Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[leroy]

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.

A teacher that claims “you are wrong because I say so” is clearly a bad teacher

A teacher that refuses to answer questions is clearly a bad teacher

I am simply asking you to spot and explain my relevant mistakes in the DM example and in my entropy example. ……….what is so problematic about that?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ya' mustta missed all the times I said inductive logic has no meaning, no relationship to reality, because language is still confused.

I didn't miss anything you said. I just disagree with you on that. And that comment doesn't address mine: "Whatever evidence you think you've presented doesn't support your claims according to the rules of inference"

I'm using deductive logic and physical evidence and comparing these to experiment; all experiment.

Deduction cannot be separated from induction. Observation leads to induction (abstraction, generalization) which then permits deduction in concrete, specific circumstances.

Inductive reasoning is the manipulation of abstraction, old wives' tales, and language. It is an attempt to determine reality through beliefs and definitions.

Induction is abstracting generalizations from specific observations.

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.

Disagree. They may also persist indefinitely albeit with additions as more is learned.

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.

Like I said, there is no dogma in science. Critical thinking doesn't permit it.

You quite apparently believe in science even if you protest it.

I believe many things but I don't believe in anything.

Also, I don't protest science. I respect science. I try to learn it. But you seem to "protest" much of it, as when you call it dogma or say that Darwin was in error (something to do with induction: "the process Darwin used to get so very wrong."

I'm happy for you but most men live lives of quiet desperation and this has never been more true than today.

You live in a different world than I do. I know that there is much poverty and suffering in the world, but there are also places where most people can live relatively safe, comfortable, and satisfying lives if they possess the necessary wisdom.

I believe the problems go far beyond economics and are related to a detachment from nature and beliefs that are anti-life.

You're describing first-world people. Yes, many have deformed and counterproductive worldviews. Look at how unhappy the MAGA contingent is with their litany of grievances and their dislike of most of their neighbors. But that's because they've let people who don't care about them do that to them to make them carriers of the memes that actually harm themselves.

We interpret all things in terms of our beliefs.

Isn't that healthy, assuming that we are careful about what we believe and don't begin accumulating false and unfalsifiable beliefs?

We can't see data that don't support our beliefs.

I can. For example, if I believe that my car is parked in certain place and don't find it there, I don't fail to notice that. I'll bet that that's true for you, too.

Perhaps "survival of the fittest" is the best example of a term that does not fit reality and causes the most damage.

In biology, fittest means the most fecund. In economics, the fittest business is the most profitable one, as other less profitable business either just get by or close. In college applications, the fittest applicants are the ones that are accepted. I find the concept very much a description of reality and not only harmless, but helpful.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

@leroy and I have reached the point you're at now once or twice in the past, where I simply refused to repost my answer or link to it due to the combination of him failing to respond to those explanations when they went by both times and rather than claiming that he must have missed it, his mood becomes one of somebody is playing games with him and he begins accusing them of a lack of integrity.

These were the threads where I tried to teach him how to do an RF search, but as far as I can tell, he never saw that either, never did a search, and never learned how.

I cannot think for others. You have to try to think for yourselves.

And this is where we encounter the impasse. All one can do is write the words. He can't make anybody else read, understand, or remember them. The teacher requires a student with a prepared mind - what I call the student's disposition, which is one that is willing and able to understand what is being taught and willing and able to recognize a sound conclusion and modify his belief set accordingly (a fancy way of saying learn)

I honeslty think you didnt.....................................you are wrong because I say so is not an explanation

I believe that you believe that, Leroy.

It looks like you've exceeded Subduction Zone's patience with you. I've explained to you how to do better, but there was no evidence you saw or understood that. I gave you examples of the daily correspondences between my wife and a longtime girlfriend of hers, in which they each address every point the other makes to indicate that they read it and understood it, which might be something as simple as "It's always nice to find money in a pocket."

But you were uninterested just like you were in learning how to search for those posts you say don't exist. And so, nothing can be done to help you. You need to do your part. You need to acquire the student's disposition, which requires paying attention and a certain degree of discipline.

Incidentally, I wrote you a detailed definition and description of what evidence is and how it is interpreted, but like everything else I write to you, it was in vain. There was no reply from you, and as usual, I'm left to guess whether you never saw it, saw but didn't read it, read but didn't understand it. It doesn't matter to me which of those it was, but it should matter to you.

at this point I do not expect/hope/look forward to you at least providing the number of the post in question.

You shouldn't. I wouldn't.

When I leave my residence I see little lizards on the ground. And they are stationary. They don't move.

Good observation.

We also had a resident lizard that lived in our atrium, and we could observe him from indoors. He never moved without a reason. His movements were either toward food or away from perceived danger. At all other times, he was motionless. The reptilian mind is simple.

We could also observe birds and mammals (squirrels), the two classes that evolved from reptiles. There, we see much more activity. The mammalian and avian minds are superimposed on those reptilian urges, and here we see such things as parenting and even what appears to be moral behavior and altruism in some mammals and birds.

Man has added a third level of information processing and integrating data which includes symbolic thought (language and mathematics).

 

[leroy]

@leroy and I have reached the point you're at now once or twice in the past, where I simply refused to repost my answer or link to it due to the combination of him failing to respond to those explanations when they went by both times and rather than claiming that he must have missed it, his mood becomes one of somebody is playing games with him and he begins accusing them of a lack of integrity.

These were the threads where I tried to teach him how to do an RF search, but as far as I can tell, he never saw that either, never did a search, and never learned how.

And this is where we encounter the impasse. All one can do is write the words. He can't make anybody else read, understand, or remember them. The teacher requires a student with a prepared mind - what I call the student's disposition, which is one that is willing and able to understand what is being taught and willing and able to recognize a sound conclusion and modify his belief set accordingly (a fancy way of saying learn)

I believe that you believe that, Leroy.

It looks like you've exceeded Subduction Zone's patience with you. I've explained to you how to do better, but there was no evidence you saw or understood that. I gave you examples of the daily correspondences between my wife and a longtime girlfriend of hers, in which they each address every point the other makes to indicate that they read it and understood it, which might be something as simple as "It's always nice to find money in a pocket."

But you were uninterested just like you were in learning how to search for those posts you say don't exist. And so, nothing can be done to help you. You need to do your part. You need to acquire the student's disposition, which requires paying attention and a certain degree of discipline.

Incidentally, I wrote you a detailed definition and description of what evidence is and how it is interpreted, but like everything else I write to you, it was in vain. There was no reply from you, and as usual, I'm left to guess whether you never saw it, saw but didn't read it, read but didn't understand it. It doesn't matter to me which of those it was, but it should matter to you.

You shouldn't. I wouldn't.

Good observation.

We also had a resident lizard that lived in our atrium, and we could observe him from indoors. He never moved without a reason. His movements were either toward food or away from perceived danger. At all other times, he was motionless. The reptilian mind is simple.

We could also observe birds and mammals (squirrels), the two classes that evolved from reptiles. There, we see much more activity. The mammalian and avian minds are superimposed on those reptilian urges, and here we see such things as parenting and even what appears to be moral behavior and altruism in some mammals and birds.

Man has added a third level of information processing and integrating data which includes symbolic thought (language and mathematics).

Do you honestly think that @Subduction Zone answered correctly?

Sorry, but that is just wrong on several levels. Number one being that you do not have a hypothesis. You only have a general statement that appears to be based upon a strawman. You were doing well but then you tried to sneak God into the argument in a rather ham fisted manner.

dont you think he should expalin why my alleged hypotheiss is not a hypotheisis?

Observation: the entropy of the universe was very low at the big bang ( S = 1088kB)

Hypothesis: the low entropy of the universe is a result of a non-random mechanism (or cause)

Alternative hypothesis: the low entropy is the result of random chance (we simply got lucky)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you honestly think that @Subduction Zone answered correctly?





dont you think he should expalin why my alleged hypotheiss is not a hypotheisis?

Observation: the entropy of the universe was very low at the big bang ( S = 1088kB)

Hypothesis: the low entropy of the universe is a result of a non-random mechanism (or cause)

Alternative hypothesis: the low entropy is the result of random chance (we simply got lucky)

That is not an observation and you have already admitted that you were wrong about that.
So the hypothesis is not a hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you honestly think that @Subduction Zone answered correctly?





dont you think he should expalin why my alleged hypotheiss is not a hypotheisis?

Observation: the entropy of the universe was very low at the big bang ( S = 1088kB)

Hypothesis: the low entropy of the universe is a result of a non-random mechanism (or cause)

Alternative hypothesis: the low entropy is the result of random chance (we simply got lucky)

Multiple people have explained to you how you do not have a hypothesis. I even gave a link to @YoursTrue .

Right now you are just a classic example of denial.

 

[leroy]

That is not an observation and you have already admitted that you were wrong about that.
So the hypothesis is not a hypothesis.

I am not following, -…….

My claims…..

Observation: shortly after the big bang the entropy was low

Hypothesis: the low entropy was caused by a nonrandom mechanism

Alternative hypothesis: the low entropy was caused by a random mechanism (it happened by chance)

Tests: the math presented in my source



Where do you have an objection?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not following, -…….

My claims…..

Observation: shortly after the big bang the entropy was low

Hypothesis: the low entropy was caused by a nonrandom mechanism

Alternative hypothesis: the low entropy was caused by a random mechanism (it happened by chance)

Tests: the math presented in my source


Where do you have an objection?

There is no observation of that. It is based on a math estimate. And it is not a test to prestent math as a result.

 

[leroy]

Multiple people have explained to you how you do not have a hypothesis. I even gave a link to @YoursTrue .

Right now you are just a classic example of denial.

Yes you told me that this is not a hypothesis……………….but you didn’t explained why.

"Hypothesis: the low entropy of the universe is a result of a non-random mechanism (or cause)

Alternative hypothesis: the low entropy is the result of random chance (we simply got lucky)"

Why arent these hypothesis?


---
keep in min that you did accept the DM hypothesis..............or atleast you said that it was not "too bad"


hypothesis: there is a type of “substance” that is invisible but has a gravitational force

alternative hypothesis: the stars are attached for some other reason that has nothign to do with gravity



So under what basis do you grant the hypothesis about DM as valid (or not too bad) and reject the hypothesis about entropy?

Why is it so hard to answer this question? Why do you have to do this long tedious and boring?



Why don’t you reply with

Leroy, the hypothesis about DM where valid because xxxxxxxx but the ones on entropy where not valid because YYYYYYY



Am I asking too much?

@It Aint Necessarily So do you think I am making a valid request?

 

[leroy]

There is no observation of that. It is based on a math estimate. And it is not a test to prestent math as a result.

that? what do you mean by "that" in this context?

And it is not a test to prestent math as a result.

why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes you told me that this is not a hypothesis……………….but you didn’t explained why.

"Hypothesis: the low entropy of the universe is a result of a non-random mechanism (or cause)

Alternative hypothesis: the low entropy is the result of random chance (we simply got lucky)"

Why arent these hypothesis?


---
keep in min that you did accept the DM hypothesis..............or atleast you said that it was not "too bad"


hypothesis: there is a type of “substance” that is invisible but has a gravitational force

alternative hypothesis: the stars are attached for some other reason that has nothign to do with gravity



So under what basis do you grant the hypothesis about DM as valid (or not too bad) and reject the hypothesis about entropy?

Why is it so hard to answer this question? Why do you have to do this long tedious and boring?



Why don’t you reply with

Leroy, the hypothesis about DM where valid because xxxxxxxx but the ones on entropy where not valid because YYYYYYY



Am I asking too much?

@It Aint Necessarily So do you think I am making a valid request?

I explained why twice. I linked an article that brought up the same point again for @YoursTrue . You are simply unwilling to learn how you screwed up.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you honestly think that @Subduction Zone answered correctly?

I didn't follow the discussion. It's not easy or pleasant trying to follow you. You fixate and obsess, and you ignore most of what is written to you.

I'm sure that you don't remember and probably didn't even read my comments in the past about asking yourself what's in this for the other guy. There's nothing for me in your posting to others nor in your posting to me. Look at how much of that post you failed to comment on - all of the interesting to me stuff.

dont you think he should expalin why my alleged hypotheiss is not a hypotheisis?

Observation: the entropy of the universe was very low at the big bang ( S = 1088kB)

Hypothesis: the low entropy of the universe is a result of a non-random mechanism (or cause)

Alternative hypothesis: the low entropy is the result of random chance (we simply got lucky)

Sorry, Leroy, but since you aren't interested in giving me the courtesy of responding to my points, I have no interest in responding to your posts except the aspects that interest ME, and this isn't interesting to me.

Furthermore, I'm certain that if I gave you a good answer, you'd ignore most or all of it as you did my explanation of what evidence is and how it's evaluated. Why? Because there's nothing in it for me. I'd be doing it for you, and I'm no longer predisposed to do anything at all for you. That's the price of your self-absorption. That the price of your selfish posting etiquette. My responses to you are limited to what interests me, and I'd rather discuss your behavior than your questions. I don't care about what matters to you.

 

[leroy]

I explained why twice.

no

I linked an article that brought up the same point again for @YoursTrue . You are simply unwilling to learn how you screwed up.

ok and according to the article

A hypothesis is usually written in the form of an if-then statement, which gives a possibility (if) and explains what may happen because of the possibility (then). The statement could also include "may," What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis

I did fail at that point…………. My hypothesis was not written in a “if then” format……………………was that my catastrophic failure?.............do you really think that was a relevant mistake?

simply unwilling to learn how you screwed up.

You havent expalin why/how I screwed up

 

[Subduction Zone]

no


ok and according to the article

A hypothesis is usually written in the form of an if-then statement, which gives a possibility (if) and explains what may happen because of the possibility (then). The statement could also include "may," What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis

I did fail at that point…………. My hypothesis was not written in a “if then” format……………………was that my catastrophic failure?.............do you really think that was a relevant mistake?



You havent expalin why/how I screwed up

Oh my, it is dishonest to cherry pick. And yes, I explained it twice. The article supports my explanation. Just admit that you were wrong and maybe even lied when you claimed that I did not explain it to you and I will go into more detail.

 

[leroy]

Oh my, it is dishonest to cherry pick.

I read the article and I noted I probable mistake that I made…………….what is dishonest about that?

Just admit that you were wrong and maybe even lied when you claimed that I did not explain it to you and I will go into more detail.

I was wrong and I lied............

and I will go into more detail.

please do

 

[leroy]

I didn't follow the discussion. It's not easy or pleasant trying to follow you. You fixate and obsess, and you ignore most of what is written to you.

I'm sure that you don't remember and probably didn't even read my comments in the past about asking yourself what's in this for the other guy. There's nothing for me in your posting to others nor in your posting to me. Look at how much of that post you failed to comment on - all of the interesting to me stuff.

Sorry, Leroy, but since you aren't interested in giving me the courtesy of responding to my points, I have no interest in responding to your posts except the aspects that interest ME, and this isn't interesting to me.

Furthermore, I'm certain that if I gave you a good answer, you'd ignore most or all of it as you did my explanation of what evidence is and how it's evaluated. Why? Because there's nothing in it for me. I'd be doing it for you, and I'm no longer predisposed to do anything at all for you. That's the price of your self-absorption. That the price of your selfish posting etiquette. My responses to you are limited to what interests me, and I'd rather discuss your behavior than your questions. I don't care about what matters to you.

That is ok, if this doesn’t interests you, then you don have to answer…………

 

[firedragon]

The same is true with testimonies, you can ask the witnesses about the ghost, I can ask them, Joe can ask them………….etc. we can all verify and see if the witness is reporting the same experience

What if the witnesses contradict each-other?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read the article and I noted I probable mistake that I made…………….what is dishonest about that?




I was wrong and I lied............


please do

As people explained to you again and again a hypothesis is an explanation. You never presented an explanation:

"A scientific hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world. It's the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an "educated guess" based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, a hypothesis is more informed than a guess. While an "educated guess" suggests a random prediction based on a person's expertise, developing a hypothesis requires active observation and background research. "

So you need much more than a statement. A hypothesis can often be described in a single sentence but in no way is that the hypothesis itself. And all that you had was a single sentence description Not only that but the explanation has to be thorough enough so that one can make predictions with it, And those predictions are what can be used to test the hypothesis.

"The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no predetermined outcome. For a solution to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be an idea that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This concept, called falsifiability and testability, was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper in his famous book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (Routledge, 1959).


A key function of a hypothesis is to derive predictions about the results of future experiments and then perform those experiments to see whether they support the predictions."

Do you understand now how you were not close to having a hypothesis?

 

[gnostic]

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.

No, leroy. Once again, you are wrong, this time about the equations.

The “equations” are parts of the explanations or parts of the predictions…THE EQUATIONS ARE NOT PART OF THE TESTS OR THE OBSERVATIONS, Leroy.

Formulating the equations occurred within the modelling of the explanation or within modelling of the predictions.

In another word, equations or formulas are parts of a hypothesis.

The explanations, which would include the equations, are only PROPOSALS, and they are subjected to tests. As a proposed equation, each equations along with the (proposed) explanation, are never automatically true, nor accepted, until each model (explanation & equations) has been individually tested.

The test doesn’t include the equation, as the equation is part of the hypothesis. So when you are testing the hypothesis, you would be also testing any equation that has been included with the explanation.

There are 2 types of test:

1. Observation 1: discovering and observing the EVIDENCE.
2. Observation 2: performing lab-controlled EXPERIMENTS.

There is 3rd observation - information acquired from the 2 observations above, from the “evidence” and from the “experiments”. These information include physical properties or its physical compositions, and these properties often include measurements, quantities, etc. Inf is often referred to as DATA.

it is these 3 observations that either refute or verify a hypothesis. So if the hypothesis has been REFUTED by the tests, then the equations have been refuted along with the explanation.

The evidence and/or experiments are independent of the explanations (including any equation) & the predictions.

Evidence & experiments are physical samples of natural & physical phenomena, whereas explanations along with any equation or any formula, are abstract models that are based on the model…and they are abstract because they are man-made or of human-constructs.

just as the hypothesis is an attempt to model the world with set of explanations, mathematical equations and formulas are models of abstract logic.

You are wrong.

And saying it is just semantics, is also wrong.

To avoid confusion, the science vocabulary should be agreed upon by all scientists, no matter what languages you speak in, they should be properly defined and understood, and there should be properly used In respective science & in their respective fields.

So words might be the same, in both science and law, like “proof”, but they have different meanings, contexts and usages. In legal studies and courtrooms, proof is synonymous with evidence, but they are not synonymous in natural sciences and in mathematics. Proofs are logical models, often represented either as formulas or as equations.

proof have more to do with mathematics, like when you are trying to solve the equations.

Evidence, on the other hand, is a physical sample of nature that has been “observed”.

For example, if you were a geologist, then your physical evidence would be rocks and their respective minerals. There are many types of rocks, but generally they are classified by the way they were composed, eg igneous rocks, sedimentary rocks, metamorphic rocks. As I said, these rocks would be the evidence, they are not proofs.

Another example would be electromagnetic fields. When Michael Faraday performed experiments in the lecture hall before his fellow scientists and students, he demonstrated that electricity from battery can both electric and magnetic fields from coiled wire (hence electromagnetic induction), that would make needle of galvanometer moved. These are all evidence, and all physical, including the electricity & the electromagnetic fields that were induced from the coil. Those are evidence, not proofs.

Proofs, are what Faraday’s contemporary did - James Clerk Maxwell, who based on Faraday’s teachings on electromagnetism, formulated a numbers of equations on EM fields. These Maxwell’s equations are proofs, they are not evidence.

Understanding the difference between evidence and proof are essential for avoiding confusion. Confusion that most creationists don’t understand. And after all these years, you have been here, you still cannot understand these differences. You are still repeating the same errors, as many other creationists do.

Proofs are maths, not physical evidence.

And apparently, you don’t know what a hypothesis is, when used in context in natural sciences. A hypothesis is falsifiable explanation, and such explanation must be in details, not a 1-liner sentence. You are not explaining anything with your examples.

It like you are only reading the headline, while ignoring the contents of an article. The contents in the explanation matters more in a hypothesis, you not explaining anything with a single sentence.

You have been corrected so many times, by different members, but you refused to acknowledge your errors. You just keep repeating the errors, while ignoring every correction. You are hypocrite when you said you would acknowledge any error you have made.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

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

This doesn't address anything I've requested from you or anything of yours that I've challenged. It seems like meaningless filler used as a diversion. You are not interested in discussion and you refuse to support or explain anything you claim.

You don't offer anything worthwhile to make continuing effort to engage you meaningful.

I'm not interested in discussing your belief system or talking bees and squirrels.