You do know if you’re lying, the mods can look up your IP address and trace that back to your service provider.
That doesn’t look remotely like a proof. For example: what is the first premise?
2 Likes
In other words, you are not a credentialed scientist. You read some books and consider that to be sufficient to call yourself trained.
Correct?
2 Likes
Incorrect and irrelevant.
1 Like
They seem to be mass produced by dubious apologetic literature.
2 Likes
How is it incorrect? Irrelevant to whom?
1 Like
No, I didn’t say the information itself was simple, just how it’s represented.
Analogy: I can send very complex information using Morse code, but Morse code itself is very simple.
4 Likes
It is irrelevant to the subject, to the thread. Just as the color of a person’s skin is irrelevant in a discussion about racism or a person’s sexual orientation is irrelevant to a discussion about gay marriage.
Evaluate what the other person says without any reference to their personal traits, background, belief or prejudices.
That is your opinion, not mine.
I am! I’m evaluating your assertion that you are trained in science. Therefore, the specifics of your educational background is completely pertinent.
2 Likes
@Sherlock-Holmes, will you be sharing the particulars of the scientific training you’ve claimed to have? Or will you be coming up with another reason not to do so?
1 Like
For what it is worth: computer science has been a major driver in the quantification of complexity. It is hard to discuss the subject in a meaningful way without reference to computation complexity and Shannon information. The question shouldn’t be why you are talking about computers in a topic about complexity; the question should be why isn’t everyone?
2 Likes
You can’t evaluate that though! all you can do is accept or deny what I say about myself. None of what I say about myself can help you decide on the validity or invalidity of my arguments about the universe, it’s origins, a God, causality and so on.
Your deflections are becoming tedious.
2 Likes
Well that’s just the way it is, I refuse to discuss myself at the level of detail you demand, it is frankly none of your business too, If you cannot discuss atheism. theism, science, metaphysics and so on without probing into my private life then you’re going to be disappointed.
Well the availability of computers has been a huge boost to the study of complexity that’s for sure. The term “complexity” though has formal definitions and informal everyday usage.
Here’s a very interesting, short interview about complexity and the laws of nature:
John D. Barrow: Is the world simple or complex?
And yet another of your seemingly endless deflections. Sadly, despite your probable notion otherwise, you’re not very good at them, either.
You’ve dug your wee heels in and seem quite determined to offer no attempt at honesty or forthrightness.
If memory serves, you said some time ago that you’ve been having these discussions with folks identified as atheists for years. I’d wager all the money in my piggy bank that you’ve made no more headway here than elsewhere. I’d double that wager to bet you think you’ve “won” here just as adamantly as you think you have elsewhere.
Pity, really…
2 Likes
I don’t believe you.
You have repeated demonstrated your overwhelming ignorance.
You are not a scientist in the most basic of understanding of Science.
I think you have taken this word and appropriated it for your bad-faith distortions of reality … 
2 Likes
For sure. Could you please supply the exact definition you are using so I can perform some calculations? Or are my suspicions accurate; that you are just hand waving? I’m already convinced the latter is the case, but I’d be willing to reverse course if you’d throw a bone my way.
2 Likes
Then you should have said an hypothesis is the same a theory, as an example of a stupid claim.
That’s just a subjective claim, I do wonder as a “trained scientist” why you keep using the word proof as well, rather than evidence?
So we don’t know what the state was prior to big bang, yet you think it is a credible explanation to make claims based on us not knowing, still not seeing the problem are you? What is it about the phrase I don’t know that makes it anathema to religious apologetics?
And you know this how exactly? Dear oh dear, I hope you didn’t expend any money on this scientific training, I really do.
You don’t know what (if anything) existed before the big bang, and yet are making sweeping claims based on not knowing. Does this really need to be spelled out to a “trained scientist” before you desist from these risible absolutes? It goes without saying that none of this remotely evidence any deity.
We must do no such thing, that’s a false dichotomy fallacy if ever I saw one, I feel I now must press you for details on this “scientific training”, was it from a theological college by any chance? I mean really, page after page after page, and here we are back at your original god of the gaps polemic, this is poor stuff.
The derogations were based on your arguments and claims about science. Your unevidenced claim is a pretty obvious attempt to create an appeal to authority fallacy, It was you who introduced the unevidenced claim, and now when questioned want to pretend it has less relevance than your arguments, when it was precisely the poor nature of some of your claims about science that prompted you to offer the fallacy? In my life I’ve met plenty of people who were well trained, and none the less clueless for it btw.
You derided me for asserting there are scientific facts, I asked you if you really believe science does not know anything to be true, you failed repeatedly to answer. I find your claim more and more dubious I must say, or your grasp of language is being outdone by such hubris.
Yet you felt the urge to boast about scientific training? What does that imply?
What did you search for?
He’s scientifically trained man, course he fucking knows… 
Anyway now I say that, in what field, where, and what academic qualifications have you achieved @Sherlock-Holmes, if you don’t mind me asking?
Oh I have no scientific training at all btw, before you ask. Not unless you count GCE O level in physics and biology of course? Oh and I had a chemistry set as a child?
I think he may be misusing the word proof, I did query this earlier, and got no answer, but then I am not “scientifically trained”.
Why so coy, it is very relevant or you wouldn’t have made the boast.
So you raised it, but when challenged to evidence it, it suddenly becomes irrelevant? Hmmm…
We were, you didn’t like the inferences, and so made the claim??? A claim that is now inexplicable irrelevant when you’re asked to evidence it. You must see how that looks right?
Oh I’m not remotely scientifically trained, but I can take a pretty good stab at that one… 
…aaaaaand yet you made the claim, Watson you astound me!
Is that why you raised it in a public forum?
That reminds me I have a Nobel prize in…er…something, but I refuse to discuss it.
3 Likes
Me? I’m just a rural red-neck, BUT you don’t see me bragging about it to, you know, impress you all with my vast knowledge on a variety of subjects!
3 Likes