Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

It is now. It was not then:
It was because no explanation could address all 3 premises.

From your wonderful dictionary link (finally, you see the light!):
What the hell is this supposed to mean?

The spherical nature of the Earth was not proven until Ferdinand Magellen sailed completely around the world. Then it was proven. Tested, and found to be true without question.
Sorry, no. If you would have read my link you would have known that it is possible to explain Magellen's voyage without a "sperhical" earth.

Before Magellen, it was theory.

It was based upon good, valid evidence, but it was not proven.
Actually it was.

Are you saying that any evidence equals proof?
Clearly not. I stated that other explanations could answer any of the 3 premies but none could explain all of them.

Do you have one? No? I didn't think so. No one had any back then either.

How about the fact that none were tested multiple times with consistent, incontrovertible results?
This doesn't make sense. All had been observed many times. All were predictible. All were repeatable. There were explantions for the individual premises but none that addressed all 3.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
It certainly is now. It became incontrovertible after Magellen.

Then?

Nope. Just compelling evidence.

I'm sorry huntster, all historical "evidence" argues against this.

That is not correct.

But again, this is off point.

That is correct.

IF he sailed on FAITH, he didn't need evidence.

That is not accurate.

There is absolutely no requirement for faith to be completely blind.

Further, one can very well have faith in an untested theory, even though there is evidence that it is true, even if not proven.

How is it that so many "pseudo-scientists" here have such a difficult time with simple language?

Or is it "selective understanding"?

He wasn't testing the theory of round earth, he used his "FAITH" to result in action.

He was utilizing not only his faith that the world was round (not much of a gamble), but (as Zygote wrote) that his calculations of the distance were correct.

He was lucky that truth argreed with his FAITH then.

His calculations of distance were grossly erroneous.

He (and his crew) were lucky that the New World was there for them to get water and vitamin C. Had there been nothing but ocean between the Gates of Gibralter and eastern Asia, they would have had to turn around, or die, or both.

FAITH doesn't encourage testing. it encourages blind action.

Bullspit.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
That is all correct. Sailors were the first to "know" that the world was round, in the same way that whalers "knew" that giant squids existed.

But not the tall stories that they told abut the giant squid that sunk ships.

And so the "denialists" concluded that giant squids don't exist.

Real smart folks, huh?
 
That is not accurate.

There is absolutely no requirement for faith to be completely blind.

Further, one can very well have faith in an untested theory, even though there is evidence that it is true, even if not proven.

How is it that so many "pseudo-scientists" here have such a difficult time with simple language?

Or is it "selective understanding"?
Nothing Pseudo about it. Scientists who hold faith in a hypothesis tend not to test that hypothesis. I've seen it happen time and time again. Scientists are human and are as faillible as anyone else.

Now, I've never said that faith had to be completely blind. BUT, if we consider the doubt/faith scale...it is doubt in the person with faith that drives them to require some evidence.

You don't need to be completely doubtful to require evidence, but you need to be completely faithful to require no evidence.
 
Correct. I call that the "indifference" side. The question is uncertain, and the person really isn't concerned enough to exercise faith or doubt. They simply await further information.

Awaiting further evidence in the face of lacking or insufficient evidence seems the most reasonable position to me. You also seem to be equating skepticism with cynicism. They are not the same thing. To me, the least reasonable position is to say "Well I don't know the answer so I'll just create a 'truth' that pleases me". Of course, this isn't done just in the case of a lack of evidence, it is also done quite often in the face of overwhelming contrary physical evidence. Also, saying "I don't know" isn't the same as saying "I don't care".
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Huntster
It is now. It was not then:

It was because no explanation could address all 3 premises.

No explanation then available could address all 3 premises.

The theory was still not tested and found to be incontrovertibly true.

If you claim that Aristotle's conclusions were proof, then you should have no problem with Aquinas' "Proof of God", then.

Because you don't seem to like the fact that evidence must be tested and found to be true in order for it to be proven. Like Aquinas wrote:

....It is objected (1) that the existence of God is not demonstratable: that God's existence is an article of faith, and that articles of faith are not demonstratable, because the office of demonstration is to prove, but faith pertains (only) to things that are not to be proven, as is evident from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11. Hence that God's existence is not demonstratable......

But, in accordance with your new-found position regarding evidence/proof and the shape of Earth, Aquinas' "Proof of God" is indeed proof:

I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.

Quote:
From your wonderful dictionary link (finally, you see the light!):

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

In the past, haven't you been critical of me referring to a common dictionary to define words which others attempt to define themselves?

Or is the use of the dictionary today simply a convenient matter?

Quote:
The spherical nature of the Earth was not proven until Ferdinand Magellen sailed completely around the world. Then it was proven. Tested, and found to be true without question.

Sorry, no. If you would have read my link you would have known that it is possible to explain Magellen's voyage without a "sperhical" earth.

And how is that?

Is it currently possible to explain satellites orbiting Earth without a "spherical" Earth?

Quote:
Are you saying that any evidence equals proof?

Clearly not. I stated that other explanations could answer any of the 3 premies but none could explain all of them.

Thus they were good evidence, but untested, and unproven.

Do you have one?

Nope.

I didn't think so. No one had any back then either.

And that still doesn't/didn't prove anything.

Quote:
How about the fact that none were tested multiple times with consistent, incontrovertible results?

This doesn't make sense. All had been observed many times. All were predictible. All were repeatable. There were explantions for the individual premises but none that addressed all 3.

It is simple;

the theory was valid, good evidence, but not tested and proven.

Thus, it was not accepted by all. Denialists rejected it.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
That is not accurate.

There is absolutely no requirement for faith to be completely blind.

Further, one can very well have faith in an untested theory, even though there is evidence that it is true, even if not proven.

How is it that so many "pseudo-scientists" here have such a difficult time with simple language?

Or is it "selective understanding"?

Nothing Pseudo about it. Scientists who hold faith in a hypothesis tend not to test that hypothesis. I've seen it happen time and time again. Scientists are human and are as faillible as anyone else.

Yup.

And untested, it remains unproven, it remains hypothetical, and one cannot know. But if it is continued to be "accepted", it must be done with a measure of faith, because it cannot be "known" until it is proven.

Now, I've never said that faith had to be completely blind. BUT, if we consider the doubt/faith scale...it is doubt in the person with faith that drives them to require some evidence.

Faith and doubt are exercised with measures of degree. One can be so faithful as to accept something with no evidence at all, and one can be so filled with doubt as to deny the obvious.

Further, one can even see the obvious, and refuse to accept it in word for other reasons altogether.

I submit that the ideal place for one to find a "denialist" (one who will deny the obvious) is in a place where people who adhere to an ideology of doubt (skepticism) can be found.

Here. In this forum.

You don't need to be completely doubtful to require evidence, but you need to be completely faithful to require no evidence.

Correct. To believe something with absolutely no evidence whatsoever is to exercise faith to an extreme level.

The converse is true when someone denies the obvious.
 
Yup.

And untested, it remains unproven, it remains hypothetical, and one cannot know. But if it is continued to be "accepted", it must be done with a measure of faith, because it cannot be "known" until it is proven.
But where does faith come to test something?



Faith and doubt are exercised with measures of degree. One can be so faithful as to accept something with no evidence at all, and one can be so filled with doubt as to deny the obvious.

Further, one can even see the obvious, and refuse to accept it in word for other reasons altogether.
I agree with this/

I submit that the ideal place for one to find a "denialist" (one who will deny the obvious) is in a place where people who adhere to an ideology of doubt (skepticism) can be found.

Here. In this forum.
there may be some knee jerk reactions that have taken place, but I haven't seen too many examples of people here who have denied blatant facts. Do you have a good example of this, in case I've missed it?



Correct. To believe something with absolutely no evidence whatsoever is to exercise faith to an extreme level.

The converse is true when someone denies the obvious.
again, I agree.

But it is why I state that doubt or uncertainty drive discovery/experimental testing.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
Correct. I call that the "indifference" side. The question is uncertain, and the person really isn't concerned enough to exercise faith or doubt. They simply await further information.

Awaiting further evidence in the face of lacking or insufficient evidence seems the most reasonable position to me.

Me, too.

However, if one is concerned with the question and it's answer (medical reasons, spiritual reasons, investment reasons, etc), they may wish to act on it despite the lack of evidence/proof. They will act on either faith or doubt.

In the case of God, I have reasoned that proof will not likely become available during the course of a human's biological life, and certainly not during the course of my biological life. Further, teh existence of God has been a huge concern for people both past and present, and might be a concern worth considering.

I have considered it. I have found that faith in God cannot hurt me, and might very well benefit me. I pursued it.

I found that the faith exercised yielded rewards. I pursued it more:

To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

You also seem to be equating skepticism with cynicism. They are not the same thing.

I am very aware of that:

noun
1. a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.
2. (initial capital letter) one of a sect of Greek philosophers, 4th century b.c., who advocated the doctrines that virtue is the only good, that the essence of virtue is self-control, and that surrender to any external influence is beneath human dignity.
3. a person who shows or expresses a bitterly or sneeringly cynical attitude.

I have been called the most cynical person alive. Most of my skepticism has been exercised towards other people, because I find many people to be untrustworthy, despicable, and I can throw them much further than I can trust them.

To me, the least reasonable position is to say "Well I don't know the answer so I'll just create a 'truth' that pleases me".

Not me. Although that isn't a wise position, it sure beats this one:

"I don't care what is presented to me either for or against. I've entrenched my position, and it will not change, come Hell or High Water."

Also, saying "I don't know" isn't the same as saying "I don't care".

Correct.
 
My, you folks have been busy today. Don't you know that New Years Day is for football?
How do I differ from that?
In that you see the gap in spiritual knowledge and feel that it is important to fill it, even if you don't have any evidence.

The difference between me and what you define as a "skeptic" is that I have ultimately chosen to lend faith to a particular theory regarding the phenomenon, where a denialist rejects it, and a skeptic simply stops movement and awaits more evidence (which is commonly rejected because it isn't "proof").
Skeptics should accept evidence, even if it short of proof. But there is no evidence for your particular theory.

We get a few denialists here, but not many. Most skeptics agree that they could have their beliefs changed by evidence.

Not necessarily. There are many, many issues or questions which I don't feel are important enough to justify faith. I will remain skeptical about them, because it's not important enough to warrant faith.

My own spirituality is something I feel is too important to play games of doubt with, especially since in the Gospels Christ's predominant theme was "faith."
Yes I know you do. That begs the question, "why?" Why is the issue of God so important? The answer is obvious, but you won't like it. Fear. The only reason to believe in the God of Christ is for fear of the consequences if you do not. Sure, I know, you don't fear because you've done all the right stuff. But why do you do that stuff? What would be the consequenses if you didn't? Even if you say you don't know, you're still going through the motions just in case there are consequences.

Again, if you want to discuss the existence of chocolate birch trees, I'll ask for evidence or proof, and I will not budge. It's not important to me whether or not chocolate birch trees exist.
Agreed. There are many things that are not important enough for me to consider. But on important stuff, I'd think you'd ask for evidence. Real, objective, verifiable, repeatable evidence. After all, some questions are too important to be left to faith, right?

My own spirituality?

Sorry. It's important stuff. Christ worked pretty hard trying to teach and nourish faith. It musta' been an important lesson.
I'm sure it was important to him. But it is only important if you already have faith in the existence of a soul which survives the body (another thing for which there is no evidence). And therein lies another of the traps that believers fall in. If you believe in a thing without evidence, soon you will find yourself having to make special exceptions for logic and evidence in order to accomodate this baseless belief.

If you have a soul, then it must have a place to go, and if it has a place to go, then there must be somebody running it and if there is somebody running it, then he must be beyond time and death, and... and it goes on and on, all of this because people are afraid to be dead forever. If you stopped at "I have no reason to believe in eternal souls, since there is no evidence for them," then you wouldn't need to prepare for what happens to it after you die. You could focus on the things that are here, verifiably and objectively.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "Always require evidence for your beliefs. That way, you don't have to remember if they fit in with the other things you don't require evidence for."

I decided to work on it and see.
And, lo, I learned.................
I'm sure you did. You learned much about your religion. I am skeptical that you learned anything about how the universe works. But I remaing willing to be convinced by any evidence you have.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup.

And untested, it remains unproven, it remains hypothetical, and one cannot know. But if it is continued to be "accepted", it must be done with a measure of faith, because it cannot be "known" until it is proven.

But where does faith come to test something?

Source:

...Columbus, however, believed the calculations of Marinus of Tyre that the landmass occupied 225 degrees, leaving only 135 degrees of water. Moreover, Columbus believed that one degree represented a shorter distance on the earth's surface than was commonly held. Finally, he read maps as if the distances were calculated in Italian miles (1,238 meters). Accepting the length of a degree to be 56⅔ miles, from the writings of Alfraganus, he therefore calculated the circumference of the Earth as 25,255 kilometers at most, and the distance from the Canary Islands to Japan as 3,000 Italian miles (3,700 km) which is 2300 statute miles.....

I suggest to you that to believe is to have faith.

I am prepared to prove my suggestion with dictionary references.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I submit that the ideal place for one to find a "denialist" (one who will deny the obvious) is in a place where people who adhere to an ideology of doubt (skepticism) can be found.

Here. In this forum.

there may be some knee jerk reactions that have taken place, but I haven't seen too many examples of people here who have denied blatant facts. Do you have a good example of this, in case I've missed it?

So, if I cite some examples, they might be defined as "knee jerk reactions"?

Should I bother with that game?

But it is why I state that doubt or uncertainty drive discovery/experimental testing.

Neither faith or doubt are key to drive one to discovery/experimentation. Either can do so, and either (in it's extreme form) can halt or inhibit discovery/experimentation.
 
My, you folks have been busy today. Don't you know that New Years Day is for football?

Football sucks.

I don't have any proof of that, but I do have evidence and great faith.

I guess you can call that an "opinion."

Faith is only a substitute for knowledge if you feel you must believe something. Skeptics, when they reach a point where their knowledge is insufficient, are perfectly comfortable with saying "I don't know", and either gathering more knowledge or accepting their ignorance on a particular matter.

Originally Posted by Huntster
How do I differ from that?

In that you see the gap in spiritual knowledge and feel that it is important to fill it, even if you don't have any evidence.

Thus, if a "skeptic" claims that God doesn't exist, he/she really aren't speaking from the perspective of a skeptic, are they?

A skeptic would be "gathering more knowledge or accepting their ignorance on a particular matter", not denying something that they are in no position to deny, correct?

Originally Posted by Huntster
The difference between me and what you define as a "skeptic" is that I have ultimately chosen to lend faith to a particular theory regarding the phenomenon, where a denialist rejects it, and a skeptic simply stops movement and awaits more evidence (which is commonly rejected because it isn't "proof").

Skeptics should accept evidence, even if it short of proof. But there is no evidence for your particular theory.

Yes, there is.

We get a few denialists here, but not many.

This place is filled with them.

Most skeptics agree that they could have their beliefs changed by evidence.

Yet they fail to do so.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not necessarily. There are many, many issues or questions which I don't feel are important enough to justify faith. I will remain skeptical about them, because it's not important enough to warrant faith.

My own spirituality is something I feel is too important to play games of doubt with, especially since in the Gospels Christ's predominant theme was "faith."

Yes I know you do. That begs the question, "why?" Why is the issue of God so important?

Because it possibly leads to the answers for everything, the future of one's spiritual health and life, and because it has been described as the ultimate in happiness.

The answer is obvious, but you won't like it. Fear. The only reason to believe in the God of Christ is for fear of the consequences if you do not.

That's your "opinion." I find it lacking.

Sure, I know, you don't fear because you've done all the right stuff. But why do you do that stuff?

Because it is the right thing to do, and when I fail to do so, those who I hold in great regard are hurt or disappointed.

What would be the consequenses if you didn't?

They can vary wildly.

Even if you say you don't know, you're still going through the motions just in case there are consequences.

There are consequences, both good and bad, for all actions as well as lack of action.

So?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Again, if you want to discuss the existence of chocolate birch trees, I'll ask for evidence or proof, and I will not budge. It's not important to me whether or not chocolate birch trees exist.

Agreed. There are many things that are not important enough for me to consider. But on important stuff, I'd think you'd ask for evidence. Real, objective, verifiable, repeatable evidence. After all, some questions are too important to be left to faith, right?

Correct.

But my studies have led me to understand that "verifiable, repeatable," incontrovertible evidence or proof will not become available. Therefore, it is obvious that some measure of faith will be required to accept it. I have no problem with that.

Originally Posted by Huntster
My own spirituality?

Sorry. It's important stuff. Christ worked pretty hard trying to teach and nourish faith. It musta' been an important lesson.

I'm sure it was important to him. But it is only important if you already have faith in the existence of a soul which survives the body (another thing for which there is no evidence).

It is what He taught.

And there is evidence of the existence of a soul. It is not proof, but it is evidence.

And therein lies another of the traps that believers fall in. If you believe in a thing without evidence, soon you will find yourself having to make special exceptions for logic and evidence in order to accomodate this baseless belief.

Your logic is as meaningless to me as your refusal to accept evidence.

If you have a soul, then it must have a place to go, and if it has a place to go, then there must be somebody running it and if there is somebody running it, then he must be beyond time and death, and... and it goes on and on, all of this because people are afraid to be dead forever.

And your "evidence" of that claim, Oh Lover of "Evidence"?

If you stopped at "I have no reason to believe in eternal souls, since there is no evidence for them," then you wouldn't need to prepare for what happens to it after you die. You could focus on the things that are here, verifiably and objectively.

Accepting spiritual life after biological death does not prevent me from focusing on the things that are here now, verifiable and objective.

Do you have problems walking and chewing gum simultaneously?

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "Always require evidence for your beliefs. That way, you don't have to remember if they fit in with the other things you don't require evidence for."

And the Huntster says, "For those things that are not or cannot be proven, some measure of faith is required to accept them. If you don't wish to accept them, you are exercising doubt, denial, or indifference."

So big deal?

Originally Posted by Huntster
I decided to work on it and see.
And, lo, I learned.................

I'm sure you did. You learned much about your religion. I am skeptical that you learned anything about how the universe works.

And you have "proof" of how the "universe works", or are you "faithful" in a particular theory?

But I remaing willing to be convinced by any evidence you have.

Why am I "skeptical" of that claim?
 
No explanation then available could address all 3 premises.
That could be said even today. Sorry but the premises are still today the best evidence for those of us who have not gone into space or trans-navigated the globe from pole to pole and around the equator.

The theory was still not tested and found to be incontrovertibly true.
By this logic it still hasn't. I'm sorry Huntster but you are making statements that are nonsensical. I could say that all of our evidence is wrong because we live in a matrix. There has never been anything to suppose that there could have been something to controvert the evidence.

If you claim that Aristotle's conclusions were proof, then you should have no problem with Aquinas' "Proof of God", then.
Actually I do.

Because you don't seem to like the fact that evidence must be tested and found to be true in order for it to be proven. Like Aquinas wrote:
I've already explained to you that the evidence was tested. It was predictable and repeatable. We don't have to directly observe all evidence to arrive at the truth. Aquinas' proof isn't scientific. The premises I provided are.

But, in accordance with your new-found position regarding evidence/proof and the shape of Earth, Aquinas' "Proof of God" is indeed proof:
No because they are not the same.


In the past, haven't you been critical of me referring to a common dictionary to define words which others attempt to define themselves?
No, and I'm not hung up on these either. If you want to use different words or redefine the words then I don't mind. If you do accept the dictionary then there is no controversy.

the theory was valid, good evidence, but not tested and proven.

Thus, it was not accepted by all. Denialists rejected it.
Based on the scientific definition it was proven. If proof to you means absolute then no, I'll concede that it wasn't but then it still isn't.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
No explanation then available could address all 3 premises.

That could be said even today. Sorry but the premises are still today the best evidence for those of us who have not gone into space or trans-navigated the globe from pole to pole and around the equator.

Thanks for the lunacy which I so often see in you which you cannot seem to understand.

You're quite willing to accept Aristotle's theories which were not proven at the time, but since you yourself haven't gone into space or trans-navigated the globe (even though some of us have), you are unwilling to accept today's proofs that the world is spherical.

You're a real interesting psyche. However, since I don't consider it important, I'm sure you'll excuse me if I remain "indifferent."

Quote:
The theory was still not tested and found to be incontrovertibly true.

By this logic it still hasn't.

Circling the planet longitudinally and latitudinally repeatedly by air, sea, or orbit hasn't tested and proven the theory that the world is spherical?

I'm sorry Huntster but you are making statements that are nonsensical.

????!!!!!!!!

Huh?

Hello? Spherical Earth calling RandFan!

I could say that all of our evidence is wrong because we live in a matrix.

Go ahead.

Nobody will "have faith" in you, because you appear to be a lunatic.

Quote:
If you claim that Aristotle's conclusions were proof, then you should have no problem with Aquinas' "Proof of God", then.

Actually I do.

Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!

Quote:
Because you don't seem to like the fact that evidence must be tested and found to be true in order for it to be proven. Like Aquinas wrote:

I've already explained to you that the evidence was tested.

And I reject your "explanation."

It was predictable and repeatable.

It was predicted and repeated. It was not repeatable, because nobody had control over it. Thus, it wasn't a "test." It was a phenomena.

We don't have to directly observe all evidence to arrive at the truth.

Of course. Only the "truths" that you like can be assumed without proof.

Aquinas' proof isn't scientific.

They are every bit as scientific as Aristole's theory of a spherical Earth.

Quote:
the theory was valid, good evidence, but not tested and proven.

Thus, it was not accepted by all. Denialists rejected it.

Based on the scientific definition it was proven. If proof to you means absolute then no, I'll concede that it wasn't but then it still isn't.

Of course, you wouldn't be a "denialist" by stating that "it still isn't", would you?
 
And so the "denialists" concluded that giant squids don't exist.

Real smart folks, huh?
You are really something on the way you turn things around to a lie, I said the stories about sinking ships, you are back my Ignore list for good, it will be good not seeing you.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
He wrote something again, to bad, I hope no one quotes him.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Thanks for the lunacy which I so often see in you which you cannot seem to understand.
I'm not the one arguing that the people in the time of Columbus believed the earth was flat.

You're quite willing to accept Aristotle's theories which were not proven at the time, but since you yourself haven't gone into space or trans-navigated the globe (even though some of us have), you are unwilling to accept today's proofs that the world is spherical.
That's not what I have said. I said that I don't have direct evidence of todays proofs. I accept them but I can't go into space and I can't afford to trans-navigate the globe but I CAN conduct experiments to PROVE the premises that I enumerated and prove that the world is sperhical.

Circling the planet longitudinally and latitudinally repeatedly by air, sea, or orbit hasn't tested and proven the theory that the world is spherical?
I have no direct evidence. I haven't circled the planet. I have,

1.) Seen ships slowly disappear below the horizon.
2.) Witnessed an eclipse.

If I wanted to I could easily see the constellations from different points.

Nobody will "have faith" in you, because you appear to be a lunatic.
Yes, for the same reason that a reasonable person would refuse to accept the premises I provided. Only a lunatic would reject the evidence.

Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!
Yeah, I'm funny about empirical evidence. The premises I listed are empirical the ones provided by Aquinas' aren't. You are making a serious error to compare an argument based on emperical facts to those made by Aquinas.

And I reject your "explanation."
Then you are a lunatic because the evidence is empirical, testable and repeatable.

It was predicted and repeated. It was not repeatable, because nobody had control over it. Thus, it wasn't a "test." It was a phenomena.
Sure it was. The evidence was and still is empirical, testable and repeatable. To assume that the evidence wasn't as it appears was a irrational as to assume we live in a matirx. It worked every time they looked into the sky. Every time there was an eclipse, ever day a ship sailed off into the distance and whenever the night sky was clear of clouds. They didn't need control.

They are every bit as scientific as Aristole's theory of a spherical Earth.
No. The premises I provided are based on empirical facts.
 
Last edited:
Football sucks. I don't have any proof of that, but I do have evidence and great faith.

I guess you can call that an "opinion."
Heathen. :D

Thus, if a "skeptic" claims that God doesn't exist, he/she really aren't speaking from the perspective of a skeptic, are they?
If they make that claim unequivocally, then they are not being skeptics. However, since it is unweildy to say "I have no evidence that God exists", sometimes it is used as shorthand. If you want to test it, ask a skeptic if there is any evidence that could convince them that there was a god. If they claim no evidence could convince them, then they're not a very good skeptic.

Yes, there is.
Okay, I should say, "good evidence". I don't consider personal testimony to be good evidence. I'd like something objective and verifiable. Got anything like that?

This place is filled with them.
Try my test. See how many denialists there are. We've had threads dedicated to this and it has always turned out that there are a few, but not many. However, many folks here, like myself, are so convinced by the evidence that no God ever described exists, that they simply "round it up" to 100%. You probably do the same thing for your belief in God.


Because it possibly leads to the answers for everything, the future of one's spiritual health and life, and because it has been described as the ultimate in happiness.
Yet there is no good evidence that it does so. Picking your nose might lead to the answers for everything too, but there is no evidence that it does so. Do you pick your nose anyway just on the gazillion-to-one chance that it might?


That's your "opinion." I find it lacking.
I told you you wouldn't like it.


Because it is the right thing to do, and when I fail to do so, those who I hold in great regard are hurt or disappointed.
So its a "peer pressure" thing? Noble, perhaps, but you're not going to hurt anybody by telling the truth here, so that reason doesn't hold water on these boards. Don't worry. We wont' tell on you.

They can vary wildly.
Give us an example of a consequence of not believing.


There are consequences, both good and bad, for all actions as well as lack of action.
Yes there are. Usually we have some idea of what they are. I know that if I loudly professed my atheism at work, I would be probably be shunned by a large number of my co-workers, so I don't do it. If I am wrong and your version of God is correct, then I'll be forever separated from Him, but I feel that is extremely unlikely so I am not afraid of it. Okay, I've given you a couple of examples of consequences of my disbelief. You can reciprocate if you like.


But my studies have led me to understand that "verifiable, repeatable," incontrovertible evidence or proof will not become available. Therefore, it is obvious that some measure of faith will be required to accept it. I have no problem with that.
I know you are okay with it, (and I never said "incontrovertible"), but that isn't really a good reason for believing. You could pick anything for which there will never be evidence. Why this one, apart from the fact that it is convenient, familiar and palatable to your loved ones? What makes this belief better than the myriad of beliefs without evidence? Do you care about the answer to that question?

It is what He taught.
And there is evidence of the existence of a soul. It is not proof, but it is evidence.
I await some examples of that evidence. Most of the ones that have been provided (like the "weight" of a soul) have been long debunked.

People teach Dianetics. That don't make it so.

Your logic is as meaningless to me as your refusal to accept evidence.
I know. Your understanding of "logic" and "evidence" seem pretty squirrely to me. And no, I don't want to play "duelling dictionaries" again.


And your "evidence" of that claim, Oh Lover of "Evidence"?
I've asked you to provide one good non-fear reason for believing in God and you have not provided it, though I admit you did provide one very good reason for "pretending to believe". That is my evidence.

Accepting spiritual life after biological death does not prevent me from focusing on the things that are here now, verifiable and objective.
It means your attention is divided. Yes, I know you can do more than one thing at a time. (I, for example, am watching Michigan lose to Southern Cal as I type this.) But what happens in the case where your spiritual duties conflict with your earthly duties? (Yeah. I know. It never does. Right.)


Do you have problems walking and chewing gum simultaneously?
Not since I had the metal plate put in my head.


And the Huntster says, "For those things that are not or cannot be proven, some measure of faith is required to accept them. If you don't wish to accept them, you are exercising doubt, denial, or indifference."
Or patience. (Don't try to separate things into unambiguous categories with me, Huntster. I'll always find another alternative. ) :D

And you have "proof" of how the "universe works", or are you "faithful" in a particular theory?
I have evidence about how certain aspects of the universe work. Your faith does not.

Why am I "skeptical" of that claim?
Try me. Show me some evidence of the objective, verifiable, repeatable kind.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Huntster
Thanks for the lunacy which I so often see in you which you cannot seem to understand.

I'm not the one arguing that the people in the time of Columbus believed the earth was flat.

Correct.

You're the one arguing that it hasn't been proven even today that the world is spherical.

Quote:
You're quite willing to accept Aristotle's theories which were not proven at the time, but since you yourself haven't gone into space or trans-navigated the globe (even though some of us have), you are unwilling to accept today's proofs that the world is spherical.

That's not what I have said. I said that I don't have direct evidence of todays proofs. I accept them but I can't go into space and I can't afford to trans-navigate the globe but I CAN conduct experiments to PROVE the premises that I enumerated and prove that the world is sperhical.

And others have already done so, unlike the era of Aristotle or Columbus.

Quote:
Circling the planet longitudinally and latitudinally repeatedly by air, sea, or orbit hasn't tested and proven the theory that the world is spherical?

I have no direct evidence. I haven't circled the planet. I have,

1.) Seen ships slowly disappear below the horizon.
2.) Witnessed an eclipse.

If I wanted to I could easily see the constellations from different points.

You have also not answered the question.

I'm getting it here; you're living in the wrong era. You should have lived during Aristotle's day, so you could know without question that the world was spherical.

Quote:
Nobody will "have faith" in you, because you appear to be a lunatic.

Yes, for the same reason that a reasonable person would refuse to accept the premises I provided. Only a lunatic would reject the evidence.

Skeptics doubt evidence.

Lunatics deny proof.

Quote:
Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!

Yeah, I'm funny about empirical evidence. The premises I listed are empirical the ones provided by Aquinas' aren't. You are making a serious error to compare an argument based on emperical facts to those made by Aquinas.

Amazing.

Quote:
And I reject your "explanation."

Then you are a lunatic because the evidence is empirical, testable and repeatable.

You're incredible.

Quote:
It was predicted and repeated. It was not repeatable, because nobody had control over it. Thus, it wasn't a "test." It was a phenomena.

Sure it was. The evidence was and still is empirical, testable and repeatable. To assume that the evidence wasn't as it appears was a irrational as to assume we live in a matirx. It worked every time they looked into the sky. Every time there was an eclipse, ever day a ship sailed off into the distance and whenever the night sky was clear of clouds. They didn't need control.

If one doesn't control it, it isn't a test.

It's observable phenomena; just like Aquinas' observations.
 

Back
Top Bottom