ORLY? God is so "great" that such a question can't apply. Asking such a question is expressing ignorance more than simply saying something like, "God is way beyond my understanding."
So your god is so awesome and way beyond your understanding, yet you continue to claim to know quite a bit about what he wants? Do you not see the fallacy in that? You need to first recognize that God exists. Then, maybe you can start to think about finding the info and understanding about Himself that He provides for people. Since you don't even want to accept that God exists, how can you even fathom the idea that He speaks to people through the Bible? That's why you mistakenly think that there is fallacy in what I understand about God.  So, this is what you're suggesting: 1) First, just assume God exists without any reason whatsoever. 2) Take some arbitrary evidence and try to explain it in terms of God, which you have simply assumed to exist without any good reason. 3) When the explanation seems plausible enough, call this evidence proof for God. Finally, your question at the end is ludicrous: Since you don't even want to accept that God exists, how can you even fathom the idea that He speaks to people through the Bible? Answer: Wise people need a reason to believe in something. Why? Because there are an infinite number of things to believe in for which there is no evidence. There is no good reason to "fathom" that God speaks to people through the Bible if they don't have a good reason to believe in God. Your continued attempts to justify your belief in God are ass-backwards. You don't do *any*thing to prove God exists. All you do is assume God exists, and then you try to explain all things in terms of your assumption. The icing on the dunce-cake is that you believe these arbitrary correlations are actually evidence or proof for God. They're not. Not even close. |
|
|
|
Machine-like nature of the universe. All around us, in nature and the universe we see machine-like operations. These operations are extremely complex inside life and the cells. Machines have makers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMn319zkZ2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2rZS59xSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao9cVhwPg84Machine usage is in progression. Animals use simple machines. Some primates (apes, chimps, monkeys) use rocks and sticks to work their food. The leverage they provide with the rocks and sticks is machine use. People use simple machines. People make and use complex machines. All machines that people and animals make and use come from examples of machine operations in the universe. The progression is that, as the machines that people make and use are far more advanced than the ones that animals make and use, so are the machines that exist in nature far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker - God. Machines have makers. So you consider life and cells to be machines. And you consider that these machines can make other machines. What made the machine you call God? Using this logic, everything is made by something else, and it would go on forever. Where does it stop? Are we to accept that God is exempt from the logic you use in this argument? You may respond with something along the lines of "God is the beginning of this progression, the thing that created the universe, and he existed for all time." Well, if there IS in fact an beginning to the progression of machines creating machines creating machines, why can't it be the Universe itself? What if it does not need an intelligent creator and it has existed forever - since time is only extant in the universe it effectively could have existed forever even considering the Big Bang theory. What's even better, is that we know the universe exists and it can be proven by conventional science (so far as proving that anything effectively exists could do). Making things with a specific design in mind is more on the human/advanced animal level, but the universe can certainly create, through the extant and provable laws of physics and semi-random processes. Keep in mind that in the current scientific view, the world is at least 4 billion years old, and the universe much older yet. Just considering the fact that matter and the laws of physics exist, you would expect SOMETHING to happen in all that time. For all we know, there could be a set of "machines" somewhere else in the universe that is far more advanced than what we call "life". If I were to have a God to account for the universe, it would be the universe itself - matter, energy, and the laws of physics and other fundamental scientific/mathematical laws (maybe even some we haven't discovered yet) - not a sun god, not a lightning god, not a judgemental god that focuses on abstract ideals like good and evil, or even a loving god that watches over each and every one of "His children" and listens to their prayers (of course choosing which ones to answer according to His will alone). Referring to emboldened section: Actually it doesn't need to lead to an infinite regression. The problem with the machine analogy isn't that it leads to an infinite regression, but rather that it's simply an invalid analogy that results from an inductive fallacy. The machine analogy is a suggested proof (albeit a bad one) for the existence of God, but the fact that it likens God to a machine-maker in the first place means that the argument assumes both the existence of God and how God is defined. In other words, the whole argument puts the cart before the horse by using knowledge of God's existence and definition to prove God's existence and definition. This implies that knowledge of God's existence and definition was known prior to the machine argument in the first place, and therefore must have been derived from some line of reasoning other than the machine argument. |
|
|
|
And I show you why it certainly doesn't, here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg11177435#msg11177435Would you stop going about like you know what atheism and science are? At 251 pages into this thread, you still don't know what they are. Atheism is one of the weakest religions. It is weak because it doesn't even recognize that the people who are adhering to atheism are setting themselves up as God. The evidence I have shown here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, which is enough proof for many people, is almost infinitely stronger than any evidence against the existence of God. Thank you for giving me the push to post this. If you're thanking me for posting what you do, please don't. I don't want to be held responsible for your catastrophic misunderstanding and intellectual dishonesty. And again, atheism isn't a religion. From Wiki: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities... Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist." And there you go -- atheism is not a belief system. It's the lack of religious position entirely. The "absence of belief that any deities exist" is not the same as "a belief that no deities exist." Phrased another way, if theism is "a belief that a deity/deities exist," then it's inverse is "no belief that a deity/deities exist," and not "the belief that no deity/deities exist." I think you should stop pushing. It's coming out as diarrhea. |
|
|
|
Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:
An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).
Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.
That doesn't disprove god. God could of started evolution and then stood back and watched what happened. Well it would completely dispel the creation story as known in nearly all religions. Believing in god and believing in religion are completely different things. I think they're wholly linked. Religion is based on the worship of a god. In the Christian religion for example, if we can delink the creation story from any direct intelligent creation, would that not essentially deflate the entire structure of the religion? At least the parts that maintain any divine intervention. What did god do other than create man and the world? Essentially nothing. Merriam-Webster expressly defines religion as believing in and worshiping a god. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religionBuddhist and the like are technically atheist; nor is it a religion. Misguided individual may think it is, but by definition it is not. Well it is possible to believe god, but not believe in a religion. As usual, Fluffer Overblow is kinda backwards in his thinking. religion
[ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
"6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice." Are you really dank in disguise? After all, dank did a lot of his posting from his phone just like you. You have two problems, here. First, neither science nor atheism meet your selected definition. Science is not a belief system, it's a methodology. Ethics and moral conscience are not in any way directly linked to either science or atheism. Atheism isn't a belief system, either. It's the lack of any theistic belief system. A lack of a certain kind of belief is not necessarily a belief itself. You would be better off trying to argue that Empiricism, not science, is a religion according to definition #6. Empiricism is a belief system -- specifically, it is the belief/theory that a certain type of knowledge can be gained through sound empirical exploration. Science is an empirical method of exploration, not a belief system itself. So, you're still wrong. Second, by selecting definition #6, you make a false analogy because you most often treat Christianity according to religious definition #1. This means that you aren't talking about science or atheism in the same way that you're talking about Christianity. This is a logical fallacy: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm |
|
|
|
Is this supposed to be a real discussion or some troll thread? You can't really find scientific proof for something like this to not to exist. If there is no proof that it exists then it should be assumed that it does not. What one can do is explain how the Bible and whole religion is messed. As an example take praying. We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. What will happen when we pray? Nothing. I'm not exactly sure from which part this is but I know that it exists "Ask and it will be given to you". If we all ask for cancer to be cured it definitely will.  If there is no empirical proof for something that is logically necessary, it is sound to believe in it despite the lack of physical evidence. Logical proof supersedes empirical proof in all cases. |
|
|
|
There are thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers from census data:
...
And here are a couple of the weakest ones, so weak that they aren't usually even understood to be religions: science (in the broader sense) atheism The god of both of these religions is man. What an ignorant god man is, especially when he practices these two religions while not understanding that they are religions, and that he is the god of these religions. Neither atheism nor science are religions because they do not meet the definitional criteria of a religon. You're going off into fantasy-land again. Atheism literally means "lack of belief in God," so it's just stupid to say that "the god of these religions is man." You're even further off-base with regards to science, which isn't even a belief system whatsoever; it's a method. |
|
|
|
Both sides are presenting the same argument that eventually leads to what we deem "theory"
Are they fuck the same argument. You're simply demonstrating your ignorance about the meaning of the scientific term, 'Theory'. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. A scientific theory is rooted in an hypothesis which is still considerably superior a starting point as it requires a reasonable basis for formulating it in the first place. The theist 'theory' you are alluding as being equal to that which is borne of objective processes, is the layman's meaning of the word, 'theory', which is equal to, "Hey, I have a theory about [insert arbitrary claim here]". Which is not at all the same thing and is usually less a sound theory and more wild speculation. "Well-substantiated" doesn't mean fact. Often the "well-substantiated"ness of a theory is something that only the proponents of that theory can understand. And it comes about by belief rather than by observing all kinds of opposite and potentially opposite ideas, that would be theories of strength - maybe even fact - if only the theorists had a desire to make the opposites into theory. Theory has its place. It's called the fictional stepping stones into reality... provided it is proven. If it isn't proven, it remains theory, and is relegated to the realms of fiction, mostly science fiction. The evidence I set forth in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 produce fact in the minds of those who don't want to simply ignore them because they have the desire to ignore God. A theory is simply a description of something. If you open a dictionary and read the definition of "apple," the definition is a theoretical understanding of the apple. The same applies to all other definitions. Your belief that God exists is also a theory due to its descriptiveness. Further still, all facts are theories. However, not all theories are facts. |
|
|
|
Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:
An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).
Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.
Intelligent Design is not inverse to Evolution. Accordingly, proving either to be true does not implicate the other to be false. |
|
|
|
Peer review places science into the realm of scientists. However, ... I don't totally understand, but it is true that most people alive today and certainly most who lived in the past 10,000 years believed in some kind of God and would agree with you. I know that is one of the arguments; "There must be a God because so many believe in a God." It does bring up the question of which God. So many religions contradict one another and that makes it even more unclear. Is it Ahura Mozda, Yum Kimil, Ganesha? There are thousands of Gods and each has it's devoted followers who believe with all their heart that their God is real. Are they all correct or are they all wrong? If asked I think many of them would say that only they are right and all other Gods are the product of a delusional mind. This is why logic, math and science have taken over the world and is replacing religion as a dominant philosophical paradigm. It is not subjective and belief has nothing to do with it. 1+1=2 no matter who or where you are. The Earth goes around the Sun even if the Bible says it does not. It does not depend on a vague notion or "sense" of Gods presence. Those things are simply not universal in how they are experienced. When a Hindu cries at his transcendent experience of mystical joy is he delusional? Or when I stand in awe at the wondrous mysteries of nature is that different? I don't know. To state it directly, most of the major scientific theories...are science fiction at the same time that they are part of the scientific method. No, they are not a part of the scientific method. A method is a method. Theories are conclusions, not methods. Consequently, there is no "science fiction" here. The scientific method is valid, and the theories you mentioned are conclusions derived from that method. It then follows that these theories are also valid (i.e. in an empirical context, and so long as the method was properly executed). Since theories are not necessarily fact, they are part of the process of scientific method for determining fact. In other words, theories aren't conclusions. Rather, they are delusions that are stepping stones in the proof process. No, theories are not a part of the process for "determining fact." That's what the experimental method is for. Yes, theories are conclusions. Do you know where you find theories in an academic paper? In the conclusion section. No, theories are not delusions. Theories say, "Based upon the current data, this is the best explanation." In an academic paper, the theory/conclusion is surrounded by as many caveats as is possible, and it is always assumes a margin-of-error. I have no idea where you get "delusional" from when the scientific method demands that one recognize its own limitations, and then blare those limitations constantly. |
|
|
|
Just wondering if there is any. Saw the other thread, and it had tooo many kind of, well, "proofs".. Disclaimer: I believe in God. This thread is created just out of curiosity.  Not logically or theoretically possible for there to be any. /thread. |
|
|
|
Peer review places science into the realm of scientists. However, ... I don't totally understand, but it is true that most people alive today and certainly most who lived in the past 10,000 years believed in some kind of God and would agree with you. I know that is one of the arguments; "There must be a God because so many believe in a God." It does bring up the question of which God. So many religions contradict one another and that makes it even more unclear. Is it Ahura Mozda, Yum Kimil, Ganesha? There are thousands of Gods and each has it's devoted followers who believe with all their heart that their God is real. Are they all correct or are they all wrong? If asked I think many of them would say that only they are right and all other Gods are the product of a delusional mind. This is why logic, math and science have taken over the world and is replacing religion as a dominant philosophical paradigm. It is not subjective and belief has nothing to do with it. 1+1=2 no matter who or where you are. The Earth goes around the Sun even if the Bible says it does not. It does not depend on a vague notion or "sense" of Gods presence. Those things are simply not universal in how they are experienced. When a Hindu cries at his transcendent experience of mystical joy is he delusional? Or when I stand in awe at the wondrous mysteries of nature is that different? I don't know. To state it directly, most of the major scientific theories...are science fiction at the same time that they are part of the scientific method. No, they are not a part of the scientific method. A method is a method. Theories are conclusions, not methods. Consequently, there is no "science fiction" here. The scientific method is valid, and the theories you mentioned are conclusions derived from that method. It then follows that these theories are also valid (i.e. in an empirical context, and so long as the method was properly executed). |
|
|
|
Page 248, still waiting to see this scientific proof? It's hilarious that only one single sentence of *common academic knowledge* invalidates the entire thread: Empiricism by definition can only explore and conclude upon what's observable (i.e. that which is physically constrained) and so it is axiomatically impossible for empicism to explore God (which is totally unconstrained by common definition). So many things said in this thread, so much time wasted. |
|
|
|
Gliese 832 c, for example, is described as a Planetary Class - warm superterran, Habitable class - mesoplanet, scoring a 0.81 on the Earth Similarity Index and it's only 16.1 ly away. No need to reach (referring to my Star Trek Warp speed chart) Warp 1 for that. We could make it there on an impulse cruise within a human lifespan! Who's in?
Only 16 light years! The human body can only accelerate so fast. How would you like to spend 40 years (20 speeding up, 20 slowing down) pressed into your seat at maximum acceleration? Remember we can't get anywhere near the speed of light - the more energy we apply the more gets converted to mass. We have the technology to get fairly close to light speed (at least greater than 1/2 light speed) if scaled up. Unfortunately, we don't currently have the resources to do it, despite the ability. |
|
|
|
This is only half of the story. Bitpay processes bitcoin one way, btc to fiat. There is an increase in volume in processes going the opposite way, fiat to btc. For example exchanges, ATM, government bitcoin auctions.
I'm waiting for more paychecks. |
|
|
|
|
I date women with too much baggage. Once, I knew a girl with so many bags that I went to help carry one of them, and she was inside.
|
|
|
|
|
I think they wrote this article about 12 months too late.
This article gets my vote for the Captain Obvious award.
|
|
|
|
I say so.
Definitive proof ^^^^^ that neither side can 'prove' anything.
Something as complex (the doctors can't fix the kid, yet he exists) and wonderful (the kid is feeling so much joy in life that he moves ahead rather than pining away, looking for suicide) as life, shows that the design was intelligently done. Since the design is way beyond man's understanding (doctors can't cure the kid; people still live only for a max of a little over 100 years), this shows the existence of God, by the definition of the word "God." The fact that the kid and others (all of us) have problems in life shows that there is intelligent design that is way ahead of man, that is not God, that causes destruction. We call this malevolence the devil. The fact that the kid (and most of us) is overcoming the wicked work of the devil, shows that God is alive in us and is more powerful than the devil. We live only a relatively short life. God is not leaving us here without salvation from problems and pain. God is offering us through the words of the Bible, a means for salvation. When this life is done for us, it is absolutely done for us. Even if someone thinks there is reincarnation, no reincarnated being has ever returned in a way that is the same as what it was when it left this life. Therefore we don't really know that there is reincarnation. God tells us in the Bible that when this life is done, it is done. There will come a time that God will destroy this whole universe because of the corruption that the devil placed into it. But, because of the love God has for us, He has designed a new universe where no corruption will be able to enter. He invites us to join Him in that new universe by accepting the work of salvation that Jesus, God's Son, did for us on the cross. Accept or reject. Your choice. Life or death. Your choice. If you choose death, because of how deeply we are imbedded in this universe (way beyond the simple understandings of man), your real death (soul death; identity death) will be absolutely the exact opposite of fun. And it won't be God's fault, because He is offering you salvation as explained in the Bible. Proof for God? See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395. All that is interesting. But does not provide 'proof'. If there is such a proof, it is not in the bible, it is not in commonly held beliefs, it is in the commonality of experience described by those that claim to have been 'touched' or 'born again' or whathaveyou. That has gone on since time began and continues to this day. No question, no doubt. But is that even 'proof'? not solid, irrefutable proof, no. There are many others who accept it as proof. Your choice for you. The "proof" is not complete in every way. We probably couldn't understand the proof if we saw it all, it is that deep and complex. Because of this, most of the religions talk about having faith. Bible explains that faith is the most important thing for joining God in the new universe. What is faith? Faith is seeing that God exists (not blind faith), and accepting that He speaks the truth, trusting that He is not lying. Stuff exists. There is NOTHING that explains where things come from that has more provable foundation than the idea of God. Certainly, when you look at the FACTS in scientific papers, they don't explain FACTUALLY any method for the existence of stuff. They have lots of THEORIES, but little fact. God is the best explanation that overcomes any other that we have so far. Maybe maybe not in terms of being able to 'understand' proof. In terms of the existence of matter, it is difficult to explain away the appearance of matter from nothing, although taking that a step further then, how it is possible to explain the existence of a God that created it. Where did it come from then? What I know is that mankind knows precious little about the universe and thinks he has a lot of it figured out. We have a long way to go before we can posit much of anything. Like critters crawling out of the oceans on questions such as these. I call BS on the emboldened section. Logic is a predicate for truth. We have full access to the rules and limits of logical reasoning. These rules and limits are knowable independent of experience, and therefore constitute 'a priori' knowledge by definition. Being able to know and posit truth is not dependent on 'how far we go,' nor is it dependent upon how far we've come. It's simply about being able to form true statements based upon known, logical predicates. This is why you see a philosophical basis for modern scientific knowledge in ancient texts from literally every part of the globe. For example, from a purely logical basis, the Buddhists had an acute awareness of fundamental, elementary particles, as well as an awareness of relationships between physical and metaphysical components: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_atomismNo scientific method, no microscopes, and yet their knowledge is eerily similar to our modern day understanding of the interplay between physics and metaphysics. This isn't a coincidence. The scientific method is utterly dependent upon pure philosophical reasoning, and in fact could not function whatsoever without a purely philosophical foundation that is in no way rooted in empiricism (but rather is rooted in the total absence of empiricism, and necessarily so -- see Hume). Furthermore, if a philosophical model or theory reconciles contradictory empirical theories (and they are numerous), the philosophical model wins by default. Keeping all else equal, philosophy > empiricism, which makes perfect sense since empiricism is only a philosophical subset. |
|
|
|
Longevity just for the sake of it is unappealing. Our bodies age, nothing to stop that. Have you seen a 90 or 100 year old? Would you want to live 9 times longer? Even so, people aren't always so adaptable. You see older people already "lost" with tech, mainstream culture, etc, as they're in the mindset they were in decades ago. Imagine if those people (who are, likely, most of us too) lived a thousand years but we're stuck in their ways from centuries earlier.
Besides which, the chances of one reaching 120 are nearly minuscule. Till we see more reaching that plateau and exceeding it, why should we think this generation will wildly exceed it?
We can already do full hand transplants. There seems to be (as of yet) no theoretical limitations for a full body transplant. Give it a decade or two. |
|
|
|
Buffett's analogy of bitcoin to checks is completely flawed, even he should know the difference. Notice that he did not compare bitcoin to actual fiat money (fiat money being the most direct form of value transmission) which does have immediate, relative value, but no "intrinsic value" per se.
Buffett hates gold as well, which agrees with his argument of having little intrinsic value, but yet gold dumbfoundedly continues to climb in value relative to fiat money decade after decade. Go figure.
Buffett acts as if companies like Coca-Cola will be with us FOREVER. They won't.
I don't think it's a flawed analogy. First, let's make checks analogous to Ripple transactions, then compare BTC to Ripple. Ripple is essentially a more convenient way of passing around checks. In the Ripple network, XRP the on-network currency, was designed specifically to have a low value because the currency is really just there as a transaction 'lubricant,' so-to-speak. The value of XRP needn't be valuable lest it be redundant. It's simply a mechanism that facilitates the transfer of value in the form of IOUs (like checks). Both the Bitcoin network and the Ripple network serve similar purposes -- to provide a more effective means of transferring value. The fact that BTC as a currency is intended to also function as a store of value (unlike XRP) doesn't necessarily mean anything. Just because something is intended to be a certain way doesn't mean it will actually be best suited for that purpose. It doesn't matter whether BTC is worth $1 or $10,000 -- the network maintains its purpose regardless of the value of BTC. To this extent, it can certainly be argued that BTC isn't inherently very valuable. Checks, and also the BTC and XRP networks, all serve the purpose of transferring value (or debt entitlement...whatever). All three can serve this purpose just fine without a valuable on-network currency. Adding my two cents, I think there actually 'is' inherent value in BTC, but this value wouldn't be recognized by Buffet anyway because it's something that's extremely difficult to quantify. To the rest of the world, a socially accepted form of currency that is not dependent upon 3rd-party trust *is* very valuable to many people. Buffet has no need for such a thing. |
|
|
|
Prove your thoughts and emotions exists, wait, we can't.
All we can do is map the EM activation patterns in the brain to show us physical correlates to such emotion / thought.
The same is with the Source.
Science is just beginning to understand with the "Heisenberg uncertainty principal" which ironically shows us matter reacts to our awareness of it, wouldn't this be deemed more "certainty"?
As to "prove" god exists, that's like saying prove that this picture of a 3d sphere I drew on a 2d piece of paper is a sphere.
It isn't a sphere, it is a 2d representation of a sphere. The same is how we perceive "deities" from a 3d earth.
Some concepts extend beyond the abilities of the logical mind,
Viz.
I like this post. Although it's somewhat semantic, I've coined a phrase: "What one knows, he cannot prove. What one can prove, he cannot know." The reason I say it's somewhat semantic is because I'm talking specifically to claims made at a 100% level of confidence. I can say, "The Sun feels warm" and know that claim to be true, so long as I directly experience the sensation of warmth from the Sun's rays. However, there is no way to prove to someone else that the warm sensation exists. I could take a thermometer and measure the temperature of the Sun's warmth and determine that it is "warm," relative to something else, but this just means that we are substituting evidence which indirectly suggests the Sun's rays are warm for the direct knowledge of the Sun's warmth experienced first-hand. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
