Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 3:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 2:35 pmyou did not answer the actual question.

I did so.

Here is another prime example of what happens to one when they believe some thing is true.

They become absolutely CLOSED to anything else, even when it is the exact opposite, which is able to be proved, demonstrably, True.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 3:00 pm And you don't don't have a jot of evidence to show otherwise.

LOL

I have the actual proof to show otherwise.

Which is, obviously, irrefutable.

And, the funniest part of all of this is that it is 'your very own words' that show and prove that 'you' Wrong here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 3:20 pm cuz, obviously, somebody needs to know...

https://prowritingaid.com/proof-vs-evidence

In 'that link', which 'you' provided here, it states (in bold and underlined):
Proof and evidence have related meanings, but they are not the same thing. Proof proves something is true, while evidence is like a clue.

Which is, more or less, exactly what I have been saying, and pointing out, here.

It also states, (again underlined and in bold):

The difference between evidence vs proof lies in how conclusive it is.

But, even this is of no real significance. As, 'proof' is always irrefutable, of some thing, whereas 'evidence' is just 'a clue',s or just 'suggests', some thing.

See, it does not matter how 'conclusive' 'evidence' is, if 'that evidence' does not 'prove' some thing, then 'that evidence' will, obviously, always be 'just evidence', and 'not proof', of some thing.

However, and obviously, if the 'conclusiveness' of 'evidence' becomes so great, or comes to a point of being 'irrefutable', then 'that evidence', 'now', just turns into 'proof', itself. Which, obviously, no one could 'refute'.

I am not sure if this was hard or complex for anyone else to comprehend and understand, but I thought it was all just very plain old simple and easy to comprehend and understand.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 4:51 am

Is there anything in this lil anti-Quirk diatribe you wanna recast as a question?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 6:08 am

Is there anything in this lil anti-Quirk diatribe you wanna recast as a question?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 2:56 am

How do you think 'your words'; There's no evidence suggesting the universe is eternal. come across, to others, exactly?

Most folks get what I mean: there's no available evidence suggesting the universe is eternal. But you're not like most folks, are you, age?

In regards to 'what', exactly?

*sigh*

In regards to the nature of the universe (eternal or finite).

What evidence'?

The available evidence suggesting the universe began.

light reflection from the sun is indeed 'evidence' also that the sun revolves around the earth, as well. But, does the sun revolve around the earth, to you?

No.

Would you like to discuss how it was 'THE MISINTERPRETATION' by some people of what the 'red shift of some galaxies' is what has led people like you to assume or believe that the Universe, Itself, began "henry quirk"?

Sure.

are (you) not open to the fact that 'red shift' could 'mean', or even just 'indicate', something else entirely, or even opposingly?

As I said in response to a similar question elsewhere in-forum, many moons ago...

I am open, with the proviso: information, knowledge, and those who convey either, none are created equal. So, not any or every bit of new information, knowledge, nor every conveyor of either, is worth listening to. Also, that new information or knowledge has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge. A popinjay with the latest new & shiny won't be accepted just becuz he or his wares are new. I'll assess it, see if it works, if it fits, or if it over-turns.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 3:00 amit is 'your very own words' that show and prove that 'you' Wrong here.

Get to it, then: prove me wrong.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 3:08 am

Again, somebody needs the primer...

https://prowritingaid.com/proof-vs-evidence

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 1:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 2:56 am

How do you think 'your words'; There's no evidence suggesting the universe is eternal. come across, to others, exactly?

Most folks get what I mean: there's no available evidence suggesting the universe is eternal. But you're not like most folks, are you, age?

LOL This one, still, cannot yet see that when one claims something like;
'There is no evidence for ...', then this implies that the one making the claim knows all knowledge and information.

Most open adults understand this fact.

Also, what are 'folks', to you, exactly?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 1:49 pm

In regards to 'what', exactly?

*sigh*

In regards to the nature of the universe (eternal or finite).

Eternal.

As already proved True, Accurate, and Correct.

Sigh, it is like this one is absolutely completely blind and deaf here.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 1:49 pm

What evidence'?

The available evidence suggesting the universe began.

light reflection from the sun is indeed 'evidence' also that the sun revolves around the earth, as well. But, does the sun revolve around the earth, to you?

No.

Therefore, what is so-called 'evidence' for some thing can be absolutely False and Incorrect. As I keep informing you, but which you have so far appeared not to be able to comprehend, and understand.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 1:49 pm

Would you like to discuss how it was 'THE MISINTERPRETATION' by some people of what the 'red shift of some galaxies' is what has led people like you to assume or believe that the Universe, Itself, began "henry quirk"?

Sure.

Great.

As the red shift data is showing how some galaxies are moving away, then this does not mean that the Universe, Itself, is expanding, as some human beings have misinterpreted the red shift data to mean, indicate, or suggest.

The blue shift data showing how some galaxies are moving closer verifies that the Universe, Itself, is not expanding.

Are you able to follow, accept, and agree with this?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then we can proceed here, right?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 1:49 pm

are (you) not open to the fact that 'red shift' could 'mean', or even just 'indicate', something else entirely, or even opposingly?

As I said in response to a similar question elsewhere in-forum, many moons ago...

I am open, with the proviso: information, knowledge, and those who convey either, none are created equal. So, not any or every bit of new information, knowledge, nor every conveyor of either, is worth listening to.

So, this means that if you do not consider a "conveyor" is with listening to, then no matter how good, True, Right, Accurate, and)or Correct the knowledge or information that 'that one' is conveying you are not just not going to listen to it any way. So, what do 'you' decide upon, exactly, if a "conveyor" is with listening to, or not?

For example, am 'I' worthy of being listened to, by 'you'?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 1:49 pm Also, that new information or knowledge has to trump an aggregate of old, tested, information and knowledge.

What do you base the 'ability of trumping' on, exactly?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 1:49 pmA popinjay with the latest new & shiny won't be accepted just becuz he or his wares are new. I'll assess it, see if it works, if it fits, or if it over-turns.

But only if you 'choose' to 'listen', first.

Obviously, 'you' will decide if 'the other' is even worthy of listening to, before the 'other' might even get to any bit that would accept and agree with. And, obviously, if what is being said does not align with your own personal 'current' beliefs, then you would listen to that so-called "unworthy conveyor", right?

So, what are you basing your own 'current' knowledge and beliefs on, exactly?

you have already shown and proven that some of your 'current' knowledge is very faulty, and very False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

So, you would have to agree that some of the 'old' knowledge and information, which you 'currently' have, could be changed and swapped out for 'new/er' knowledge and/or information.

Oh, and by the way, one cannot, actually, be open while there are 'provisos'. Being 'open, with provisos' is oxymoronic.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 1:51 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 3:00 amit is 'your very own words' that show and prove that 'you' Wrong here.

Get to it, then: prove me wrong.

So, when you claim, 'it is there', and I then ask you if you will back up and support this claim and belief of yours, you do not but respond with some thing instead like, 'it is there', this is all perfectly fine and okay to you, in a philosophy forum. But, now, you 'expect' me to back up and support my claims.

Just out of curiousity, can you see any hypocrisy here, on your part?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:10 am

what are 'folks', to you, exactly?

People.

As already proved True, Accurate, and Correct.

No, it hasn't been.

Sigh

Imitation is the best flattery.

If no, then why not?

Almost all galaxies are observed to have redshifts. The universe is expanding. However, galaxies are also moving around in the universe. Gravity works on all scales, and it is always attractive. Gravity causes smaller galaxies to move toward larger ones. Meanwhile, galaxies in clusters are orbiting the center of mass of their cluster. Groups of galaxies on scales of millions of light-years across move together in bulk flows toward the most massive clusters and superclusters. These motions cause additional redshifts or blueshifts (red if they are moving away from us, and blue if they are moving toward us).

When we measure the redshift or blueshift of light from distant galaxies, it is the sum of the cosmological redshift and the Doppler shift (either red or blue) from their peculiar motion relative to us. In the nearby universe, light travel times and cosmological redshifts are relatively small, so sometimes the peculiar motion “wins” and we observe some galaxies with blueshifts. -from Astronomy magazine

But, if yes, then we can proceed here, right?

Not much point considering what I posted above.

So, what do 'you' decide upon, exactly, if a "conveyor" is with listening to, or not?

If he's an obvious nutjob, I may listen, but will be hard-pressed to believe.

For example, am 'I' worthy of being listened to, by 'you'?

I listen: I'm hard-pressed.

What do you base the 'ability of trumping' on, exactly?

Reason and common sense.

obviously, if what is being said does not align with your own personal 'current' beliefs, then you would listen to that so-called "unworthy conveyor", right?

I disagree with everything you post; am certain you're a nutjob: but here I am, listening.

what are you basing your own 'current' knowledge and beliefs on, exactly?

Available information, reason, and common sense.

you have already shown and proven that some of your 'current' knowledge is very faulty, and very False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

No, I haven't.

you would have to agree that some of the 'old' knowledge and information, which you 'currently' have, could be changed and swapped out for 'new/er' knowledge and/or information.

Didn't I already say that? Lemme check... Why, yes, I did!

Being 'open, with provisos' is oxymoronic.

No, it's not.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:10 am

what are 'folks', to you, exactly?

People.

As already proved True, Accurate, and Correct.

No, it hasn't been.

LOL Once more this one comes across as though it actually believes that it actually knows, already, what has, already, been proved, and has not been proved, to absolutely everyone else.

This one is reacting like those who believed that the earth was in the centre of the Universe, Itself.

While they were believing what they were, when one saying some thing like, 'Actually the earth revolves around the sun and this has already been proved True, Accurate, and Correct', there would have been 'those', just like "henry quirk", who were believing that this could not be possible, and so things like, 'This has not been proved True, Accurate, and Correct'.

Obviously, the actual Truth is very different to what some 'currently', (want to), believe is true.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am

Sigh

Imitation is the best flattery.

If you say, snd believe, so, right?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am

If no, then why not?

Almost all galaxies are observed to have redshifts. The universe is expanding. ]

LOL
LOL
LOL

Obviously ' this one' is absolutely closed here.

Again, this is because of its 'currently' held onto beliefs here.

What this one is showing and revealing here is exactly what those ones were doing who had 'current' beliefs that the sun revolves around the earth, when they were also exposed to a Fact, which was contrary to their 'currently' held onto belief.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am However, galaxies are also moving around in the universe. Gravity works on all scales, and it is always attractive.

Obviously, except on a universal scale. Well according to your 'current' beliefs and claims here

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am Gravity causes smaller galaxies to move toward larger ones. Meanwhile, galaxies in clusters are orbiting the center of mass of their cluster. Groups of galaxies on scales of millions of light-years across move together in bulk flows toward the most massive clusters and superclusters. These motions cause additional redshifts or blueshifts (red if they are moving away from us, and blue if they are moving toward us).

But, absolutely ALL 'expanding', right?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am When we measure the redshift or blueshift of light from distant galaxies, it is the sum of the cosmological redshift and the Doppler shift (either red or blue) from their peculiar motion relative to us.

Exactly.

Which helps in explaining where and why 'the misinterpretation' is 'a misinterpretation'. But, you are, obviously, not even open to the fact that there could be one.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am In the nearby universe, light travel times and cosmological redshifts are relatively small, so sometimes the peculiar motion “wins” and we observe some galaxies with blueshifts. -from Astronomy magazine

So, once again, any thing that counters, shows, or reveals a 'contrary' view or position, to a 'currently' held belief, is then called and classed with some word like 'peculiar'.

you people, back in those olden days, when this was being written, were very funny to watch and observe your attempts at 'justifying' your completely, obvious', False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect views, assumptions, and beliefs.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am

But, if yes, then we can proceed here, right?

Not much point considering what I posted above.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Again, what 'we' have here is another prime, and pure, example of just how closed "believers" really were.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am

So, what do 'you' decide upon, exactly, if a "conveyor" is with listening to, or not?

If he's an obvious nutjob, I may listen, but will be hard-pressed to believe.

LOL

So, again, this one decides, beforehand, if another is worthy or not to listen to, before it has even listened and heard what the other has to say.

The one here known as "henry quirk" could not present more irrefutable proof of just how closed one can, and does, become while they are holding beliefs.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am

For example, am 'I' worthy of being listened to, by 'you'?

I listen: I'm hard-pressed.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you just proved that you do not listen, from what you, literally, posted above.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am

What do you base the 'ability of trumping' on, exactly?

Reason and common sense.

Again, this one, laughingly, bases it's views and beliefs off of its own views and beliefs, only.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am

obviously, if what is being said does not align with your own personal 'current' beliefs, then you would listen to that so-called "unworthy conveyor", right?

I disagree with everything you post; am certain you're a nutjob: but here I am, listening.

LOL you appear to have not heard a word I have said, and meant, here.

In fact you are being living proof, demonstrating what I have been saying, and revealing, here

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am

what are you basing your own 'current' knowledge and beliefs on, exactly?

Available information, reason, and common sense.

So, if when the one informing others, in the beginning, that, actually, it is the earth that revolves around the sun, instead of the other way around, and you were there, then what would you believe?

And, what would have you based that 'current' beliefs on, exactly?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am

you have already shown and proven that some of your 'current' knowledge is very faulty, and very False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.

No, I haven't.

Said, exactly, like Truly deaf, blind, and closed one would.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am

you would have to agree that some of the 'old' knowledge and information, which you 'currently' have, could be changed and swapped out for 'new/er' knowledge and/or information.

Didn't I already say that? Lemme check... Why, yes, I did!

Yet here you are believing, absolutely, what you are, and the exact opposite.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:41 am

Being 'open, with provisos' is oxymoronic.

No, it's not.

LOL

Again, this one could not be more closed, even if it was trying to be.

So, thank you "henry quirk".

This one believes that the Universe is expanding, and so it will not listen to the proof that the Universe is not expanding, just like those who believed that the earth is at the centre of the Universe, would not listen to the proof that the earth is not at the centre of the Universe.

These, closed, people, in the olden days, were the exact same, for the exact same reason.

As this one here is proving irrefutably True, for me.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 12:37 pm

If you say, snd believe, so, right?

Hey, I just quoted (kinda) Charles Caleb Colton.

But, absolutely...expanding', right?

Yep.

you do not listen

Uh, what? I'm sorry, I wasn't listening.

what would you believe?

The evidence, reason, common sense.

it will not listen to the proof that the Universe is not expanding

Sure I will: offer some.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 6:20 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 12:37 pm

If you say, snd believe, so, right?

Hey, I just quoted (kinda) Charles Caleb Colton.

But, absolutely...expanding', right?

Yep.

you do not listen

Uh, what? I'm sorry, I wasn't listening.

what would you believe?

The evidence, reason, common sense.

it will not listen to the proof that the Universe is not expanding

Sure I will: offer some.

But you just proved, absolutely, that you would not listen to absolutely any of it.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 8:28 amBut you just proved, absolutely, that you would not listen to absolutely any of it.

So you say.

Nevertheless: here I am, waiting for you to offer some.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 10:46 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2024 8:28 amBut you just proved, absolutely, that you would not listen to absolutely any of it.

So you say.

Nevertheless: here I am, waiting for you to offer some.

But, to you, the Universe is, absolutely, expanding. So, how could absolutely any proof exist, for you, that the Universe is not expanding?.