I don’t know, if we defer to scripture it seems - to me - that it has “always existed” and the concept of beginning/end are inapplicable to it.
What measure of complexity did you use to establish this?
Sounds like the “I don’t know” is being “filled” with very ancient writing that is far from reality (the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them;the state or quality of having existence or substance).
To be somewhat convincing, evidence of “existence” needs to be established. It is a pre-supposition based on an assertion or unevidenced claim (the scriptures are the claim NOT the evidence).
I accept that “I don’t know” the “before time/space” HOWEVER it is equally arguable to state this deity died which initiated the evidenced evolution of the universe. The “concept of beginning/end are inapplicable to it” is again unevidenced.
Rather more so than you appear to be familiar with the concept of deduction. If the prerequisites for material processes (material) do not exist then they can hardly be invoked as a cause for material processes existing can they.
Or we can admit we don’t know, and disbelieve claims that are based on logical fallacies like the false dichotomies and argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies you are using. We do know natural phenomena are possible, and we do know the material universe exists, so using pure assumptions and fallacious argument to tack on things like supernatural and inexplicable magic there is no objective evidence is even possible, quite clearly violates Occam’s razor.
Not “knowing” is rather different from not “possible” Sheldon. I’ve said several times that all scientific explanations, theories are reductionist (feel free to contest this) that is the thing to be explained is described in terms of other, constituent things. Invoking the laws of nature as an explanation for the laws of nature is not reductionist, what’s more it is an absurdity.
There are plenty of scientists readily claiming that there is a deity. The popularity of atheism is not evidence of its correctness or soundness Sheldon, recall that slavery was once popular, eugenics was once popular and openly endorsed by leading members of the AAAS in the past, must I go on?
Is that why you picked “Sherlock Holmes”?
HE uses “inductive reasoning” We need to ask why more often. We need to stop jumping to false conclusions, then collecting the data which will support our decisions.
I answered honestly, I do not know. The existence of anything is an inference, based on various assumptions, those assumptions are unprovable, they are assumed this is the core of the scientific method.
I assume the presence of the universe has a rational (not scientific) explanation. I might be wrong but I do assume that. We can readily see that the material processes that constitute the universe cannot be used to explain the presence of the universe, one cannot explain a thing in terms of that thing - try it.
So by extension, there must be some non material agency, we cannot infer much more about that using our material senses for obvious reasons, we cannot scientifically investigate this agency when it is not itself subject to laws of nature.
Therefore it is reasonable to recognize that any deeper knowledge of it will have to be revealed to us in some way, that is to say the explanation for the material realm cannot be found by material science because it is not subject to science. It can only be found by revelation.
For a host of reasons that I won’t go into here, there are good reasons to regard the Biblical cannon (and perhaps some extra canonical works too) as being - to some degree - supernaturally originated.
This is the line of reasoning I use.
Science is rooted in inductive reasoning and inductive reasoning requires initial assumptions. Furthermore the very process of induction is an act of extrapolation, the claim that we can know what has not yet been observed by assuming it replicates what has already been observed - assumption.
I found the simplest explanation of the scientific model.
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/scientific-method-steps
My providing it is NOT to insult your intelligence BUT to help inform you (fill a gap of ignorance, which we all can have in various subjects).
Please read it to understand the steps (these are very simplistic and in a scientific atmosphere the papers, hypothesis, experiments require expertise).
The idea that “assumption” is initial, OK (a guess ifresult)… BUT the conclusion “Drawing a conclusion means determining whether what you believed would happen did happen.” IS the purpose of the steps.
I may assume a car is NOT coming when I’m at a crosswalk. I take a step. I look and notice a car which is not slowing/stopping. I re-evaluate MY ASSUMPTION based on real world evidence that I will get mowed down by a vehicle if I continue to pursue my “assumption”.
1 Like
And the trousers come down and the true nature of the beast is revealed to all…
1 Like
Say something else stupid. I dare you!
“The null hypothesis is a characteristic arithmetic theory suggesting that no statistical relationship and significance exists in a set of given, single, observed variables between two sets of observed data and measured phenomena.”
“The null hypothesis is a typical statistical theory which suggests that no statistical relationship and significance exists in a set of given single observed variables, between two sets of observed data and measured phenomena.”
What is the best way to describe the null hypothesis?
The null hypothesis is a typical statistical theory which suggests that no statistical relationship and significance exists in a set of given single observed variables, between two sets of observed data and measured phenomena.
I’ll give you 'One Link" you can find the others yourself or just stay ignorant.
2 Likes
Are you familiar with the structure of DNA and how it encodes the genes that define the amino acid sequences of proteins? The DNA backbone is a simple repeating sequence of sugar and phosphate groups, and the nucleotides that form the coding sequence are just a linear sequence of four nucleotide bases: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). Each amino acid in a protein is represented by three letter condons. The combination of the four nucleotide bases taken three at a time can encode 64 amino acids. Since there are only 20 biologically active amino acids, each amino acid can be encoded by up to three different condons. Add in the condons that encode stop sequences and you have the mechanism that encodes the genetic code.
That’s a pretty simple mechanism with low complexity. A computer doesn’t just encode information–it has components that implement arithmetic logic (the ALU), sequencing, I/O, caches, etc.
3 Likes
Mention “ENCODE,” Lest his next BS argument is DNA is a code. LOL WE ‘ENCODE’ DNA. Not the other way around. We convert it into a code so we don’t have to keep saying 'cytosine, guanine, thymine, proline, theonine, etc… We convert it into a code and the code stands for the chemicals. The chemicals do not create a code.
2 Likes
So which is it?
Thanks for the heads up, but you’re the one making the claim something is not possible though, not me. I’ve quoted it right there, and you clearly don’t know, else you’d have a Nobel prize in physics, at the very least.
Gotacha, you think unevidenced appeals to mystery magic and superstition are sound, but scientific rigour is absurd. Very convenient when the astonishing successes of the latter in helping understand reality fails to evidence your magic man in the sky, but I’m afraid that claim is what is utterly absurd.
I could care less what any scientist subjectively believes. However if there were scientific evidence to support theism as you claimed, then it’s reasonable to infer belief would be higher among scientists who better understood that evidence than the hoi polloi. Yet the fact remains atheism is far higher among scientists than in the general population, and even more so among elite bodies of scientists, like the National Academy of Science in the US, where atheism mirrors theism in the general population, and this rather destroys your claim.
Straw man fallacy, as I never made any such claim.
I’m not sure you must, and yet you do, little understanding yet though.
Yes you do seem to love unevidenced assumptions, but if that explanation were rational then the scientific method could be used to explain it. Science isn’t really rational since it is insentient, though scientists would need to be rational if their conclusions are to have scientific merit:
" Science is rational to the extent that the beliefs that it accumulates are true, and scientific reasoning is rational to the extent that it tends to produce true beliefs."
The efficacy of science is beyond question, though I understand the need of the superstitious to denigrate a method that keeps succeeding in understanding a universe with any recourse to that superstition or evidence for it. Rather than admit they’re holding an empty bag, religious apologists make ever more appeals to mystery, citing things science doesn’t yet understand and hiding their deity in the gap, yet tellingly never quite able to hide their contempt for the methods that fail to find any evidence of their magic man when those gaps are uncovered.
Ah finally we get to the religious false dichotomy at the end of the rainbow, but like the bible’s explanation of rainbows, it is risible unevidenced assumption.
Shouldn’t reasoning be in inverted commas there? Since when has adherence to archaic unevidenced superstition equated to reasoning? All you need is a bias in favour of one religion and a penchant for self delusion.
No no, he isn’t mentioning religion at all, so that’s just an assumption we all leaped to. 
I’m going to have a blinding headache if I keep rolling my eyes like this.
3 Likes
As is the inadequacy of your reply.
A hypothesis is not a theory.
That’s a pretty simple mechanism with low complexity. A computer doesn’t just encode information–it has components that implement arithmetic logic (the ALU), sequencing, I/O, caches, etc.
I think I asked you earlier, what measure of complexity are you using, Kolmogorov? Rademacher? what?
Why are you talking about computers?
Perhaps stupid is another word you have an arbitrary definition for, but that claim is correct? In a scientific context an hypothesis is very different from a theory, it’s quite startling how many theists come here who don’t know this most basic fact about the methods and language of science.
If we seem a little jaded or less than patient it’s because we’ve encountered every single claim and argument you’re making over and over again before, some of them almost verbatim. It sometimes becomes tiring to rehash the same explanations and refutations. Oh and we do understand it’s hard when you’re addressing multiple posters largely on your own.
That said it surprises me always when theists come here, and it’s as if they think we haven’t paid due diligence to religious claims and apologetics. Hell I’d swear some of them think we will just roll over, and let them tickle our belly at the first anecdotal claim or platitude.
Do you know what the term “proof” means? It seems not based on your responses recently. One can prove that the presence of the universe cannot be scientifically explained, if you dispute that then explain please.
You’re imagining things, please prove that I wrote “scientific rigor is absurd”, one again you are misinterpreting what I wrote and making things up. I neve used the term “magic man” either, you are interpreting what I write in the only way you know, a biased devotion to scientism - that’s your religion.
How can you be so certain that there’s no scientific evidence to support theism? surely this just a belief?
Go on, share here with us the line of reasoning that leads to the conclusion “therefore there’s no scientific evidence for theism”, of course you won’t because you can’t.
The popularity of a belief is not evidence that the belief is true or false. Popularity is influenced by a multitude of other powerful factors, the truth of the belief is often a secondary concern. Please don’t cite the AAAS as a reference either, leading members of the AAAS were staunch advocates of eugenics once.
Yes you do seem to love unevidenced assumptions, but if that explanation were rational then the scientific method could be used to explain it. Science isn’t really rational since it is insentient, though scientists would need to be rational if their conclusions are to have scientific merit:
The viability of any assumption is determined by whether reasoning from it leads to a contradiction, if it does not then the assumption is can be regarded s true until such time as we do discover a contradiction.
This is how falsification works in the sciences, a good example is Newton’s theory of universal gravitation, it made assumptions that many years later were found to contradict observation.
Just because some assumption doesn’t sit well with your own deeply held beliefs about reality isn’t relevant.
Ok I’ll try bullet points:
- You made an absolute claim that a material origin of the physical universe is not possible.
- I point out you don’t know this, else you’d likely be world famous with a Nobel prize in physics at the very least…
- You then bizarrely tell me that “not knowing is different from not possible”, even though I never claimed otherwise?
- When I point out this odd non sequitur, you make another bizarre non sequitur, implying that I don’t know what the word proof means, even though I never mentioned that either?
I have to ask, are you self medicating?
I didn’t say you’d written it? I claimed your assertions implied you thought it, you do understand the fundamental difference there right?
Where did I ever claim you had?
I’d suggest you look religion up in the dictionary, and the meaning of scientism, but I sense it’d be pearls before swine so to speak.
You could try looking at any global news network? I just checked CNN the BBC, Sky, and even Al Jazeera and the Vatican News sites, not one of them is running the banner headline that there’s been scientific evidence for a deity as you claimed. So I can only infer your claim was pure hubris, and of course not remotely true. However please do link the peer reviewed worthy scientific publications that is breaking this “scientific evidence” you claim exists? I suspect your just making an unevidenced and subjective assumption and trying to lend it gravitas by pretending it’s supported by some some scientific fact, oddly though when you cite science it’s to claim absolutes, the very thing you have dishonestly falsely accused me of doing.
Correct, again thanks for the heads up, but I already know what an argumentum ad populum fallacy is. The dearth of religiosity among elite scientists was offered as rebuttal to your lie that there was scientific evidence for a deity, not as any comment on theism per se.
What does this irrelevant (and unevidenced) claim about the history of the National Academy of Sciences, and your poisoning of the well fallacy, have to do with the fact they are overwhelming atheist destroying your lie that there is scientific evidence for a deity? Are you being deliberately dishonest with this irrelevant goal post shifting?
I made no assumption, and I have no religion? You seem to trolling now, so tread carefully is the only advice I can give you.
here is your assertion, and it is you who made the assumption not me.
A rational explanation would not negate a scientific one, quite the contrary. Scientific explanations cannot violate the principles of logic.
1 Like
Well as a trained scientist I don’t fit that category.
Yes, one can lead a horse to water and all that…
You’re starting to digress from the subject, was this intentional?
1 Like