I do not wish to suggest that popularity determines truth -- no not at all. I merely say that people do believe, and that is evidence though not conclusive evidence. Just because some evidence is not conclusive does not make it non-evident. People believe in God, and that is a factor to be considered. They exist, and they say God exists.
All this proves is you did not read the definition, ANY evidence would be conclusive by definition. People beiliving in Yahweh does not make him any more likely to exist than Allah, Odin, or Zeus.
By 'Predictive qualities and reliability of logic' you refer to induction? I also like induction, but I do not pretend to know for certain that it is always correct. It is limited, because we cannot prove what happens in perpetuity, no matter how repeatable the object appears to be.
Correct, inductive logic can show what is more probable to be correct.
The only two truths are "I am a thinking thing" and "Something can not be both one thing and its opposite at the same instance in the same facet." Everything else is deducing or inducing what is more probable.
1. The information is not in need of a book for sustenance. Only you need the book. Information exists without books.
Ok show me information that did not originate among human perception.
2. Oh, I understand that gravity is a law in the sense that it is something we cannot change, but we are talking about the nature of reality. The theory of reality is not established. Information is the best explanation of existence, not energy. Energy by definition ought not to exist, because the Laws of Entropy imply that it must always decrease, yet it appears to exist. The theories to which you allude cannot explain the existence of energy, so they are flawed. Only information explains the universe's existence.
Incorrect, the laws of entropy imply that entropy must increase in a closed system, therefore all energy will lbe converted to heat (which is another form of energy).
Also just because a theory cannot answer every question does not make it flawed, scientist and other skeptics realize we do not know everything, something religions often clam.
Still waiting for proof that the universe is information, our perception of it is information but not the universe itself.
That is a social judgment, or are you saying that animals cannot form a society? They can, and we are part of that society. If you admit that torturing animals is wrong you innately agree that morality is social.
Don't be so pejorative.
Torturing an animal could be wrong because we innately feel it is, can you prove otherwise?
