i can't believe i need to walk you through this.
firstly, there are necessary and sufficient conditions. if something does not adhere to logic, it does not possess a necessary condition to be true. a logical argument against something, therefore, proves it cannot possibly be true.
I have said nothing illogical, I have merely contradicted your argument. This is simply means that one logical argument will hold true and the other will not in this world. One will be contingent and one will be necessary.
empirical evidence may be faked: it does not matter how unlikely you believe that is, but if there is a watertight argument against it, you cannot rely on those facts.
Your argument is not watertight as it is contradicted by empirical evidence. You can assert that it is fake, but that is claim that you must then provide evidence for.
for example, let us suppose i told you i could fly. i then did so, and there were multiple witnesses, all of which you trust, confirming you didn't imagine it, as well as a film. it is possible i used some unknown machine to do it, or that there were skillfully concealed wires, but it would not seem automatically likely. however, you can mount a logical argument (based on weight) against a human's ability to fly unaided, so you would conclude that it needs to be one of those alternatives.
It is possible, but until I have confirmed that indeed there is a valid counterexample I have not falsified my observations have I? I can harbor doubts, very strong ones, and I would be right to do so, as no other human can fly unaided, but harboring doubts is not sufficient enough to show I am right and you were not flying.
You are saying "if space travel is not possible, it is not possible." That is not the argument you have been espousing, so which is it?
that is exactly the argument i am making, you just don't seem to understand the basic principle of logical reasoning.
No, the argument you are making is:
P1. animals should have evolved to travel to space.
P2. animals have not evolved to travel to space
C. Space travel is impossible.
the conclusion of my argument is that space travel by techological means could not have occurred.
Yes, which is different than "if space travel is not possible, it is not possible."
i didn't feel the need to walk you through the most minor of details because i assumed you could think. apparently i was wrong.
If you do not want to put any work in to defending your position that is fine. I am happy to defend mine.
for a moment, assume my conclusion is accurate.
Breathe in. Breathe out. Ok. Ready.
i don't care if you believe it. if my conclusion is indeed accurate, however, any evidence you profess to have of space travel cannot be true. as i said, "if space travel is not possible, it can not have happened."
No, since you are making a necessary argument, that is, one that is not based on
a posteriori knowledge, we can only deem it to be true in the real world if we find no valid counter examples. The moment we find a valid counter example, then we know that your argument is merely metaphysically valid.
if you are arguing that space travel is indeed possible, you cannot simply assume that the conclusion is false in order to give an example (which, by the argument, must be rejected). you need to show why the conclusion does not hold: you need to addresses premises, not conclusions.
I have been over this probably 6 times in this thread. In the OP, one of your premises is:
we observe no animals even being able to go close to the heights necessary
However there are many valid counter examples to this and so the premise is not valid meaning your conclusion:
we can conclude that it is not possible.
is invalid.
<irrelevant personal attack>
your argument is a probability argument, not a logical one. you are arguing that it is more probable that the footage/evidence etc is genuine, than it is likely to be faked. even if there is only a 1% chance of faking, it must be that 1% chance if space travel is indeed impossible.
Straw man. I am not saying it is 99% likely that space travel has occured, I am saying it is 100% likely.
logic trumps probability. it is possible your evidence is faked.
Prove it.
you have to acknowledge the possibility, anything else is closed-mindedness. i don't care whether you believe it would take alien overlords or centuries-ahead technology it is possible for that to be faked.
I am open to your evidence, please present it. Since there are so many observations of space travel, I am not open to a mere assertion that it may be impossible. Just like I am not open to the possibility that Andorra does not exist.
because of that possibility, your argument is not a counterexample. your argument is an assertion disproven by the conclusion of mine.
You have not shown that any evidence is fake, much less all of it, and that is what is required. Since your argument is not based in real world experience, you must cede your position to empirical evidence, of which there is a preponderance. Logic does not take precedence over reality.
you need to show that my conclusion does not hold, and the only way to do that is to actually address the premises.
Which I have done. Many times.
this is very, very basic logic yet again. you can ask anyone who studies critical thinking or reasoning, they will agree with me (on this application of logic, at least).
Please go get an opinion of someone who studies critical thinking. I look forward to the results.
you. need. to. address. the. premises.
I. Have. Again. And. Again.