What is a fact?

Again, a subjective matter. What works for one, may or may not work for another. Unless I were in either the arctic or the antarctic circles, why would one suspect the water to not freeze in those areas during July? Sill of you to think otherwise.

Pride would be showing a trust in oneself as opposed to showing a trust in the one providing the ability to 'walk on water' (barring any Chris Angel techniques) and would subsequently cause you, me or anyone else to be likewise subject to those "laws of nature" which are controlled by the same source as that which would give permission to not be subject to such laws.

 

Here you go.​

 

Cute! You want to submit more personal and private opinions as an evidence of something of importance? WOW.

 

Then you really aren't demonstrating any difference between your belief and the established belief of the freezing point of water. And your experiment isn't too interesting.

... not making much sense here. But if you can demonstrate the ability to turn off those laws on demand, I'd love to see it and would consider you justified in taking pride in discovering new truths. Disclaimer, once folks figure it out, the laws will be updated.

 

Never claimed it as evidence, simply an illustrative parable. A shame you can't find wisdom in it. Makes me wonder how much you really respect the Bible.

 

The only difference between my belief and the "established belief" is that the "established belief" requires the use of arbitrary numbers in order to express the fact that the water is 'frozen'. By visual or other physical observation, one can just as easily determine that the water is frozen, subsequently concluding that the freezing point of water has been obtained. The water 'froze' at the point and time at which the water froze. The assignment of arbitrary numbers tells us nothing other than the matter of assigning arbitrary numbers.

Demonstrating for the purpose of satisfying your curiosity is not within the scope of the permissions granted for any working of God.

 

And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you in New York.

The freezing point of water is independent of the arbitrary scale used to measure it.

What ever measurment device you use .. that device will always record the same value under equivalent experimental conditions.

If the freezing point of water was arbitrary .. as you claim .. the value recorded would vary and this is just not the case.

 

Nonsence. There is no empirical evidence for many events in the Bible .. resurrection and so forth.

There is however empirical evidence for the fact that the freezing point of water is not arbitrary.

Independent observers conducting the experiment under the same experimental conditions will get the same result which proves independent verifiability.

There is no equivalent for most of the events of the Bible.

 

And it will always produce the same arbitrary number.... so what is your point of a return performance of the sos ? You have not proven anything other than that the numbers are arbitrary and any reading you obtain from using those arbitrary numbers are likewise arbitrarily founded. They mean NOTHING.

Who knows? Maybe tomorrow you will be able to hire an excavator to help dig you out of that arbitrary hole that you have placed yourself in.

 

If I hire an excavator to dig a hole to 6feet, and my neighbor hire's an excavator to dig a hole to 6 feet .. both holes will be the same depth.

Even though the numbers were chosen arbitrarily, the use of a these arbitrary numbers produces a "non arbitrary" result.

This is what you do not seem to understand.

 

Really, what is the one excavator has much smaller feet than the other excavator? Then what? How was the numbers for the "feet" (plural of foot) measurement developed? Once again, arbitrary numbers and yet another rationalization. You are performing exactly as anticipated.

 

Incorporeal opened a thread about the definition of the word 'fact', which is an arbitrary collection of four arbitrarily shaped letters and a part of an arbitrary language. In this case, that word is stored on a server, an arbitrary machine designed to rapidly crunch arbitrary numbers which are used to represent the word in an arbitrary way in an arbitrary database.

When something as precisely defined as the US customary foot, the Kelvin, Celsius, or Fahrenheit are used, however, Incorporeal objects. Any language involves many, many more arbitrary choices than a quantitative measurement in nature. The sheer number of languages spoken all around the world with their countless vaguely defined words are a reason to pause and question the whole point of this thread.

 

Let me give you a lesson in Logic 101.

"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies."

Making the assertion, no matter how many times you make it, is not proof of the assertion.

AND

Proving an assertion us the duty of the person making the assertion. I have only to say "the evidence presented does not prove the assertion."

That you continue to offer the assertion as evidence and demand proof of a negative indicates you are either incapable of understanding basic logic or that your purpose in the original assertion was to make a religious argument rather than initiate a logical discussion.

 

Who KNOWS the "truth" of this body and its inner workings better than me? Do you? I don't think you do.

Now, as for your lesson in Logic 101.... prove your claim.

BTW: This is the "Religion" section of PF. So re-read your closing statement.

 

I have made no assertion. You have.

It is up to you to prove the truth of your assertion.

As noted, "Proof by assertion" is a logical fallacy and does not prove "you believe".

But sinse you demand proof that you are not a believe...

http://www.ebiblefellowship.com/outreach/tracts/may21/

Is a claim that "Judgement Day" would come on October 21. 2011.

Their claim to believe is every bit as valid as yours.

Since on "Judgement Day" is that time when all "true believers" will be swept up to be with God it logically follows:

All true believers were swept up on May 21, 2011 to be with God.
You are still here posting on this forum
Therefore
You are not a true believer.

sorry to be the one to break it to you.

 

Ahh... Then you believe in the reality that this "Judgement Day" has come and gone? Where is your proof of that claim? If you have no proof of that claim, then you are using an argument of absurdity.

For further proof of your claim regarding that alleged "Judgement Day" announced by that group of people, What happened to those folks making the announcement? Hmmmm. They are still here also... Guess they were not true believers huh? Your claim and your leaning on a known false prediction as an authority on the subject matter, is the most ridiculous thing that I have heard anyone on this forum make. You do need a refresher course on fallacies.

BTW: Believing something is a subjective thing. The equivalent argument would be for me to challenge you to PROVE who you are. You don't really know. Why... because at the time you were born, your mental abilities were not developed enough to give you recall of those events, therefore, you have to lean on hear-say evidence to even guess who you are.

 

I did not make any claim regarding "Judgement Day", they did.

I simply drew the lines between their claim and yours

All "true believers" would be "swept up" on Judgement Day therefore
Anyone remaining is not a "True Believer."
You remain, therefore,
You are not a "true Believer."

The logic is....

All A is B
No C is B
Therefore No C is A

 

Sure you did. Your claim, based on that alleged Judgment Day is that I am not a "true believer". Now prove your claim. Also, meet the challenge I presented to you and prove who you are.

Forget all about the theoretical posturing of logic and get down to brass tacks. You said that I am not a true believer... now prove it.

BTW: Their claim has nothing to do with me, as I don't make claims,,, I only speak truth. Now prove that I am not a 'true believer'.

 

The proof is above.

You can choose not to accept it but your choice does not invalidate the proof.

Their claim to belief is as valid as yours. Their claim of "judgement day: is as valid as your claim of belief. What links you the claim that only "true believers" will be swept up.

Since both you and they are still here then it logically follows:

Neither of you are "true believers"; or
What both of you believe is untrue.

It adds up to the same thing.

 

The point of the temperature measurement is not to show water is solid or liquid (it's quite possible to have liquid water below 0˚C). Measurements like temperature or air pressure allow folks to more specifically communicate the conditions under which they observe liquid water to change to a solid. This means folks can share the specifics of the observation with each other and duplicate claims of which they're skeptical.

That ability to reproduce the results is really the difference between your belief and a belief based on atomic theory. Both beliefs are reasonable hypothesis, neither belief is actually proven -- but the belief based on atomic theory allows folks to reproducibly predict behavior. People reasonably have confidence in theories that reliably and consistently allow them to predict behavior, and this is what causes those theories to be more readily accepted. Numbers (measurements) are not required, they simply allow the theory to be more specific.

Theories that cannot be demonstrated or that are less reliable, like Peter's own attempt to walk on water, are less likely to be accepted. This does not mean they're not true, just less understood.

 

ROFL .... ha ha ha ..

This just keeps better and better.

I will definately save this post for furture use. This is a delusional or trolling all time high .. The folks at Guinness world records need to be called.

OK .. lets take this real real slow. Excavators do not use the length of their own feet to measure the depth of the hole.

Excavators use a standard unit of measure. The beauty of having this standard unit is that each excavator uses the same standard units of measurment !

This means that one excavators "foot" is exactly the same length as anothers so it a 6 foot deep hole will be the same depth regardless of whether the excavator lives in Mexico or in China !

The depth of a 6 foot hole is not arbitrary .. it is always 6 feet deep !

 

You have presented a lot of rhetoric to prove nothing more than your statement "Both beliefs are reasonable hypothesis, neither belief is actually proven ---". At least my theory can be reproducible without the aid of arbitrary numbers. When I look in the freezer or out the window and see that the water has frozen, then I know that the freezing point of water has been reached and then I further KNOW that I should wear a winter jacket outside and if the frozen water is in the freezer, I know that the container holding the frozen water will be cold. As for 'predictions'; here is one for you. Dealing with the outside environment; if it is cold of enough for the water to freeze, then the water will freeze. Or stated in another way: When it is cold enough for the water to freeze, then the water will freeze.

What I am not understanding is simply this: It has been admitted that the numbers on such scales are 'arbitrary'. Why is it that certain people on this forum refuse to accept that because the numbers on such scales are arbitrary that the results derived from such scales are also arbitrary? Very simple logic. Also why won't they directly address the former question, "can an apple seed produce a cucumber?" Well, the same logic applies to the arbitrary numbers on such scales. Those scales can only produce results that are expressed in those same arbitrary numbers. Therefore, the problem still exists that no-one KNOWS what the freezing point of water is other than to say that water freezes when the temperature is cold enough to freeze the water. That statement is not dependent upon any arbitrary number system or any particular scale, other than water freezes when water freezes.

As for Peter walking on water..... According to the story, there was more than two people to witness the event. For that matter, there is presently an entertainer (Chris Angel) who claims to levitate without any props (supporting equipment). Prove that he is not actually levitating without any props.

As for the requirement of numbers. Well, for a certainty, in electronics, the numbers are the foundation of what makes the systems work as designed. Screw with the numbers and the systems will not work properly, if they work at all after messing with the numbers. Are those numbers arbitrary? Yes! They also use scales (various electronic testing equipment) to ensure that everything is as planned. Even the very computer you and I are using and the ultimate language used inside the computer is reduced to nothing more than 1's and 0's in conjunction with some very precise timing (also based on arbitrary numbers). So you are wrong in that statement of yours about the requirement of numbers. Do you speak 'binary'? Do you think 'binary'? Yet the computer is totally dependent upon 'binary code'. Are those binary code arbitrary? In a manner of speaking, yes! Why? Because that binary code is merely a representation of either an 'on' or 'off' state or condition where 'on' is indicating the flow of electrical energy at a particular predefined level within a given device, and the 'off' condition is a representation of an absence of flow of electrical energy within a given device. Also, electronics also incorporates its own form of 'logic'. So when the term 'logic' is used on this forum, without specifying what form of 'logic', then the person who initiates such usage is not being very 'logical': in fact, the absence of such identification of the type of logic being referenced is perhaps the greatest form of 'logical fallacy'.

Now, back to the topic of this thread. What is a 'fact'?

 

The numbers -- the symbols associated with the first, second, third, and ongoing increments in a series -- are arbitrary. Call them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... or i, ii, iii, iv, v... it doesn't matter. The relationship between the first and third symbols is not arbitrary.

Processing those numbers is about understanding the relationship between the values represented by the numbers. As the values represented are not arbitrary, the conclusion is not. Regardless of which arbitrary numbering system you use.

That you can describe a resistor as 2.20 ohm or red red black black and get the same result demonstrates that which numbering system you use is not important, even arbitrary. Your example of the poor results using random values in constructing electronics demonstrates the values are not arbitrary, but have significance. ​

​

 

Give me a break dude. I was a bench technician for 20 years and then went on to get a degree in computer technology. Now if you want to play that silly little game of rationalization, then explain to the reading audience, the 'hole' theory that relates to transistors and and some other semiconductor devices. Better yet, explain why the linked list of flaws are in fact flaws in the Classical EM theory. The author of that list has a PHD in Nuclear Physics. So if you have a problem with his statements, then argue them with him.

Those numbers you reference are also based upon computations of other arbitrary numbers. Atomic Theory is just that Theory. It is still called theory for a very good reason.... and Einstein explains that in one simple little statement:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. (Albert Einstein)"

 

Of course it's a theory, I've said as much already in this thread. And yes, their is some uncertainty in any measurement and any calculation based on it. But I don't think you understand what Einstein was saying.

His comment was about the abstract nature of mathematics. There is no two "in reality." You can't reach out and touch a two or put one in your pocket. That doesn't mean the concept of two isn't valuable or can't be used to effectively describe things that happen in nature.

In the 1921 speech you are quoting Einstein was trying to answer his own question as to why [mathematics] "is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality." His caution was not to abandon mathematics, but to understand that they are a tool of the human mind which can be inappropriately or incompletely applied. His caution was that we must include human reason and experience in applying mathematics to reality. Rather than dismiss mathematics, he embraced it saying that it was "mathematics which affords the exact natural sciences a certain measure of security, to which without mathematics they could not attain."

Anyway, you asked a question and I answered it. The answer is while numeric symbols or names are arbitrarily assigned, while they can be arbitrarily applied to counting how many apples are in a bucket or how many lengths of a man's arm span a wall, the values they represent are not arbitrary. There is a right answer to how many Apples are in that bucket and -- with some uncertainty -- there is a right answer to how many cubits the wall measures. This is why logic expressed in calculations is not arbitrary and can be a reliable tool for predicting behavior. Just, as Einstein cautioned, don't confuse the useful model with the thing it represents.