Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[cladking]

Whatever evidence you think you've presented doesn't support your claims according to the rules of inference: "Rules of Inference: Rules of inference are logical tools used to derive conclusions from premises. They form the foundation of logical reasoning, allowing us to build arguments, prove theorems, and solve problems in mathematics, computer science, and philosophy."

Ya' mustta missed all the times I said inductive logic has no meaning, no relationship to reality, because language is still confused. I'm using deductive logic and physical evidence and comparing these to experiment; all experiment. Inductive reasoning is the manipulation of abstraction, old wives' tales, and language. It is an attempt to determine reality through beliefs and definitions. It is the process Darwin used to get so very wrong.

Meanwhile the facts I've cited stand. the experiment that ties them together exists. The deductions I made to reason in circles is as legitimate as my premises.

All scientific dicta are tentative and amenable to revision if new evidence suggest it needs to be.

Well, I'd say it's subject to revision whether it's currently proven false or not. All paradigms are overturned in the long run as surely as all men die and as surely as science changes one funeral at a time. It you don't understand this then what you have is dogma; it's good enough for Peers so it's good enough for me.

What does that mean?

The human mind is what the what one believes it to be. It is infinitely adaptable and if you believe you have an id then for every practical purpose you have an id. If you believe the weak and dispossessed must be killed to make room for the strong then killing them makes perfect sense to you. The belief creates the reality.

You quite apparently believe in science even if you protest it. I believe reality is logical and its characteristics can only be exposed in experiment or through natural science though I don't discount the possibility many types of science exist.

Perhaps my dreams are close. I seldom speak, hear, or think in words when dreaming.

Interesting. I'm aware of my thoughts but don't so much notice words. I do converse in dreams so I suppose I think fairly "normally". Of course even in the dream state there seem to be various modes. In lucid dreams I'm quite aware of words.

Mebbe my speech centers never rest.

I reject all insufficiently evidence claims. That doesn't mean that I assert that they're wrong, just that I don't have a reason to believe they're correct.

There are far too many anomalies for me to believe that any of the soft sciences are essentially correct.

This is not how I experience life. You're posting to somebody who is content. My suffering is minimal and infrequent, and I have as much freedom and control of my life as I can use.

I'm happy for you but most men live lives of quiet desperation and this has never been more true than today. I believe the problems go far beyond economics and are related to a detachment from nature and beliefs that are anti-life.

And they and I have these opinions precisely because we AREN'T ignoring empirical data.

Again... We interpret all things in terms of our beliefs. We can't see data that don't support our beliefs.

 

[cladking]

The message doesn't make any sense or have any evidence. Just as it didn't the first time it was delivered.

The words are literally chiseled in stone. It's impossible to get more solid concrete evidence.

 

[gnostic]

There are far too many anomalies for me to believe that any of the soft sciences are essentially correct.

What sciences or fields of science would you deem to be "soft"?

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no need. An honest person could check out my claims. What you and @leroy do not seem to understand is that one has to be an honest interlocutor to demand evidence. Far too often it looks as if both of you purposefully keep yourselves from understanding. When you do that no one wants to help you.

Just this once I will do your homework for you:

What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis

It's the initial building block in the scientific method.

www.livescience.com

I haven't read it yet but I will. However, I THINK this merits you a gold star. (At least I hope so...)

 

[YoursTrue]

Ya' mustta missed all the times I said inductive logic has no meaning, no relationship to reality, because language is still confused. I'm using deductive logic and physical evidence and comparing these to experiment; all experiment. Inductive reasoning is the manipulation of abstraction, old wives' tales, and language. It is an attempt to determine reality through beliefs and definitions. It is the process Darwin used to get so very wrong.

Meanwhile the facts I've cited stand. the experiment that ties them together exists. The deductions I made to reason in circles is as legitimate as my premises.



Well, I'd say it's subject to revision whether it's currently proven false or not. All paradigms are overturned in the long run as surely as all men die and as surely as science changes one funeral at a time. It you don't understand this then what you have is dogma; it's good enough for Peers so it's good enough for me.



The human mind is what the what one believes it to be. It is infinitely adaptable and if you believe you have an id then for every practical purpose you have an id. If you believe the weak and dispossessed must be killed to make room for the strong then killing them makes perfect sense to you. The belief creates the reality.

You quite apparently believe in science even if you protest it. I believe reality is logical and its characteristics can only be exposed in experiment or through natural science though I don't discount the possibility many types of science exist.



Interesting. I'm aware of my thoughts but don't so much notice words. I do converse in dreams so I suppose I think fairly "normally". Of course even in the dream state there seem to be various modes. In lucid dreams I'm quite aware of words.

Mebbe my speech centers never rest.



There are far too many anomalies for me to believe that any of the soft sciences are essentially correct.



I'm happy for you but most men live lives of quiet desperation and this has never been more true than today. I believe the problems go far beyond economics and are related to a detachment from nature and beliefs that are anti-life.


Again... We interpret all things in terms of our beliefs. We can't see data that don't support our beliefs.

There is no doubt in my mind that even if we use the 'right' term for something it still is not fully explanatory. That's for sure.

 

[YoursTrue]

I explained twice already. I am not doing so again.

I looked at the website you linked to and frankly, my dear, as it was said in an old movie with Scarlett O'Hara, and I paraphrase, what you wrote does not relate to the subject or refutation. But I won't go any further, and also frankly...hope you have a good evening. I give the gold star for your giving at least the link which you believe somehow is a refutation. Since it's out of my league (I'm in the minor leagues while some of you really believe the theory of evolution without doubt as if it cannot be retuted in any way), I hope y'all have a good night. Among other things on the good side.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The words are literally chiseled in stone. It's impossible to get more solid concrete evidence.

I'm not talking about some words chiseled in stone. I'm talking about the words you posted. It is unsupported and nonsensical. It's not facts from experiment or observation. You offer nothing to discuss and run away from every request to support what you say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I looked at the website you linked to and frankly, my dear, as it was said in an old movie with Scarlett O'Hara, and I paraphrase, what you wrote does not relate to the subject or refutation. But I won't go any further, and also frankly...hope you have a good evening. I give the gold star for your giving at least the link which you believe somehow is a refutation. Since it's out of my league (I'm in the minor leagues while some of you really believe the theory of evolution without doubt as if it cannot be retuted in any way), I hope y'all have a good night. Among other things on the good side.

It does, but it also is clearly beyond your limited understanding. It shows how @leroy was wrong. He might be able to understand if he can be honest.

 

[YoursTrue]

It does, but it also is clearly beyond your limited understanding. It shows how @leroy was wrong. He might be able to understand if he can be honest.OK

My limited understanding. I like that. Since I'm not in a classroom situation, I'll just tell you that I think you're a terrible teacher.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My limited understanding. I like that. Since I'm not in a classroom situation, I'll just tell you that I think you're a terrible teacher.

No, that is not the case . When a student refuses to learn no matter who teaches that student it is clearly not the fault of the teachers.

All that you have to do is to get over your fears and try to be honest.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

sorry i am not understanding

The math is not an observation.

 

[cladking]

There is no doubt in my mind that even if we use the 'right' term for something it still is not fully explanatory. That's for sure.

There can never be a one to one correspondence between a definition and a referent and even if there were each observer parses the word differently. But we go far beyond this and use very poor definitions that reflect what we believe rather than reality. Just as "evidence" reflects the observers' beliefs even the mechanisms and the words of thinking reflect these same beliefs. We can't correct this but by knowing it and attending to it we can limit the damage.

Perhaps "survival of the fittest" is the best example of a term that does not fit reality and causes the most damage. However, there are many more terms that reflect and facilitate circular reasoning. Many people believe in science rather than understand science because they do not understand the nature of its metaphysics which is not just experimental results but also its definitions and axioms.

 

[cladking]

I'm not talking about some words chiseled in stone. I'm talking about the words you posted. It is unsupported and nonsensical. It's not facts from experiment or observation. You offer nothing to discuss and run away from every request to support what you say.

I'm sure you're not disputing my claim that all men die.

Or even that science changes when the "right" one does.

 

[leroy]

Please, part of having an honest conversation is admitting when you are wrong and you did not do that.

You are asking me to admit that I was wrong, just because you say so…………does that sound honest to you?

 

[leroy]

Please, part of having an honest conversation is admitting when you are wrong and you did not do that.

You are asking me to admit that I was wrong, just because you say so…………does that sound honest to you?

 

[leroy]

There is no need. An honest person could check out my claims. What you and @leroy do not seem to understand is that one has to be an honest interlocutor to demand evidence. Far too often it looks as if both of you purposefully keep yourselves from understanding. When you do that no one wants to help you.

Just this once I will do your homework for you:

What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis

It's the initial building block in the scientific method.

www.livescience.com

It´s a shame that you are approaching this in such a dishonest way……………………… even by your own admition I did understood what your concept of evidence is (at least I was close)

You then arbitrarily changed your mind and claimed that I am wrong “at so many levels” without any justification.

 

[leroy]

no scientists in scientific communities and no peer-review publishers will accept a single line declaration (which is nothing more than a claim) as an entire hypothesis.

A 1-liner claim isn’t a hypothesis, as you are not explaining anything, not WHAT it is, and not HOW it work. Plus a hypothesis would require some PREDICTIONS, some expected criteria that tests (observations from experiments or from evidence, or from both) would meet.

Scientists would expect that each models (models in a hypothesis or in a theory) will have their own full explanations, accompanied with 1 or more predictions. A full explanation would be full of details.

Your 1-line claim, isn’t an explanation at all, hence it doesn’t qualify as being a hypothesis.

Charles Darwin wrote a whole book on Natural Selection with On the Origin of Species, followed by more books in the next couple of decades. These were his hypothesis on Natural Selection.

Likewise, Darwin’s contemporary, Gregor Mendel wrote paper on the Law of Inheritance (often called the Mendelian Inheritance), which formed the basis of modern genetics. His paper, Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden (Experiments on Plant Hybridization), included his test results from experiments from garden at St Thomas’ Abbey ( yes, Abbey, as he was a Augustinian friar at that time), Brno, Moravia, a city in what is now the Czech Republic.

This paper was submitted to the Natural History Society of Brno, 1865, but published in 1866. Unfortunately it didn’t gain much attention from many scientists, so even when he presented his works at lectures, it wasn’t appreciated, nor understood by his fellow-biologists. Darwin wasn’t aware of his paper.

Eventually, Mendel gave up all scientific pursuits and researches, when he became the new Abbot at this Abbey, and his work were lost and forgotten, until it was rediscovered in 1900 by several biologists, that recognised Mendel’s astute insight on genetics.

Mendel’s hypothesis wasn’t a one-liner claim.

The works of Michael Faraday and of James Clerk Maxwell weren’t 1-liner hypotheses on electromagnetism. Albert Einstein wrote 4 papers on 4 different subjects - Brownian Motion, Photoelectric Effect, Special Relativity & the Mass-Energy Equivalence - that he submitted together in 1905...and none of these 4 papers were 1-sentence long. A decade later (1915), he submitted his paper on General Relativity, which became the new model on gravitation, also wasn’t a 1-sentence paper.

You don’t know what the hell you are talking about, Leroy, if you think 1-liner claim is a hypothesis.

If you were to submit a 1-line sentence as a hypothesis to some peer-reviewed journal publishers, they wouldn’t bother to send it to any independent scientist to review your work…they wouldn’t even bother to send you a rejection letter, because you have wasted their times, as it is not even worth a stamp and envelope to return your paper back to you. Your so-called hypothesis would have just end up in a trash bin.

You really are absurd, as well.

This is just semantics……….so whatever you say is pretty much secondary

The way I understand it (and I supported that with a source) is that the hypothesis is the 1 sentence “claim”

And the justification for the hypothesis are all the tests, experiments, equations etc.

Charles Darwin wrote a whole book on Natural Selection with On the Origin of Species, followed by more books in the next couple of decades. These were his hypothesis on Natural Selection.

Sure, the hypothesis would be

1 we share a common ancestor with other primates

The justification for that hypothesis would be allllllllllllll that information / tests / experiments presented in all those books + many other things that were published long after Darwin.

But even if I (and my source and other users from this forum) are wrong………………why are you making a big of a deal? It´s not like any of my points would be affected if we use your defintios.



At worst my only mistake was to separate “hypothesis” and “justification for the hypothesis” as different parts of the scientific method ………….while you seem to consider them as part of the same……………why is that so important for you?

 

[leroy]

The math is not an observation.

ok..........so what? did I claim the opposite?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

ok..........so what? did I claim the opposite?

Yes, you used it as a claim for in effect a mind-independet fact about the universe and that is an observation. But it is not an observation. You stated so yourself that it is an estimate.

 

[leroy]

Yes, you used it as a claim for in effect a mind-independet fact about the universe and that is an observation. But it is not an observation. You stated so yourself that it is an estimate.

I don’t think so……………. But If did claim that , then I´m wrong