Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[LightLoveHope]

No, thats wrong. I have no faith.

You have a belief that I will understand the sentence you are writing.
You have faith that the computer system will deliver to me that sentence so I can read it. These a assumptions and belief systems.

If you get involved in computers, you begin to realise how deep this goes, when things start to go wrong, and you find the cause, which can often be something unrelated but fundamental which one had faith would just work.

Religious faith is just formalising our understanding and assumptions.
But I know to hold a position like atheism, and determinism, one has to be definitive in ones statement. There is also deep question that blows my mind.
If I write a sentence how do I know I have written it right. Memory and the feeling at the end no problems were found.

So we only know anything is actually true because we believe the process is robust. But just one assumption along the way is wrong and it will be wrong. This makes all our reasoning and assumptions very fragile and prone to bias and past emotional interactions which will blind us to obvious conclusions we hate.

I want to say simply, I want to know if Jesus is wrong and how wrong. It is because He claims to be the truth. In this proposition there is no place to hide and run from, no possible shadow. It also makes Him extremely profound.

 

[VirOptimus]

You have a belief that I will understand the sentence you are writing.
You have faith that the computer system will deliver to me that sentence so I can read it. These a assumptions and belief systems.

If you get involved in computers, you begin to realise how deep this goes, when things start to go wrong, and you find the cause, which can often be something unrelated but fundamental which one had faith would just work.

Religious faith is just formalising our understanding and assumptions.
But I know to hold a position like atheism, and determinism, one has to be definitive in ones statement. There is also deep question that blows my mind.
If I write a sentence how do I know I have written it right. Memory and the feeling at the end no problems were found.

So we only know anything is actually true because we believe the process is robust. But just one assumption along the way is wrong and it will be wrong. This makes all our reasoning and assumptions very fragile and prone to bias and past emotional interactions which will blind us to obvious conclusions we hate.

I want to say simply, I want to know if Jesus is wrong and how wrong. It is because He claims to be the truth. In this proposition there is no place to hide and run from, no possible shadow. It also makes Him extremely profound.

No, I really have no faith. I have knowledge, assumptions and guesses but no faith.

Faith is for religion.

 

[Mountainmike]

And that is the problem with many atheists I meet on this thread. They know little about the science they worship, that is the basis of their faith.

I am a postgrad professional physicist having spent time in both astrophysics and electron physics, as science director in several - also designing military devices early on in which quantum effects dominate.

So. It is almost certain I know more than you.

I now suggest you go back and actually STUDY the paradoxes of quantum physics. And what you thought you knew about even existence will be challenged. And at the end of that journey you will confirm what the wise ones already knew. Science is just a model. It has little to say about "what is and why is" , only what things normally do. It is after all an observation model in a limited projection space.

No, Im positive my assumption about your knowledge is correct.

You don understand the difference between an observer in the general and the specific you as an observer for starters.

My guess is that you have no formal education in science.

 

[LightLoveHope]

And that is the problem with many atheists I meet on this thread. They know little about the science they worship, that is the basis of their faith.

I am a postgrad professional physicist having spent time in both astrophysics and electron physics, as science director in several - also designing military devices early on in which quantum effects dominate.

So. It is almost certain I know more than you.

I now suggest you go back and actually STUDY the paradoxes of quantum physics. And what you thought you knew about even existence will be challenged. And at the end of that journey you will confirm what the wise ones already knew. Science is just a model. It has little to say about "what is and why is" , only what things normally do. It is after all an observation model in a limited projection space.

You are so right about blindness to conclusions outside ones frame of reference.
I was surprised how people for instance believe the earth could be flat, or that going into space was faked. I am beginning to think, we believe our brains tell us the truth, when they often protect us from emotional trauma, so we can carry on as we are. I know I am just as vulnerable. The biggest mistake we make it to think we are not emotional beings compromising all the time. I suspect it is this that makes God lethal to us. He has no compromise, so we will fall apart in His presence unless Jesus has done some fundamental work in our souls.

I know everyday I need to feel good about myself and that the outcomes have hope or else I would not continue on the projects I am pursuing. It is humbling to realise how vulnerable we are, which is one reason why the cross speaks so deeply to me all the time, Amen.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Do you know how or why devices used by the miltary are effect by quantum mechanics and how this works?
I do, in summary form, because I know some quantum physics and some about the problems of miltary systems. So it suggests to me you do not know degree level understanding of physics so I know 100% you know less than us.

I do not like statements with certainty, but about this I am certain, based on your response. If you think you know, please tell us, if not I am right, a good scientific experiment if you fail, lol.

 

[mindlight]

Answer my question.
Do you believe the moon exists before you observe it.
If so why?

And there is atheist science..Dawkins crap.

Even if the sky were always cloudy there are questions raised by things like tides or eclipses for example that might lead us to speculate on the existence of the moon.

That we can see it and observe its movements relative to us whether from here on earth or by virtue of the Apollo missions from the moon itself proves its existence and orbital details incontrovertibly.

Thus the existence of the moon is factual and verifiable not something contingent on our models of observation nor a product of them. It is an example of a straight forward scientific fact rather an explanation generated from our scientific theories.

The three theories mentioned in the OP are by contrast pure guesses. In these cases the supporting evidence is moulded and even generated by applying the theory to what evidence we have. In the case of BBT Red shift is observable but is not enough by itself. In the case of abiogenesis there is no real evidence. In the case of biological evolution we can observe adaptive change, have fossils in globally spread layers of sedimentary rock. But it is the theory itself that forces the facts into supporting roles. Ultimately nothing can be duplicated and no actual predictions made

 

[Mountainmike]

Because I was right about the significance of Copenhagen and bell experiments, and einsteins view of them: indeed the even more ridiculous concept of multiverse using one irrational concept to explain another. Which as I said Carroll considers the " most embarrassing graph in physics" - that a century on , quantum physics has neither rational explanation or consensus on what the apparent irrational conclusion of the nature of quantum uncertainty means. It's not we don't know where it is till observed, it doesn't exist till observation crystallises it, and all the consequence for spooky interactions.


Not surprising - I am what i said: a postgrad electronic physicist , who was indeed science director of an astronomical research facility linked to a university involved in cutting edge programs.

So I have not had to " do have educated myself " (sic), I am university trained, although such is my fascination I read way beyond my core areas.

I really do suggest you study the " God of science" you seem to put such faith in.. it is not what you think. Nor is your use of the word " fact" philosophically correct.

Start with the Copenhagen interpretation and bell experiments( , if your physics is up to it.)

And stop insulting others: the inability to answer others queries except by demeaning them reflects badly on you , not them.
It is the ultimate straw man argument anyway.
It doesn't matter who I am as to whether my argument is true: - and since I quote leading historic physics conferences i.e. Copenhagen, it clear,y is valid science!

 

[VirOptimus]

And yet you have failed to challenge anything I , or Einstein, or Bohr said. Because I was right about the significance of Copenhagen and bell experiments, and einsteins view of them: indeed the even more ridiculous concept of multiverse using one irrational concept to explain another. Which as I said Carroll considers the " most embarrassing graph in physics" - that a century on , quantum physics has neither rational explanation or consensus on what the apparent irrational conclusion of the nature of quantum uncertainty means. It's not we don't know where it is till observed, it doesn't exist till observation crystallises it, and all the consequence for spooky interactions.


Not surprising - I am what i said: a postgrad electronic physicist , who was indeed science director of an astronomical research facility linked to a university involved in cutting edge programs.

So I have not had to " do have educated myself " (sic), I am university trained, although such is my fascination I read way beyond my core areas.

I really do suggest you study the " God of science" you seem to put such faith in.. it is not what you think. Nor is your use of the word " fact" philosophically correct.

Start with the Copenhagen interpretation and bell experiments( , if your physics is up to it.)

And stop insulting others: the inability to answer others queries except by demeaning them reflects badly on you , not them.
It is the ultimate straw man argument anyway.
It doesn't matter who I am as to whether my argument is true: - and since I quote leading historic physics conferences i.e. Copenhagen, it clear,y is valid science!

?

I am fully aware of the Copenhagen interpretation and Einsteins reluctancy to accept quantum physics.

This has nothing to do with your religious ramblings about science.

Science do not require faith, faith is for religion.

 

[LightLoveHope]

?

I am fully aware of the Copenhagen interpretation and Einsteins reluctancy to accept quantum physics.

This has nothing to do with your religious ramblings about science.

Science do not require faith, faith is for religion.

This is Newtonian logic. A materialist believes existence defines everything around them.
On a superficial level this seems to make perfect sense which is why the people around 1900
thought they understood everything. The problem is everything is taken as repeatable by
faith. No matter how many times you repeat an experiment, you have to always assume it
will result in the same results. It has pragmatic value, but until it changes it is taken as
defined.

This is why you cannot prove God, or any position one takes, even atheism. As science was
deemed the weapon that destroys faith, it is hard to recognise in the end it defines faith.

I do wonder why atheist get so angry about things.
Oh the injustice of morality.

Until modern medicine came along adultery often led to deadly sexually transmitted diseases.
So not only was it breaking a vow, it was killing oneself and ones partner.

Should one just sit by and ignore this cost.
It is the problem that morality creates constraints on the worldly passions, and results in
long life and true enjoyment, yet for those who want to die, it is just a prison to be broken
out of. Live without restraint and burn bright but short or learn how to live eternally and
burn with an everlasting flame of love.

 

[Mountainmike]

?

I am fully aware of the Copenhagen interpretation and Einsteins reluctancy to accept quantum physics.

This has nothing to do with your religious ramblings about science.

Science do not require faith, faith is for religion.

I have said nothing about religion.

Except yours - your faith in science - elevating it to a position it does not deserve.
Clearly because you misuse the word "fact"

And you are wrong. Einstein was the father of quantum physics - so clearly happy with it.
He disliked the stochastic implications, (that is quantum processes that were truly random , not just a deterministic process of so many objects it gave the illusion of randomness - as is thermodynamics ie gas behaviour for example)
and he hated the forced interpretation of uncertainty (ie copenhagen) which developed in directions that were anathema to his belief in determinism and causality, but was forced to concede that was true.

I quoted him correctly "I refuse to believe the moon is not there till I look at it" - he was equally forced to concede that was true,
And that the aggregation to large body physics (ie what is called quantum decoherence) only creates the ILLUSION of objective existence independent of observation, not the actuality of it.

All nonsense of course in the real world, but necessary for scientific model

The bell experiments proved it. I doubt your physics is good enough to understand them.
Be warned...if you claim to understand it, I will EASILY catch you out.

And as for the multiverse now used to explain one irrational idea (ie observations crystallizing existence) - it is even more irrational.

Do you really believe there are an infinite number of YOU? with all possible pasts and futures?

The rational ones amongst us dont!

Because that is what YOUR God of science says must be true. To explain away quantum uncertainty.


So I say again to you.

Science is not a philosophical underpinning of existence - that you and your kind seem to hold.

It is just an observation model, that has little or nothing to say on "what is" or "why is" it just a projection model of observations of what it normally does
A very useful model for sure. It has allowed us to develop sophisticated things.
But just a model....

So the paradoxes are not real...nor is the model of science "real" in any other sense than it is a reasonable model of observation.

There is far more FORENSIC evidence for life of a theistic origin, than there is for a first cell by random chance chemistry. And on that basis, Darwin fails his own test, for the validity of his theory (which isnt actually a theory in strict scientific sense) - did you know Darwin put a "get out " clause into his theory of eveolution of what he - Darwin himself - said would disprove it...and indeed the evidence exists that triggers that?

 

[VirOptimus]

I have said nothing about religion.

Except yours - your faith in science - elevating it to a position it does not deserve.
Clearly because you misuse the word "fact"

And you are wrong. Einstein was the father of quantum physics - so clearly happy with it.
He disliked the stochastic implications, (that is quantum processes that were truly random , not just a deterministic process of so many objects it gave the illusion of randomness - as is thermodynamics for example)
and he hated the forced interpretation of uncertainty (ie copenhagen) which developed in directions that were anathema to his belief in determinism and causality, but was forced to concede that was true.

I quoted him correctly "I refuse to believe the moon is not there till I look at it" - he was equally forced to concede that was true,
And that the aggregation to large body physics (ie what is called quantum decoherence) only creates the ILLUSION of objective existence independent of observation, not the actuality of it.

All nonsense of course in the real world, but necessary for scientific model

The bell experiments proved it. I doubt your physics is good enough to understand them.
Be warned...if you claim to understand it, I will EASILY catch you out.

And as for the multiverse now used to explain one irrational idea (ie observations crystallizing existence) - it is even more irrational.

Do you really believe there are an infinite number of YOU? with all possible pasts and futures?

The rational ones amongst us dont!

Because that is what YOUR God of science says must be true. To explain away quantum uncertainty.


So I say again to you.

Science is not a philosophical underpinning of existence - that you and your kind seem to hold.

It is just an observation model, that has little or nothing to say on "what is" or "why is" it just a projection model of observations of what it normally does
A very useful model for sure. It has allowed us to develop sophisticated things.
But just a model....

So the paradoxes are not real...nor is the model of science "real" in any other sense than it is a reasonable model of observation.

There is far more FORENSIC evidence for life of a theistic origin, than there is for a first cell by random chance chemistry. And on that basis, Darwin fails his own test, for the validity of his theory (which isnt actually a theory in strict scientific sense) - did you know Darwin put a "get out " clause into his theory of what he said would disprove it...and indeed the evidence exists that triggers it?

Mixing religion with science the way you do is wholly unscientific and also bad theology and bad philosophy.

I stand by my assesment.

 

[VirOptimus]

This is Newtonian logic. A materialist believes existence defines everything around them.
On a superficial level this seems to make perfect sense which is why the people around 1900
thought they understood everything. The problem is everything is taken as repeatable by
faith. No matter how many times you repeat an experiment, you have to always assume it
will result in the same results. It has pragmatic value, but until it changes it is taken as
defined.

This is why you cannot prove God, or any position one takes, even atheism. As science was
deemed the weapon that destroys faith, it is hard to recognise in the end it defines faith.

I do wonder why atheist get so angry about things.
Oh the injustice of morality.

Until modern medicine came along adultery often led to deadly sexually transmitted diseases.
So not only was it breaking a vow, it was killing oneself and ones partner.

Should one just sit by and ignore this cost.
It is the problem that morality creates constraints on the worldly passions, and results in
long life and true enjoyment, yet for those who want to die, it is just a prison to be broken
out of. Live without restraint and burn bright but short or learn how to live eternally and
burn with an everlasting flame of love.

Irrelevant ramblings, have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[Mountainmike]

Irrelevant ramblings, have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

All to do with your misplaced faith in the God of science.

Own up.

Do you really believe there are an infinite number of YOU with all possible pasts and futures?
Your God science does...

Or didnt you know?
You really do worship a strange beast!

Us rational people dont believe that.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Irrelevant ramblings, have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

I am glad you admit the validity of the scientific method is irrelevant.

You just need to admit whatever you believe beyond that point is a faith statement.
But this you cannot do, because then you would be a believer which is what you hate, so would cause such an emotional turmoil you cannot face it. But there you have it. Hatred for belief while actually believing, what is called cognative disonance, or being intellectually dishonest.

And it occurs because the very thing we hate most is often the very thing we are doing.
Psychologists call this projection, and walling off disapproved of behaviour which we ourselves do.

The difficulty is outsiders cannot help the individual until they realise the state they are in, and start to take down the barriers. Until then they are certain they are right, and everyone else is so obviously wrong. When this overtakes a whole culture, very bad things happen.

 

[Mountainmike]

The sad thing is many who preach their God of science, do not realise what a strange beast they worship!

And you are right...they miss the fact that their belief is as strong as those they attack, so truly is cognitive dissonance.

The problems do not stop there.
If you read a book like "cialdini" - the psychology of influence, you see other forces at work amongst atheists.

One is "informational conformance" - that is the temptation of most when faced with information too complex to understand ( for most people that is science) , is to side with those they perceive in "authority".

Fascinating experiments were done on authority.
A lecture was given as an experiment to groups of students. Same lecturer. Same lecture. But they introduced the lecturer as variously "mr " Dr" and "professor" and then asked questions, one of which was simple. How tall was the lecturer?

There was a massive statistical significance in their estimation that "professor" was taller than "dr" and MUCh taller than "mr"

Authority was plenty enough to make people torture others in experiments too.

And that is the problem when those with agendas perceived in authority like Dawkins preach pure opinion beyond their experience zone (which he does often...) Too many believe his conclusions because of authroity when he preaches b/s in many scientific regards beyond his sphere of knowledge.

Talke a simple one.

The studies done on the statistical significance of telepathy are a slamdunk. Beyond doubt on evidential level. By academics with impecable track record. Yet dawkins hates telepathy, and refused even to discuss the evidence before dismiss it out of hand in debates. And no doubt his followers, who do not have time to understand the evidence believe him just as they believe his faith in anti theism.

So they preach their God science, whilst never understanding how strange it is. Because of authority and informational conformance. And they do not see the cognitive dissonance in their attack on others beliefs!

I am sure you - like I dont believe there are an infinite number of you of all pasts and futures.

Science does! It is called the multiverse - the most prominent idea to explain quantum uncertainty.

And I am sure those promoting science on this thread are unaware of that too.

I am glad you admit the validity of the scientific method is irrelevant.

You just need to admit whatever you believe beyond that point is a faith statement.
But this you cannot do, because then you would be a believer which is what you hate, so would cause such an emotional turmoil you cannot face it. But there you have it. Hatred for belief while actually believing, what is called cognative disonance, or being intellectually dishonest.

And it occurs because the very thing we hate most is often the very thing we are doing.
Psychologists call this projection, and walling off disapproved of behaviour which we ourselves do.

The difficulty is outsiders cannot help the individual until they realise the state they are in, and start to take down the barriers. Until then they are certain they are right, and everyone else is so obviously wrong. When this overtakes a whole culture, very bad things happen.

 

[VirOptimus]

All to do with your misplaced faith in the God of science.

Own up.

Do you really believe there are an infinite number of YOU with all possible pasts and futures?
Your God science does...

Or didnt you know?
You really do worship a strange beast!

Us rational people dont believe that.

I dont believe in god(s).

 

[VirOptimus]

I am glad you admit the validity of the scientific method is irrelevant.

You just need to admit whatever you believe beyond that point is a faith statement.
But this you cannot do, because then you would be a believer which is what you hate, so would cause such an emotional turmoil you cannot face it. But there you have it. Hatred for belief while actually believing, what is called cognative disonance, or being intellectually dishonest.

And it occurs because the very thing we hate most is often the very thing we are doing.
Psychologists call this projection, and walling off disapproved of behaviour which we ourselves do.

The difficulty is outsiders cannot help the individual until they realise the state they are in, and start to take down the barriers. Until then they are certain they are right, and everyone else is so obviously wrong. When this overtakes a whole culture, very bad things happen.

How about no. I dont hate "believers", and Im very comfortable in my knowledge thank you very much.

Its not I who project faith onto atheists and therefore show my uncertainty.

 

[Mountainmike]

I dont believe in god(s).

I asked if you believe there are an infinite number of you with all possible pasts and futures.
Simple question, yes or no.

Or dont you believe in the veracity of science?

You are trapped by my question in your own belief in the God of science.
Do you or dont you? State your belief!

 

[VirOptimus]

I asked if you believe there are an infinite number of you with all possible pasts and futures.
Simple question, yes or no.

Or dont you believe in the veracity of science?

That is a possible hypothesis that explain many facts.

Its a long way from there to it being a scientific theory however.

Belief has nothing to do with it, just accepting facts and studying the hypothesis as they are presented.

 

[Mountainmike]

Now answer the questions you are asked.

1/ Do you BELIEVE the moon exists before you observe it?
2/ Do you BELIEVE there are an infinite number of you?

Simple yes or no will do.

You are like all the others. You dont realise what a strange God you believe in with Science.

That is a possible hypothesis that explain many facts.

Its a long way from there to it being a scientific theory however.

Belief has nothing to do with it, just accepting facts and studying the hypothesis as they are presented.