Tolstoy, Putin and I are both referring to the theoretical impossibity of disproving something exists. Practical limitations don't even come into it.

Wow. 60 replies in 20 minutes. A new Webdip record?

"Wow. 60 replies in 20 minutes. A new Webdip record?"

Hardly.

d31, can you show me a picture of Caesar's legions south of the Rubicon?? In fact, the last I knew, there were only 28 copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars that were produced within 100 years of his death, yet there are literally thousands of copies of the gospels within 100 years of Jesus' death.

And they didn't have Xerox yet. ;-)

"Actually, I don't expect the sun to rise at all. I expect the earth to continuing rotating. Why? Because of the conservation of momentum, which I've personally verified many times."

Right, but you don't know that it will continue rotating tomorrow. You don't even have any reason to expect it will. Let's analyze the argument:

1) I've personally verified many times that the earth keeps rotating via conservation of momentum.
2) Therefore, it will tomorrow.

Do you see a missing premise? It's this:

1') The earth will continue to keep acting tomorrow as it has in the past.

Only, you have no way of knowing that.

I'll pray for all of us tonight. But it's past my bedtime, so off I go. Goodnight all.

What is the record, abgemacht? I am extremely curious.

@semck

No, it has nothing to do with the past. It has to do with what would be required to make it stop rotating.

What are the things:

1) An enormous object collision (unlikely because of all of our telescopes).
2) Some crazy, unexpected gravitational force (no reason to suspect that will happen)
3) Divine Intervention (No reason to suspect that either).


Look, I don't *know* that if I jump off a building I'll die, but if I tried it, I probably would.

Mujus, Caesar's crossing is supported by multiple sources, not multiple COPIES OF THE SAME DOCUMENT.

@Tolstoy

I don't know exactly, but there have been some serious flame wars in the past.

@abge,

"No, it has nothing to do with the past. It has to do with what would be required to make it stop rotating.

What are the things:

1) An enormous object collision (unlikely because of all of our telescopes).
2) Some crazy, unexpected gravitational force (no reason to suspect that will happen)
3) Divine Intervention (No reason to suspect that either)."

No no, you're misunderstsanding me. Your whole analysis assumes that you can count on the laws of physics. (1 and 2 are specific results of applying physical law). But physical law is not this thing that was handed down to us on tablets of stone. _All it is_ is generalization about the behavior of matter from the past to the future, on the assumption that matter always behaves regularly.

But what if it doesn't? I'm saying, what if the earth stops rotating _because physics stops working_? You'll snort no doubt, but not because you have an argument. The fact is, in your worldview, there is NO argument for why that won't happen. The continued applicability of the laws of physics is simply a bare assumption with no argument supporting it.

Semck, there is absolutely no reason to think it might, because it never has. If it ever does, then it because reasonable to take into account

*becomes

"Semck, there is absolutely no reason to think it might, because it never has. If it ever does, then it because reasonable to take into account"

@d31, that's begging the question. Notice that your argument ALREADY ASSUMES that the future is likely to resemble the past. That's exactly what's at issue, though, so you're just question-begging.

"But what if it doesn't? I'm saying, what if the earth stops rotating _because physics stops working_? You'll snort no doubt, but not because you have an argument. The fact is, in your worldview, there is NO argument for why that won't happen. The continued applicability of the laws of physics is simply a bare assumption with no argument supporting it."

First, I wouldn't say that there is "no argument supporting it" is correct. I think there being *no* record of physics ever stopping is pretty reasonable.

Now, overall I don't disagree with the above paragraph, but why should I live my life that way? If I were to live in fear of physics stopping, I wouldn't be able to function. Furthermore, if you follow your line of thought, one could say *anything* can happen. What if aliens attack? Am I prepared for that? No. What if zombies rise up? Am I prepared for that? Yes, but that's not the point.

Why should something that *might* happen, even thought it has never, never happened before make me want to believe in something that doesn't make any sense at all?

"A being, putin, is something that exists"

How does a being outside of space interact within space, and even magick himself as a physical being via Jesus Christ?

"Putin, there is WAY more legal-historical proof in sheer numbers of ancient documents that Jesus rose from the dead than there is for the fact that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, which is accepted history."

Not true.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/rubicon.html

There isn't even biblical support for the claim that Jesus resurrected.

"Now, I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Cor 15:50

Paul, the first account of this story, didn't indicate any resurrection. Paul uses the same word to describe Jesus's 'appearance' as Peter does for Moses at the mountain. Furthermore, Paul didn't even meet Jesus.

"Notice that your argument ALREADY ASSUMES that the future is likely to resemble the past."

We succesfully predict future events based on the past all the time. Scientific theory is entirely based on past observations. They would be of zero use to us if the rules are not fixed.

Maybe they're not fixed, but until something shows that to be the case, why assume not?

"First, I wouldn't say that there is "no argument supporting it" is correct. I think there being *no* record of physics ever stopping is pretty reasonable."

No, it's not. That argument only works AT ALL if we are assuming that the future resembles the past. That's what we're discussing, though. We can formalize your argument to make it clearer:

1) The past has always been regular.
2) So the future probably will be too.

There's a missing premise:

1') The future will resemble the past.

That, unfortunately, is exactly the conclusion we're attempting to show, so that fails.

"Now, overall I don't disagree with the above paragraph, but why should I live my life that way?"

Ah! But now you're admitting that there's no reason to believe anything at all, which is a very different matter. Why should you live your life any way? Why should you assume that the future WILL be like the past? Why not walk out in front of a bus, since you have no reason to believe one way or the other about what will happen?

The reason all this matters is that it shows that your worldview can't even support its own standards of reasoning. You criticize God for not giving you evidence of His existence, and then it turns out you lack evidence for everything you believe, and reason for your every decision. You're not holding your own beliefs up to the same standard you're asking of others.

Now, I'm not arguing that there is no such thing as reason. The very epistemelogical bankruptcy of your worldview is the reason you ask for to leave it.

If I was a doctor and was treating someone with all the symptoms of lung cancer, but decided this time it was probably lupus for no reason, my patient would die.

"There could very well be a God (or gods) hiding out in any of those 8 (of 12) dimensions our primitive scientists have theorized about but not yet explained or explored."

But according to all theistic accounts god is interested in *this* planet, so some evidence or effect of god should be felt here, not far far away in some other area of the universe.

I don't know. Does he? Does it matter?

@d31,

"Maybe they're not fixed, but until something shows that to be the case, why assume not?"

The question is, why assume so? The believer in physics, after all, is claiming a lot more than the physics sceptic. He's claiming that if he throws a rock in a particular direction, it will follow a very precise, predictable trajectory, for example. Well, there are millions of trajectories it COULD follow, or for that matter, it could just disappear, or hang there in midair, or turn into a flower. If you're the one making claims about what will happen, I would ask you, again, why assume SO?

If there was a God then how were the Raiders ever more Godly than their opponent in a Super Bowl? Or does God care about sports? If he doesn't care about sports what does God care and not care about?

"If I was a doctor and was treating someone with all the symptoms of lung cancer, but decided this time it was probably lupus for no reason, my patient would die."

Well, yes -- if the universe continued to be regular. The question is why you would believe it will (in your worldview).

Because I don't believe in something until I'm shown evidence for it. There is no evidence for the universe not being in steady-state, so why should I think otherwise? Perhaps my view is wrong, but at least it is consistent.

No physicist will claim the theories that allow him to predict that precise path to be certain to be true. It is simply reasonable to assume that they are, because there is no evidence to the contrary.

Science is not gnostic. There is no claim to truth.

"But according to all theistic accounts god is interested in *this* planet, so some evidence or effect of god should be felt here, not far far away in some other area of the universe."

I know science isn't your strongest subject, but if the mathematicians and physicists are right, those 8 unknown dimensions are interacting with us right now on this tiny planet of ours as we speak - we just can't observe their effects with our primitive 4-dimensional consciousnesses.

Consistently wrong?