• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

P implies P

watsup said:
“Anything is possible” is just a nonsense statement that leads nowhere. It’s like “belief”. Anybody can “believe” absolutely anything without an iota of real evidence.
Click to expand...

FFS, where did he write "anything is possible"? He didn't, you even quoted him as if he did! what's wrong with you people...
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
In which case you'd actually be saying the totally valid "Seeing a cat is evidence that a cat exists" or "Hearing a cat is evidence that a cat exists" but not "A cat is evidence of a cat".
Click to expand...
Nope. The existence of the cat is evidence of the existence of the cat. It’s the Identity property. For every field I can think of the Identity property is a fundamental axiom. I’m not sure why you think it is invalid.
 
watsup said:
“Anything is possible” is just a nonsense statement that leads nowhere. It’s like “belief”. Anybody can “believe” absolutely anything without an iota of real evidence.
Click to expand...

You do know that before scientists found the atom, they imagined it. As a matter of fact, the first historical mention of the word atom came from works by the Greek philosopher Democritus, around 400 BC. I doubt there was any scientific theories around then, just pure speculation.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I'd like to hear what others think of statements like "The universe is simply evidence of the universe" (with the intent of conveying that is cannot be, is not evidence of something else).

I regard this as a meaningless statement (in the sense that it's vacuous, conveys no information) or even a misuse of the term "evidence".

I regard the term as only meaningful when in statements like "X is evidence for Y" X and Y are different.

Discuss, is the phrase ever meaningful or is it in and of itself an invalid use of the term "evidence"?
Click to expand...

I am no logician, but “P implies P” could be what logicians call a tautology. Those are not false statements, by definition.

But “P implies X”, on the other hand, is not a logical statement. Logically, it could be true or false. The only way it can be decided if it is true is empirical (and no, not through faith). “The universe implies God exists” is one such statement.
 
pinqy said:
Nope. The existence of the cat is evidence of the existence of the cat. It’s the Identity property. For every field I can think of the Identity property is a fundamental axiom. I’m not sure why you think it is invalid.
Click to expand...

No I'm afraid your wrong, you cannot exclude reality here, reality is your perception that a cat exists, without using your perception you cannot have any awareness that there is a cat.

Evidence is a relationship between different things not the same thing.

As for "the identity property" I have no issue with that, but the way you'd express that in English in this case would be "a cat is a cat" NOT "a cat is evidence of a cat"
 
grip said:
You do know that before scientists found the atom, they imagined it. As a matter of fact, the first historical mention of the word atom came from works by the Greek philosopher Democritus, around 400 BC. I doubt there was any scientific theories around then, just pure speculation.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure that this means anything. Science has made huge advances since then and the peer review methodology of today’s science makes it extremely reliable.
On the other hand, the God believers basically remain the same: they claim that something is “unknowable” through science and then say “so it MUST be God” that is the cause.
Science advances, “belief” basically remains the same.
 
Quag said:
Your reply to it ignored that part
Ill try again
P is evidence of P
It may be a redundant statement but it is true
Click to expand...

But it is not true because the term "evidence" is a relationship between different things not the same thing!

As I just explained to pinqy "P is evidence of P" is invalid English, just write "P is P" because that's what you mean, isn't it?
 
watsup said:
I’m not sure that this means anything. Science has made huge advances since then and the peer review methodology of today’s science makes it extremely reliable.
On the other hand, the God believers basically remain the same: they claim that something is “unknowable” through science and then say “so it MUST be God” that is the cause.
Science advances, “belief” basically remains the same.
Click to expand...

More strawmen and wishful thinking, you will of course be unable to quote any theist in this or other threads who has said:

"something is unknowable through science and so it MUST be God that is the cause."

You've been pulled up before for this dishonest practice, if you want to honestly critique what someone has said then quote what they actually said not what you wish they had said, attack what they said not what you pretend they said.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
More strawmen and wishful thinking, you will of course be unable to quote any theist in this or other threads who has said:

"something is unknowable through science and so it MUST be God that is the cause."

You've been pulled up before for this dishonest practice, if you want to honestly critique what someone has said then quote what they actually said not what you wish they had said, attack what they said not what you pretend they said.
Click to expand...

“Science can not explain where the materialism of the universe came from, so it MUST be God.”
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
But it is not true because the term "evidence" is a relationship between different things not the same thing!

As I just explained to pinqy "P is evidence of P" is invalid English, just write "P is P" because that's what you mean, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes you have made that claim, it is up to you to back it up
I see no reason why it is invalid at all
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Evidence is a relationship between different things not the same thing.
Click to expand...

From Dictionary.com
Evidence:
  1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
  2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
    His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
  3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
So again, while a tautaulogy, a cat is evidence of a cat is not an invalid statement.
 
pinqy said:
From Dictionary.com
Evidence:
  1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
  2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
    His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
  3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
So again, while a tautaulogy, a cat is evidence of a cat is not an invalid statement.
Click to expand...

How does that help you? did it say

"His flushed look was visible evidence of his flushed look"?

did it say

"His fever was visible evidence of his fever"?

A cat is a cat is acceptable, but a cat is evidence of a cat is for fools.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
How does that help you? did it say

"His flushed look was visible evidence of his flushed look"?

did it say

"His fever was visible evidence of his fever"?

A cat is a cat is acceptable, but a cat is evidence of a cat is for fools.
Click to expand...

The universe is evidence for God is for fools.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
FFS, where did he write "anything is possible"? He didn't, you even quoted him as if he did! what's wrong with you people...
Click to expand...

The “Evolution or not?” thread is awaiting your arrival back in the Belief and Skepticism forum. You initially made a lot of statements that seemed to indicate your objection to evolution, but you seemed to back away when challenged to give some reasoning. We’d still like to hear it. If there is actually any, that is.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
How does that help you? did it say

"His flushed look was visible evidence of his flushed look"?

did it say

"His fever was visible evidence of his fever"?

A cat is a cat is acceptable, but a cat is evidence of a cat is for fools.
Click to expand...
So the one example doesn’t show a tautology and that invalidates the actual definitions which clearly allow for it? The definitions do not say evidence has to be for something different. That’s usually the case, but not necessary.
 
pinqy said:
So the one example doesn’t show a tautology and that invalidates the actual definitions which clearly allow for it? The definitions do not say evidence has to be for something different. That’s usually the case, but not necessary.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find it is necessary, especially if you were a prosecution lawyer, you'd face an uphill struggle telling a jury that the dead body is compelling evidence there was a dead body or that the sound of a gun being fired is incontrovertible evidence that there was the sound of a gun being fired.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I think you'll find it is necessary, especially if you were a prosecution lawyer, you'd face an uphill struggle telling a jury that the dead body is compelling evidence there was a dead body or that the sound of a gun being fired is incontrovertible evidence that there was the sound of a gun being fired.
Click to expand...

You’d have a more difficult time telling the jury there was a dead body without being able to show the dead body. Or that there was a gunshot sound that nobody heard.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I think you'll find it is necessary, especially if you were a prosecution lawyer, you'd face an uphill struggle telling a jury that the dead body is compelling evidence there was a dead body or that the sound of a gun being fired is incontrovertible evidence that there was the sound of a gun being fired.
Click to expand...

I think that you would face an uphill battle if, as a lawyer, you tried to ask the jury what evidence they would accept before presenting it to them. In fact, the judge would kick you out of the courtroom for incompetence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom