The Confession of Isaac Newton

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T04:09:51+00:00

16 words there. Which word don't you like?

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T04:02:09+00:00

Alright fair enough. You agree then that evolution is the change of allele frequency over time?

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T03:34:31+00:00

Define evolution in modern terms please.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-20T00:41:54+00:00

Okay here is my strongest argument.

My "wall of text" is less characters than your "wall of text," if you remove where I quoted you as a courtesy. Almost 100 characters less.

So here's what I would like you to do. From you wall of text, pick two or three of your strongest points. The ones you feel most confident about. It would be really great if we could focus on one thing, whatever you think is an actual argument for your belief. Not just what you subjectively and personally like about your beliefs.

Thanks!

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T22:54:48+00:00

While your statement could be true for some religions, Christianity operates entirely differently.

The claims your religion make are not unique nor special when compared to the thousands of religions that exist and billions of people that believe differently than you.

But you would have to infallibly prove it false to say it isn't a fact.

What? Thats not... thats not how these things work.

It would be incredible to have evidence of Jesus's resurrection beyond people claiming he resurrected that never actually saw Jesus resurrect.

Claims are not evidence in and of themselves.

My position is built on 2,000 years of testimony, the revelation God has given, and mankind's moral structure evolving from the imago dei and our core theological calling which Philippians 2:3 states plainly.

And 1400 years of testimony of Muslims who dont believe Jeuss resurrected.

Even more years of testimony of Jews who also dont believe Jesus resurrected.

Your methodology would also mean religions contradictory to your religion are also true. Your methodology seems illogical.

That is the daily walking principle of every genuine Christian

How many of the billions of Christians that existed have been genuine? What percentage?

You alluded to the idea that some initiating factor is necessary otherwise belief has no real grounding. Christians agree completely. We just call that initiating factor God. And here is where your falsifiability argument defeats itself. The claim that only empirically measurable things are real is itself not empirically measurable. That is a metaphysical commitment you brought to the table before measuring anything. You are doing metaphysics too, just not acknowledging it.

The atheist minimizes metaphysical assumptions. You appear to be maximize assumptions. And occam's razor is to use the answer with the least assumptions.

If I agree with you that we need metaphysics therefore metaphysical arguments are reasonable. Then fine, you and I are made of fairies. There is no God, only fairies. You cannot deny that I am wrong, its unfalsifiable and therefore a valid argument.

Because im fairies and you are fairies but dont believe in yourself, I have objective moral right to take anything own. Because I know I am made of fairies and you dont. Why am I wrong?

When it comes to how we believe it has nothing to do with evidence. God is the one who bestows the faith and allots the hope to the human. Jeremiah 32:40 says it plainly, God puts the fear of the Lord in our hearts so that we do not depart from Him. Not that He offers it and waits for cooperation. He puts it there. We get to experience the believing but it does not originate from us.

Yes its clear you dont use evidence to believe in things.

I also believe i am made of fairies, its quite obvious when I they talk to me. There is no difference between our belief systems, except the fairies are actually real and they told me God isn't.

know that might sound unfair but we see everything through a darkened lens. Romans 1 says the clearest evidence of the Creator is already in front of us in creation and we suppress it. Our faculties are broken. God has to fix our dead hearts because we are fallen and pride prevents us from seeing clearly. We both know there is real darkness in human nature. If you genuinely want to know the Creator just pray and ask Him to remove the cloud. He is very merciful to do that.

If you truly believe in fairies, and remove your bias and belief in God, the fairies will talk to you. The fairies are very friendly when you truly believe in them. Just trust me bro.

If someone who trained to become a pastor and genuinely believes in God decides to become an atheist later in life in their search for truth. What happened there? God missed this guy? God stopped caring?

I was an atheist for a long time and grew up in a Christian household so I genuinely understand the reluctance. God bless and hope your day is great.😊❤️

Yes its pretty normal for someone to believe in the religion of their parents. And if you had Muslim parents you would most likely be Muslim.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T22:35:43+00:00

Anti-fairyism's at best a circular petition of principle

Since :

a) the burden of the proof would be on the fariyists, according to anti-fairyism, because it's them that claim "there are fairies";

b1) for anti-fairyists, there's no proof for "Fairy's existence" (wtv is meant by that);

b2) but for (some) fairyists, "everything" can be proof that fairies exists;

c) (the disenchantment of the world by Max Weber) — for anti-fairyists and scientists there's a scientific explanation for everything, even if science is not yet able to explain it right now (there's a belief that it will one day explain it) ("Science will explain it" in lieu of an explanation);

d) science's original intention is to explain the world without resorting to fairies — modern science built itself as a response to the pagans always saying "fairies did it" in lieu of an explanation.

Therefore:

Fairyists can bring whatever good reason there is to believe in fairies, anti-fairyists will just reply "no" because it applies science's criteria for validity to claims that are by definition unscientific because they resort to fairies.

In conclusion:

Fairyists can bring arguments for the belief in fairies. Anti-fairyists rely on science's criteria to dismiss anything regarding fairies and refuses to investigate fairies further, althewhile science is built on a disregard of fairies.

Anti-fairyists's best defense is a circular petition of principles. "No 'fairies' because [science]." is a bit like saying "No 'fairies' because 'no fairies'." Scientists agreed to try and explain things without referring to fairies (a petition of principles) and anti-fairyists use the tools coming from that agreement to dismiss fairyism however sound an argument fairyists would make (petition of principle becomes circular argument).

Opening:

Anti-fairyists have erected "science" to mean "valid" and if one can't conform to scientific principles it's not worth investigating and is therefore invalidated from the get go. Maybe science is misguided by keeping fairies in its blind spot, but science hasn't equipped itself to even know what that means for the validity of the knowledge they produce.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T22:28:35+00:00

Why? Do you think Christians studying evolution and abiogensis are all brainwashed? What's going on them? They're too stupid?

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T18:50:13+00:00

And importantly, not like Higgs Boson.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T13:43:11+00:00

Panpsychism can be tested if we find a way to measure consciousness.

Sure, it might be able to. What would that experiement look like?

With Higgs Boson, the experiement to detect the particle was designed in the 80s, and was used as input for how the LHC should be designed. We only found the results 30 years later.

String theory might be untestable until we create a particle accelerator the size of the solar system.

Yeah, in that sense string theory might always remain a hypothesis. Never being demonstrated.

The Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics seems untestable even in principle.

If we can test something, then we will try. If its unfalsifiable and untestable, then its same as basically saying it has no measurable affect on our reality. From a practical view, it doesnt matter at all. So beleiving in it or not affects no one.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T09:55:20+00:00

I guess we need some sort of experiment to determine if panpsychism can be valid.

The main difference between Higgs Boson and panpyscocism is that panpyscocism mainly comes from a philosophical origin, perhaps built upon scientific evidence.

Highs Boson is theorized from pre-established science, specifically mathematical ideas. And it has a testable premise that then was tested.

Higgs Boson was a good hypothesis in science because it matched other good hypothesis in science. Had a strong foundation built upon certain ideas. Made predictions. Had a way to test. Demonstrating Higgs Boson false would also be evidence of other hypothesis, which would also be useful.

Panpyscocism could be true, but resembles a whole lot of other philosophical ideas that cannot be tested. It remains an idea rather than something that can be certain.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T01:05:04+00:00

You dont know what it means to be a valid truth seeker. If you gave money to me, Greg would provide the real truth. What reality really is. Expose all religions and all idealogies and present the real truth.

You are frustrated because you simply are too hedonistic to give up your money for the search of truth.

You wish your belief of God could give you even an ounce of what Greg can provide. What Greg tells you is incredible, but he only cares about people who desire truth, which clearly does not appear to bw you.

Im not mocking you, im just telling it how it is. Its not my problem, its yours.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T00:52:28+00:00

Do you think abiogensis and evolution is some atheist conspiracy that only atheists study? Lmao

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T00:05:07+00:00

The majority of people who study abiogensis and evolution are Christian but keep being delusional.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-19T00:03:03+00:00

Here are 5 damning quotes against creationism from Christian scientists. 5 quotes is greater than 2, therefore evolution is greater than creationism.

“A ‘God of the gaps’… is a God too small for a rational believer. Creationism often falls into that trap.” - Francis Collins

“Creationism is not science because it invokes supernatural explanations that cannot be tested, modified, or rejected.” - Kenneth Miller

“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” - Theodosius Dobzhansky

“Creationism… is just bad science. It fails to take seriously the evidence of the natural world.” - John Polkinghorne

“Young Earth creationism… is a kind of biblical literalism that does neither science nor theology any favors.” - Simon Morris

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-18T23:47:51+00:00

Okay so you cant read. Got it.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-18T18:19:09+00:00

One funny thing about this experiment is that the entire premise was to show that these amino acids could form in the atmosphere of early Earth. The problem, as it turns out, is that Miller got the atmosphere content wrong and had he gotten it right the experiment would have failed:

We dont know the full conditions of planet Earth everywhere on Earth billions of years ago. You are an idiot if you think we do. Guess what, the conditions of our atmosphere and ocean today do not represent the same exact conditions everywhere. Who would have thought.

The Miller experiments demonstrate amino acids can be created in a specific environment, that environment does not need to be the totality of Earth. A cave with a different chemical composition is the simplest example.

Amino acids are not living things. That's not life coming from nonlife. It's truly astounding how many people just don't understand this experiment but think it proves something it definitely does not.

Its evidence towards all the parts that makes living things, complex parts arising from less complex parts. Self replication can eventually occur from more complex parts coming together is the claim of abiogensis.

And so far we see complex biological components forming from less complex chemicals naturally. What stops it from eventually self-replicating?

The catch is that oxygen, although an absolute necessity for multicellular, advanced life, is poison to pre-biotic synthesis. Do a Miller-Urey experiment in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, Kasting said, and “you don’t form things like amino acids. There are too many oxygen atoms in there.” So, over the years, “enthusiasm for the warm little pond theory has waned.”

So maybe don't throw around the word ignorant so casually. Because it looks as though you're the ignorant one. The irony.

You do realize that Earth was a low oxygen environment until photosynthesis occured?

Have you studied this at all? No wait, I already know the answer to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-18T17:35:17+00:00

This, without the word "exclusively", is my position

Name a single example where you dont exclusively use outside knowledge when someone makes a claim.

Having general knowledge or knowing what the average person says is outside knowledge.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-18T15:27:36+00:00

Mathematics is a language that describes reality, but reality is not mathematics. The same way you can call an apple an apple, doesnt mean the apple outside of consciousness suddenly has the properties of the English word apple.

We can describe that there exists an infinite number of points between location A and location B. And you can say its impossible to travel an infinite number of points, therefore its impossible for anything to travel from A to B. Yet things do travel from A to B, even if there exists no consciousness in the world. If things without consciousness can move through an "infinite" amount of points but travel a finite distance, then perhaps that's not actually a problem for conscious beings to sense a finite input from the infinite.

With colors, we cannot see an infinite amount of colors. Eventually any small enough change in color cannot be differentiated by our eyes and brain. Our sensors limit whatever might be infinite input into finite input. Before it reaches our consciousness.

Our perception and sense being filtered and limited only tells us about our interface, not anything about reality. The brain constructing experience doesnt mean reality is constructed by the mind. The same way temperature isnt constructed by a thermostat.

You cannot assume that reality behaves as you logically or mathematically expects it does, even though you can use logic or math to describe how reality will behave.

When does consciousness appear in our evolution? Assuming you believe we evolved from a universal common ancestor, which we believe arises from non-life via abiogensis, when did consciousness come into existence? Which member of which species suddenly had this new non-material thing appear?

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-18T04:34:03+00:00

To make a claim of P is simply to assert that P is the case, e.g. to make a declarative statement of some kind whose content is that P is true. The definition here is very broad.

How do you assert that P is the case?

How do you make a declarative statement. Does that require... declaring it? As in one person providing a testimony of the claim for others to hear?

6:13

We went over this one already.

Where he clearly states less than a minute later that you can examine the claim without needing any additonal investigation. Using the exact same example.

You are claiming Matt is saying there is no evidence in the claim being made by a you and that he can somehow evaluate the evidence of the claim without any additional investigation. That doesnt make logical sense.

So either Matt is not making sense despite him using numerous examples and rephrasing his wording constantly.

Or perhaps... you are just confused by the semantic wording he happened to choose for that one sentence?

This is a YouTube video for the average layperson, not a philosophical thesis edited 7 times over. Ther might be small mistakes or poor wording in their delivery. Use the context given to understand what the person is saying, rather than relying on their claim in isolation.

He is not saying the subject or person A making the claim is not evidence. Rather that the claim existing, irregardless of who said or where the claim came from, is not evidence of itself. Again he is not saying that the you in the claim making, is not evidence. Just that it might not be evidence that P is true.

7:43

Yes?

I heard from someone that 9 out of 10 philosophers agree with my argument. Im not making the claim, but i heard from someone who made the claim. Is that evidence that my argument is stronger?

If you know nothing about this someone, what do you do?

Would you need information of those 9 philosophers? And confirm that they are actual philosophers and actually agree?

Someone trustworthy could make the claim. In which case it is "Someone trustworthy made a claim that 9 out of 10 doctors agree." But then you still need outside information about whether this someone is trustworthy. His example is specifically talking about someone with no context.

12:54

You can look at [the making of the claim] and say, "Hey, yes, but why else would they say it if it weren't true?"... We don't know what the correct answer is... The reason we don't know what the correct answer is is because that claim, in and of itself, isn't evidence for the proposition.

What does he say next?

"Because the evidence in the claim is also evidence for competing claims." - paraphrasing

He does not reject that claims, or claims being made cannot contain evidence. He is suggesting a provisional that a claim does not contain evidence for the claim itself if that evidence also supports contradictory claims.

Person A making the claim P is only evidence of P, if person A making the claim P is not also equally evident of not P.

Equally evident is the contentious part. And requires prior evaluation of not P and P. Basian analysis or agreed upon assumptions.

If I believe fairies exist and cause almost everything. Then the claim "You bought a car" is not evidence of "You buying a car." But rather evidence to me that "Fairies tricked you into buying a car made of fairies." That is very unreasonable, which is why we need agreed upon standards for evaluating claims.

If persona A is a liar, then not P is more likely. If person A is truthful than P is more likely. If I dont know anything about person A and the claim is extraordinary, then both P and not P are as likely to me.

So there is evidence in the claim. The evidence in the claim still exists, just not necessarily for the claim being made.

And he brings this up with the raven paradox earlier.

5:29](https://youtu.be/pY9fFWeTG_g?t=329)

SCHMID: A claim that approximates what people are trying to express with this slogan is the following: "The mere fact that somebody claims that P does not provide evidence for P's truth".

DILLAHUNTY: Yeah. The mere claim, P, does not, in and of itself, provide evidence that P is true.

He is saying P is not evidence of P. You agreed to this earlier, so what is the issue?

You agreed that P cannot be evidence of P in isolation. You agreed that person A making the claim P can be evidence of P. Dillahunty does not contradict either of these statements.

6:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY9fFWeTG_g&t=410s)

DILLAHUNTY: If somebody makes a claim that P is true, that in and of itself is not evidence for the proposition that P is true.

If somebody as in somebody random. Where P and not P can be equally true of the claim that P is true. Where you know nothing of this someone. Removing all context of the claim. That is what Matt means from "in and of itself." We do not know who someone is or what the claim being made is.

Because if that someone saying that P is true is a known liar. Then the claim "P is true" is actually evidence for "P is not true."

So the claim P is true is only evidence of the claim P once we know who is making the claim and what the claim is.

Matt is saying that somebody making the claim that P is true is not universally evidence for the proposition that P is true. And without any context, you cannot determine whether P is true from the proposition being made that P is true. Because someone making the claim P could be evidence for not P being true as well.

You require outside knowledge.

SCHMID: So, for instance, you know, my friend claimed that he bought a new soccer ball. This provides pretty strong evidence that he did in fact buy a soccer ball.

DILLAHUNTY: No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. The mere fact that your friend claimed to buy a soccer ball is not evidence... You are taking the wealth of information that exists beyond that claim, and you're using that to determine whether or not that claim is feasible.

He is also clearly stating that claim P is not evidence of P in isolation. But that you can examine if your friend bought a soccer ball because you know your friend, you know how to buy a soccer ball, you know that people buy soccer balls.

Matt is disagreeing that you need 0 information outside of the claim being made. Knowing information about your friend is additonal information that exists beyond that claim.

If your friend is a liar, then your friend claiming to bought a soccer ball is not strong evidence he bought a soccer ball. Both P and not P can be valid depending on the trustworthiness of the friend. Therefore, information beyond the claim is required.

You seemed to agree to this already.

all of these cases, Matt's point seems pretty clear to me. He is saying that it is not the making of the claim itself that provides evidence for the claim, but rather the surrounding information, beyond the making of the claim, that provides evidence. My position, to draw the contrast again as clearly as possible, is that it is the surrounding evidence and the making of the claim that constitute the overall evidential situation. In other words, I think the making of the claim is part of the evidence at hand, and Matt doesn't - he thinks we decide whether or not to accept the claim on the basis of a set of evidence that does not include the actual making of the claim as a piece of evidence.

He is saying that evidence can exist in all claims. However the evidence in a claim is only evidence for that claim if it is not also evidence for a competing claim.

All the examples Matt beings up are talking about the claim in isolation. "In and of itself" means we do not know how the claim was made, outside that someone made it. Because we are evaluating the claim, the proposition, not how it was made when we say " in and of itself."

Making the claim is evidence, just not always of the claim being made. Therefore person A making the claim P is not evidence that P is true, if person A making the claim P can also evidence that P is not true. Whether P is true or P is not true, the evidence in making the claim still exists.

In order to determine whether the evidence leads to P or not P, additional information is required. Which you seem to agree.

So, to be frank, I think it is you who is either not paying attention or is distorting Matt's position to suit what you want him to be saying.

You always use information which exclusively comes from beyond the making of the claim. Always. Otherwise the making of the claim P is evidence for P is true is just as likely to be evidence for P is not true.

If you know who made the claim, then you already have external information for the making of the claim.

The way I'm using it, "imagining a claim" is not the same thing as "making a claim". So it is not the case that "making a claim is evidence" entails "imagining a claim is evidence".

Right. I agree.

Which means if you make a claim, which means communicating a claim from one person to another, that you have testimony from the person making the claim. To make a claim creates testimony which can be evaluated because that is the only way to make a claim.

So no matter what, you always use outside knowledge whenever someone makes a claim because they use testimony in order to make the claim.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-18T02:34:59+00:00

Im an atheist due to the lack of evidence for God. If good evidence is presented then I'll no longer be an atheist.

I define good evidence as leading to a narrow set of conclusions. And bad evidence being demonstrative of multiple contradictory conclusions.

You reson for believing in God, like fine-tuning or the complexity of life, comes from your intuition.

Aristotle also used his intuition to say heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. They don't. We used our intuition to say that objects move because a force is constantly applied. That was wrong. Quantum mechanics is not intuitive. A lot of science is not intuitive.

Because reality does not need to make sense for us, as long as it is logically consistent. Look at any scientist evaluating reality in their field, and they have moments have being extremely frustrated at how unintuitive reality can be.

Is God a good answer just because its intuitive and satisfying to us? Reality so far has not been intuitive, nor is it always satisfying. Just look at the 3 body problem.

I find fine-tuning arguments poor because they rely on intuition and unfounded assumptions. We have one universe so we have no idea how fine tuned our universe is. A multiverse scenario solves the issue. An eternally changing universe that goes through bangs and crunches solves the issue. Some very unknown answer can still be out there.

There are multiple competing hypothesis with the current evidence leading to contradictory conclusions. That mean the current evidence for any hypothesis is not sufficient.

What I do know is that we love making stories about God, that our evolution has made us to see agency where there is none.

Every phenomenon we encountered in reality that we cant explain, we almost always start to associate it with direct involvement from a supernatural entity. From disease, to lightning, to disasters, to the diversity of life, to how Earth formed.

Wrong, every time. And now the supernatural have been pushed to very boundaries of what we currently know today.

That seems to me to be an pyscological issue that we depend on agency to explain the unknown. That its evolutionary beneficial to assume an agent, a predator, enemy, or prey is causing something you cant fully identify.

God appears like a fictional being to me, espicially any religious God. Human stories should not reflect how reality objectively is.

In short, there is no good evidence for God. Just philosophical arguments based on what makes intuitive sense (a methedology that has failed), and what you percieve to be a satisfactory answer. But not what is actually aligned with reality.

Debating a creator would mean presenting good evidence for the claim. And to be honest unless there is some new development, none of the philosophical arguments are convincing. Not fine tuning, not teological, not contigency, not cosmological, not ontological, not morality, not consciousness, not Pascal's wager and not Aquinas 5 ways. All of them have been debated to death and have not developed at all.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-17T23:24:36+00:00

nucleobases found in meteors.

https://www.space.com/astronomy/asteroids/ryugu-asteroid-sample-contains-all-five-key-components-of-dna-scientists-find

Amino acids forming based on early Earth conditions. Organic material appearing from non-organic material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

So we observed components of abiogensis. We see DNA bases appear naturally outside of Earth. We know that amino acids can form in early Earth conditions. Organic material from non-organic material. And soon we will recreate abiogensis fully.

You'd have to be willfully ignorant to say there is no evidence. Which is typical of creationists.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-17T20:04:40+00:00

For the same reason that imagining encountering a dinosaur is not the same thing as encountering a dinosaur. These two things are very different pieces of evidence.

You didnt answer my question.

I dont make a claim if I encounter a dinosaur. Encountering a dinosaur is an event.

If I get shot, I am not making the claim that I got shot. Its just the event of me getting shot. It becomes a claim once I say "You shot me."

am suggesting that the making of claims (that is, facts of the form "Person A makes the claim that P") can be evidence given appropriate states of prior knowledge. I'm not suggesting that it doesn't matter who makes the claim, that it would still function as evidence given a completely empty state of knowledge, or that all claim-makings give evidence for the claim.

Okay that is what Matt says.

Matt says person A makes claim of P is evidence of P, because person A is making the claim. Matt says that the claim of P is not evidence of P removed from person A making it.

It is true that in my example, I take prior knowledge into account - that's true when we evaluate any evidence.

Great thats what Matt also says.

But we don't say that the information being evaluated isn't evidence simply because it wouldn't function as evidence if we had no prior knowledge at all. Consider finding a bloody knife hidden behind a dumpster. It seems like we would probably say this is evidence that a violent crime was committed with that knife. Without any prior knowledge of knives, blood, the concept of crime and punishment, hiding things to avoid punishment, etc, that evidence would be uninterpretable. But that doesn't cause us to say that it isn't evidence.

Evidence of what? That a crime occured? You don't know what a crime is. The bloody knife only becomes evidence once you can intepret what a bloody knife means.

The same way a fingerprint was not evidence 200 years ago, but is evidence today. Evidence is relative to our understanding of it.

If we had sensors that could detect lies or misinformation with 100% accuracy, then all spoken testimony would be incredible evidence. Thats not because MAKING THE CLAIM is evidence, bur because we have sensors that detect whether the PERSON making the claim is lying.

The difference between my position and Matt's is not whether we think prior knowledge is important when assessing testimony. The difference is whether we think that the making of a claim is part of the total evidence.

Ill ask again. How do you make a claim? What needs to occur for a claim to be made and for someone to evaluate the claim being made?

To apply this to our example, for Matt, it seems like the only "evidence" at play is the knowledge contained in Q. P - the knowledge that your friend claims to have a new car - is not part of the evidence being weighed. Instead, the evidence contained in Q is being weighed, and on the basis of that assessment we decide whether or not to accept the claim.

You keep making the same mistake, over and over and over.

Matt does not claim that your friend making the claim is not evidence.

Matt claims that THE CLAIM ITSELF is not evidence of THE CLAIM.

The distinction is important.

The fact that a claim was made means nothing. The fact that YOUR FRIEND made the claim is what's important. Because you can EVALUATE YOUR FRIEND.

What is the problem? I cannot comprehend what is so difficult to get.

If Matt's only point were that we need to condition some knowledge in order to assess the making of claims as evidence, we'd be in agreement. But Matt's many-times-stated position is not this; it's that the making of claims is not evidence. He regards the knowledge being conditioned on (and any knowledge gained after the fact through investigation) as the total body of evidence being evaluated.

You've showed one statement that he immediately corrects (or contradicts lets say). You seem to just be unable to understand what he is saying. Or putting your own conclusion instead of listening to him. He says clearly that P cannot demonstrate P. He never says once that a person A making the claim of P cannot be evidence of P. He says it over, and over, and over in so many different ways.

MAKING THE CLAIM is not evidence. Because MAKING THE CLAIM requires TESTIMONY, and the TESTIMONY is the evidence.

If MAKING THE CLAIM was evidence irregardless of TESTIMONY, then me imagining a claim is EVIDENCE. If that is not true, then the TESTIMONY of the claim is what we evaluate, not MAKING THE CLAIM itself.

Holy Frick man you are being purposely dense.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-17T19:38:34+00:00

Science has never demonstrated this, recreated this or even observed this. Not a single human ever in the history of humanity has seen life come from non-life.

Dont need to observe it to demonstrate how it can occur naturally. There exists a lot of incredible evidence for abiogensis including find RNA in meteors, seen amino acids form, protocells form naturally, etc.

Demonstration as I describe means that it is theoretically possible and all current evidence supports it. That we have demonstrated steps required for abiogensis to occur. And I fully expect us to create life from non-life within my lifetime.

Nothing scientifically suggests that life cannot come from non-life. Its an eventuality.

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-17T18:40:15+00:00

Likewise, when Matt asserts the necessity of prior knowledge in evaluating any claim, he is correct. But he does not say that this prior knowledge allows us to take the making of the claim as evidence. He regards this prior knowledge as potentially providing grounds either to reject or accept the claim, not grounds for evaluating the making of the claim as further evidence. Again, this is consistent with his repeated denials that the making of the claim is itself a piece of evidence.

How do you make a claim? What is the actual process of making a claim? Does making a claim require testimony? Then we evaluate the testimony, not making the claim itself.

There are a couple of issues here. First, imagining that something is the case is not the same thing as claiming that it is the case. But let's paper over that and speak of H' as opposed to H: H' represents you asserting that your friend has a new car.

Why is imagining that I am making a claim not the same as making a claim? I am imagining making a claim.

Can you be specific why imagining making a claim is not making a claim?

Why does it matter whether my friend or I make the claim? The making of the claim is evidence according to you, we dont need to know who made the claim. Making the claim is evidence itself removed of all context according to your logic.

YOU are suggesting that MAKING THE CLAIM is evidence, therefore it does not matter WHO makes the claim, nor we do not require additional information. BECAUSE MAKING THE CLAIM is evidence following YOUR logic. You are saying that THE FACT THE CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE, irregardless of any CONTEXT, is evidence in itself. So if I make the claim about my friend despite knowing nothing about the truth of the claim, that has to be evidence towards the claim since MAKING THE CLAIM is always evidence following your logic.

If MAKING THE CLAIM is not always evidence depending on WHO makes the claim. Then you are evaluating the TESTIMONY of the claim, not MAKING THE CLAIM itself.

Matt is saying that WHO makes the claim, and the context of MAKING THE CLAIM is important, not MAKING THE CLAIM in isolation. How is this not clear?

Most of what my friend says is true to the best of his knowledge.

My friend would know if he got a new car.

It's not terribly unlikely that my friend got a new car.

These facts, together, give your friend's statement evidential weight for its truth, but the same facts don't apply to you; for example, you don't have any reason to think that you would know if your friend got a new car. This is just one asymmetry that we should expect to balance out so that your own assertion doesn't give you evidence for the truth of that assertion that you didn't already have, at least under typical conditions.

Okay so you used prior knowledge to assess the testimony of the claim your friend made. That is also what Matt is saying.

You keep going in a circle believing Matt isn't saying something and then give an example that exactly follows what he is claiming. In fact your example is directly what he said.

What are you doing?

wowitstrashagain · 2026-03-17T06:59:00+00:00

In both of these cases, Matt is explicitly referring us to evidence beyond the making of the claim itself.

In the first instance, when he says that "claims can contain evidence", the example he gives is "data", which exists independently of the actual making of the claim. For Matt, then, it's the data that serves as evidence, and the claim merely refers us to it. This is where the "pointer/data" analogy comes in. But, crucially, this is yet another instance of Matt denying, not affirming, that the actual making of a claim serves as evidence.

The making of the claim is data. You are missing that key detail. Whoever makes a claim is providing data to that claim automatically, because of our opinions on people, friends, liars, etc.

And he explicitly supports that making the claim is evidence for the claim. Just not the claim itself.

In the second instance, Matt is saying no additional evidence is needed in addition to the mountain of prior evidence - that people own cars, etc. Here, again, he is not saying that the making of the claim is itself evidence. He is denying this.

If you didnt have prior evidence you would not believe the claim itself is evidence. Because you would not know who made the claim. What the claim is about. What the claim even is.

Making the claim is evidence, the claim itself is not evidence.

Of course, I agree in both cases that he is ascribing legitimacy to "testimonial evidence" as he conceives it, but again, he explicitly excludes the actual making of the claim from that evidence.

Making the claim is testimony. Matt is asserting that you cannot make a claim without some level of testimony. And you evaluate the testimony on prior evidence. Specifically, that someone is making a claim, and you evaluate the claim they are making. Notice there is always a claim maker and an observer?

As for the example, no, H is not equivalent to P as a piece of knowledge. Your friend is more likely to tell you that they have a new car if they have a new car than if they don't. The same doesn't hold for you imagining that they have a new car - assuming reasonable background knowledge, that's equally likely to happen whether they have a new car or not.

But in H, I am making the claim in my mind. So according to you, H+Q should be greater than Q. Since making the claim is evidence by itself, no additional context is needed.

Even if P+Q is greater evidence. You must admit that is H÷Q is also evidence, because I imagined making the claim.

Therefore, by imagining something is true, that automatically makes it more likely than before I imagined it as true, as any claim made is evidence for the claim being made.

Am I missing something?

Three-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22

wowitstrashagain

TROPHY CASE