The Day The Earth Stood Still

[BeHereNow]

andbna 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.

WE agree, and in some conversations I feel the same need to point this out. The limitations of language are not realized by most individuals. I started a thread to point this out.

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.

We’re still on track.

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.

I will mention what I am sure you are aware of, and that is you are speaking from a scientific point of view. With a primarily scientific point of view, what you say is true. There are other belief systems, which start with different premises, and yield different conclusions.

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.

Well, you may be more stuck in the scientific belief system that I had thought.

You seem to start with the assumption that current science can reveal all truth. I’m sure you do not believe this, but you write as though you do.
You also write as though truth or reality cannot be known except through science, and it does seem your beliefs are consistent with this.

You assume there is no divine revelation, because you choose to, not because you have proof. (BTW, I also reject divine revelation, because I choose to.)

You assume there is no way for the individual to experience a truth, that can not be demonstrated through current science.

Since I do not have a belief in the supernatural (I am a Deist, who believes god is part of the system, not external to it), I do believe scientific methods have the potential to reveal or substantiate all truth or reality. I do not believe the endeavor referred to as science is anywhere close to being mature in its tools or techniques.

Large numbers of individuals have beliefs based on what they accept as evidence.
If we say only scientific evidence has value, your conclusions are true.

If I say I ate eggs for breakfast last Wednesday, I assure you I have no scientific evidence, then my claim is useless in regards to scientific evidence. My family of 100 may have watched me eat eggs, and may be willing to swear to that in court. They will all recount in great detail how many, how they were prepared, how many double yokes, all manner of detail.
None of this is scientific in nature, hearsay, perceptions of a few dozen people.

Is it your position that first hand accounts have no relationship to the truth or falseness of my claim?

Your belief system has a strong belief in the ability of individuals to eat eggs on Wednesday morning, so you will accept my claim as being highly possible. With the added eye witness accounts, the odds of my claim improve.
Further, if you can produce 1000 people who claim to have witnessed me being bound and gagged on that same Wednesday morning, and rendered incapable of eating even one egg, you will now consider my claim might be false.

Your belief or acceptance of my claim will depend first on what your belief system accepts as being likely, or extremely unlikely. If my claim conflicts with your core beliefs, my evidence will need to be very strong.

If my claims are consistent with your core beliefs, my claims will be accepted with what others might consider very little evidence.
Your core belief even define what constitutes evidence.
I take it from the tone of your post that evidence and scientific evidence are congruent.

Eye witness accounts, first hand experiences, are evidence to the extent they can be substantiated scientifically.

If you know a friend shares your beliefs, and recounts an experience with a ghost, (and you are confident no drugs, hysteria, hypnosis, etc), their recounting of their experience with have a certain probability of truth.

If a different friend is a known spiritualist, and they recount exactly the same experience, your perceived probability of truth will be starkly different.

You place truth value on the claims of persons, and those who share your belief system will be easy to believe.
Those who have a different belief system, with different standards of evidence, will be difficult to believe when their claims conflict with your own belief system.

Here is what I say:
If 1000 individuals say they saw a pear tree in Washington DC, and one person says they were in Washington DC, and there are no pear trees there, you will consider the claim of the 1000 to have stronger weight than the lone dissenter.

If 1000 individuals say they saw the ghost of Abe Lincoln at the Lincoln memorial, and one person was there at exactly the same time, and says there was no ghost there, you will value the claim of the lone dissenter as greater value than the 1000.

Do I have it right?

If I am correct, I will say that to you numbers of believers do matter, but the belief system of the believers takes precedent over actual numbers.
A few people who agree with you, perceive the truth.
A large number of people who disagree with your core beliefs, have false beliefs, and numbers do not matter.






~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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

glaucon 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.

This simple, logical truth, escapes not only Cris, but SnakeLord, and Myles as well.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Myles and Snakelord

Myles 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 ?

I would say first of all, you have not typified my position in the least.

You and SnakeLord continue to think as thought anything you do not believe in, has equal probability of truth. This is generally referred to as being narrow-minded.
You both lack the vision necessary to see that things that you do not believe in have some probability of truth, and that probability can be rationally judged. From your position anything you do not believe in has zero probability. This is an extremely unscientific point of view. If scientists had this view, scientific progress would stop.
As I pointed out, with no rebuttal from either of you, your view is subjective. You have determined you have proof, when the objective qualities of science says there is no proof. You believe things based on your emotions.


Getting beyond that, I would not refute such a claim.
I have no evidence that there are no cabbages on mars that look like elephants and squeak like mice. Zero.
If you made such a claim, I would ask where your belief came from, and evaluate that.

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.

My gosh, you might actually be catching on.

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.

This is wonderful. We finally agree on something. Since there is no evidence that something might not be true, it might in fact be true.
The problem is, I believe you still don’t get it.
You have not backed me into any corner.

I know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that there may be cabbages on mars that look like elephants and squeak like mice. And you do not have a shred of evidence to show I am incorrect. Not a single piece.
At least according to your belief system.

Further, since you have not shown that any person has such a belief, I conclude the likelihood is low that this is correct. Now if you can document that a large group of scientists or astronomers believe this is true, then the odds have dramatically increased. If they believe it is true, I know they have some evidence to convince them.
That is how it works.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Snakelord

You have hinted several times that you have the preposterous belief that you have no belief system, and yet you have failed to make a clear statement.
For the record, what do you say?

Also, the Old Testament is sacred scriptures for more than Christianity. If you wanted to make an accurate point, you would need to include the Jews and Muslims as well.
But I wouldn't expect you to know things like that.

 

[SnakeLord]

You and SnakeLord continue to think as thought anything you do not believe in, has equal probability of truth. This is generally referred to as being narrow-minded.

I find it curious, but that is your exact argument. That a notion, (the earth stopping spinning), has no evidence but cannot be '[dis]proven' by science, (nothing can be), means it has equal credit to anything that would suggest the opposite simply by the fact that you cannot prove it didn't. So you are here and now calling yourself narrow minded. I don't find that so much narrow minded as I do simply stupid.

Your claims and statements have been borderline lunatic, from claiming that a book is 'evidence' to something being more likely true if it has many believers. These are arguments that frankly would earn you a prize at the silly awards. You know what, that actually gives me an idea. You are hereby awarded Sciforums very first 'Turnip Award'. Congratulations..

(sorry the picture is crap, took me 2 mins to whip together in PS. If anyone can do a really good version let me know )

From your position anything you do not believe in has zero probability. This is an extremely unscientific point of view.

It is actually the opposite, something that has been stated directly to you several times. Clearly your eyes do not want to see it.

If of course you could show me, and quote, anywhere that I stated anything as having zero probability then, well, I'll eat my hat. Can you possibly back up your words? Didn't think so.

That I have to keep pointing out your errors is annoying at best. Like I said to you before, perhaps you should take a moment out to gather your thoughts together. Read what is being said to you instead of making up whatever you feel like just so you can run off a few insults and try and feel like you're actually saying something accurate for a change.

I said, back on page 2, that: "I am open minded enough to recognise that there might be some god entity, and open minded enough to recognise that it might be any of the millions of named gods or one currently unnamed... I recognise that this planet could have formed naturally, or aliens made it, or gods made it, we're actually living in the matrix, or we're just the dream of some weird invisible flying space pancake."

You however seem to assert that there is only one possibility, (the one you personally believe in), and that most of these other things are crap because.. "nobody believes in it". What simple foolishness.

Can you "prove" any of these things did not happen/do not exist? If so go for it, if not recognise your own argument and how it invariably affects anything you say from now on - be it with regards to leprechauns or pregnant space marshmallows.

1) "But nobody believes in them" is a fallacious and daft argument to make.

2) "But my belief is mentioned in a book" is a fallacious and daft argument to make.

You have determined you have proof, when the objective qualities of science says there is no proof.

I'll pay you £1,000 right now via paypal if you can show me where I said or even implied that I had "proof" of anything. I call you on your lie. No, you can't bluff your way through a forum debate.

You have hinted several times that you have the preposterous belief that you have no belief system, and yet you have failed to make a clear statement.

I have made many clear statements, (indeed I quoted one just a moment ago). That you cannot, or refuse to read what other people say and then make up lies is not my problem or fault.

Also, the Old Testament is sacred scriptures for more than Christianity.

Where does this come from? I never implied otherwise.

But I wouldn't expect you to know things like that.

Behave. You're seemingly begging me to treat you like a child. Is that your wish? If not, sort it out.

 

[Myles]

BeHereNow,

Do you ever read what is said to you or is your problem on of an inability tro understan it ?
I have said, as have others, that nothing can be proven 100%; it's called having an open mind. Yet you continue to insist that I don't believe anything which cannot be proven; that is simply not truie, and nowhere have I said anything of the kind. What you cannot appear to understand is that it is perfectly possible to say " I don't know". To you it seems that only yes or no are available.

When I spoke of those cabbages on mars, you replied that you would ask for evidence. Quite right, so now let's have your evidence for believing the earth may have stood still !
Something written in a book does not count as evidence. Otherwise , I will quote you from the Wizard of Oz. Also, you continue to make the mistake of regarding the number of people who believe something as increasing the probability of its being true. This is nonsense. Remember what was said about the flat earth !

I freely admit that my notion of cabbages on mars is nonsensical. So, the ball is in your court. Let us have some evidence, or withdraw.

 

[BeHereNow]

SnakeLord & Myles
My apologies, I assume full responsibility.

I posted this thread for the two of you, and anyone else taking your position, and I have now realized that I did not do a proper salutation, so no wonder you haven’t responded.

I did take the time to address your individual concerns in the later posts, but there really are issues in this post that need addressed.

Once again I will address your specific concerns, and repeat some points in the post you obviously missed.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SnakeLord If of course you could show me, and quote, anywhere that I stated anything as having zero probability then, well, I'll eat my hat. Can you possibly back up your words? Didn't think so.

Well, I never said you stated that, I said it is your position.

If I am incorrect, which you now state, then you are compelled, logically, to agree that it is possible that the earth stood still.

Clearly state that you agree that it is possible that the earth stood still, and we will have that agreement.

From there, it is merely a matter of the relatively possibility.
We will both agree that it is possible, but unlikely, and the discussion will be done.

According to these statements of yours, we have no disagreement.

I said, back on page 2, that: "I am open minded enough to recognise that there might be some god entity, and open minded enough to recognise that it might be any of the millions of named gods or one currently unnamed... I recognise that this planet could have formed naturally, or aliens made it, or gods made it, we're actually living in the matrix, or we're just the dream of some weird invisible flying space pancake."

Then what is the problem, if these things are true, you agree the earth could have stood still.

You however seem to assert that there is only one possibility, (the one you personally believe in),

I present an argument from the scientific view, and that compels me to conclude that the earth could have stood still. In my own belief system, I am not compelled to accept that. By my own belief system, it did not happen, no doubt, but I cannot argue from my belief system, as you do not accept it. So I argue from what you presented as your belief system, that being the scientific method, and can provide no proof it did not happen. If you do not accept the scientific method as your belief system, without modification to allow for proof, please say so.

Can you "prove" any of these things did not happen/do not exist? If so go for it, if not recognise your own argument and how it invariably affects anything you say from now on - be it with regards to leprechauns or pregnant space marshmallows.

I cannot do it with the scientific method, and you appear to accept no other convincing evidence, and no proof at all.

BHNYou have determined you have proof, when the objective qualities of science says there is no proof.

SnakeLord I'll pay you £1,000 right now via paypal if you can show me where I said or even implied that I had "proof" of anything. I call you on your lie. No, you can't bluff your way through a forum debate.

I never stated you said this, I said it is your position.
If you do not lie, then you believe you have no proof the earth did not stand still, you agree it is possible, and we have no disagreement.

Or, you lack proof, believe it impossible regardless (without proof), and your beliefs have departed from the scientific method, and are subjective.


From previously:

SnakeLord 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).

It is not A nor B, it is A or ~A.
It is possible or not possible. One or the other. Cannot be both, cannot be neither, must be one or the other. This is simple logic.
It is not two unrelated events such as you imply by changing it to A or B.

It is one event that is possible, or not possible. By the Scientific method, there is no proof of A nor of ~A, so either one might be true, but one or the other must be true. This means both are possible, if you believe there is another meaning, you will have to show it.

It has nothing to do with probability at this point. That may or may not be established later.
Consistency with the process of science says either might be true. Departure from this position, is departure from the scientific method.

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.

In order for your position to make sense, you would have to argue that science has never made a false claim.

I agree that everyone believing something is true, does not make it true.
Every scientists believe something did not happen, does not make that true either. And of course not every scientist agrees that the earth did not stand still.

The scientific community has made false claims concerning many things.
It was taught as probable truth (a strong claim, supported by theoretical reasoning), that it was impossible for a manmade object to go faster than the speed of sound. That lasted about a decade. I know because that is what my father was taught in college physical science.

After that, the strong claim was made (again based on reasoning) that it was impossible for anything to go faster than the speed of light. That strong claim now has many objectors.

Eventually science learned, that is to say, modified it’s belief system, to say there is no proof for anything.

When I was in Junior High I was taught the scientific method, and it included experimentation. Experimentation was required, or there was no scientific method. This was a fact of science. Since then science has modified its belief system to say experimentation is not required. This is called pragmatism.

You say many people believed the earth was flat, but that did not make it true.
I say science taught students it was impossible to go faster than the speed of sound, and it was proven incorrect.
I was taught by science that experimentation was required and that is not true (now). The truth of science has changed. It is pragmatic.

These are things within my lifetime. This idea of science not being able to prove things is a modern concept.

At one time the argument would be made by scientists that some things could be proven. For obvious reasons, this position had been abandoned.
Now science teaches, not that it is impossible for the earth to stand still, but that it is extremely unlikely. This truth may also change. Historically, it is certainly possible.

If you are steadfast to the scientific method, you are compelled to accept that there is no proof against any event, so any event is possible. A or ~A, plain and simple.
If this is not true, provide an explanation.
If you deviate from the scientific method, you are compelled to admit that you have deviated from the true and pure scientific method, and made a subjective decision, based on your particular biases.

Another who deviates ever so slightly from the scientific method, might conclude the event probably did happen, based on their particular biases.

BHN We have learned, through experience, that when no one believes a claim, it is unlikely to be true.

SnakeLord 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.

A straw man rebuttal, I make no such claim. I say unlikely to be true. Clearly this is not the same as impossible, and yet you typify my position as being that. You say “there will always be a time…”, and nothing I say precludes that from happening. My term unlikely, allows that from time to time, a thing thought to be true or false, will be incorrect. My position exactly agrees with ours, and yet you claim to show I am not correct. My statements and yours mean the same.

BHN 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.

SnakeLord 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.

Again you create a strawman, as this is not my argument. I say the likelihood increases, not that there is some guarantee. One can always concoct extenuating circumstances to show something is false. If I say there is an extreme likelihood of a sunrise tomorrow, you can reply, ”Yeah, but maybe an (inset your imaginary event here, natural or alien) will destroy the sun”. That does not change the fact that the likelihood was extreme that a catastrophe would not happen.

The fact that bogus broadcasts are possible do not change the truth of my statement.
Your reply is no reply.

BHN 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.

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

Again you state a position that is not present in my argument. I say quite clearly that “ When everyone says it has happened, the likelihood of it having occurred has increased, but . . . .I say the likelihood has increased, and you say ‘Yeah, but it still might not be true.’
Of course, this is exactly what I say. You reword my position, and claim that is evidence my position is incorrect.

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.

again you show your lack of acceptance for other belief systems. When you say evidence you want us to understand only scientific evidence. You place zero value on beliefs not congruent with your own.

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

Stop beating around the bush. The scientific method is a belief system. If you want to claim it is not, make your case, because this is common knowledge.

I know of no philosophical argument that any person can exist with no belief system. If you have one, present it.
If you will say clearly what you try to imply, I will respond to it.
A or ~A, you have a belief system, or you do not. Make your claim.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Myles Do you ever read what is said to you or is your problem on of an inability tro understan it ?
I have said, as have others, that nothing can be proven 100%; it's called having an open mind. Yet you continue to insist that I don't believe anything which cannot be proven; that is simply not truie, and nowhere have I said anything of the kind. What you cannot appear to understand is that it is perfectly possible to say " I don't know". To you it seems that only yes or no are available.

Then you agree it is possible that the earth stood still, and it is merely a matter of the probability.

Or even without proof, you believe it is not possible, and you have departed from the scientific method, and your beliefs are subjective.

When I spoke of those cabbages on mars, you replied that you would ask for evidence. Quite right, so now let's have your evidence for believing the earth may have stood still !

You made the claim, not me.

You said ” 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 ?

I say quite clearly, if you made that claim, I would ask for evidence.

BHN: ”I know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that there may be cabbages on mars that look like elephants and squeak like mice. And you do not have a shred of evidence to show I am incorrect. Not a single piece.
At least according to your belief system.

I say you have no evidence, and your reply is that I should provide it.
You make a claim, I say you have no evidence, so you say it is my responsibility to provide the evidence.

Something written in a book does not count as evidence. Otherwise , I will quote you from the Wizard of Oz.

Do you think The Wizard of Oz is the only book? I did not say every book provides evidence for every thing.
I said books (implied, in general), can provide evidence (implied, about various things).

Also, you continue to make the mistake of regarding the number of people who believe something as increasing the probability of its being true. This is nonsense. Remember what was said about the flat earth!

And remember what was said about the speed of sound, and the speed of light. Simply because science says it is true, does not make it true.

I freely admit that my notion of cabbages on mars is nonsensical. So, the ball is in your court. Let us have some evidence, or withdraw.

Your claim, your obligation to provide evidence. You make the claim, I agree it is possible, if you want evidence, support your own claim.

 

[Myles]

You are beating about the bush. You have no good reason to believe that the earth may have stood still. I do not regard what was written in a book over two thousand years ago as any sort of evidence. If you have anything else to offer, then tell us.

You seem to single out science for reasons best known to yourself . In your first post you said something to the effect that the first tenet of science is that there is no god. That is completely untrue, as you have been told. Science is concerned with that which can be measured. Despite this , you keep insisting that science cannot prove what it was never meant to prove.

Looking at the question from a philosophical/ commom-sense point of view, do you believe the following are possible:

That a day can be measured without reference to the earth's rotation.

That the law of gravity can be arbitrarily suspended, such that stones can suddenly rise into the air.

A straight yes or no will do.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Following the rules of the Process of Science, certain events have such a low possibility of occurrence, it is truly said they are virtually impossible.

I have often complained that science does not have a good vocabulary for communicating with laymen, even though such communication occurs with increasing frequency, not to mention increasing importance. To wit, we have not yet established a satisfactory term for the range of probability values you mention.

I adopt the language of civil law, because it is something everyone in the West understands, and because in court it is used to describe this range of probability values. I refer to such claims as "impossible beyond a reasonable doubt."

This terminology is acceptable in court. Juries are instructed by judges to convict defendants of murder when their innocence is proven impossible beyond a reasonable doubt, and no one complains about this convention. If we can send a man to prison for life using this language, then it ought to be good enough for science.

So I say that the existence of an unobservable supernatural universe that is exempt from both natural law and the abstract principles of logic is impossible beyond a reasonable doubt.

What this means, literally, is that it is unreasonable to doubt the non-existence of the supernatural. Not that it is absolutely impossible, merely that to contemplate the possibility is unreasonable. This is entirely consistent with the premise that religion is irrational, i.e. unreasonable, and that only irrational people, i.e. unreasonable people, spend their time contemplating it.

Nonetheless science does not dismiss the theories of irrational people, because they are not irrational 100% of the time and they might occasionally stumble onto the truth. The way we deal with the theories of irrational people is to invoke one of the other principles of science:

Extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinary evidence, before we are obligated to treat them with respect.

If someone comes to us and says that a supernatural universe exists, we have one response and it is the proper response: "Show us some evidence."

Note that it must be extraordinary evidence. Phrases in a book that is the codification of Stone Age superstitions are not extraordinary evidence. One tortilla out of trillions that happens to have scorch marks that look like a face is not extraordinary evidence. Tricks that David Copperfield or Penn Teller or James Randi could duplicate with enough financial backing are not extraordinary evidence.

The basic premise of science, upon which all of science is based, is:

The natural universe is a closed system. Its behavior can be predicted by the use of theories that are derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior.

These theories have been built up for five hundred years, during which time they have been continually tested and peer reviewed. The most well-established ones have become the scientific canon. Occasionally one is proven wrong, but this happens so rarely that it supports our assertion that these theories are true beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e, the probability of them ever being proven false is so low that we can safely use them; so rarely that the occasional demise of one does not bring down the whole canon.

This continual testing and peer review of the individual theories is also a continual test and peer review of the basic premise of science itself. In all those centuries, all those scientists have never encountered evidence or reasoning that disproves the premise that the natural universe is all there is and that it can be understood through logic and empiricism.

During that same span of centuries, no one has provided tested, peer-reviewed evidence of a supernatural universe. In fact, what little evidence that has been offered is not derived at all from logic and empiricism, and therefore cannot even be tested or peer-reviewed. We are asked to accept it on pure unreasoned faith, which is never valid grounds for acceptance of a theory.

The theory of a supernatural universe does not merely contradict one of the canonical theories of science, it contradicts science itself. The probability that science itself is wrong is not merely impossible beyond a reasonable doubt. It falsifies every canonical theory and is therefore this small probablity squared, cubed, or raised to the googolth power. This claim is therefore not merely extraordinary, it is the most extraordinary claim that can be made.

Before anyone is obligated to treat this most extraordinary of all claims with respect, some really extraordinary evidence is going to have to be presented. Something that hasn't already been presented by the world's billions of religionists, and dismissed, over the past 500 years. This is why any statement that treats religious notions as factual, or even plausible, is trolling, anywhere on this website except this one board.

 

[BeHereNow]

Fraggle Rocker The basic premise of science, upon which all of science is based, is:

The natural universe is a closed system. Its behavior can be predicted by the use of theories that are derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior.

This is a self fulfilling premise. If we start with this premise, we can show it is true, and that a belief in a supernatural god is not logically possible.

If we start with the premise ‘There is a god capable of causing supernatural events.’, the extroidinary evidence you seek is everywhere.
It is in sacred texts, it is in the observations of all who believe this premise. We both know that those who accept the supernatural god premise claim to witness and have convincing religious evidence that miracles do occur. The Catholic Church does not take miracles lightly, and such events have rigorous tests they must pass, tests that are consistent the belief in a universe ruled by a god capable of supernatural events.

Belief systems start with premises that support themselves.
They then show they are most likely to be true.
This basic premise of science is a convenient, pragmatic rule, that aids in the study of the natural world.

We both know there are scientists who accept this basic premise, for their science. For their life and death, they reject this premise, and believe there is a supernatural god, capable of causing supernatural events, there is a soul with a persistence of personal identity beyond life on earth.

Not all scientists are atheists, and yet the basic premise of science requires an atheistic (or Deistic) premise.

These theories have been built up for five hundred years, during which time they have been continually tested and peer reviewed. The most well-established ones have become the scientific canon. Occasionally one is proven wrong, but this happens so rarely that it supports our assertion that these theories are true beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e, the probability of them ever being proven false is so low that we can safely use them; so rarely that the occasional demise of one does not bring down the whole canon.

What you refer to is what I would call a safe bet. It is a safe bet I will not win the Power Ball this weekend. I would put my life against some small sum of money that I will not win the Powerball this weekend. I will live my life as if I will not win the Powerball. But it just might happen. Beyond a reasonable doubt, I will not win the Powerball this weekend. But it might happen. That is what beyond a reasonable doubt means. It is ‘safe’ to assume it will not happen, but it just might. As you say, occasionally one is proven wrong.

Is there any doubt that in the future, one of these is proven wrong?
I say, that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that some scientific truth will be proven wrong in the future, and further that neither one of us has a clue as to what that might be.
If this is not true, present your case.

Before anyone is obligated to treat this most extraordinary of all claims with respect, some really extraordinary evidence is going to have to be presented. Something that hasn't already been presented by the world's billions of religionists, and dismissed, over the past 500 years. This is why any statement that treats religious notions as factual, or even plausible, is trolling, anywhere on this website (except this one board? ? ?: I do not get this part).

Well, we both know there are scientists who are Christian (and various other religions). It seems to me they have perceived some extraordinary evidence, that has convinced them. Surely you do not think they are all faking these beliefs. They have belief systems bigger than science.

W have shown in other threads that since morality is beyond the scope of science (at this time), acceptance of morality requires a belief system bigger than science.

My claim is that anyone who operates within the belief system of science alone, does so based on self supporting premises (circular reasoning), is thus fallacious in nature.

Further, my firm belief in a Deistic god, unconcerned by the daily affairs of individuals, cannot be shown to be false with your method of science (which I only accept partially).

In order to say that the scientific method is the gold standard of all truth, one has to accept this, then it will be true.
If one rejects it, and says there are other means of knowing the truth, then those beliefs will be true.

The scientific method is not infallible, to assume so is pragmatic, but fallacious.

 

[Myles]

I shall not comment on the above because it has not been addressed to me. If Frag can be bothered to reply to such a poor response, I'm sure he will do so. But can you please answer the questions I asked you. The bible says that Joshua asked god to stop the sun and the moon. This would have the folowing consequences, as I have previously told you.

Stopping the sun in the sky would entail stopping the earth rotating on its axis. This would mean a day of indeterminate length becausue of the way we define a day. So it would be impossible to say with certainty that the sun had stood still for a day. Yet this is what you claim, so it's reasonable to ask what evidence you have to support such a claim.

It is impossible for the moon to stop unless the law of gravity is suspended. Do you believe this is possible and can you say why.

The motion of the moon is what keeps it in orbit. If it were to stop, gravitational attraction would cause it to collide with the earth so we would not even be here to discuss it. This was not known in biblical times.

So, to repeat myself, do you still consider it possible that the earth and the moon stood still, given the above consequences ?

 

[Blindman]

You fall into the category of religious zealot. Incapable of seeing past your own dogma. Happy as long as there are those that support your ideals. You have nothing but your own self , not science nor logic can justify your views so all you do is attack. We of the humanistic scientific agenda see you as a poor cog in an unwinding mechanism of power, desperate to hold onto social strings. Incapable of logic, incapable of truth. Blinded by a light held aloft by the power hungry few. Give it up fool. Give to the power of logic. There is no god. Deal with it. Science can set you free… Give up. Give in..

 

[BeHereNow]

Myles I shall not comment on the above because it has not been addressed to me. If Frag can be bothered to reply to such a poor response, I'm sure he will do so. But can you please answer the questions I asked you. The bible says that Joshua asked god to stop the sun and the moon. This would have the folowing consequences, as I have previously told you.

Stopping the sun in the sky would entail stopping the earth rotating on its axis. This would mean a day of indeterminate length becausue of the way we define a day. So it would be impossible to say with certainty that the sun had stood still for a day. Yet this is what you claim, so it's reasonable to ask what evidence you have to support such a claim.

It is impossible for the moon to stop unless the law of gravity is suspended. Do you believe this is possible and can you say why.

The motion of the moon is what keeps it in orbit. If it were to stop, gravitational attraction would cause it to collide with the earth so we would not even be here to discuss it. This was not known in biblical times.

So, to repeat myself, do you still consider it possible that the earth and the moon stood still, given the above consequences ?

I argue from your belief system, not my own.
In science there is no proof.

I tried many approaches, and got no approval even for something as bland as ‘How about science provides convincing evidence that convinces the mind of a proof.’ (paraphrased).

If, concerning any event, science is not able to say there is proof that it did happen, or did not happen, then clearly, according to science, it could have happened. I do not say this, science says this.

My attempts to define proof as “that which convinces the mind.”, was strongly rejected.
You now imply you have some sort of scientific “proof” (my word), that the earth could not have stood still. You will not call it proof, however you make an argument to convince my mind. You want me to believe what you say is true, based on the scientific evidence.
You want me to have no doubt your belief is truthful, and yet you will not call it proof.
You want me to say I believe the event is impossible, but not that I have proof.
I am to believe it with a religious fervor, but not claim I have proof it is true.

So when you ask ” Do you believe this is possible and can you say why.”, my reply is, according to science there is no proof it is impossible, so according to science it is possible, A or ~A, one of these is true, and science cannot say which one, so according to science either might be true.

My evidence that it could happen is logic and the rules of science.

Use your system to show my logic is not true, or that I have used a rule of science that is not true.

If you cannot, we can then agree that the likelihood is slight, and all is settled.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

blindman You fall into the category of religious zealot. Incapable of seeing past your own dogma. Happy as long as there are those that support your ideals. You have nothing but your own self , not science nor logic can justify your views so all you do is attack. We of the humanistic scientific agenda see you as a poor cog in an unwinding mechanism of power, desperate to hold onto social strings. Incapable of logic, incapable of truth. Blinded by a light held aloft by the power hungry few. Give it up fool. Give to the power of logic. There is no god. Deal with it. Science can set you free… Give up. Give in..

Let me hear an A-men, Brother!

 

[Enmos]

Amen !!

You still haven't answered my post from several pages back btw.

 

[Myles]

I argue from your belief system, not my own.
In science there is no proof.

I tried many approaches, and got no approval even for something as bland as ‘How about science provides convincing evidence that convinces the mind of a proof.’ (paraphrased).

If, concerning any event, science is not able to say there is proof that it did happen, or did not happen, then clearly, according to science, it could have happened. I do not say this, science says this.

My attempts to define proof as “that which convinces the mind.”, was strongly rejected.
You now imply you have some sort of scientific “proof” (my word), that the earth could not have stood still. You will not call it proof, however you make an argument to convince my mind. You want me to believe what you say is true, based on the scientific evidence.
You want me to have no doubt your belief is truthful, and yet you will not call it proof.
You want me to say I believe the event is impossible, but not that I have proof.
I am to believe it with a religious fervor, but not claim I have proof it is true.

So when you ask ” Do you believe this is possible and can you say why.”, my reply is, according to science there is no proof it is impossible, so according to science it is possible, A or ~A, one of these is true, and science cannot say which one, so according to science either might be true.

My evidence that it could happen is logic and the rules of science.

Use your system to show my logic is not true, or that I have used a rule of science that is not true.

If you cannot, we can then agree that the likelihood is slight, and all is settled.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~



Let me hear an A-men, Brother!

You are a waste of space. How many times have I said that we should put science aside and think about your claim from a philosdophical/ common sense point of view ?

You have a bee in your bonnet about science and wish us to use it in a manner that was never intended. You are asking us to fry sausages in a tea kettle. How about a game of tennis without strings in the rackets ?

You are utterly confused as your posts show, so there is no point in engaging in further discussion with you. How the hell does someone get to be so ignorant as you are. Do you have to work at it or is it a gift ?

 

[BeHereNow]

Enmos You still haven't answered my post from several pages back btw.

Yes I have.

 

[Enmos]

Yes I have.

Can you please give me the post number, because I can't find it

 

[BeHereNow]

Enmos

My apologies.
I thought you were referring to my reply here, not you last querry here.

Recap: Enmos Are you telling me that whatever anybody writes up in a book must be true ?

BHN I never said that. I would appreciate you pointing out what I wrote that would make you say that.

from Enmos: 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.

You certainly limited your possibilities.
You can only think of two reasons why I might wonder what the basis of your objection is (you do add athird later). I can think of many more reasons you do not even hint at.

I did not feel I have the time to respond to all possible objections that I am aware of, and beyond that, there are bound to be some I have not considered. I have often encountered vaugue questions, and spent my time responding only to be told ’That’s not what I meant.’

I know among those who accept sacred texts as a source of truth, there is disagreement about which are correct. Many reject others (including the bible), while accepting their own.

It is also true that some persons accept certain types or categories of books as evidence, but not others. This distinction would be critical for an accurate response.

I have also seen some individuals argue that quotes can be taken out of context, so although they accept this particular book as reference and education, not simply a quote, but the entire chapter or book must be provided.

In general statements which lack detail or specifics are nearly impossible to answer concisely and accurately.
When the commentator has not enough time to make their point clear, I do not have enough time to ersond to all possibilities. My apologies for skipping a reply, thank hyou for bringing it to may attentions ald letting me know you wanted a serious discussion.

EnmosIf you can't see why a bible quote is not evidence in itself then I can only assume that you either:

BHN now replies: So you present a false dilemma, with an either or choice when many others are possible, so I will respond to each of these.

Enmos” 1.) decide on your own what in the bible is evidence and what is not, for unknown reasons.”
Well my argument is based on the beliefs of those who believe the Earth Stood Still those many years ago, and further that science has no proof that it did not, so their beliefs may be true, according to science.

For them, a literalist rendition would typify their position. For such a person, the bible is evidence.

For those of us who agree that scientifically, there is no proof of A or ~A, then either might be true, scientifically speaking.
I have heard that it is common practice among scientists to investigate claims of unusual events, when held by many individuals. For example UFO sightings that are reported by a large segment of the population of a geographical area may have investigators (including scientists) attempt to collect evidence to substantiate such events.
Normally first hand accounts are of little evidence, still they can establish that a perceived event occurred among many individuals. Those who are strict with their usage of such terms may say these are claims, not evidence, but it is often claims which lead to evidence.
We know in a court of law first hand accounts are evidence, and can be used to send a man to his death, so among some circles first hand accounts can be evidence, but certainly not universally across all disciplines.

In the case of the Earth Standing Still, there are many believers, but certainly no eye witness accounts as all are dead. But there is this book which references the event, and makes a claim, which will be evidence among certain groups, but certainly not universally across all disciplines.

I know of no book that is universally accepted as evidence across all groups, but certainly any book might be evidence among some. Even porn has it fans and devotees, who find redeeming value in the stained pages of their favorite books.

It does not surprise me that some groups might say that no book is worthy of any claim or any piece of evidence.
I would argue against such a point if the basis of their claim were clarified.

To me, a phone book is evidence that particular persons have particular phone numbers. I have verified this myself and find great reliability in this belief. Certainly it is not proof, as errors are possible. When one calls a number, and it is connected to the individual in question, I find this adds evidence to my belief. And if I do the same thing with other number-individual connections, with 100% accuracy, I consider this additional evidence my belief is correct that this particular book offers evidence that certain phone numbers have a connection with certain individuals.

Enmos 2.) think that anything written is evidence in itself

Well, certainly it is evidence of something. it is evidence some intelligent force was involved in it’s creation.

But of course you mean the words themselves, do the words themselves provide evidence of anything. That “anything” bothers me. To exclude everything, to say something written does not contain some evidence of something, I just hate to agree with that.

The bible itself is evidence that several societies and nations of individuals believe in and worshiped their god.
Do you deny this?
The specific evidence, certainly that will be a point of contention, even among believers of the same sects.

I would have to say that any published book could be used as evidence, in a limited number of manners, by a limited number of individuals.

Certainly no book is evidence for all things as one of our posters implied.


[qutoe] 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 ?

I might find other evidence in it.
I might even find the evidence you suggest, if you could convince me it came a time in the distant future. Many unkonows left unmentioned.
But, I accept your point that ideas which have no support except some written pages, lack serious consideration.

Of course not, so I'll have to add a 3rd option to the list:
3.){does BHN) think that anything described in the bible is evidence of therein mentioned past events.

Well, I am presenting the argument that scientifically speaking, it is possible the earth stood still, and there is evidence that large groups of individuals believe it happened, and unusual events with large belief groups might be worthy of consideration.

Concerning other events, it is equally true that scientifically speaking, there is no proof that any of them may, or may not have happened. As such, they are scientifically possible.

As to the writings being evidence, again I point out that no book is universally accepted as as evidence by all groups, but certainly if we say, ‘Okay, it is a possible event, are there believers who would say it actually occurred?’, the consideration is possible. If you want to say these are merely claims (and that claims have a potential of leading to evidence), I would not disagree, as it is merely the meaning of terms.

W know in advance some groups will say “Of course it is evidence as claimed” and some groups will say it is not evidence of particular events. Individuals will choose, based on their beliefs.
To say it is not worthy of consideration even as a claim, would require susbstantiation, as I find this quite odd.

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

So vague.
Surely you have a reason, or some logic to support your belief.
An unsubstantiated claim is . . . .well, certainly not evidence.

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.

Surely "old books" vary in quality and potential to contain claims or evidence.
Certainly this is different than saying no person should accept what you accept.

Is it that you do observe some books as evidence, and believe that all other individuals should agree with your selection?

Is it that you accept no written books as evidence for anything?

I would think that we could agree that what you accept as evidence in the way of books, others might reject. Is there a reason we should value your belief above those who disagree with you?

What is your position on acceptance of books (in general) as providing evidence (in general).

Any criteria?
Any reasoning?

 

[Myles]

Books that say things like, if you mix hydrogen and oxygen you will get water. Ok

Books that say some guy turned water into wine...rubbish

 

[SnakeLord]

What is your position on acceptance of books (in general) as providing evidence (in general)

Books are not and cannot ever be 'evidence', they are merely claims. To use an example I just opened a cookbook..

It says: To make light cherry truffles - get this many cherries, this many sponge finger biscuits, some alcohol, sugar yada yada yada. It then says to beat some eggs, turn the oven to 190 and leave for 20 minutes etc etc.

Now, this is a claim. It is a claim to how one can make light cherry truffles. So Beherenow, you're a smart enough lad..

How does one turn that claim into 'evidence'?

Yes indeedy, one tests the claim. Grab the cherries, grab the sugar, turn the oven on and see what happens.

That is testing, that is evidence gathering. The book itself is not 'evidence' of anything, it is merely a claim to a specific truth or outcome. The only way to get 'evidence' is to try it.

But here is the problem: We simply do not have the time to test every claim we read. Ok, for a large majority of it we simply don't give a damn, it is of no interest to us. This is generally why people fall into the trap of accepting 'consensus science', (like humans using 5-10% of their brains). They hear something, accept it because they don't have the time or care to find out and then pass it on to the next person. What with media , movies etc it's quite unavoidable.

When we are interested we test the claims. The problem with ancient texts is that you can't. You cannot go and see whether anyone ever walked on water, or battled half man-half scorpions etc, dude you can't even establish that the authors weren't pot smoking lunatics. If you then fall to the next best thing to actually being there you inevitably come to science - to archaeology, dating techniques and whatnot. The thing is, short of a few places existing, (which is true even of most fiction novels), there is nothing, absolute diddly squat to support any of the claims contained therein.

That's clearly a problem for anyone with any semblence of self respect. Why even you would do the same for pretty much any other ancient text you read from the Epic of Gilgamesh to Beowulf. Why you accept one no different than the rest is a matter of personal desire, of emotion - nothing more.