Belief Vs. Knowledge

[Zguy28]

Alexey, the knowledge or certainty lies not in just saying "I believe it just because". The certainty for Christians is in Jesus's resurrection. A fact attested to by many witnesses at the time, and who were willing to die for something they knew to be true. They saw it with their own eyes (unlike the inevitable false comparison to a suicide bomber).

 

Paul even recounts it in his first letter to the church at Corinth:

 

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. ² By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

³ For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. ⁶ After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, ⁸ and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

⁹ For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. ¹⁰ But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. ¹¹ Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

¹² But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ¹³ If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁴ And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

 

If Jesus had not been raised, Christians would only have blind faith so to speak. But because He proved who He was by the resurrection, we have certainty. And we know the "book" is true, because Jesus believed it as well.

[PeterMP]

Peter,

You pretend to know that god wrote a book. I know that scientists publish papers. Are you saying both are examples of the same thing?

 

First, I don't claim or pretend to to know that god wrote a book, and I think that was rather implicit in one of my earlier posts in this thread to Zguy.  I wouldn't even say that I believe or have faith that is true.

 

Second, I will write a longish post later that I think will address your general point, but not tonight.

 

Third, can you please respond to point #1 in my previous post?  I know I edited, but based on when I edited and your responding time, I find it hard to believe you didn't see the point.  It seems to me we have an oppurtunity to permanently clear up an on going debate point over multiple years here.

[Kosher Ham]

Still trying to figure out why some feel as if Jesus was the only one to ever come back to life.

 

Yet he is the only one people revel about with this...

 

Several of these resurrected people actually continued to live.

[PeterMP]

Peter,

You pretend to know that god wrote a book. I know that scientists publish papers. Are you saying both are examples of the same thing?

 

First, I'd ask that you respond to the point that I made above

 

(1.  I don't know, but I'm not the person that claims to have answers.  You've essentially made the same claim (changing prove to make obvious doesn't significantly affect the claim being made) for multiple years on this board even though I've been essentially pointing out the same problem.  Can you address the question or not?  If you cannot address it, will you stop making the claim?

 

**EDIT 2**

And my point wasn't just about the extreme population.  If game theory comes back and says that for many people bullying as much as possible w/o their being an associated penalty in the work force is "good" (it leads to them less likely being bullied themselves and it negatively affects the job performance of some of their co-workers making the bully more likely to get raises and promotions) are we going then to say that pushing the envelope as far as possible with respect to bullying is a good thing for those people?

 

Can you address those points or will you committ to quit making the associated claims that you've been making for years?)

 

and find it disappointing that you didn't address it, but I promised you a longish post on the topic in general so here it is.

 

Second, I think your previous post is shows a misunderstanding/lack of experience with mental illness to suggest that such people can ignore their senses, but I'll come to more of that later.

 

In terms of your post, first, with respect to the Bible, I don't have a big problem with the idea that there are parts that are not true.  Want to say that the story of Genesis, Noah and the flood, and the story of Bable our myths designed to explain things to bronze age people, I don't have a problem with that.

 

Want to say that the evidence doesn't support the story of Exodus so it didn't happen, I've got no real problem with that.

 

I've been called a new testiment Christian by some that have meant it as an insult, but that doesn't bother me.

 

Even in the New Testament, you want to say that the things that Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus were added later were added later and don't reflect what actually happened, I've got no problem with it.

 

To me, none of those things are centeral to Christianity and there is no reason to argue over them so I'm find with concedeing those things.

 

Now, if we make the assumptions requried for you to "know" that scientists publish papers, I'll agree the evidence that they do so is much stronger than the Bible and Christianity in general.

 

However, I do not want to point out that doesn't mean there is no evidence, and I'm sure you've seen techboy lay out his arguments and so I won't repeat them, and it appears there are several threads still here where you he probably made laid out his arguments.

 

https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=techboy+ressurection+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fes.redskins.com&btnK=Google+Search&oq=techboy+ressurection+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fes.redskins.com&gs_l=hp.12...11185.16988.0.21325.27.25.0.0.0.4.1529.17707.3-2j1j11j6j3j1.24.0....0...1c.1.31.hp..17.10.5724.yCwHRjmMlPg#q=techboy+resurrection+site:http://es.redskins.com&spell=1

 

if you'd like to review them.

 

Now, note above, I said if we make some assumptions and that's the key.  And is related to several points that I've made to you before including in this thread.

 

For example:

 

"Evidence of reproducibility is based mostly on our "memory" (I'll use memory in this context to indicate external forms of memory too so things like videos).  This evidence though is based on our assumption of reproducibility.  How do I know that books fall of the shelf?  Because my memory tell me they do.  How do I know that my memory is accurate? because if I knock a bock off the shelf it falls.

 

You're boot strapping evidence for an assumption on the assumption."

 

You believe in your "reality" because that is what your senses working through your brain report to you.  Now, other people's senses and brain also report somethings that are very similar to your reality (your concept of shared reality) so that helps re-enforce your idea that your reality is correct (reenforces your faith).

 

But there are people that disagree with your sense of reality.

 

Science can say those people are abnormal.  It can even explain why they are abnormal, but it can't say they are wrong.  Maybe most of us are wrong and their sense of reality is correct.

 

And then this is related to ideas like we aren't all here and this reality isn't a physical and the inability to science to disprove that option.

 

You say that you know that scientists publish papers, but you are taking it on faith that most people's senses and brains are accurately reporting what is real.

 

 

I'll add mored later directly related to why and how people have faith and the relationship between that and different realities and what the brain reports.

[alexey]

First, I'd ask that you respond to the point that I made above

(1. I don't know, but I'm not the person that claims to have answers. You've essentially made the same claim (changing prove to make obvious doesn't significantly affect the claim being made) for multiple years on this board even though I've been essentially pointing out the same problem. Can you address the question or not? If you cannot address it, will you stop making the claim?

**EDIT 2**

And my point wasn't just about the extreme population. If game theory comes back and says that for many people bullying as much as possible w/o their being an associated penalty in the work force is "good" (it leads to them less likely being bullied themselves and it negatively affects the job performance of some of their co-workers making the bully more likely to get raises and promotions) are we going then to say that pushing the envelope as far as possible with respect to bullying is a good thing for those people?

What do you mean by "answers"? I am not arguing that some courses of action can be proven by science to the point where Peter cannot say "what if i want the opposite".

If Allah is the god and Mohammed is her messenger, then Saudi Arabia got it right and we got it wrong. Can I prove that is not the case? No, because you cannot prove a negative.

There are many ways of building a society. Game theory can tell us what we can do in order to build a society that we want. What if game theory showed that doing this bad thing has that desireable outcome? Well then you decide whether its worth it. Game theory cannot help you there.

 

...

Second, I think your previous post is shows a misunderstanding/lack of experience with mental illness to suggest that such people can ignore their senses, but I'll come to more of that later.

...

For example:

"Evidence of reproducibility is based mostly on our "memory" (I'll use memory in this context to indicate external forms of memory too so things like videos). This evidence though is based on our assumption of reproducibility. How do I know that books fall of the shelf? Because my memory tell me they do. How do I know that my memory is accurate? because if I knock a bock off the shelf it falls.

You're boot strapping evidence for an assumption on the assumption."

You believe in your "reality" because that is what your senses working through your brain report to you. Now, other people's senses and brain also report somethings that are very similar to your reality (your concept of shared reality) so that helps re-enforce your idea that your reality is correct (reenforces your faith).

...

I do not see it this way. I am not asserting or assuming that I am correct. I have no faith. I am simply not doubting things which I do not see a reason to doubt.

[PeterMP]

 

What do you mean by "answers"? I am not arguing that some courses of action can be proven by science to the point where Peter cannot say "what if i want the opposite".

If Allah is the god and Mohammed is her messenger, then Saudi Arabia got it right and we got it wrong. Can I prove that is not the case? No, because you cannot prove a negative.

There are many ways of building a society. Game theory can tell us what we can do in order to build a society that we want. What if game theory showed that doing this bad thing has that desireable outcome? Well then you decide whether its worth it. Game theory cannot help you there.

 

I do not see it this way. I am not asserting or assuming that I am correct. I have no faith. I am simply not doubting things which I do not see a reason to doubt.

 

Here's your quote from before:

Science can make practices like wrapping women in carpets or discriminating against homosexuals as obviously bad as a **** sandwich.

As I've already noted you didn't use the word prove, but obvious.

Do you stand by the above statement?

If so, how does it make it obvious? You've said that game theory could make it obvious that participating in violence would cause you to more likely subject to violence.

I agree.

But there are people that actually like, seek out, and seek death in a violent manner. Has game theory made it obvious to them that violence is good?

If it hasn't, is that an indication that the idea that you presented above is badly flawed?

But you do at least in your statements here.

Go back and see your very early comments on rain and prayed that completely exclude the possiblility that it might rain every time somebody prays for rain.

And in the post before that you said you know that scientists publish papers.

Do you even know that the scientists you speak of are actually physical things?

If they aren't, how can they publish papers?

[alexey]

Alexey, the knowledge or certainty lies not in just saying "I believe it just because". The certainty for Christians is in Jesus's resurrection. A fact attested to by many witnesses at the time, and who were willing to die for something they knew to be true. They saw it with their own eyes (unlike the inevitable false comparison to a suicide bomber).

 ...

Even if you believe the stories, why do you think Jesus's resurrection proves his claims? Could it be, for example, that Jesus was actually the Devil who resurrected himself to trick more people into believing the false god of the old testament?

[alexey]

Here's your quote from before:

As I've already noted you didn't use the word prove, but obvious.

Do you stand by the above statement?

If so, how does it make it obvious? You've said that game theory could make it obvious that participating in violence would cause you to more likely subject to violence.

I agree.

But there are people that actually like, seek out, and seek death in a violent manner. Has game theory made it obvious to them that violence is good?

If it hasn't, is that an indication that the idea that you presented above is badly flawed?

Existence of such people is not an indication that the idea is badly flawed.

Just like existence of people who are not capable to participate in society is not an indication that the idea of building societies is badly flawed.

...

Go back and see your very early comments on rain and prayed that completely exclude the possiblility that it might rain every time somebody prays for rain.

...

You are trying to shift the burden of proof onto me by saying that I "completely exclude the possibility". I am fully open to the possibility, I just do not see those pray-rain claims meeting the burden of proof.

[PeterMP]

Existence of such people is not an indication that the idea is badly flawed.

Just like existence of people who are not capable to participate in society is not an indication that the idea of building societies is badly flawed.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof onto me by saying that I "completely exclude the possibility". I am fully open to the possibility, I just do not see those pray-rain claims meeting the burden of proof.

 

1.  Just to be clear, you do not think that a society that has its primary/initial method of determining good vs. bad allows some people to conclude that in general violence is good is not badly flawed?

 

2.  Do you know that researchers publish papers?  Are you able to disprove a single likely alternative hypothesis in which researchers (and you and) are not actually real (e.g. this is all a computer simulations)?  Are you even able to provide evidence that they are unlikely?

 

Or do you act like you know that?

[alexey]

1. Just to be clear, you do not think that a society that has its primary/initial method of determining good vs. bad allows some people to conclude that in general violence is good is not badly flawed?

I do not see it as a flaw because I do not see how anything can disallow some people from arriving to some conclusions.

 

2. Do you know that researchers publish papers? Are you able to disprove a single likely alternative hypothesis in which researchers (and you and) are not actually real (e.g. this is all a computer simulations)? Are you even able to provide evidence that they are unlikely?

Or do you act like you know that?

You are trying to shift the burden of proof again. I do not need to disprove anything that's not proven to begin with. You have the burden of proof if you claim that researchers do not publish papers or that reality is not real.

Let's say a guy says that he can cause rain by praying, but it does not always work. As a matter of fact, it does not work most of the time, he cannot really cause rain on demand, etc., but when it does work, it works because of praying. He can produce no other evidence. Could he be right? Yes. Do I know that he is wrong? I depends on what you mean by "know". He has not produced a good reason to think that he is right. Do I have faith that he is wrong? No, faith has nothing to do with this.

[PeterMP]

I do not see it as a flaw because I do not see how anything can disallow some people from arriving to some conclusions.

 

You are trying to shift the burden of proof again. I do not need to disprove anything that's not proven to begin with. You have the burden of proof if you claim that researchers do not publish papers or that reality is not real.

Let's say a guy says that he can cause rain by praying, but it does not always work. As a matter of fact, it does not work most of the time, he cannot really cause rain on demand, etc., but when it does work, it works because of praying. He c

an produce no other evidence. Could he be right? Yes. Do I know that he is wrong? I depends on what you mean by "know". He has not produced a good reason to think that he is right. Do I have faith that he is wrong? No, faith has nothing to do with this.

 

1.  Do you not think there is a difference between some people are going to draw that conclusion and basing a society on an approach that actively says it is good?

 

Do you think starting a society based on an approach that says for some people in general violence is good might end up in a very different place than a society that says that all life has value and so in general things that harm life are bad might end up in very different place?

 

Which do you think is more likely to end up with discrimination against homosexuals is bad?

 

2.  The burden of proof is on you because you are trying to assert something.  Researchers publish papers.  I did the samething with Zguy.  Basic science/philosophy says it is not possible to prove things.  Only to disprove things (and I'm not even asking you disprove anything- just give some evidence against).

 

If you'd like, we can flip the question around, though that won't help you.  Prove that researchers publish papers.

[Zguy28]

Even if you believe the stories, why do you think Jesus's resurrection proves his claims? Could it be, for example, that Jesus was actually the Devil who resurrected himself to trick more people into believing the false god of the old testament?

I would say that is grasping at straws.

Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house. “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:22-37 NIV)

And as far as the resurrection, I hate arguing via linking to other works, but I'm pressed for time and this is a good explanation, if you truly open your mind to it.

http://www.gty.org/resources/print/sermons/80-114

Peace.

[alexey]

1. Do you not think there is a difference between some people are going to draw that conclusion and basing a society on an approach that actively says it is good?

Do you think starting a society based on an approach that says for some people in general violence is good might end up in a very different place than a society that says that all life has value and so in general things that harm life are bad might end up in very different place?

Which do you think is more likely to end up with discrimination against homosexuals is bad?

These matters do not respond well to oversimplified hypotheticals.

Current opposition to equal rights for homosexuals is usually rooted in claims of revealed knowledge. How do you think we should deal with claims of revealed knowledge?

 

2. The burden of proof is on you because you are trying to assert something. Researchers publish papers. I did the samething with Zguy. Basic science/philosophy says it is not possible to prove things. Only to disprove things (and I'm not even asking you disprove anything- just give some evidence against).

If you'd like, we can flip the question around, though that won't help you. Prove that researchers publish papers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

prove

1.

demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

So you want me to demonstrate the truth or existence of scientists writing scientific papers. Ok let's establish a baseline first, let's see what we are working with. Do you reject the existence of Earth, scientists, or scientific papers?

I would say that is grasping at straws.

...

You can say that... but can you explain the reasoning you use? How does the resurrection of Jesus prove his metaphysical claims?

Here is a guy who said some stuff, and did magic. Let's say we accept the magic stuff. How does his ability to do magic prove that he was right about all the stuff he said?

[PeterMP]

 

These matters do not respond well to oversimplified hypotheticals.

Current opposition to equal rights for homosexuals is usually rooted in claims of revealed knowledge. How do you think we should deal with claims of revealed knowledge?

I'd say everybody I know does it so I'm not sure how much you can do about it and if you don't allow it, I'm not sure what the person would be able to do.

I just want to be clear again, you do not think a system that as its primary/initial method of determining good and bad allows some people to conclude that in general violence is good is not badly flawed?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

From the wiki link on burden of proof:

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

I said:

"The burden of proof is on you because you are trying to assert something."

From the wiki link on science:

"That is, no theory can ever be considered completely certain, since new evidence falsifying it might be discovered."

I said:

"Basic science/philosophy says it is not possible to prove things. Only to disprove things (and I'm not even asking you disprove anything- just give some evidence against)."

Were you giving the wiki links to prove my points?

 

So you want me to demonstrate the truth or existence of scientists writing scientific papers. Ok let's establish a baseline first, let's see what we are working with. Do you reject the existence of Earth, scientists, or scientific papers?

I'm agnostic on all of the above. I don't actively deny them, but there are likely alternatives (like none of the above physically exist) that have not been disproven so I'm agnostic.

You can say I'm an agnostic theist that all of the above actually physically exist that would like to become a gnostic theist or at least more so (I'd be happy if I could say that the probability that all of the above are actually physical things is greater than that the probability that they aren't).

[alexey]

...

Do you reject the existence of Earth, scientists, or scientific papers?

I'm agnostic on all of the above. I don't actively deny them, but there are likely alternatives (like none of the above physically exist) that have not been disproven so I'm agnostic.

...

You seem sane... but if you are agnostic about the existence of Earth, I do not see a point in continuing.

[PeterMP]

You seem sane... but if you are agnostic about the existence of Earth, I do not see a point in continuing.

 

Not only, do I not know that the Earth is a physcial thing, but the assigned probability that it isn't must go up every day (admittedly very very slightly, but some and it is suredly higher now than in the 1950s).

 

http://hinessight.blogs.com/files/living-in-a-simulated-universe.pdf

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

 

(These papers were published in an academic journal and the author is a member of the faculty at Oxford University and even the head of an institute there.)

 

And here's a paper by a guy that actually disagrees with the author of the above work, and here's his conclusion:

 

"Nothing I have said here implies that Rat should have a high credence in her being human."

 

http://www.simulation-argument.com/weatherson.pdf

 

And this guy is the "Marshall M. Weinberg Professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan".

 

And let's be clear, you don't just have a high credence in being human (not a sim), but you express an absolute credence in being human (not a sim).

 

I honestly don't understand much of this one, but I'll quote the last line because I think it makes the point:

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf

 

"Nevertheless, assuming that the universe is finite and therefore the resources of potential simulators are finite, then a volume containing a simulation will be finite and a lattice spacing must be non-zero, and therefore in principle there always remains

the possibility for the simulated to discover the simulators."

 

(Lead author is a professor in physcis at Univ. Washington.)

 

Why wouldn't you be agnostic about the exiistence of the Earth?

 

Because you have faith in what your (and that can be a collective you/your if you'd like) senses tell you.

 

You embrace what your brain/senses tell you based on faith and cannot even acknowledge it is faith, while telling others they must reject what their senses/brain tell them.

 

**EDIT**

AND you want to do it in an effort to put in a social system that is based on an approach that allows some people to conclude that violence in general is good!

[alexey]

...

Why wouldn't you be agnostic about the exiistence of the Earth?

Because you have faith in what your (and that can be a collective you/your if you'd like) senses tell you.

You embrace what your brain/senses tell you based on faith and cannot even acknowledge it is faith, while telling others they must reject what their senses/brain tell them.

...

Yes, in the system you are proposing there is no knowledge but agnosticism, faith, and no discussions with Alexey on ES. Let me know when you are ready to say "I know that Earth exists" and we can go from there.

[PeterMP]

Yes, in the system you are proposing there is no knowledge but agnosticism, faith, and no discussions with Alexey on ES. Let me know when you are ready to say "I know that Earth exists" and we can go from there.

 

Why should I admit something that isn't true?

 

Where is the flaw in the papers I posted?

 

I even gave you both sides of the discussion.

 

I do things based on faith all of the time (and realistically so do you).  Me and millions of other people in the world pray everyday, and you act like science and your senses absolutely give you true knowledge.

 

The difference is I recognize and admit it.  I don't pretend to myself or others.

 

Come on, it isn't that hard.    Just say, I can't be absolutely sure that I actually exist.

 

Everybody here, including you, know it is the truth.

 

The system I am proposing is the real system.

 

And you can't even admit what our reality is and you want to propose new sociocultural systems (Oh, and let me point again in this system the initial/primary method of determining good from bad would allow some people to conclude that being violent is good!)

 

And I can certainly have discussions.  I do it all the time.  You have to make assumptions, but we all do every day.

 

Maybe you can't actually admit it and still have discussions, but that's your problem.

[alexey]

Why should I admit something that isn't true?

Where is the flaw in the papers I posted?

...

Those philosophy papers are fine... The problem is Peter reading philosophy papers as if they were scientific papers and getting mixed up to the point where he does not even know whether Earth exists.

[PeterMP]

Those philosophy papers are fine... The problem is Peter reading philosophy papers as if they were scientific papers and getting mixed up to the point where he does not even know whether Earth exists.

 

All of the papers I've posted are based in math/statistics/physics.

 

You've provided ZERO evidence they are wrong, why should we reject them?

 

And when other people do it on other topics, you claim it is a bad thing:

 

Agreed. How do we reduce intellectual dishonesty and promote honesty? I think we can promote intellectual honesty if we stop saying that that pretending to know things (faith) is a virtue.

 

Is denying something that you can't disprove a virtue (or if you'd like believing something that you can't prove)?

 

Or are you picking and choosing the topics for which it is not a virtue?

 

Should I read all of your comments with an implied this is true if the other side does it, but if my side does it is okay written into them?

[alexey]

Peter,

You are using philosophy papers "based in math/statistics/physics" to doubt the existence of math, statistics, and physics. Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

Better yet, if you cannot say that you know Earth exists, can you say that you have any knowledge at all?

[PeterMP]

Peter,

You are using philosophy papers "based in math/statistics/physics" to doubt the existence of math, statistics, and physics. Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

Better yet, if you cannot say that you know Earth exists, can you say that you have any knowledge at all?

 

I've not said that math, statistics, and physics do not exist.  The Earth can not exist and those things exist.  Beyond that, I don't really see how that hurts my position at all.  If those papers are wrong because math, physics, and statistics don't exist (or are very very different than we currently understand them), then that would only serve to indicate that we very badly misunderstand our reality, which only increases the odds that our reality is not "real".

 

You can't claim the point is garbage because the math, statistics, and physics used to make the point might be garbage without acknowledging the point that you don't know things that you act like you know.

 

You can't invalidate my point using that argument without invalidating your initial claim.

 

I have two pieces of knowledge:

1.  I exist in some form, physically, a simulation, a dream, etc.

 

2.  If I'm allowed to make assumptions (and all of science is based on assumptions and as I've said multiple times to you, including at least once in this thread, you can't boot strap proof of an assumption based on evidence from things (e.g. experiments) that the assumption is ture), I can say start to assign probabilities based on past behavior (and past performance is not necessarily an indication of future performance).

 

Oh and I started having this conversation with two agnostic/atheist when I was 16, and it took us less time to get to where you are just starting to get so I "know" how this ends (and neither of them started believing in God, we just agreed that we believed different things).

 

If you'd rather (and I'd rather), I'd love to hear more about how the sociocultural system that starts by allowing some people to conclude that violence is good is going to make other bad things obviously bad.

[alexey]

Peter,

How can you know that you exist but not know that Earth exists?

[PeterMP]

Peter,

How can you know that you exist but not know that Earth exists?

 

Well, something exist in some form for me to stand on,  but I have no knowledge that it has any of the properties of what we call Earth.  It could be pretty small and flat.

 

You don't have much of an imagination, do you?

[alexey]

Peter,

Ok so now you're acknowledging that you know Earth exists?