Ginkgo wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:14 am
Weight of evidence (including secondary evidence) tells any reasonable person that man actually went to the Moon.
But you don't have any personal evidence. The evidence you accept is second-hand testimony, pictures, common belief, and so on. You've not been to the moon, I presume; and you certainly weren't there when the first man actually did. So you took others' words for it.
I'm not saying you were unwise to do so. But in the matter of creation, 92% of the world's population believe in some kind of God or gods. And many people report personal experience with God, and there are rational and scientific evidences conducive to belief in God. So if you use the same evidentiary method, you'd have to be a Theist. But you're not.
So why are you using a very broad evidentiary standard in regard to the moon landing, but a refusal to accept anything but your own first-hand experience in regard to the existence of the Creator? Why is it you regard the moon landing as absolutely certain, but not the existence of God?
One does not need to go to the Moon in order to say that man landed on the Moon.
One can "say" anything, of course. But that doesn't mean one has empirical evidence of personal testing for what one says, in all cases. You were not on the moon. Your belief is an act of faith in those who say they went, and in the people who took the pictures, and the rocks you've seen in a museum that say "moon rock," and so on. It's not empirical
That's why such conspiracy theories exist: because it's actually possible to insist on doubting almost anything. The question is how far rational doubt should go.