Burden of Proof

[mirage62 0]

Quote

Did you watch the video? I ask because this question shows that you do not understand who bears the burden of proof.

Yes I did, all I did was ask the other side to answer the question. I have "proved it" (as much as it can be proved) by stating my reason.

Should you want (or whoever) you can make the argument that we DON'T exist. I find that to be unbelieveable and can "prove" it.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[mirage62 0]

Quote

Quantum mechanics, the most precisely confirmed set of laws in all of science, has no problem with something from nothing. And yes, quantum mechanics is weird, but weird is no reason to believe in a supernatural invisible friend.

My "supernatural invisible friend" says your going to burn in hell

John, the only issue I have is the amount of people that get pissed off at "believers" (not that you are or aren't I don't know) As I don't have the super education that you have were you understand that "something from nothing" is possible I'll just keep on believing.

Certainly you can keep with your thoughts to.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

You've got people searching all over for Higgs Boson - theorized to exist, searched for like mad, but nobody has found it.

I had a bet with myself that you were going to bring that up. Winner.

The funny thing is though, that you've summed up half the difference in that very sentence: "searching for". Not presuming and leaving it at that. The other half of the difference is that the Higgs Boson is predicted by the mathematical models formed from the most accurate data we have on how the universe works. Not just predicted by some guy somewhere saying "I really think there should be another particle and that works for me!"

Quote

Why is the effect of some supernatural entity that we cannot see or measure but has some effect that we can see any different that the effect of some supernatural entity that we cannot see or measure?

You just wrote the same thing twice.

Quote

I don't like the presumption of God one bit. But I am also uncomfortable with the presumption of "The Force" out there.

Then spend less time at Star Wars conventions.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jclalor 12]

Quote

I'm not a believer in moan hoaxes.

I am a firm believer in moan hoaxs, half the women I get in the sack with are not being honest with me when they moan.

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

I have "proved it"

No, you haven't.

Quote

(as much as it can be proved) by stating my reason.

Your reason is not proof. At best it's philosophy, edging towards sophistry.

Quote

Should you want (or whoever) you can make the argument that we DON'T exist.

Why should we do that? We do exist.

Quote

I find that to be unbelieveable and can "prove" it.

I should hope so, but that's not what the thread is about.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[winsor 236]

I have not taken the time to view the video, since coherent logic and religious conviction are generally mutually exclusive. Whether belief is the result of garbled thinking or vice-versa is largely immaterial.

People who are given to adhering to gibberish as the basis of their existence concern me only inasmuch as they have the capacity to make decisions that affect me or other non-volunteers. If they wear magic underwear, engage in ritual cannibalism, drink urine or whatever, I am all the more happy if they can see fit to spare me the details.

If they use their brand of "The Truth" (tm) to inflict the peculiarities of their delusions on the world at large (to include me et al.), that's pretty much where I draw the line.

Is religion nonsense?

Is that a trick question?


BSBD,

Winsor

[kallend 2,114]

Quote

Quote

If something can't be shown to exist, the presumption is that it does not exist (See Russell's Teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorns, the FSM, that psychic thing in Pluto on the video etc. for elaboration).

You've got people searching all over for Higgs Boson - theorized to exist, searched for like mad, but nobody has found it.

You've got effects seen on things. Check out "dark energy" and "dark matter." We see evidence of something going on but there is nothing we know of to explain it. "Dark energy" and "dark matter" are nothing but handles that are given to explain these phenomena. Calling them "Arthur" and "Jennifer" is as valid of a name.

Agreed, but with all of these there exists strong indirect empirical evidence of existence. Just like there was with the top quark before the direct proof of its existence came along, and which was indeed given a silly name. Higgs didn't propose the existence of a field out of the blue with absolutely no justification whatever. The Higgs is predicted to have quite definite measurable properties that are experimentally accessible with the right equipment.

GOD, Thor, Odin, FSM, OTOH, are silly, nebulous concepts not susceptible to empirical verification.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

One that STILL doesn't understand that asking for "proof" is moot? Not only moot, but just plain misunderstanding of it all?

I don't go around asking believers to prove that God exists, but many of them offer up "proof" regardless (as you see in many of these threads).

And out in the "real world" (not on this silly forum), I tend to just leave it alone - hey, whatever gets you through the night..... Unless it's someone trying to convince me that I should believe too, or that I should change my behavior according to his/her beliefs. But that's rarely the case - usually it's just a friend expressing why he/she believes in God, and I've gotten where I don't have much interest in arguing about that.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The other half of the difference is that the Higgs Boson is predicted by the mathematical models formed from the most accurate data we have on how the universe works. Not just predicted by some guy somewhere saying "I really think there should be another particle and that works for me!"

Yep. And they've been searching and searching and haven't found it. Will not finding it mean they give up? Or will they still presume it's there? If the Higgs boson cannot be found, then there are two choices: (1) keep searching for it; or (2) go with another theory that explains mass and test it.

Are theories in science rejected until data shows up? Yes, it's precisely measured in the past. And there are some fine examples of where it works. But until the proof comes out, excuse me for being skeptical. Right now the null hypothesis is that the Higgs boson does not exist. We know this because they are trying to find it.

Quote

Why is the effect of some supernatural entity that we cannot see or measure but has some effect that we can see any different that the effect of some supernatural entity that we cannot see or measure?

You just wrote the same thing twice.

Two identical sentences describing two separate things. Both approached the same way. God is a handle for the unexplained. "Dark energy" is a handle for the unexplained.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

And out in the "real world" (not on this silly forum), I tend to just leave it alone

Same here. As long as no one bothers me with their religion, I'm perfectly fine with it.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Two identical sentences describing two separate things. Both approached the same way. God is a handle for the unexplained. "Dark energy" is a handle for the unexplained.

Agreed, there's of course the little details. Like the fact that no one will fly a plane into a skyscraper because of dark energy. Dark energy is a hypothesis to explain the unknown, God is a hypothesis to explain the unknown, and ease he fear of dieing, and provide ordinary people with ordinary morality, and to divide the world into the evil and the good etc. etc. It's more than just an "handle for the unexplained"

[devildog 0]

Quote

I'm fully aware that the human body can be described in terms of sensors, processors, and actuators and that our perception of reality is based on our sensors and processors.

Our "inside" world may not be an accurate representation of the "outside". However, by using the scientific method we have been able to deduce that the "outside" world exists and is independent of our "inside" world. As you mentioned before, just because you don't like it doesn't make it so.

You're missing the game on this. The scientific method is 100% dependent on our experience, our senses. Anything you measure, experiment with, observe, etc. is ALL dependent on your senses. These senses only exist in your head. As such, if the inner experience does not match the real world, the scientific method is completely bunk for determining what is real and what is not. Well, correction, the method could be fine, but applying the method is impossible.

This isn't a religious exercise at all. It's a pretty well known philosophical one, and one that everyone concedes that at some point, you have to just assume inner experience matches outer. Can't prove it, but we're going to believe it none the less.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Think Matrix.

No, I think solipsism. One of the few dogmas I have is the conviction that solipsism is stupid.

Edit: Well, stupid isn't the right word, in fact it's an interesting idea, just like the idea that the whole universe, inclusive us and all our memories, came into existence 5 minutes ago. Great idea, huh? But it would be stupid to dwell on it.

Well, to be fair, I figured more people saw Matrix than read Descartes (and friends).

Anyway, my point wasn't to argue in favor of solipsism, just that we build our lives around assumptions, the foremost of which being our senses are true -- they reflect the outside world to our minds. But we don't *really* know that, do we? If we were a poorly made calculator, for example, we might always think 1+1=3. We'd test it over and over and over, and we'd say, "Yup! Reality is 1+1=3".

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually pretty interesting.

I make the claim that there is a God because I am here. If you believe that you are here, you must follow the chain backwards. (I have no problem with eveloution) at some point it all "started" therefore I accept a "God" because I cannot logically understand something starting by itself.

Weird works for me.

Quantum mechanics, the most precisely confirmed set of laws in all of science, has no problem with something from nothing. And yes, quantum mechanics is weird, but weird is no reason to believe in a supernatural invisible friend.

Every article I've read, including recent ones posted on here, still go back to a something from something model. Articles and speakers (like Hawking) usually end up saying something like, "The laws of nature themselves tells us that not only can the universe have popped into existence like a proton and have required nothing in terms of energy but also that it is possible that nothing caused the big bang"

I bolded the something part that begets something else.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Well, to be fair, I figured more people saw Matrix than read Descartes (and friends).

Fair enough; I've a flaw in my personality that makes me want to bitch slap and/or talk down to people who think the "The Matrix" came up with the idea of solipsism and think it's very deep. (Solipsism is basic philosophy, and I think that "cognito ergo sum" should be part of any-ones basic knowledge.

As for our senses: they give us a rather limited interpretation of the world, that can't be 100% trusted. Besides, simple illusions can be used to reveal the "glitches" in our software et al, but still the reality I observe is very consistent. It's not blind faith to assume I observe an interpretation of the universe, because everything points to that. Unless someone or something proofs to me it's an illusion there's no point dwelling on the fact that it's a possibility.

It's kind of ironic you doubt reality to make an argument for the existence of God, btw. And what would it say about God if he created beings who are unable to sense God?

[kallend 2,114]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Actually pretty interesting.

I make the claim that there is a God because I am here. If you believe that you are here, you must follow the chain backwards. (I have no problem with eveloution) at some point it all "started" therefore I accept a "God" because I cannot logically understand something starting by itself.

Weird works for me.

Quantum mechanics, the most precisely confirmed set of laws in all of science, has no problem with something from nothing. And yes, quantum mechanics is weird, but weird is no reason to believe in a supernatural invisible friend.

Every article I've read, including recent ones posted on here, still go back to a something from something model. Articles and speakers (like Hawking) usually end up saying something like, "The laws of nature themselves tells us that not only can the universe have popped into existence like a proton and have required nothing in terms of energy but also that it is possible that nothing caused the big bang"

I bolded the something part that begets something else.

Clearly you misunderstand what you read.

I see that a new (but predicted by physics' standard model) particle, the "excited xi-b", has just been found by the CMS experiment at CERN.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

Yep. And they've been searching and searching and haven't found it. Will not finding it mean they give up? Or will they still presume it's there? If the Higgs boson cannot be found, then there are two choices: (1) keep searching for it; or (2) go with another theory that explains mass and test it.

Are theories in science rejected until data shows up? Yes, it's precisely measured in the past. And there are some fine examples of where it works. But until the proof comes out, excuse me for being skeptical. Right now the null hypothesis is that the Higgs boson does not exist. We know this because they are trying to find it.

Sounds like there's a point in there somewhere. What is it?

Quote

Two identical sentences describing two separate things.

No, just two identical sentences.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

It's a pretty well known philosophical one, and one that everyone concedes that at some point, you have to just assume inner experience matches outer. Can't prove it, but we're going to believe it none the less.

Of course, what you can do is check that your inner experience is consistent with everyone elses inner experience. Once you've got that sorted, it's a fair bet that we're doing ok. A species that interprets sensory inputs into completely random experiences probably won't fair too well in the long run.

Besides which... so what's your point anyway? All sounds like a vague and long winded diversion from the discussion about you not having any evidence if you ask me.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Of course, what you can do is check that your inner experience is consistent with everyone elses inner experience. Once you've got that sorted, it's a fair bet that we're doing ok. A species that interprets sensory inputs into completely random experiences probably won't fair too well in the long run.

I basically agree, and I have a healthy hatred for anything that smells like solipsism, but our perception of the world is somewhat flawed. This is actually due to evolution. Our senses are very efficient, but don't necessarily give us a 100% correct experience of the world. Take this illusion for example:

Quote

http://www.illusionism.org/media/Kanizsa-triangle.png

If all is well, your brain photoshops a triangle into the picture, that isn't there. A flawed perception caused by the evolution of your brain. does this mean we can't trust our perception? Hardly, but our outer world differs from our inner experience. Still our senses are more than good enough, to, well, make sense of the world.

[kallend 2,114]

Quote

Quote

If something can't be shown to exist, the presumption is that it does not exist (See Russell's Teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorns, the FSM, that psychic thing in Pluto on the video etc. for elaboration).

You've got people searching all over for Higgs Boson - theorized to exist, searched for like mad, but nobody has found it.

.

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_SWITZERLAND_GOD_PARTICLE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-02-10-21-20

"only the most curmudgeonly will not believe that they have found it."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If something can't be shown to exist, the presumption is that it does not exist (See Russell's Teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorns, the FSM, that psychic thing in Pluto on the video etc. for elaboration).

You've got people searching all over for Higgs Boson - theorized to exist, searched for like mad, but nobody has found it.

.

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_SWITZERLAND_GOD_PARTICLE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-02-10-21-20

"only the most curmudgeonly will not believe that they have found it."

isn't that the right word to describe physicists in general? Especially since Pons/Fleischmann?

And that article has quite a few "almost" and "nearlys" in it. Along with a "tomorrow."