Show me some proof of your saturn with rings.
1.5 supposed billion miles and you can see it and its rings with a store bought telescope. Hmm.
I know it's ridiculous just by using logic.
Let me put it simply... When things are big, you can see them from larger distance. Saturn is really big, so you can see it from a really large distance. Common sense... And by the way what you describe as "logic" is actually your personal opinion. You think it sounds ridiculous, so you assume it does.
Whatever is in that night sky is reflections. Not humongous planets. Space as you know it is a vacuum, which means it cannot actually exist at all. Just use your logic.
I'm going to pretend that you're not a troll, and reply to you. You don't understand what logic is. You cannot state something, then insist that logic shows that it's obvious. You have to start with facts that every one agrees with, then use definitions and relationships to work up to a conclusion.
For example:
1. A recent study says that every cigarette increases lung cancer occurrence by 0.1%
2. You smoke
3. Because of 1 and 2, you have an increased 50% chance to get lung cancer
4. Because our goal in life is to live long and prosper, you should stop smoking.
Another example:
1. A Christian believes in Christianity by definition
2. By definition, Christianity is a religion
3. Therefore, a Christian believes in a religion
4. Therefore, a Christian is religious
Your supposed logic:
1. I don't understand science
2. Everyone is lying and my theories that I understand instead must be better
See the difference?
Another piece of your logic:
1. Someone says that they saw Saturn with rings
2. My theories say that Saturn doesn't have rings
3. Therefore, he is lying
Sounds legit... Almost.
In my first example, the initial facts are:
1. The study says that smoking increases cancer risk, and studies are usually right
2. You smoke
3. A main goal in life is to live long, which cancer opposes
Assuming that you DO smoke, everyone agrees with these statements, we can work upwards.
1. Your cancer risk is increasing
2. You are effectively shortening your life
3. You shouldn't smoke
THEN your logic is great and infallible.
The starting facts in your argument is this:
1. The man has seen Saturn with rings
2. Your theory says that Saturn doesn't have rings, or doesn't exist
Your thinking is that you don't really believe in that guy, so 1 becomes "The man claims to have seen Saturn with rings".
Follows your logic, which is actually workable.
1. My theory is more reliable than yours
2. Therefore we should assume that mine is right if they directly conflict
However, you didn't consider the fact that while you don't trust the man's claim, the man doesn't trust your theory. After putting this into consideration, it should be turned to:
1. The man claims to have seen Saturn with rings
2. Your theory claims that Saturn doesn't have rings
The logic following should be:
1. The theories are equally reliable
2. We don't really know which we should trust
3. Therefore we are not sure whether Saturn has rings
However, the problem is that his observation is more reliable than your opinion, because his observation is first, an observation (although he could possible be lying), and his observation is backed up by many other forum members' observations, and a vast library of information and photos.
On the other hand, even if you observed the sky and found no Saturn, and other FE-ers observed no Saturn (all of this on a date where Saturn is supposed to be visible, of course), there would be no vast library of full-sky photos lacking Saturn or documentations of not seeing Saturn when it is supposed to be visible.
Even if somehow you found books and libraries of evidence for a lack of a Saturn, it would still be a debatable topic as you have the same amount of evidence.