Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[VirOptimus]

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.

I have no belief, how many times do I have to write it until you understand? Belief is for religion, not science.

 

[Mountainmike]

I have no belief, how many times do I have to write it until you understand? Belief is for religion, not science.

Back to the mantra since you cant defend rational argument.

You clearly do either believe the moon is there or not. Which is it?

I do . I believe the moon is there whether I look at it or not.
Because I KNOW science cannot answer the questions you BELIEVE it can.

lets try another.

You are an atheist.
Do you BELIEVE that the first cell happened as a biochemical accident (or a sequence of them)
You must do as an atheist. Otherwise you would have to be an agnostic.

If so is that in your view 1/ just BELIEF, 2/ A HYPOTHESIS, or 3/ A THEORY.

Then I will then tell you what science has to say about it and why.

 

[VirOptimus]

Back to the mantra since you cant defend rational argument.

You clearly do either believe the moon is there or not. Which is it?

I do . I believe the moon is there whether I look at it or not.
Because I KNOW science cannot answer the questions you BELIEVE it can.

lets try another.

You are an atheist.
Do you BELIEVE that the first cell happened as a biochemical accident (or a sequence of them)
You must do as an atheist.

If so is that in your view just BELIEF, A HYPOTHESIS, or A THEORY.

I will then tell you what science has to say about it.

No you will not, you will keep preaching about stuff I already know a whole lot more about then you, then you will write things that you have misunderstood, all supporting my null hypothesis about you.

 

[Mountainmike]

No you will not, you will keep preaching about stuff I already know a whole lot more about then you, then you will write things that you have misunderstood, all supporting my null hypothesis about you.

You realise you have lost this argument on every single point by failing to answer?

Or are you "dont know" to every question? including all issues in science?
In which case how do you "know" you are an atheist, other than Belief?
Or do you just BELIEVE you are an atheist?
And why do you BELIEVE science can answer questions?

The problem you have is the depth I have studied philosophy of science too!
I can easily trap you in a web of your own making.
Science is not what you think!

So try again.

Do you BELIEVE the first cell was a random biochemical accident or a sequence of them.

And is that in your view BELIEF, HYPOTHESIS or THEORY? which is it?
To claim to know science you MUST know which of those it is.
Otherwise you fail 101 science.

So which is it?

It is a fair question that hits at the nub of this thread.

Or are you dont know to all questions? In which case an agnostic?

 

[VirOptimus]

You realise you have lost this argument on every single point by failing to answer?

Or are you "dont know" to every question? including all issues in science?
In which case how do you "know" you are an atheist, other than Belief?
And why do you believe science can answer questions?

The problem you have is the depthy I have studied philosophy of science too!
I can easily trap you in a web of your own making.
Science is not what you think!

So try again.

Do you BELIEVE the first cell was a random biochemical accident or a sequence of them.

And is that in your view BELIEF, HYPOTHESIS or THEORY? which is it?

It is a fair question that hits at the nub of this thread.

Or are you dont know to all questions? In which case an agnostic?

*sigh* I'll take it slowly.

No, I dont have "belief" in anything. I accept facts and physical reality, no more no less.

A hypothesis is a model to describe facts, it may be upgraded to a theory if it proves to be sturdy enough.

Every hypothesis has to be evaluated on its own merits, as do theories of course. There are no belief involved in any step of the way.

Abiogenises f.ex. have a few hypothesis but no theory yet. We will see what the future holds, I have no belief in the matter as that would mean I am religious which I am not.

 

[Mountainmike]

Now answer the question

I want to know if you can pass even 101 science.

So I will speak slowly...

Is the Statement "the first cell is the result of a biochemical accident, or a sequence of them"

Is that
1/ A BELIEF
2/ A HYPOTHESIS
3/ A THEORY
It can only be one of them.

Failing to answer this time, says you know NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE
or even whether you are an atheist...you seemingly dont know!

*sigh* I'll take it slowly.

No, I dont have "belief" in anything. I accept facts and physical reality, no more no less.

A hypothesis is a model to describe facts, it may be upgraded to a theory if it proves to be sturdy enough.

Every hypothesis has to be evaluated on its own merits, as do theories of course. There are no belief involved in any step of the way.

Abiogenises f.ex. have a few hypothesis but no theory yet. We will see what the future holds, I have no belief in the matter as that would mean I am religious which I am not.

 

[VirOptimus]

Now answer the question

I want to know if you can pass even 101 science.

So I will speak slowly...

Is the Statement "the first cell is the result of a biochemical accident, or a sequence of them"

Is that
1/ A BELIEF
2/ A HYPOTHESIS
3/ A THEORY
It can only be one of them.

Failing to answer this time, says you know NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE
or even whether you are an atheist...you seemingly dont know!

Its a statement of speculation close to a hypothesis.

 

[Mountainmike]

Its a statement of speculation close to a hypothesis.

It is A BELIEF and that is all - it is also the underlying belief of ATHEISM

So do you believe it or not?

It is NOT a hypothesis, Or even close.
Now learn some science. Study the meaning of hypothesis, the specific conditions for one - you would not make your statement if you knew.
Then you tell me why it is NOT a hypothesis.

 

[VirOptimus]

It is A BELIEF and that is all - it is also the underlying belief of ATHEISM

So do you believe it or not?

It is NOT a hypothesis, Or even close.
Now learn some science. Study the meaning of hypothesis, the specific conditions for one - you would not make your statement if you knew.
Then you tell me why it is NOT a hypothesis.

...

No its not. As you are not interested in a real debate but just here to preach I will not enage you as a poster ever again.

You may now declare victory.

 

[Mountainmike]

...

No its not. As you are not interested in a real debate but just here to preach I will not enage you as a poster ever again.

You may now declare victory.

So for interested parties.
A hypothesis can only be declared if it can be tested by experiment. Which therefore requires a process that either repeats, can be repeated, or for which there is a conjectured mechanism - so that the experiment can be performed. Abiogenesis fails on all of those requirements. Yet I even see it called a theory in atheist groups.

Abiogenesis is therefore NOT a hypothesis.
It is a BELIEF. and that is all.

Some of us know something about science, which is why we think it is a strange God for those who believe it explains anything at all, and why the conflating of the word "science" and "fact" is clearly not warranted in most of the contexts it is used.

We also think the moon exists, whether we observe it or not, and that there is only one of us, not an infinite number. So we see the problems in regarding science as a philosophy of existence!

I am not interested in victory or vanquish

I am interested in communicating the correct view of philosophy of science. Questions it can answer, questions It cannot.

 

[VirOptimus]

So for interested parties.
A hypothesis can only be declared if it can be tested by experiment. Which therefore requires a process that either repeats, can be repeated, or for which there is a conjectured mechanism - so that the experiment can be performed. Abiogenesis fails on all of those requirements. Yet I even see it called a theory in atheist groups.

Abiogenesis is therefore NOT a hypothesis.
It is a BELIEF. and that is all.

Some of us know something about science, which is why we think it is a strange God for those who believe it explains anything at all, and why the conflating of the word "science" and "fact" is clearly not warranted in most of the contexts it is used.

We also think the moon exists, whether we observe it or not, and that there is only one of us, not an infinite number. So we see the problems in regarding science as a philosophy of existence!

I am not interested in victory or vanquish

I am interested in communicating the correct view of philosophy of science. Questions it can answer, questions It cannot.

This will be my last post directed at you.

I know exactly what an hypothesis and theory is, you clearly do not as you insert "belief" and "god(s)" in the mix.

Your misuse of the term "god" is well, just stupid. Atheists do not have gods, and the scientific method is devoid of belief and metaphysics.

 

[Mountainmike]

Then why did you get hypothesis wrong?
I can only suggest you do study science. It is not what you think.
You lost the science battle right there.

It is not the philosophical crutch that many atheists try to lean on.

You still havent told me.
Do you BELIEVE in "first cell a chemical accident" - I wager you do: it is part of the atheist faith. Just unwritten. Just a belief. Not a hypothesis.

Do you BELIEVE the moon is there before you look at it - I bet you do. Science does not.
Do you BELIEVE there are an infinite number of you? - I bet you dont. Science does.

It becomes a matter of FAITH for you/atheists generally not to declare what you BELIEVE in case you admit to "believing", which you see as a sign of weakness

We all do BELIEVE In something including you.. No shame in that.....I just find it strange you choose science, because I know what it is, and what it is not.

You BELIEVE in many things as an atheist. Including that science can help you decide what is true or not. You would not if you studied it sufficiently.
Which the #Fail on hypothesis says you have not.

How many last posts do you intend?

This will be my last post directed at you.

I know exactly what an hypothesis and theory is, you clearly do not as you insert "belief" and "god(s)" in the mix.

Your misuse of the term "god" is well, just stupid. Atheists do not have gods, and the scientific method is devoid of belief and metaphysics.

 

[Mountainmike]

Oh - and if you want to continue the thought process: you dont talk have to me about it, it is fascinating science.

Tell me the "get out" clause, Darwin put in his theory that HE said would disprove his theory.
That there is good forensic quality evidence that meets his test! to debunk the theory! (ie of the status they use in criminal conviction - beyond doubt)

Indeed there is far more evidence (which in this case points at theistic origin) for this tripping of Darwins criterion, than there is for abiogenesis. For which there is none.

Are you not interested?

This will be my last post directed at you.

I know exactly what an hypothesis and theory is, you clearly do not as you insert "belief" and "god(s)" in the mix.

Your misuse of the term "god" is well, just stupid. Atheists do not have gods, and the scientific method is devoid of belief and metaphysics.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A hypothesis can only be declared if it can be tested by experiment. Which therefore requires a process that either repeats, can be repeated, or for which there is a conjectured mechanism - so that the experiment can be performed. Abiogenesis fails on all of those requirements.

Even if we grant your view of what a hypothesis is, I don't see that it fails. Miller's experiment and its descendants are clearly experiments related to abiogenesis. Sure, none of them have produced a living thing, but that's not a problem. That would be like saying that "The Higgs particle exists" only became a hypothesis after we built a particle collider big enough to find it and actually succeeded in finding it. What we have is a path of investigation, where experiments teach us something and suggest refinements for future investigation.

 

[Ophiolite]

It is A BELIEF and that is all - it is also the underlying belief of ATHEISM

So do you believe it or not?

It is NOT a hypothesis, Or even close.
Now learn some science. Study the meaning of hypothesis, the specific conditions for one - you would not make your statement if you knew.
Then you tell me why it is NOT a hypothesis.

Background: My details show me as agnostic. This is accurate. However, in regard to the God of the Abrahamic religions I am an atheist.

You presented a series of options to vir optimus that were the equivalent of me asking you "Have you stopped beating your wife?" (By the way, have you? )

vir optimus rejected the trap and offered what he viewed as the correct response. You have then, either through poor reading comprehension or deliberate deceit, acted as if he voted for "hypothesis". He didn't. He made the quite reasonable observation that the statement "the first cell is the result of a biochemical accident, or a sequence of them" is a statement of speculation close to a hypothesis.

Your definition of hypothesis seems to have confused you. The hypotheses (note the plural) relating to abiogenesis are capable of being tested and such tests are ongoing. Had they been completed we would now be talking about theory (or theories) of abiogenesis.

Had you asked vir optimus to tell you what he thought abiogenesis were I suspect he might have said something like this. (vir optimus please correct me if I have this wrong in anyway.)

Abiogenesis is a concept relating to the origin of life by natural processes. It is anticipated that these processes will be complex and multi-staged. A number of speculative proposals have been made that describe the character of these processes. Hypotheses that address some of these have been established and tested, others have had tests proposed, but not yet carried out. Quite detailed scenarios, linking various stages, have been proposed and at least some of these merit the descriptor "hypothesis".

As to belief, and here I express my personal opinion only, I try to avoid all beliefs. To me a belief is an admission that we don't really know what's going on, so we are just going to take a wild stab in the dark. I don't believe in plate tectonics, or evolution, or a Conservative government* in the UK. However, I accept that plate tectonics is the best currently available explanation for observed geological phenomena. I accept that evolutionary theory provides the currently best available explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. I accept that a Conservative UK government is the best currently available explanation for the presence of Theresa May in No. 10 Downing Street. (But I find it really difficult to believe!)


*Other governments led by incompetent political parties are also available.

 

[VirOptimus]

Background: My details show me as agnostic. This is accurate. However, in regard to the God of the Abrahamic religions I am an atheist.

You presented a series of options to vir optimus that were the equivalent of me asking you "Have you stopped beating your wife?" (By the way, have you? )

vir optimus rejected the trap and offered what he viewed as the correct response. You have then, either through poor reading comprehension or deliberate deceit, acted as if he voted for "hypothesis". He didn't. He made the quite reasonable observation that the statement "the first cell is the result of a biochemical accident, or a sequence of them" is a statement of speculation close to a hypothesis.

Your definition of hypothesis seems to have confused you. The hypotheses (note the plural) relating to abiogenesis are capable of being tested and such tests are ongoing. Had they been completed we would now be talking about theory (or theories) of abiogenesis.

Had you asked vir optimus to tell you what he thought abiogenesis were I suspect he might have said something like this. (vir optimus please correct me if I have this wrong in anyway.)

Abiogenesis is a concept relating to the origin of life by natural processes. It is anticipated that these processes will be complex and multi-staged. A number of speculative proposals have been made that describe the character of these processes. Hypotheses that address some of these have been established and tested, others have had tests proposed, but not yet carried out. Quite detailed scenarios, linking various stages, have been proposed and at least some of these merit the descriptor "hypothesis".

As to belief, and here I express my personal opinion only, I try to avoid all beliefs. To me a belief is an admission that we don't really know what's going on, so we are just going to take a wild stab in the dark. I don't believe in plate tectonics, or evolution, or a Conservative government* in the UK. However, I accept that plate tectonics is the best currently available explanation for observed geological phenomena. I accept that evolutionary theory provides the currently best available explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. I accept that a Conservative UK government is the best currently available explanation for the presence of Theresa May in No. 10 Downing Street. (But I find it really difficult to believe!)


*Other governments led by incompetent political parties are also available.

Yes, you understood me perfectly thank you!

 

[Strathos]

This will be my last post directed at you.

I know exactly what an hypothesis and theory is, you clearly do not as you insert "belief" and "god(s)" in the mix.

Your misuse of the term "god" is well, just stupid. Atheists do not have gods, and the scientific method is devoid of belief and metaphysics.

Atheists may not have gods, but they do have dogmas.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Atheists may not have gods, but they do have dogmas.

Name one

 

[Strathos]

Name one

Philosophical naturalism.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Philosophical naturalism.

Not a dogma. Try again.