Just for fun.

[Minimalist]

Wait.  Wait.  I thought Mohammed split it in half?

[Jackalope]

Wait.  Wait.  I thought Mohammed split it in half?

Well, now maybe he did, maybe he didn't.  Im underwhelmed by that effort so we're gonna blow that bad boy to smithereens.

[Exian]

That's no moon!

[robvalue]

I'd argue that you can't "prove" anything.

Good answer.

I do intend on trying the weight change during high tide vs. low tide. I am going to use a digital scale so I can remote the display and put a barrel of water on it and log the weight and temperature for about a week.

Thanks

That's interesting, I'd never thought of doing that. I look forward to seeing the results!

As for blowing up the moon, I think it would be reckless, pointless, dangerous, fun, exciting and responsible. Let's do it. It may be the most direct way to demonstrate that there really is was a moon.

[Longhorn]

LAAAAAME

I do not know those people.  Why should I take their word for it?

Do you apply that logic to everything? You don't believe for example that Titanic sunk?

And you don't have to take their WORDS for it, there's lotsa pictures and documentation too

Circular argument.  I do not know those rocks are from the moon.

How is that circular? We got bits of the moon here on earth

How do we know it's bits of the moon? Cos they're made from different stuff and they're definitely not from earth

The two other alternatives you presented are
a) the moon is a hologram

Like dyr mentioned, we don't currently possess the technology to make that possible, since clouds would interfere with the signal

And if you're going to say 'you can't prove the government doesn't have that technology', that's technically true, but we have no reason to assume it does....it's very much the same situation as a theist saying you can't prove there's no god

b) the moon is a figment of your imagination

This one is even easier: everybody who isn't blind can see the moon
And we can take pictures of it with an objective device like a camera, in case you're about to say is a mass delusion

UR ARGUMENTS STINK IATIA

NEENER NEENER NEENER

[ignoramus]

Isn't that the single most important thing which has grown our collective intelligence. The fact that we can document and pass on knowledge to future generations.
Something none of the other great apes have been able to accomplish.

[IATIA]

Do you apply that logic to everything?

Yes, when necessary.  I have no reason to believe or disbelieve the Titanic sunk, so I accept that it did.  
.

How is that circular? We got bits of the moon here on earth

How do we know it's bits of the moon? Cos they're made from different stuff and they're definitely not from earth

If a theist used that argument with the god/bible thing, you would call it circular.  What is the difference?

You say the moon exists because we have rocks from the moon.  For sake of argument, I will accept the rocks are extraterrestrial, but that does not prove that they are from the moon.

Like dyr mentioned, we don't currently possess the technology to make that possible, since clouds would interfere with the signal

And if you're going to say 'you can't prove the government doesn't have that technology', that's technically true, but we have no reason to assume it does....

As I stated above, there is nothing wrong with accepting some that is reasonable, but that is not proof.

]... the moon is a figment of your imagination

This one is even easier: everybody who isn't blind can see the moon
And we can take pictures of it with an objective device like a camera, in case you're about to say is a mass delusion

I never said we could not see the moon.  Maybe it is a 'Death Star' or a 'Borg Ship'.

Pictures and videos are not proof.  They can be evidence, but I saw a video on YouTube of a bird swooping down into a park and grabbing a kid and flying off with him.

[Longhorn]

Yes, when necessary.  I have no reason to believe or disbelieve the Titanic sunk, so I accept that it did.  

If a theist used that argument with the god/bible thing, you would call it circular.  What is the difference?

You say the moon exists because we have rocks from the moon.  For sake of argument, I will accept the rocks are extraterrestrial, but that does not prove that they are from the moon.

umm, the difference being the bible is the claim so it can't support itself

you say 'prove god exists', theists says 'Here's the claim that god exists'
you say 'prove the moon exists', I say 'Here's a bit of the moon'

its all in context, there's no reason at all to disbelieve the moon landing and the same people who we have no reason to disbelieve were on the moon give us definitely extraterrestrial rocks and say 'here are bits of the moon'

As I stated above, there is nothing wrong with accepting some that is reasonable, but that is not proof.

what would constitute proof?

I never said we could not see the moon.  Maybe it is a 'Death Star' or a 'Borg Ship'.

Pictures and videos are not proof.  They can be evidence, but I saw a video on YouTube of a bird swooping down into a park and grabbing a kid and flying off with him.

sure, but that video was a different source-someone obviously trying to get views, right?
In the case of pictures of the moon, the source doesn't have any personal interest in convincing you, so it's more reliable

IOW, UR ARGUMENTS SUCK M8