Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 10:30 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 14, 2022 7:57 amLOOK, ONCE AGAIN, 'evidence' is NOT PROOF.

That is not in dispute, but if proof matters, can you give an example of one thing you can prove?

Yes

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 1:38 am

uwot wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 10:30 pm...can you give an example of one thing you can prove?

Yes

No.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 2:15 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 1:38 am

uwot wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 10:30 pm...can you give an example of one thing you can prove?

Yes

No.

So, do you BELIEVE I can NOT without waiting for ANY ACTUAL PROOF?

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:58 pmSo, do you BELIEVE I can NOT without waiting for ANY ACTUAL PROOF?

Here is the complete list of everything that can be proven:
1. That two things are equivalent
2. That a conclusion follows from some premises
3. That thought exists
1 and 2 are essentially logic and mathematics. 3 is the only empirical fact that can be proven. It is proven every time it is thought, because it cannot be thought without being true. If you think you can prove anything else about reality, you are wrong.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 9:25 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:58 pmSo, do you BELIEVE I can NOT without waiting for ANY ACTUAL PROOF?

Here is the complete list of everything that can be proven:
1. That two things are equivalent
2. That a conclusion follows from some premises
3. That thought exists
1 and 2 are essentially logic and mathematics. 3 is the only empirical fact that can be proven. It is proven every time it is thought, because it cannot be thought without being true. If you think you can prove anything else about reality, you are wrong.

Lol Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one who BELIEVES that they KNOW things WITHOUT checking FIRST.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 9:25 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:58 pmSo, do you BELIEVE I can NOT without waiting for ANY ACTUAL PROOF?

Here is the complete list of everything that can be proven:
1. That two things are equivalent
2. That a conclusion follows from some premises
3. That thought exists
1 and 2 are essentially logic and mathematics. 3 is the only empirical fact that can be proven. It is proven every time it is thought, because it cannot be thought without being true. If you think you can prove anything else about reality, you are wrong.

You really could NOT wait for ACTUAL proof BEFORE you BELIEVED that you KNEW what the truth is here. Which is REALLY quite funny considering what I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT here

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 7:12 pmYou really could NOT wait for ACTUAL proof BEFORE you BELIEVED that you KNEW what the truth is here. Which is REALLY quite funny considering what I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT here

As I said Age, only three things can be proven. Which of the three things that can be proven does your Truth fit? If it doesn't fit any of those, you can't prove it.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 7:34 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 7:12 pmYou really could NOT wait for ACTUAL proof BEFORE you BELIEVED that you KNEW what the truth is here. Which is REALLY quite funny considering what I have been SAYING and POINTING OUT here

As I said Age, only three things can be proven. Which of the three things that can be proven does your Truth fit? If it doesn't fit any of those, you can't prove it.

That thoughts exist.

IF you HAD WAITED, THEN you would NOT have been completely and utterly Wrong,ONCE AGAIN.

As I have been SAYING, and POINTING OUT, ASSUMING leads you people ASTRAY.

As PROVED True, ONCE MORE.

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 7:40 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 7:34 pmAs I said Age, only three things can be proven. Which of the three things that can be proven does your Truth fit? If it doesn't fit any of those, you can't prove it.

That thoughts exist.

So you agree with René Descartes, as anyone who knows the first thing about philosophy is bound to. You cannot prove anything that isn't already proven. You are just too ignorant to know that.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 7:58 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 7:40 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 7:34 pmAs I said Age, only three things can be proven. Which of the three things that can be proven does your Truth fit? If it doesn't fit any of those, you can't prove it.

That thoughts exist.

So you agree with René Descartes, as anyone who knows the first thing about philosophy is bound to. You cannot prove anything that isn't already proven. You are just too ignorant to know that.

What are you on about now? You asked me a question, I just answered it. Then, you ASSUMED some thing, which I just POINTED OUT and SHOWED was Wrong AND False.

As for your new CLAIM here now, that is; you can NOT prove absolutely ANY that has NOT ALREADY been proven, then, how could this possible be true, and work?

How is ANY thing proven to those that 'it' is NOT YET proven?

Like the Fact IS the Universe could NOT have begun. This IS ALREADY PROVEN, but OBVIOUSLY ONLY to some of us. There are OBVIOUSLY PLENTY like, "yourself", who are STILL YET AWARE of this IRREFUTABLE Fact. As you have ALREADY PROVED True.

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 10:57 pmAs for your new CLAIM here now, that is; you can NOT prove absolutely ANY that has NOT ALREADY been proven, then, how could this possible be true, and work?

One way is to follow the example of law - you prove things beyond reasonable doubt. But if that is how you build your metaphysics, you have to assume that reality is reasonable. Another model is that of empiricist philosophers and theoretical scientists who understand that every interpretation of phenomena is theory laden. As Descartes pointed out, all you know is the experience you have at any moment.

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 10:57 pmHow is ANY thing proven to those that 'it' is NOT YET proven?

It isn't.

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 10:57 pmLike the Fact IS the Universe could NOT have begun.

You can't even prove there is a universe.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 6:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 10:57 pmAs for your new CLAIM here now, that is; you can NOT prove absolutely ANY that has NOT ALREADY been proven, then, how could this possible be true, and work?

One way is to follow the example of law - you prove things beyond reasonable doubt. But if that is how you build your metaphysics, you have to assume that reality is reasonable.

If this is how you build your ASSUMPTIONS, then you have to LEARN and KNOW that you could end up being TOTALLY Wrong AND Incorrect. Just like you are here, now.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 6:23 am Another model is that of empiricist philosophers and theoretical scientists who understand that every interpretation of phenomena is theory laden. As Descartes pointed out, all you know is the experience you have at any moment.

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 10:57 pmHow is ANY thing proven to those that 'it' is NOT YET proven?

It isn't.

So, ONCE AGAIN, you have made a CLAIM here, and then end up REFUTING that CLAIM.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 6:23 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 10:57 pmLike the Fact IS the Universe could NOT have begun.

You can't even prove there is a universe.

I do NOT have to, to SHOW that the Universe NEVER begun, (that is; in the MISINTERPRETED VERSION of 'begun' that you and “others" use here.

Your CLAIM that the Universe BEGAN is just Wrong AND False, to BEGIN WITH. So, WHY do you PERSIST with this CLAIM?

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 6:13 pm...you have to LEARN and KNOW that you could end up being TOTALLY Wrong AND Incorrect. Just like you are here, now.

I am entirely comfortable with the fact that any interpretation of current data I presently find compelling might be undermined by future data. You on the other hand are committed to a belief that you cannot support with any evidence. Overwhelmingly, people who appear to be complete idiots turn out to be complete idiots. What can you offer to suggest you might be an exception?

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 7:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 6:13 pm...you have to LEARN and KNOW that you could end up being TOTALLY Wrong AND Incorrect. Just like you are here, now.

I am entirely comfortable with the fact that any interpretation of current data I presently find compelling might be undermined by future data.

Good because the current data absolutely refutes your present interpretation. As I have been informing you. Your interpretation is very misguided, as well as being just plain Wrong in other words

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 7:28 pm You on the other hand are committed to a belief that you cannot support with any evidence.

1. I do NOT believe ANY thing here

2. Your ASSUMPTION and BELIEF here has and will continue to PREVENT and STOP you from LEARNING and SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS here. That is; ALL the ACTUAL data, and evidence, leads to the VERY OPPOSITE of what you currently find compelling, or BELIEVE true here.

3. What I have said and claimed here I can and will back up and support with data, and IRREFUTABLE evidence. Which is obviously far more than you have done, or could do here

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 7:28 pm Overwhelmingly, people who appear to be complete idiots turn out to be complete idiots.

Are you even AWARE that it is YOU who is appearing to be the ACTUAL IDIOT here.

BELIEVING and/or CLAIMING that the Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING is as STUPID and as RIDICULOUS as BELIEVING or CLAIMING that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth. To BELIEVE and/or CLAIM that either of these things was true or that the data and/or evidence was compelling and pointed to these findings was the act of AN ACTUAL IDIOT.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 7:28 pm What can you offer to suggest you might be an exception?

YOUR OWN so-called current "evidence", BELIEFS, and CLAIMS here.

In other words YOU, and 'YOUR OWN WORDS’.

By the way, YOUR ATTEMPTS at RIDICULING and/or BELITTLING of “others“ here is as WEAK as your so-called 'evidence' for YOUR BELIEF here IS.

Age wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 2:05 am

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 7:28 pmI am entirely comfortable with the fact that any interpretation of current data I presently find compelling might be undermined by future data.

Good because the current data absolutely refutes your present interpretation.

Then you don't understand the data.