|
United States44071 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:04 Jibba wrote:
[quote]They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done. I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive. Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know." No, it equates to "very likely not." If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible. So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder. A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence. I can't believe I have to do this... If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist.
No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption.
To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:04 Jibba wrote:
[quote]They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done. I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive. Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know." No, it equates to "very likely not." If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible. So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have. If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened. There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true?
Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
|
United States44071 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:06 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:04 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 10:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 10:51 Jibba wrote:[quote] I raped your mother last night. Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy? + Show Spoiler + From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know. From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults. They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week. The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that. What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now. What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done. I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive. Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know." No, it equates to "very likely not." If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible. So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. And please explain how it is logically possible to prove something's lack of existence. Lay it out for us in Ps and Qs. Given that I am aware (otherwise I could not make this post): Therefore I exist as something. I reside in this universe. Therefore this universe exists. Given this universe, there is a planet P such that for the existence of something given by the equation |an-L|<epsilon, where epsilon is a value that is infinitesimally small and near 0. Since an in this universe is defined as P, and since the limit L approaches P for a value n > 0 in this universe, the value becomes defined as |P-P| < epsilon, which is defined as true. Thus the planet P, which in this case is Earth, exists. On this planet P, there may or may not be an internet. Since I am making a post on this internet,and since I exist in this universe on this planet P which is proven to exist as above, this internet exists as well. Since this internet is undefined, I can claim any values may or may not exist in this internet. Since I exist, my claims are valid for this universe. Since I claim that TL.net exists on the internet, which is demonstrated because it has been defined that TL.net is a value, and that such a value may be on the internet, thus in this universe, on this internet in planet P/Earth, TL.net exists on the internet. Since TL.net exists on the internet that I have defined to be in this universe on this planet P on the internet, it can thus be concluded that TL.net exists in this universe. In other universes, there is bound to be a proof in how TL.net exists in those respective universes but as they likely obey other laws it is impossible for us in this universe to do so. However, in this universe, since I am aware and am able to define myself and my setting, I exist, my setting exists, and subsequently as demonstrated above TL.net exists. Q.E.D.
There are an awful lot of assumptions in that, firstly that you live in the universe and secondly that experience should be treated as reality.
|
On August 19 2009 12:06 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:10 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know." No, it equates to "very likely not." If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible. So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder. A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence. I can't believe I have to do this... If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez.
If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
|
On August 19 2009 12:09 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:06 Caller wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:04 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 10:55 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know.
From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults. They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week. The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that. What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now. What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done. I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive. Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know." No, it equates to "very likely not." If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible. So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. And please explain how it is logically possible to prove something's lack of existence. Lay it out for us in Ps and Qs. Given that I am aware (otherwise I could not make this post): Therefore I exist as something. I reside in this universe. Therefore this universe exists. Given this universe, there is a planet P such that for the existence of something given by the equation |an-L|<epsilon, where epsilon is a value that is infinitesimally small and near 0. Since an in this universe is defined as P, and since the limit L approaches P for a value n > 0 in this universe, the value becomes defined as |P-P| < epsilon, which is defined as true. Thus the planet P, which in this case is Earth, exists. On this planet P, there may or may not be an internet. Since I am making a post on this internet,and since I exist in this universe on this planet P which is proven to exist as above, this internet exists as well. Since this internet is undefined, I can claim any values may or may not exist in this internet. Since I exist, my claims are valid for this universe. Since I claim that TL.net exists on the internet, which is demonstrated because it has been defined that TL.net is a value, and that such a value may be on the internet, thus in this universe, on this internet in planet P/Earth, TL.net exists on the internet. Since TL.net exists on the internet that I have defined to be in this universe on this planet P on the internet, it can thus be concluded that TL.net exists in this universe. In other universes, there is bound to be a proof in how TL.net exists in those respective universes but as they likely obey other laws it is impossible for us in this universe to do so. However, in this universe, since I am aware and am able to define myself and my setting, I exist, my setting exists, and subsequently as demonstrated above TL.net exists. Q.E.D. There are an awful lot of assumptions in that, firstly that you live in the universe and secondly that experience should be treated as reality.
Like I said:
I am aware
therefore I can define myself and my setting.
Therefore I exist, and the universe that I exist in exists.
|
On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:10 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know." No, it equates to "very likely not." If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible. So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have. If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened. There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true? Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source.
Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
|
Nice debate. I hope it's going to dawn on everyone sooner or later that it's idolatry of logic which has led us to this intellectual deadend.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:10 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:06 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote:
[quote]
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible. So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder. A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence. I can't believe I have to do this... If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez. If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact?
The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:06 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:04 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 10:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 10:51 Jibba wrote:[quote] I raped your mother last night. Now, you might call your mother up and ask her "Did Jibba give you unbelievable pleasure against your will last night?" and you might gain a piece of evidence that can prove or disprove my claim, but until that happens, are you seriously going to remain agnostic to the claim that I raped the shit out of your hot mommy? + Show Spoiler + From a scientific standpoint, I would have to say I don't know. From a personal standpoint, I'd tell you that you're a retard for attempting to win an argument using pathetic attempts at sly insults. They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week. The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that. What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now. What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done. I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive. Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know." No, it equates to "very likely not." If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible. So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. And please explain how it is logically possible to prove something's lack of existence. Lay it out for us in Ps and Qs. Given that I am aware (otherwise I could not make this post): Therefore I exist as something. 1
I reside in this universe. You've made a jump that existing = physically existing (residing.) We can accept it, depending on what you mean by universe (instead, say "there is something for me to exist in")
Therefore this universe exists. Not really another point, restating the above.
Given this universe, there is a planet P such that for the existence of something given by the equation |an-L|<epsilon, where epsilon is a value that is infinitesimally small and near 0.
Since an in this universe is defined as P, and since the limit L approaches P for a value n > 0 in this universe, the value becomes defined as |P-P| < epsilon, which is defined as true.
Thus the planet P, which in this case is Earth, exists.
On this planet P, there may or may not be an internet.
Since I am making a post on this internet,and since I exist in this universe on this planet P which is proven to exist as above, this internet exists as well.
Since this internet is undefined, I can claim any values may or may not exist in this internet. Since I exist, my claims are valid for this universe.
Since I claim that TL.net exists on the internet, which is demonstrated because it has been defined that TL.net is a value, and that such a value may be on the internet, thus in this universe, on this internet in planet P/Earth, TL.net exists on the internet.
Since TL.net exists on the internet that I have defined to be in this universe on this planet P on the internet, it can thus be concluded that TL.net exists in this universe.
In other universes, there is bound to be a proof in how TL.net exists in those respective universes but as they likely obey other laws it is impossible for us in this universe to do so. However, in this universe, since I am aware and am able to define myself and my setting, I exist, my setting exists, and subsequently as demonstrated above TL.net exists.
Q.E.D.
You didn't prove that P, the internet or TL.net exists, you simply defined them as ideas and by necessity they mean what you've defined. 2+2 necessarily equals 4 in this universe, but that's just an idea.
|
On August 19 2009 12:16 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:06 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder. A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence. I can't believe I have to do this... If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez. If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact? The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist.
We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
|
United States44071 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:10 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:09 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:06 Caller wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:04 Jibba wrote:
[quote]They're not sly insults. If you weren't stubbornly sticking to a stupid point, you would make inferences that because of the nature of my claim, over the internet, by an unknown forum poster, etc. that they are spurious and that my claim is false. THAT IS HOW INDUCTION WORKS. Even if you called your mother, her reply would would still not serve as a definitive data point to prove I didn't bang her so hard she can't walk for a week.
The same principle applies to your mythical civilization. They tend to leave behind remains and if they're advanced (which this one supposedly was), then they've made contact with other groups of people and their existence would be documented. This is what anthropologists do. Do you think they've deductively proven Pompeii was destroyed by Mt. Vesuvius? No one can do that.
What is your idea of definitive proof anyways? Please, indulge us and definitely prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
What's even weaker about your argument is that you're attempting to use logic to validate a religion, when even religious people acknowledge that it can't be done. I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive. Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know." No, it equates to "very likely not." If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible. So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. And please explain how it is logically possible to prove something's lack of existence. Lay it out for us in Ps and Qs. Given that I am aware (otherwise I could not make this post): Therefore I exist as something. I reside in this universe. Therefore this universe exists. Given this universe, there is a planet P such that for the existence of something given by the equation |an-L|<epsilon, where epsilon is a value that is infinitesimally small and near 0. Since an in this universe is defined as P, and since the limit L approaches P for a value n > 0 in this universe, the value becomes defined as |P-P| < epsilon, which is defined as true. Thus the planet P, which in this case is Earth, exists. On this planet P, there may or may not be an internet. Since I am making a post on this internet,and since I exist in this universe on this planet P which is proven to exist as above, this internet exists as well. Since this internet is undefined, I can claim any values may or may not exist in this internet. Since I exist, my claims are valid for this universe. Since I claim that TL.net exists on the internet, which is demonstrated because it has been defined that TL.net is a value, and that such a value may be on the internet, thus in this universe, on this internet in planet P/Earth, TL.net exists on the internet. Since TL.net exists on the internet that I have defined to be in this universe on this planet P on the internet, it can thus be concluded that TL.net exists in this universe. In other universes, there is bound to be a proof in how TL.net exists in those respective universes but as they likely obey other laws it is impossible for us in this universe to do so. However, in this universe, since I am aware and am able to define myself and my setting, I exist, my setting exists, and subsequently as demonstrated above TL.net exists. Q.E.D. There are an awful lot of assumptions in that, firstly that you live in the universe and secondly that experience should be treated as reality. Like I said: I am aware therefore I can define myself and my setting. Therefore I exist, and the universe that I exist in exists.
I am aware. Therefore I can define myself and my setting. I am God, I live before the Universe. I have a vivid imagination.
|
On August 19 2009 12:12 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote:
[quote]
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible. So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have. If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened. There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true? Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source. Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
Much of it? Which parts would those be?
|
United States44071 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:14 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Nice debate. I hope it's going to dawn on everyone sooner or later that it's idolatry of logic which has led us to this intellectual deadend.
Idolatry of the illogical is what has caused this problem.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:12 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote:
[quote]
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible. So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have. If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened. There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true? Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source. Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction?
|
On August 19 2009 12:17 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:12 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have. If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened. There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true? Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source. Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings. Much of it? Which parts would those be?
I'm not going to give you every example of a 1,500 page book. But take the fall of Babylon for instance.
|
United States44071 Posts
On August 19 2009 12:12 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote:
[quote]
No, it equates to "very likely not."
If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible. So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have. If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened. There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true? Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source. Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings.
Nothing about Spiderman has been proven definitively false (we've not checked every human on the planet for spideysenses) whereas much (such as the existence of New York, guns, girls, angst, the colour red, spiders) is all verifiable. In fact, if Spiderman wasn't such an emo we could probably make a decent religion out of that.
|
On August 19 2009 12:17 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:16 Mystlord wrote:On August 19 2009 12:10 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:06 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:02 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:59 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:
[quote]
Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. Erm, it's a murder scene, the corpse is evidence that there was a murderer. So is the blood. What he's doing is going into an empty room, finding a fingerprint and declaring there was no murder. A death is always assumed a murder until murder is ruled out -- so it's a murder scene by default if you're taking evidence. I can't believe I have to do this... If I go to a crime scene where there is a dead body, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say she committed suicide. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No because it's a crime scene. That's the point. You've got a starting assumption. To go back to your original example. If I stage a historical dig and find nothing I can make the claim that there were no surviving historical artifacts in this location and therefore most likely was no city. The bad example you're using is me standing in the middle of a ruined city digging a hole in the ground, finding nothing and reaching the same conclusion. That's why your example is bad, because there is already compelling evidence to support one view and therefore the dismissal of others is logical. Jeez. If you perform an archaeological dig and find nothing, are you sure you dug in the right place? Is the evidence you're looking for even intact? The failed dig is one more piece of evidence that goes towards the assumption that the evidence doesn't exist. Until something is found that proves it's existence, it doesn't exist. We have a historical text that states it exists. I say the ball is in the court of disproving via physical evidence now. If it did not exist there at that time, what DID exist there at that time?
What we have, in this case, is a semi-historical text written centuries later by men who clearly had a hard-on for what they believed were "the good old days."
|
On August 19 2009 12:17 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:10 Caller wrote:On August 19 2009 12:09 Kwark wrote:On August 19 2009 12:06 Caller wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:11 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:10 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
I'm not validating a religion, I'm saying the Bible has not been proven wrong and it is cohesive.
Like I said, though, probability used in a circumstance like this equates to, "I don't know." No, it equates to "very likely not." If this is an "I don't know" decision for you, then how do you get through life? I can think of a dozen decisions right now that are more difficult than believing the historical accuracy of the Bible. So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. And please explain how it is logically possible to prove something's lack of existence. Lay it out for us in Ps and Qs. Given that I am aware (otherwise I could not make this post): Therefore I exist as something. I reside in this universe. Therefore this universe exists. Given this universe, there is a planet P such that for the existence of something given by the equation |an-L|<epsilon, where epsilon is a value that is infinitesimally small and near 0. Since an in this universe is defined as P, and since the limit L approaches P for a value n > 0 in this universe, the value becomes defined as |P-P| < epsilon, which is defined as true. Thus the planet P, which in this case is Earth, exists. On this planet P, there may or may not be an internet. Since I am making a post on this internet,and since I exist in this universe on this planet P which is proven to exist as above, this internet exists as well. Since this internet is undefined, I can claim any values may or may not exist in this internet. Since I exist, my claims are valid for this universe. Since I claim that TL.net exists on the internet, which is demonstrated because it has been defined that TL.net is a value, and that such a value may be on the internet, thus in this universe, on this internet in planet P/Earth, TL.net exists on the internet. Since TL.net exists on the internet that I have defined to be in this universe on this planet P on the internet, it can thus be concluded that TL.net exists in this universe. In other universes, there is bound to be a proof in how TL.net exists in those respective universes but as they likely obey other laws it is impossible for us in this universe to do so. However, in this universe, since I am aware and am able to define myself and my setting, I exist, my setting exists, and subsequently as demonstrated above TL.net exists. Q.E.D. There are an awful lot of assumptions in that, firstly that you live in the universe and secondly that experience should be treated as reality. Like I said: I am aware therefore I can define myself and my setting. Therefore I exist, and the universe that I exist in exists. I am aware. Therefore I can define myself and my setting. I am God, I live before the Universe. I have a vivid imagination.
But how do you know that you are in fact, not God, and live before the Universe? Perhaps you have used your infinite powers to turn yourself into another entity that can easily be broken by use of your infinite powers. Or perhaps there is no such thing as a God in this universe, but rather such a being would exist outside of the universe system.
You make vast assumptions about yourself without proving that is the case first.
I define myself as being myself. I do not define myself as Kwark, for instance, because that is imposing something on me that may or may not be true. I define that I exist because I am aware and able to define myself.
shit too much intensity at too late at night
im going to sleep, you guys win the philosophical argument for now
|
On August 19 2009 12:18 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2009 12:12 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:09 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 12:05 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 12:03 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:55 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:48 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:45 NExUS1g wrote:On August 19 2009 11:40 Jibba wrote:On August 19 2009 11:19 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
So if you say, "This monarchy probably didn't exist," this somehow means you know for certain? Please list 5 facts which you know to be certain, based on the level of deduction you're asking for. Are you certain TeamLiquid actually exists? You can't be serious. Do it. You're asking for an unobtainable level of proof (deduction) to show that the kingdom didn't exist, when we can simply infer through multiple data sources that it didn't. Since you can't seem to understand the difference between inference (and the way we use it in every day language to say "I know X") then tell us what you do know from deduction. Lack of remains is a piece of evidence that screams "DIDN'T EXIST." By your system of knowledge, we need to remain agnostic on pretty much everything. There's no proof that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. There's no proof that I didn't rape your mother. There's no proof that TL has been imagined by you. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. Right, because we've dug up everything that is under the ground. We know we have dug up a small number artifacts from the last 5,000 years of human history. If I go to a murder scene, lift one fingerprint, and determine the fingerprint is that of the victim, I can't say there was no murderer. That's exactly what you're doing here. You're taking the VERY little we know of all there is to know and saying it provides significant proof of what didn't exist. No, we say "this likely didn't exist" until we find more evidence. You assume nothing until you find evidence to contradict that. You're assuming everything from the very beginning. You work with the evidence you have. If there's a murder scene with holes in the victims and bullet casings on the ground, we start by inferring they were shot. If an anonymous caller tells us the victim was actually squashed by a giant bunny rabbit, you're asking us to disprove the squashing theory rather than find evidence that it happened. There's a historical text that is generally correct that says X existed. I would say that it existed unless proven otherwise. What is it generally correct about? What % of the Bible is accurate? 70%? Spiderman paints for us a very accurate visual picture of what New York City looks like. Are we unable to rule out the story of Spiderman isn't true? Not only that, but you're using 1 point of data. ONE. ESPN can't even publish its terribly inaccurate stories with just one source. Nothing has been definitively proven false, but much of it has been definitively proven true through findings. If you compared every single frame of Spiderman to video footage of NYC, you would find that the majority of the movie is true. Is that a strong enough basis to believe its story isn't fiction?
You don't see how that doesn't fit into the current debate, do you? We know everything about Spiderman or have access to know everything about Spiderman. We don't know everything nor have access to know everything of ancient cultures.
|
Hmmm...the existential turn this thread has taken is very interesting but is it really on topic?
And as long as it's studied from a historical or literary context I see nothing wrong with it. If we can study Hindu stories in English class why not Christian? People are so damn afraid of the Bible that they forget it's a historical document as well as a religious one. It just depends on how it's studied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
