' beyond our understanding. So, I suppose, in your terms, my 'reality' is entirely subjective. I would disagree with you, but that's a discussion for some other time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you have set the record straight in this post.

If you look closely (read for understanding) you will see that I say it is evidence, not a final truth. I gave examples, tell us why they are not valid examples.

Something millions of people believe has more likelihood of being true than something no one believes in. That is simple common sense.

No proof that one or the other is true or false, but evidence, certainly.
If a scientist wrote a thesis on the possibility of time travel, and none of his peers accepted his proposals, there would be no funding for research.

If a different scientist wrote a thesis on the possibility of time travel, and 75% of his peers backed his proposals very enthusiastically, funding would be there immediately to begin research.

Of course numbers mean something concerning beliefs and reality.

From my side of the fence, it is you who keeps bringing it up.
You proclaim things with the certainty of the flat earth believers, and are incensed that your beliefs would be questioned.

I am interested in the difference between a claim and evidence.
If I understand you correctly, if you read a book that said the human body had a heart, that is only so much invisible bananas, until you cut open a chest, and hold the heart in our hand.
Do I have it right?
Claims are only fluff, it takes evidence for true belief?
No beating heart in my hand, no beating heart in that body?

I never made this argument, you cannot show that I have. In case you were wondering, that is not rhetorical, it is a challenge. I say if loads of people believe something, that is reason to consider it as evidence.

What I said is the bible contains truth, I did not say or imply that it is without error in some particular aspects. I can take the position of some of my fellow theists, and defend this position you suggest from their belief system, but not my own.

Your misidentification of my arguments is what is nonsense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

BeHere Now,

If you believe that the scientifically demonstrated laws of physics can be overturned then anything is possible. Nothing can be proven to be 100% true but that does not give us licence to make crackpot claims of the kind you are making. All an informed person can say is that the odds are overwhelmingly against such an event because of the effect it would have on the world. As you appear to have no knowledge of physics, you do not understand the import of what you are saying.

Life is much esier for the ignorant; they can believe whatever they want to, because they do not understand the nonsensical nature of the claims they make. I call it the confidence of the ignorant.

Let others spend their time as they will, I am finished with you because you are beyond reason.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I told you that a bible quote is not evidence.
You responded by asking why.
If you can't see why a bible quote is not evidence in itself then I can only assume that you either:
1.) decide on your own what in the bible is evidence and what is not, for unknown reasons.
2.) think that anything written is evidence in itself.

If I write a book and you read in it that the earth has blown up a few times in it's history but then came back together again, would you take that as evidence ?
Of course not, so I'll have to add a 3rd option to the list:
3.) think that anything described in the bible is evidence of therein mentioned past events.
Am I right ? If so, why do you think that ?

I'm just being careful here. I know what kind of stuff some theists see as 'evidence'.

You have it correct that I say that something is not evidence only because the majority happens to believe in it.

I just don't make wild assumptions based on nothing but an old book, one that has been censored and rewritten many times over the course of two millennia at that.

 

BeHereNow,

No. It is a classic logical falacy known as-

Argumentum ad populum

If we were to follow your reasoning then we would have to conclude that at one time the earth was flat because pretty much everyone on the planet at one time believed that.

Put simply - truth is not determined by a majority vote.

Much of the remainder of your post depends on this logical falacy and hence most of your post is logically invalid.

 

Technically speaking that's incorrect.

It would qualify as fallacious if BHN had said that it must be true, as opposed to saying it has a greater likelihood of being true.

Nevertheless, your objection is significant: how would 1+1 belief in A make A more probable (as opposed to 1 belief...)??

That's entirely contingent upon one's definition of truth (and all its attendant ontological implications...).

For myself, I would have to say that truth is indeed determined by a 'majority vote' (but that's an entirely different discussion...).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

BeHereNow,

There are only two issues that must be addressed to validate your claim. One is the existence of souls and the other is the existence of a god.

The bible depends on both these concepts being true. A soul is required for any concept of eternal life and a heaven to have any sense. And of course the central theme is all about a god.

If neither of these concepts have any truth then the entire bible if nonsense.

What evidence can you demonstrate that proves that either concept is true? Without that you have no basis on which to claim the bible contains any truth.

 

I thank you for your non-answer.

On the off chance that you can find it in your apparently moral, loving theist heart to answer my question decently, here it is again: What did I fail to respond to?

If you claim it as "evidence" then you are simply wrong. Amount of believers does not hint, imply at nor is it evidence that something is true - hence the day zero people believed the world was round changed nothing to the fact that it is.

That is simply incorrect.

Incorrect. If you check the last New Scientist you'll find a person there that brings up a case for time travel while not many people agree. He is still funded.

It is in many cases the same old game of "it's not what you know, it's who you know". The guy with absolutely nothing can get all the funding he needs if he impresses the right person. But that issue is not science, is not an indication of what is or is not truth but is simply an indication of how the world works. Right place, right time and all that. Frankly I think most of the worlds supermodels are ugly dogs. Fortunately for them they impressed the right people at the right time. If I was on the judging panel they'd go home with collars.

Not in the least. Numbers can certainly help reinforce your own beliefs but as far as 'reality' goes, numbers mean bugger all.

Intriguing. What 'beliefs' are those pray tell?

Absolutely. What you need to recognise is given our lifespan we simply do not have time to verify everything we read or hear. As a result we tend to only concentrate on that which peaks our interest. You will find that every single training medical doctor will cut open a body and check out the heart. The book is the claim - we generally accept many claims simply because we don't have the time to verify them but indeed, in the case of the heart certainly, validate it by our own level of evidence, (the beating in the chest etc etc).

Anything any book says is not "evidence" of anything, it is merely a claim of something. If you're interested in the subject matter the very first thing you would do is actually gather evidence for that books claims. If you were interested in astronomy you would buy a telescope and look for the things the book claims existed. If you were interested in web design the very first thing you would do is follow the books claims on how to design a webpage.

We have some advantage nowadays in that we can to a large degree just accept what a book says with the high chance that it is, to a degree, accurate. We have progressed to such a stage where you will get caught out if you lie, you will get caught out if you're wrong. It's an age where you can talk to a person on the other side of the planet instantly.

No such system existed in the times we are currently debating. If Mark was a lunatic or a liar there is nothing to catch him out. So few people could even read, let alone have the ability to converse with the authors or other witnesses and so on.

The thing is I would actually raise an eyebrow if all the gospels were written at the same time and confirmed events. If Luke said "well, Mark and I went down here etc etc.." and Matthew said "I saw Mark and Luke, my friends going here..." I would actually be quite impressed and focused on the story. The problem is these so called witnesses are so contradictory, don't mention each other, are written at vastly differing times and so on. And, most importantly, as I mentioned on another thread around here, are not even original or unique.

I know when I see a game or read a book that mentions ents and orcs and ogres and balrogs that they are ripping off Tolkien. There's no two ways about it. They didn't invent or create or witness orcs and trolls no, they got it from him. The story you would attribute to jesus and consider original to jesus predates jesus by millennia. It would be simple foolishness to consider the jesus story as a unique, accurate story.

The flood for example.. There are global flood stories all over the place, some of which predate the Noah saga by millennia. Unless there were several global floods it is plainly obvious that the Noah version is a copy and thus ultimately completely worthless. Anyone that espouses that the Noah version is the accurate real version is simply a fool or so entrenched in his own beliefs that he couldn't see daylight if the sun stared him right in the eyes.

The jesus myth is not as impressive as it would be if the story wasn't so contradictory and was in fact an original. But the facts speak for themselves. Where do you think 25th December comes from? All these christian jerkoffs celebrating the birth of this jesus on the 25th when it is actually the date of a completely different god and a completely different festival. And then they claim they are right because "many people believe it"? Do me a lemon.

Christmas: Sol Invictus, Easter: Ostara, Pentecost: Lugnasao etc etc and so on. Your entire religion is the theft of so many other belief systems and yet you couldn't see that if it punched you in the face. You call it "yule tide" without recognising the origin of "yule", you have a christmas tree without recognising the origin of those trees, (you think fir trees grow much in the middle of Israel)?

Every word uttered from the mouth of a christian isn't a christian thing.. it belongs to someone else with some other belief. These are the facts of the matter. The entire christian religion is a farce. "But many people believe it". Lol, cmon.

That you believe in something is your own business and I wish you well with it, but if you're going to and argue the matter with people clued up on the issue you will always find yourself in a pickle. The facts speak for themselves, it takes a brave man to acknowledge them.

Lol, you've stated it dozens of times, "you cannot compare invisible bananas, nobody believes in them...."

When you pull the numbers card, your argument is done. Plain and simple. I shall forgive you as you seem new to all this. It's just advice for the future. It's ok, when I first started debating theology I made very typical arguments as well. Rule A is that typical arguments are worthless ones.

If you were to type "seen a leprechaun" in google you would get a total of 802,000 sites. Indeed there are literally thousands upon thousands of people that claim to have seen leprechauns. Leprechauns have been written about for many hundreds of years, they feature in many prominent modern day festivals and advertising, every single person I have ever met has heard of leprechauns, and... the shocker.. how many times have you heard someone say "knock on wood" or "touch wood"? Yes, that has it origins in leprechaun mythology. Leprechauns have left their mark on the whole of humanity. I have heard literally hundreds of people say touch wood without realising that they are in fact asking a leprechaun for luck - and they take it so literally without realising what it is.

Does all of this add up to so much as one small, tiny little shred of evidence for the existence of leprechauns? The answer is a big fat hairy no.

And the point is that so does Harry Potter. It uses Waterloo? station, most of London, it uses schools and people and cups of tea and so many other factual things and places. It remains a work of fiction regardless to all of that factual data.

However, ok.. Rowling will openly admit that her work is a work of fiction. So let's look at something that we isn't considered fiction. Do you remember that movie with the man and wife that go diving and the boat sails off without them? Right at the start of that movie it said "based upon a true story/real life events". So you have these two people that are apparently real people that apparently really got stuck in the middle of the ocean when their boat left without them. So there I am thinking they would survive the experience because it's a true story and thus you need a survivor to tell it. Anyway.. they both get eaten by sharks. So I'm like.. wtf.. considering it said based upon a true story/true events. How do they know? I mean c'mon, if someone was watching surely they would have saved them. But you see there's the thing.. What they do know is that two people with certain names got lost at sea. The rest is all bollocks, (excuse my language). For all anyone knows they could have been eaten by a giant undersea squid - but of course we work on probabilities. The squid suggestion is quite unlikely, whereas shark death is, (although extremely rare), the more viable outcome. Then you have the psychological aspect which, (being in the profession), would ultimately claim that at some stage they would blame each other, then go through dramatic moments of love and so on - it is typical behaviour.

But at what stage do we say that it is "true"? We know that they were most likely possibly probably eaten by sharks. We know they probably possibly argued and blamed each other and we ultimately know that they never returned. At what stage does it become a 'truth'? Will it ever? There is the question..

Where? I'll send you dollars via paypal if you can show me..

Actually, (and this is going to be more factual coming from an atheist than a theist), you will find that the majority of atheists do not espouse such a positive, (there is no god), but that they merely refuse to believe in one until there is reason to do so. These same people would ultimately say the same about leprechauns or mermaids. Who knows, there might very well be a fish-human kinda thing at the bottom of the sea, but would we believe in it? No.. Would we lack a belief in it until someone showed evidence of its existence? Absolutely. It is the only viable way.

What I can gather from my own little corner is that I exist, this universe exists and other people exist. Oh and my wine exists. If you want to assert that space beings exist that is fine, but it does require a little more than your say so or a books say so. If it didn't I would believe in so many different things my brain would short circuit. The day before you came round a muslim did, the day before that a jew did, the day before that a hindu did, the day before that a wiccan did, the day before that a bhuddist did, the day before that a satanist did, the day before that a shintoist did and so on and so forth. What I do find amusing is that every single one of these espoused that they had a "book" and that it was evidence of something. They're all twits. You know, I know it, everyone knows it, you simply excuse it when you do it.

There is, in general, no "faith" involved. Do we have faith in computer science? No sir, we're all here testing that science. Do we have faith in the claims of gravity? No sir, we're all experiencing it. So what of big bangs and electrons and so on? An issue of faith? In a loose sense yes... most have not been lucky enough to "observe" an electron or witness "evolution" first hand and therefore many would call it faith? Personally I prefer 'confidence', (given the current age). The sheer work required to pull the wool over everyones eyes is so astronomical as to make the idea of 'faith' completely worthless. The freedom of experimentation also helps. How can you test the validity of Mark, Luke, Matt or John? Can you test to see whether there was a being walking on water? (It's one of the issues with history). It isn't an issue of "faith", anymore at least. Our kettles work, our computers work, we can experiment with anything claimed, our themometres are accurate, our museums display our findings.. The list is simply endless.

That there was a global flood has zero evidence. That there is a god has zero evidence, that there was an Adam and Eve in a garden has zero evidence, everything biblical has zero evidence and yet you dare call that which has evidence, can be experimented on etc etc as "faith"? Pfft.

Fine, I shall give you a shot at convincing me of another system that determines "reality". Take into account that my profession deals with many people that assert that what they feel or believe is "reality". That aside, please.. explain this other system.

I would like to class myself as a man of science although some might dispute it. The term 'atheist' is neither here nor there but a term that only exists because there are those that believe in weird sky thingies. So yes, I am an atheist, I am a scientist and my nick is SnakeLord. Where does belief system come into play?

I don't "believe" things, I gain confidence in things due to the weight of evidence. If it has none it's not that it's false, it simply is not a consideration.

Absolutely not. It is simply a matter of what the evidence suggests. I can't help that, I was born that way. You know the first day I was born I seeked titty. If someone had have shoved a playing block in my mouth I would have soon learnt it was of no value.

To be honest I fail to see what this really means coming from the guy that believes in a floating sky fairy because an ancient crumbly scroll says so. It's almost like you want to bust my balls because I don't have the overrated "proof" and yet don't realise that it puts you in an even worse predicament.

Actually no. I offer you the chance to put forth a system that doesn't require me to shut my eyes and hope. No really, if it is a system that will actually and factually allow me to gain access to the truth, and something not just confined to myself, then I'll love it. Please.. do tell me.

Which is an interesting statement given that you only even know the name 'jesus' because of your family and tribe. This has been the case for the past 2000 years, and it has passed down to you.

Forgive me, I get it. We all have emotions, some take a larger toll than others. Aye, I want to live for a while longer than I am going to. I want to see my loved ones again etc. Excuse me I am very drunk but I think you'd have to be a complete fucking idiot to not recognise that you believe these things because of emotions and that, regardless to how much you need it, thinking its true is plain fucking silly. I get it. Man would I love to entertain the idea that there is another me in a duplicate universe that actually bonked the girl I never did in this universe. I love the notion, it's so emotionally appealing. The difference is merely a case of recognising why it's appealing.

Depends how you define it, but generally speaking no.. I don't have a belief system. I have a "ah this is what the evidence shows" system - be that tea, crossing the road, bonking the wife..

 

Actually the rational religious scientist operates under "I know God did this, but i am going to discover how."

It's the smartest premise after all as even if the first part is wrong you still gain scientific knowledge and if God is real you are rewarded with scinetific knowledge and deeper understanding of god.

 

At this point, the debate seems to stem from the key differences between Perception and Language as ways of knowing.

Language, as a humans way of gaining most knowlege, has many obviouse faults. First, and foremost, it is only a way of passing on knowlege from 1 knower to another, not a method of gaining knowlege. Two men locked in a closet, and given all the time in the universe to communicate (and only communicate) could never determin the world outside the closet.
Thus, before we can learn anything via language, SOMEONE must have learned it using their perception.

Next, there is the multitude of problems associated with describing the knowlege. Language is vague, and can be misconstrued, hence distorting the knowlege passed. One could even outright lie. Or the observer could be impaired. Would one hold any worth in a book which described revelations someone had on the universe while they where tripping out on LSD?

However, as gaining knowlege via perception takes much longer (mankind has been around for 100,000 years and the computer has only recently been invented, obviously not possible without language), laguage is the preffered method of learning the majority of knowlege for most individuals, hence school and the education system.

So, given the bible is purely linguistic, it does not inherently contain truth, however, it may describe facts, or it may not.
So why can things such as a physics textbook be taken more at face-value?
Because that which they describe have been empiracaly tested. You can find mountains of observations in agreeance with the theories describe. Why should we trust this data? Well, because the collection of the data has also been thouroughly described. For instance, Google Milliken's Oil drop experiment and you can find detailed procedures such that you can replicate events. To reenforce this, one does several labs in the variouse sciences throughout school.
Of course, one never bothers to test everything for themselves, but these theories offer 1 more reason to trust them: they advance technology, with them hundreds of devices are created, such as the computer, which are used everyday. At this point, one can consider the stuff to be true well beyond reasonable doubt.

To conclude:
Science offers empiracaly tested data, with fully described procedures, and conclusions, mathmaticaly sound theories, which are not only extensivly verified, but found the basis of technologies which have a visible impact on society, to back up it's theories. The bible offers the doctrine, but not the actual perceptual evidence, and no means of confirming/falsifying it's position.
It thus gives me no demonstratably real perceptual data, and is thus worthless.
This is why Science and the bible are not on equal ground, and why a number of people believeing in the bible is uncomparable to scientific consensus. Ie, scientificaly, people agree beacause they have reviewed the work and found no error in it, and/or repeated the experiment with the same resaults, and they are in accordance with the scientific method (ie, the hypothosis is falsifiable, etc...) The Bible cannot be empiracaly tested, and therefore, the consensus of the masses is irrelevant to it's probability of being true.

Now, god forbid I have missed the current issue and typed that in vain. If that's so, a reclarification of the currennt issue/thesis would be nice

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

-Andrew

 

Wrong. To say "I know god did this" is not rational because it is not based on evidence; it's based on conjecture. Science is based on what can be demonstrated.

What you are saying is reminiscent of Pascal's wager; in my opinion he was a a moral coward.

 

Glaucon,

No, it makes no difference. Truth is not dependent on what is believed no matter what the number. I.e. in this case the shape of earth being flat does NOT have a greater likelihood of being true simply because people believed that.

In exactly the same way the existence of a god has zero dependence on whether 1 person believes or several billion.

Then for you the earth was flat at some time in the past, correct. I hope you see the idiocy of your position.

 

Here is what we have.

Prominent members of this board have stated quite clearly that the process of science never results in the proof of anything.

I have made repeated offers for others to make rebuttal to this, and was willing to defend it myself, but no takers.
This might mean many things.

I believe it means others, who did not speak against this concept, either agree with it, or do not feel qualified to speak against it. Either way, to me this stands as an accepted true statement. Those who disagree are free to make their case. One line responses will be ignored, explanations are required.


Other comments about science are also accepted as true.
The process of science has as an intended end result, information which is to be an accurate reflection of reality, within the limits that the tools techniques, knowledge, human error, etc. will allow.

The best job possible to find the best representation of reality. The degree of success a particular example of the process demonstrates will vary, and be identified. (“Need more tests, but looks like about a 50% chance right now.; There is really not much doubt about this, 50 tests all yielded the same results, we’ve got a winner.”) These are not meant to be “real” conversations, just cartoon representations of the actual events. Do not take me literally.

Science is not able to provide proof, but I have suggested in other posts that other systems can offer a different type of proof, which I referred to as philosophical proof, with the meaning of that which convinces the mind.

This was met with rejection equal to my suggestion that science might prove something, or provide proof..

My suggestion was seen as too arbitrary. Any old thing might convince the mind of some imaginary thing, and such things could never be real, therefore there could be no proof of such things. If these things might convince the mind, then clearly simply saying “that which convinces the mind” could never be proof.

What we have now are various posters who deviate from the accepted process of science, deviate from a belief system based soley on the process of science.

A belief system, simply put, is that group of ideas or perceptions which helps you determine the truthfulness of all things. To say it helps, is an understatement, because it is indispensible. It may begin in the womb, or much later, but by the time we are functioning as individuals, we have a belief system.

It tells us whether or not it is safe to cross the street, or safe to eat particular foods. Every step we take is based on a belief system component, about solid matter, and all manner of other things.

There are particular aspects of belief systems, which might dominate ( such as morals, ambitions, relationships).

If anyone chooses to make the claim they have no belief system, I would be interested in seeing some documentation that this is supported by some respected group or persons. Claims by an individual here or there is hardly documentation. I will discuss without documentation, but I am saying this is such an accepted view of philosophy, that evidence to the contrary should be substantial.
Feel free to make your own argument if that is all you have.

We now have individuals who claim to put great value on the process of science, yet choose to deviate from one of the characteristics, that is undeniable (or so I am willing to argue).

Where the process of science can never end in proof, they claim to have proof.

They will not concede that it is possible that the earth stood still.
If this (in their mind, or in reality), is true, it is not a part of science. Science says it cannot be proven impossible, there is no proof to show it cannot happen.

The odds of it happening, is some number greater than zero.
If the odds, or probability were zero, that would be proof that it could not happen, but science never provides proof.

From a scientific point of view, it cannot be said it is impossible that the earth stood still, so this is scientific evidence that it could have stood still.
It is A, or ~A, but not one definitely, and not the other impossibly, not speaking scientifically.

Any individual who says “It could not have stood still, unless you can show evidence.”, has parted ways from the process of science.

They have found proof that it could not happen, but not within the process of science, not as a result of the process of science.

The process of science can provide what might be convincing evidence, but even convincing evidence can be incorrect, otherwise it would be proof.
Their mind has been convinced that it could not happen, their mind has accepted proof, but it did not come from science, because science never provides proof.


It came from their belief system, which deviates from the scientific method or process in some small or large way.

It has departed from the intended objective path of the process of science, and as such has entered the undeniable world of the subjective. If they were still on an objective path, they would be consistent with the process of science. Their inconsistency with the process of science of science is convincing evidence of their subjectivity.

For those of us who believe that the mind can be convinced of proof, (which is not possible with the process of science), this is proof their position is subjective.
It may be true or false, but it is subjective.

 

BeHereNow,

No that isn’t quite correct. Proofs are something that occurs in mathematics not science. Science doesn’t claim to provide proofs. Science is primarily a logical process where the vast majority of conclusions are inductive. E.g. a test gives the same results 100% of the time so we can tentatively move on with some degree of confidence that that phenomenon is understood. This class of knowledge is best considered as scientific theory, e.g. the theory of gravity, atomic theory, etc, not to be confused with the layman concept of theory which largely means “best guess”. With any inductive process the conclusion must always be qualified by the degree of confidence and good scientists are always aware that a future test might yield a different result and hence the theory might need to be modified. A classic example is Newtons Laws of motion that had to be later modified when Einstein demonstrated relativity. The new tests didn’t invalidate Newton’s findings but enhanced them.

The critical driving force in science is evidence.

But such a theory might well be the final truth and while science will not claim it a proof it might well be. My only issue is with your wording. It is that science doesn't claim a proof not that science hasn't found a proof.

There is no evidence that it did or could and hence no reason to reach a conclusion that such a thing is possible under the conditions described. The inability to conclude that such a thing is possible is not equivalent to claiming it is impossible. Although from an inductive perspective and based on exiting known phenomena it is fairly reasonable to conclude that it is extremely unlikely. For anyone to claim otherwise would require substantial evidence.

Science says no such things. Science simply doesn’t operate that way.

That is an invalid claim. To claim odds one must know all the possibilities. E.g. we know two 6 sided dice have 6 numbers each and we can accurately calculate the probability of any combination occurring on a given throw. In the case of the earth standing still there is nothing to indicate that it is a possibility and hence no odds can be established.

Which is all irrelevant because you cannot demonstrate that it is a possibility.

No this is nonsense. The inability to show that something is impossible does not lead to a conclusion that something is possible. One condition is not dependent on the other. Your conclusion is a non-sequitur.

No. Neither A nor ~A have been established. Strictly from the absence of evidence one is not able to conclude that the condition is possible or impossible. From the perspective of science and inductive reasoning we can conclude that the possibility is significantly unlikely.

Very good. This is the overwhelming basis of science, inductive reasoning.

 

You miss my point.

As I said, technically you are incorrect. The fallacy is only applicable if a warrant of truth as a conclusion is asserted.

lol

You'll refrain from the ad hominem if you want to be taken seriously.

You're assuming that belief has some sort of correlate to a purported reality.

We all know what the result of an illicit assumption means....

 

Glaucon,

And the assertion was that a claim is more likely to be true if more people believe it. That is a logical falacy.

I attacked your position (point of view), not you.

That's the point. I'm not but you are as demonstrated by your statement -

For myself, I would have to say that truth is indeed determined by a 'majority vote'

You do see that that is a nonsense, right?

 

Yes, that distinction has been acknowledged several times, even in this thread I believe.

Please, if we are to be accurate, let us be honest and point out that it is what can only be called scientific evidence that drives science.

In a court of law circumstantial evidence can send a person to their death.
In science circumstantial evidence is of little value.

What is of little value in science may result in certain death.
Some people believe all evidence is scientific in nature, but that is only true for certain belief systems.
For those of the legal belief system, eye witness accounts are evidence. They may not be convincing, but many things can be admitted in court as evidence, that science would never accept, or accept with an insignificant importance.

You are using proof in two different meanings here. Let us agree to say “It is that science doesn’t claim a proof not that science hasn’t found the truth.”

In your first use of proof, you mean evidence which is convincing in all scientific tests and logic.
If science found proof, they would claim proof.
What you mean is, they may have found convincing evidence, which is consistent with the truth, but because the process of science is so rigorous, it cannot declare it has found proof.
Your meaning (it is clear to me, correct me if I am incorrect), is that science may have evidence consistent with the truth, but lack scientific proof.

What I see, that you do not, is that that is true for any claim.
Any belief may be consistent with reality, but lack the scientific proof.
Depending on our particular belief system, we may have very much evidence, which appears to us as overwhelming, or we might have some scribbles on a piece of paper.
The evidence may be exactly the same, but carry different weight based on our belief system.

There is evidence, but not scientific evidence.

Where did I lose you?
We might showA is true or false, we might show ~A is true or false. If we can not show either one is true or false, then either might be true or false. You statement is not true.
This is very simple logic.

We have no disagreement.

Science is a process which yields certain results.
Can science ever yield the result that says it is impossible that the earth stood still? I say, no, this is not possible. Do you disagree?

Can the process of (non-mathematical) science provide proof of anything?
If my statement is false, show us the scientific proof the earth could not have stood still that one day.
You do not like the wording of my statement, so change it to suit your usage, the meaning will remain the same.

I do not argue for particular odds, simple odds greater than zero.

To know exact odds, one must know all possibilities.
To know the odds are greater than zero one only has to know there is no proof it is impossible.

Lacking scientific proof that it is impossible, the odds are greater than zero.
Again, this is simple logic.
As we previously discussed, the truth may be that the odds are zero, but lacking scientific proof, science cannot state that the odds are zero. The process of science cannot yield results consistent with the statement “The odds of the earth standing still on that day are zero.”

Again, if neither A nor ~A can be shown to be true or false, either might be true or false, so the possibility exists that either may be true or either may be false.
Simple logic.

I do not say I have convincing evidence it is possible, I say this is convincing scientific evidence it could be possible. [BHN prev quote: this is scientific evidence that it could have stood still].
To say it is possible, is to claim to know the truth, reality, to have proof.
I only claim that it could be possible. Again, this is simple logic.
If I cannot show it is impossible, I have shown it could be possible.

Not only has neither been established, neither can be established. A very significant difference. If I am not able, using all of the resources available to science, to establish the truth or falseness of A or ~A, then I have established that either may be true or either may be false (according to science). Simple logic.

Of course it is significantly unlikely. Even believers make that claim, that’s why they call it a miracle.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Snakelord

How is my meaning not clear?
You had failed to respond to my rebuttal that imaginary things that no one believes has equal status with things the majority of individuals believe in.
You failed to counter, I assumed you gave up that line of argument, then you later bring it up again.
If you counter my rebuttals when they occur, it makes things more simple.
To ignore my rebuttals, then bring up the same tired argument later is a waste of time.
Ideas have value based on their acceptance.
Ideas do not lose all value simply because one or two persons doubt them, or even if 40% of the people doubt them. When virtually no one accepts them, they have no value.
All of this has nothing to do with the truth or falseness of the ideas, simply the value individuals put on them.

You confuse facts or truth with beliefs.
I have never hinted that if everyone in the universe believed something, that would make it true.
Beliefs are what is believed to be true (yes, stating the obvious, forgive me).

We have learned, through experience, that when no one believes a claim, it is unlikely to be true.
We have learned, through the same experiences, that when many people believe something is true, the likelihood of it being true increases.
Everyone’s belief system operates this way.

If one person tells you some unusual event happened (say, the president was assassinated) you may have serious doubts. If every person you meet remarks what a terrible thing it is that the president was killed, your beliefs about such a possible event changes, you begin to think it might actually be true, and you will seek confirmation.

If only one person says it happened, and everyone else says they know nothing about it, your belief is very slight.
If every person says it happened, your belief changes because the likelihood of it being true increases.
The single person who says it happened may be correct (because they did it), but no one else knows about it, so no one believes him.
The likelihood of it having occurred is slight, because the evidence is that only one person believes it. It is true, but not believed.
When everyone says it has happened, the likelihood of it having occurred has increased, but it may be totally bogus.

Why is it incorrect?
Offer some explanation. I have explained why I reason that it is true. Please offer some reasoning that leads you to believe it is not true.

We know that all sane individuals want to know the truth. Whether they actually do or not is another issue, but it is in their best interest to know the truth.
All individuals want to know the truth, so when many people believe something, we can be assured they have perceived claims or evidence to convince them of the (perceived) truth.
All individuals want to know the truth, so when few or no persons believe something, we can be assured they have not perceived any convincing evidence.

We do not have to reinvent the wheel, we use the decisions of others to influence our judgments or decisions. Each of us wants to know the truth, so when others we respect believe something to be true, we accept this as evidence that it is true. Please note I say evidence, and not convincing evidence.

We tend to put more strength in the beliefs of those in our own belief system, and to doubt the beliefs of those in other belief systems. When many persons in our belief system say something is true, it has a stronger likelihood of being true than when a few persons in an opposing belief system says the opposite is true.
This is so obvious, so undeniable, any opposition is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence.

What is your extraordinary evidence my statements [ We tend to put more strength in the beliefs of those in our own belief system, and to doubt the beliefs of those in other belief systems. When many persons in our belief system say something is true, it has a stronger likelihood of being true than when a few persons in an opposing belief system says the opposite is true.] are not true?

Why so obtuse?
The belief there is no god, of course.

I say nobody believes in invisible bananas, (implied: so they are probably not true), and to you this equates with “something is true only if loads of people believe it”?
Your point has completely missed me, as I see very little connection between the two concepts.

Let me see if I can make my position very clear:

The truth is not dependent on the beliefs of individuals, but individuals find it in their best interest to understand the truth, and to seek the truth, so when many individuals believe they know something to be true, this is some measure of evidence (second hand, call it a claim if you wish) that the belief is true. The value we put on this some measure will be based on the number of persons and what belief system they belong to. Every individual believes there is a direct connection between their beliefs and the truth (not necessarily a one to one correspondence, but some connection). Some will be correct, some will be incorrect.

This is an idiot proof concept, and your failure to acknowledge it has me concerned.
My concern is that you are intentionally being unreasonable, in the illogical sense.

That is a small number of hits for google, and we both know many of them will be jokes, and other references not claiming to be the truth or sightings.

“Thousands upon thousands” is a relatively small number, compared to the hundreds of billions of individuals who make no such claim. In percentages, what are we talking? Less than 1%, that is my claim. A lot less.

1000 times 1000, is one Million. That is less than 1% of the current population of the US adults.
Add in all the people who have died since the first leprechaun was reported, add in all of the people in Ireland and all of the other countries on the earth who have lived and died, and we are at the level one might call insignificant.
Your argument lacks serious merit.

I will say this is evidence of leprechauns, an insignificant amount of evidence, by the argument you present.

Well , I seriously doubt you deny a belief in a universe with no god.
You want me to show you where you imply that is an imaginary belief, and again you are being obtuse.
You know my meaning and pretend you do not.
You have no proof such a universe exists, so I claim your belief is imaginary.
You have no proof I am not correct, I have no proof you are not correct. I consider your belief imaginary, you consider my belief to be imaginary. We all know that, the evidence is overwhelming.

You have expressed key parts of your belief system.

I know of no way to define belief system, in any conventional sense, that one can claim to have no belief system.

One is always free to invent a meaning, to support their position.
If you have invented such a meaning, I will entertain it. Bear in mind I will claim it is a meaning held by one person alone, and so lacks credibility.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



andbna

I will reply as soon as time presents itself.
Thanks for the reply.

 

I actually pointed out the fallacy of such a statement several times. Perhaps you should borrow my glasses.

Neither A nor B have any evidence to suggest that they are 'true'. They are both in exactly the same position absolutely regardless to how many people believe in either one, (they lack any evidence to suggest they exist/are true).

If you read what was written you wouldn't bump into such problems.

You change tune more than most people change underwear. Now it has nothing to do with truth or falseness but on your very last post it was:

"Something millions of people believe has more likelihood of being true than something no one believes in. That is simple common sense."

Would you kindly take 5 minutes to sit down and get your own thoughts in order, it would certainly clear things up?

You go on to say: "No proof that one or the other is true or false, but evidence, certainly."

While having argued that no such thing as 'proof' exists, (I agree there). But evidence? No, it's evidence of nothing other than more people believe that idea than that one. According to your argument presented here that everyone once believed the earth was flat was "evidence" that it was. The notion is idiotic at best.

"Something millions of people believe has more likelihood of being true than something no one believes in. That is simple common sense."

*cough* (also see your very next statement)

Who's the "we" lol? Experience will show that there will always be a time when absolutely nobody believes in a certain thing - and yet that absolutely nobody believes it has absolutely zero relevance to whether it is ultimately 'true' or not.

Again this is complete and utter gibberish.

Not at all, they could have all watched a news channel that broadcast misinformation, they could have all been the butt of some online April fools joke, or one of dozens of other possibilities.

Your own statement here shows you quite clearly that numbers have nothing whatsoever to do with the likelihood of something being true.

Done. A few times now actually.

Not true at all. Emotions player a much larger aspect in peoples lives than they would give credit for. While you would say we all want to know truth, look at the man in love. He apparently wants to know 'truth' just as much as everyone else but when someone tells him his girlfriend is a scheming bitch? He has this notion in his head that his girlfriend is faithful and beautiful but only someone 'outside the box' can actually see it for the way it is. It is so so easy to succumb to emotions, hence a bunch of people drinking poison 7up because they believed they would be 'saved', hence a bunch of people allowing a man to have sexual relations with their 10 year old daughters without question, (Koresh), and so on.

I actually took some time out to go to a local church when they did some 'get to know god' sessions. It is incredible to observe how all of these people ultimately break down their belief to one of emotions..

"My husband ran away with the neighbour, I was lost.. a friend mentioned jesus, now im found and safe".

Statements like that were absolutely consistent. From having had drug problems, to cheating partners, to nearly dying, to having a crippling illness etc. I'm sure it would take a strong willed man not to give in to emotion at times like these, but that such belief is due to emotional states as opposed to "wanting to find truth" is quite apparent. Alas as said, one needs to be 'outside the box' to actually notice it.

For the tenth time no it doesn't. You're talking absolute garbage.

I find it both hypocritical and amusing that for a statement such as this you would demand "extraordinary evidence" and yet think it's sufficient to claim the world stopped spinning because 'it says in this here book'.

You could say that the likelihood of Santa existing is higher than not existing because every single child you've ever met believes in him. The notion is simple foolishness.

It is one of evidence, and for those things with an abundance of evidence you should find the majority accept it as true, (the majority probably wont believe it's going to snow this June given the evidence that it hasn't snowed in June for the past 25 years -about 12 here actually but nm). This does not hold for everything, those things which have no evidence such as Santa, gods, and tooth fairies remain in the same state regardless to how many people think it is so. It is called 'faith' for a reason.

Who has that belief?

[edit - didn't notice the rest of your post]

Why are they "probably not true"? Once again amount of believers is entirely irrelevant. Nobody believed the earth was round.. Yeah, that made it 'probably not true' Lol :bugeye:

No, it is not a 'measure of evidence', (other than evidence to show that many people can believe in something regardless to whether it is true or not).

All due respect pal but you wouldn't know what logic was if it got up and wiggled it's bum in front of you.

Hundreds of billions? I take it you did a census involving a few planets?

Tell you what then, I shall use your own argument:

There are roughly 6.6 billion people on the planet. Two thirds of those are not christians, (believing that christianity and its claims are not true), which means it is much more likely, (indeed 'evidence' you call it) that christianity is wrong. :bugeye:

There might be some god thing along with many other completely non evidenced possibilities.

You mean the imaginary belief you lumped on me? Lol.

Needless to say then, you have no 'proof' that an invisible flying banana does not exist, so therefore you claim your own belief that there isn't is imaginary.. :bugeye:

No, you have expressed your belief system in that I have a belief system and what it entails.

 

A CHALLENGE FOR BEHERENOW

I decided to write you off but, having decided to keep an eye on how the argument is developing, I have just read your recent posts and feel I must respond.

You call someone else obtuse when you, yourself. are obtuse beyond belief. You are so confused by what you regard as a good argument that it is difficult to know what to say to you.

Looking at your position as a whole you are saying something like: It is possible that Alice really did go to Wonderland and scientists cannot prove she did not But neither can they prove that there are no cabbages on mars that look like elephants and squeak like mice, therefore, we must allow that such entities may exist. If I made that claim and asked you to refute it on its own terms, how would you go about it ? Whatever you said, I could reply that you could not show it to be impossible so "LOGICALLY" there must be some chance that I am right.

So, if you can prove me wrong about those cabbages on mars, do so and let us see what you regard as a "LOGICALLYY" based rebuttal. Remember you must do so on my terms because you have asked others to prove you wrong on your terms. If you cannot do so, do it on any terms you like, as I do not wish to cramp your style.

You now have a challenge. Let us see what you are made of by giving us an insight into how you think.You owe it to yourself to show you deserve to be taken seriously.

 

Again, it is not fallacious.

The fallacy only is applicable if an assertion of truth is made, not one of probability. By definition, a fallacy is an error of form, where validity is claimed.

Not at all. My critique was of your position, not mine.
You are the one who is drawing a distinction between a reality simple, and one's subjective perception.

It's hardly nonsense to take the obverse position, as many epiphenomenalists do. You see, all one has to do is dismiss the concept of an objective ontology, and there's no problem.