LOL..too bad that argument doesn't hold up in court..
"No officer he only thought he saw me.."
"No officer he only thought he saw me.."
'God' is Impossible
- Thread starter SciWriter
- Start date
- Status
But that is exactly the argument that holds up in court.
The defence lawyer introduces other possibilities:
Are you absolutely sure it was the accused? Exactly the same hair cut? Height? Are you aware that 98% of this town's population fall within 1/2 an inch of his height? The man you saw committing the crime was, as you remarked earlier, in the shadows. How can you be sure it was the accused and not someone simply of a similar build? Etc. etc.
Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable and usually the last resort for evidence.
"My proof" exists. It exists in spite of any theories, ideas, conceptions or logical propositions I make about it.
In much the same way my sense of vision exists.
Proof for "the group" implies communication of ideas, which are not experiences because we can't communicate experiences directly. Therefore there is a fundamental difference between personal experience, which is direct evidence and does constitute proof of existence, and group agreement, which is "acceptable" proof.
My personal experience proves that I don't need to form any "acceptable" proof for myself; I DO NOT need to communicate this proof of existence to anyone.
The group agreement type of "objective proof" is about confirming that you aren't the only person who can see or hear, let's say. This is achieved with varying degrees of success, whereas the personal experience is reliable, repeatable and consistent. Logically then, personal experience is more fundamental. Whether you believe it is proof of anything is probably your own personal choice.
In much the same way my sense of vision exists.
I claim that my sense of vision provides sufficient proof that I can see things like sunsets. Personal proof is proof.Dwywddr said:
Proof for "the group" implies communication of ideas, which are not experiences because we can't communicate experiences directly. Therefore there is a fundamental difference between personal experience, which is direct evidence and does constitute proof of existence, and group agreement, which is "acceptable" proof.
My personal experience proves that I don't need to form any "acceptable" proof for myself; I DO NOT need to communicate this proof of existence to anyone.
The group agreement type of "objective proof" is about confirming that you aren't the only person who can see or hear, let's say. This is achieved with varying degrees of success, whereas the personal experience is reliable, repeatable and consistent. Logically then, personal experience is more fundamental. Whether you believe it is proof of anything is probably your own personal choice.
Last edited:
Only in your own mind.
And another fail in logic.
Except that what you see may not be the sunset as it really is.
Only to that person. I.e. not actually proof.
In other words you're now attempting to redefine the meaning of "proof" simply in order to sustain your claim that you have proof.
Which, by the way, is not forthcoming...
Never mind.
It's become quite apparent that there's no point continuing this.
try robbing a convenience store,then hang around for the cops..(assume you won't get a good lawyer)
What is "the meaning of proof"? Is it just what a group of people says it is?Dwywddr said:
That's just it though. You can't claim that what you see is "as it really is". So how do you know, if you're alone in the desert, that you have enough water. How do you trust your own eyes, since in your logical paradigm, you can't? How do you do anything "by yourself" in that case?
According to your paradigm, you have to consult with a group of people when you look at anything, or otherwise all you have is "personal experience", but you NEED proof. So what is this proof, and why isn't your own sense of vision sufficient cause to believe your own eyes?
Er, doesn't "hanging around for the cops" introduce corroboration?
One more try
At what point do you exclude personal experience, and substitute only "objective data".
When some other party reads the proof, if one is put together, how do they avoid the logical problem that seeing this proof doesn't constitute a proof of anything, they need to consult a group, none of which can look at this proof because that means they would be using something that proves nothing, to prove something?
Lest we forget:
Ok, let's say you have an objective measurement of wavelengths in the colours of a sunset.Dwywddr said:
At what point do you exclude personal experience, and substitute only "objective data".
When some other party reads the proof, if one is put together, how do they avoid the logical problem that seeing this proof doesn't constitute a proof of anything, they need to consult a group, none of which can look at this proof because that means they would be using something that proves nothing, to prove something?
Lest we forget:
Dwywddr said:
Squirrel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
http://criminaldefense.homestead.com/eyewitnessmisidentification.html
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm
http://lemmingsblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/unreliability-of-eye-witness-testimony.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm
http://criminaldefense.homestead.com/eyewitnessmisidentification.html
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm
http://lemmingsblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/unreliability-of-eye-witness-testimony.html
You'd get a reply if you actually did try instead of flailing inanely.
Maybe if you took a look at the links I just posted for Squirrel.
"No officer he only thought he saw me.."
let me try again..
too bad that argument doesn't hold up in the office, "but i didn't do anything Boss."
...
I don't need to look at links to know I can see.
I don't need to do anything to figure out that Dwywddr is ducking questions.
Obviously, he has the opinion that his version of logic is some kind of superior argument. But he's said nothing, and hasn't even presented a coherent refutation of what I've said. Bland dismissal etc, doesn't refute anything, but it does suggest that one is at a loss to provide a counterargument.
He's got nothing except what looks like unquestioning belief--the very same kind that he accuses me of having.
He's made one valid conclusion though: this is a waste of time.
I'm not going to waste my time explaining why I believe proof is something I can experience. Or why nobody can prove that this is not the case, like Dwywddr hasn't managed to do.
I don't need to do anything to figure out that Dwywddr is ducking questions.
Obviously, he has the opinion that his version of logic is some kind of superior argument. But he's said nothing, and hasn't even presented a coherent refutation of what I've said. Bland dismissal etc, doesn't refute anything, but it does suggest that one is at a loss to provide a counterargument.
He's got nothing except what looks like unquestioning belief--the very same kind that he accuses me of having.
He's made one valid conclusion though: this is a waste of time.
I'm not going to waste my time explaining why I believe proof is something I can experience. Or why nobody can prove that this is not the case, like Dwywddr hasn't managed to do.
Last edited:
Surely that depends on how rational the boss is*.
Put it this way (personal anecdote): I was there when a trained military pilot misidentified an aircraft in bright sunshine at a range of less than half a mile.
People get it wrong about what they see all the time. It's not unusual to be mistaken.
Or are you telling me you've never, ever, in your life been wrong about what you've seen? Never had a second look and slapped yourself on the head while thinking "D'oh, how could I have missed that?"
And on those occasions when you did get it wrong (assuming you have) have you thought that it was extraordinary? Or just normal?
* On the other hand one of my colleague's favourite work jokes was to stick his head into the boss's office and say "You wouldn't sack me for something I haven't done would you?"
And get the reply "Of course not!"
Mate: "Good. 'cos I haven't done any work today".
Yet one more instance of arrogance.
Yet one more deflection.
And an assumption that there's different versions of logic.
Too rich! You won't check links and you accuse me of being at a loss...
:roflmao:
If you were even halfway rational of course, it would be a different story. But...
Ha ha. I know something you don't.
i understand this..for the individual.
um..your talking to the poster child for DBS..(Dumb blonde Syndrome) i gotta rethink everything to decrease the chances of missing something..
DBS IS normal for me...
i have been the guy who gets blamed and fired..(more than once!grrr.)
Are we not all individuals?
That's why we go for corroboration and hammer out exactly what we've seen.
There was an experiment televised in the UK years ago where an adult class were witnesses to their tutor being assaulted while in the classroom - in front of ~30 witnesses.
The most profound thing for me was when they got to sit and talk about it what they saw. They got on to hair colour of the attacker.
Blond! Brown! Sort of grey, but mostly brown! Until one guy said bald. They all went "Huh?" and he ran them through it carefully. One by one they thought about it and it was "Now that you mention it..." and after half an hour it was nearly unanimous: the attacker was bald.
Then they were introduced to the a guy who did the "attack" and told it was an experiment. The guy had a full head of hair and the one who had suggested "bald" was a plant. Specifically introduced to see if, and how much, people changed their "reliable" memories in the face of stubborn assertions to the contrary.
Every single one of them was shocked beyond belief.
BTW it was a psychology class, and they at least, got the point.
Heh. The only time I got hauled into the office for "doing something wrong" I had written proof - in the boss's own handwriting - that I'd only done as he'd told me, under protest. I've never seen him so mad, especially because it was in front of his boss.
This is a good one, too:
It's in my consiousness too, and I'm aware of it at the same time.
Thoughts are in my mind too; thoughts are not the experience I'm talking about, which as I've said has nothing to do with thinking. Like how the taste of an orange has nothing to do with a spoken or written word, in English or any other language.
Yes, of course it's 'only' in my own mind. The only place that matters.Dwywddr said:
It's in my consiousness too, and I'm aware of it at the same time.
Thoughts are in my mind too; thoughts are not the experience I'm talking about, which as I've said has nothing to do with thinking. Like how the taste of an orange has nothing to do with a spoken or written word, in English or any other language.
chosenbygrace
Registered Member
Someone didn't read the Bible before arguing against it and is repeating a decades old argument that has been repeatedly refuted...
There are even two Genesis versions in the Bible stating what God created, their order even differing.
Some would have it as fact and truth that there are invisible going-ons throughout space and beyond as God and His realm.
- Status