Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[Tinker Grey]

So still no dogmas?

 

[essentialsaltes]

You don't see how you're in lockstep with each other? You're practically a hive mind. If your usernames and avatars weren't there I couldn't tell which one of you posted what.

We certainly agree that your statement about dogma is in error. I don't think that counts as dogma, though.

 

[Ophiolite]

I will stop right here.

Excellent news. Next time I recommend you don't start.

Edit: I just went back and re-read what you wrote. Perhaps you just miswrote it, but you appear to be equating the Copenhagen Interpretation with the Many Worlds Interpretation. They are not equivalents. They are alternatives. The Copenhagen interpretation does not envisage multiple universes in which all possible quantum events have occurred. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the favoured interpretation amongst physicists. The Many Worlds Interpretation is a minority view, which is what I said and what you seem to have chosen to deny.

Please don't reply. I added this note for the benefit of other readers, although if you wish to clarify what you meant for their benefit you should probably go ahead.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Arguing on this Forum on and off for some 15 years now I have noticed that many people seem unable to distinguish what can be definitely known (ie a fact ) and what is a scientific theory and what is a guess.

This thread is going to offer a definition which no doubt a whole load of people will disagree with.

FACT:A fact is demonstrable with repeatable experimentation that anybody with the right equipment and appropriate training could duplicate.

THEORY:A scientific theory is a way of explaining a lot of facts by presenting a model which handles this evidence in a plausible fashion. The value of a scientific theory is weighted by:

1) its explanatory power
2) its ability to duplicate what is described ie. A theory of lifes emergence should also be able to facilitate the creation of life or refer to credible sources with a proven track record of creating life or it is merely a guess
3) by the ability to predict events before they happen e.g. an Asteroid will hit Jupiter at 5 o clock Friday. The sun will rise on January 1st in Lagos Nigeria at precisely....

GUESS:On this Basis I would suggest that the three pillars of modern naturalistic science are all guesses and should be regarded with a degree of agnosticism at best:

1) Big Bang
2) Chemical Emergence of Life - absolutely no supporting factual evidence whatsoever!!!!
3) Biological Evolution

EDIT:
As a result of the subsequent discussion I think it is worth distinguishing between historical and scientific facts. The battle of Waterloo for example is an historical fact verified by innumerable high quality witnesses and sources. But it is not a scientific fact cause it cannot be demonstrated incontrovertibly to have taken place.

Let's review, shall we....

Evolution theory.

1. explanatory:
Evolution explains geographic distribution of species.
It explains why humans share more ERV's with primates then non-primates.
It explains anatomical similarity
It explains a ginormous amount of things.

2. practical application:
Exploiting evolutionary mechanisms through artificial selection. This gave us horse breeds, dog breeds, brussel sprouts, eatable banana's and other seedless fruits, broccoli..
Genetic algortims, which model evolutionary mechanisms, being awesome at optimizing a wide range of systems
Etc

3. predictability
To name just one example among an uncountable amount: tiktaalik.
Paleontologists, going by the idea that tetrapods evolved from fish vertebrates in the Devonian, looked at geological maps and pinpointed exposed Devonian rocks in locations that, back in those days, would have been favourable for fossilisation. They predicted that such locations would hold transitional fossils of "fish tetrapods". They went to the location, started digging and found exactly that: a fish/tetrapod. A previously unknown creature with both fish and tetrapod features.


It seems that evolution theory is solid science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And there is atheist science..Dawkins crap.

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and atheist.
Francis Collins is an evolutionary biologist and theist.

The biological sience of Francis Collins isn't any different from the biological science of Dawkins.

That one is an atheist and the other a theist, is irrelevant to the science they both work(ed) on, which is the same science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Big Bang is a theory that cannot be duplicated , makes no clear predictions

Nonsense.

Here's just one example: Neutrino Evidence Confirms Big Bang Predictions - Universe Today

Then there's also predictions concerning microwave background radiation etc...

It does not really matter if a Christian came up with it. The point is that it does not give any kind of certainty about our origins

No scientific theory will ever give certainty.
Scientific theories don't deal with certainties.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But BBT is in effect an attempt to marry religion with an old view of the universe.

No.

Big Bang theory is (rather succesfull) attempt to explain the data.
Just like every other scientific theory.

Religion, has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Religion in science is irrelevant.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You could not even demonstrate the battle of Waterloo took place scientifically even though it is an obvious historical fact. If an event just 200 years ago is not demonstrable what chance has a process you say took billions of years?!

Or 2000 years ago. ;-)

 

[DogmaHunter]

On a different note, the bible is a weird book, 4,000 years old but still relevant today.

To Christians.
Hindu scriptures are even older and still relevant to hindu's today.
So what?

And the stories it contains are unusual, unlike any stories from any other source.

Actually, they are not unusual at all. It's the same kind of stories you can find in just about any mythology... resurections, miracle healings, gods bearing sons with humans etc... It's all been done before. It was already cliché common story telling when the bible was being written.

I am staggard people who were just entering the iron age are people we can relate to because we have not changed though our technology has.

I don't find that staggering at all, actually.
We are the same species, why would we be psychologically any different?
If you would have a timemachine, travel 15000 years into the past and kidnap a newborn baby, return and raise it in the 21st century... you wouldn't notice any difference.

And what the story is of a relationship with the creator, very odd. No other story speaks to the creator of everything, face to face. And even then, they messed up. Not exactly a good story for the state of how we cope with facts right in our face.

If you are just going to point to the unique aspects of your specific religion as evidence for your specific religion, then you could make the exact same argument about the unique aspects of any other religion.

Obviously different religions are going to have unique aspects. Otherwise, they would all be the same religion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you miss my point. We live each day by faith.
The faith we all live by, is today will be similar enough to yesterday that we do not have to check it.

That's not faith.
That's a reasonable expectation based on a ginormous body of evidence.

You begin to see how this is how we deal with fear is when something breaks it down. So this is what I mean by faith.

I agree somewhat. Faith is unreasonable and irrational. That's what trauma can do to you. It prevents you from thinking clearly and rationally.

It is why everyone has faith in something or else they could literally do nothing.

That makes no sense to me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If there purpose in life?
If life is meaningless, you may as well be dead as much as being alive.
Yet our whole bodies find purpose and meaning in everything.

With no meaning why believe in morality or any framework because the outcome is ultimately pointless, even this conversation. People who believe life is meaningless want to tell people it matters that they believe and they should abandon their faith to believe nothing has meaning. Now that is a joke of an argument, because it destroys its own purpose and foundation. The argument really is people feel guilt and blame religion for it not realising religion is explaining the guilt not creating it.
So why is there guilt if in the universe there is no purpose or point?

Maybe you require cosmic big brothers to find meaning in life, but many people don't.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

It's funny that you ask him to answer your question, then you just go and tell him your answer anyway, and declare that your answer is right, with absolutely NOTHING to back it up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have a belief that I will understand the sentence you are writing.

Based on lots of evidence.
Based on the knowledge of what language is and the evidence present in this very thread and your posts that you speak and understand said language.

This is not faith. This is knowledge.

You have faith that the computer system will deliver to me that sentence so I can read it.

Same as above. Not faith, but evidence and knowledge of how computers work.

These a assumptions and belief systems.

Not an assumption.
But demonstrable evidence.

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.

I'm involved in computers, being an ICT engineer.
It's precisely because I understand how computers and the internet work that I trust that the message I post here will show up in the thread and that you'll be able to read it.

All the while, also realising the things that could go wrong. Till even the point that a moderator might remove my post, preventing you to see it.

Religious faith is just formalising our understanding and assumptions.

No. Religious faith is NOT having these kinds of demonstrable evidence and track records and still believing anyway.

But I know to hold a position like atheism, and determinism, one has to be definitive in ones statement.

Wrong.

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.

I love how you are forced to redefine what "knowledge" is and pretend that nothing can really be known, just to be able to defend your religious faith as rational.

It's very telling.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

"worship science"?
What does that even mean?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

It's really hard to take you seriously when you say stupid things like "your god science" and "you worship science".

 

[DogmaHunter]

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!

An "accident" is when one thing was intended and then another thing occured.
Like a traffic accident. you meant to stay on the road, but instead you lost control and hit a tree.

So i'ld say that it is 4/ a rather ignorant statement.

Furthermore, cells evolved. First live, was not a cell (with membranes and nuclei etc etc).

So let's rephrase: "first life was the result of a biochemical reaction".

I'ld call that the baseline of a hypothesis, but to be an actual hypothesis, it'll require quite a bit more detail.

To answer your other question of wheter or not I "believe" that.

I'ld say "no, I don't believe that".
I'ld rather say that I consider it "likely".

Why?

Because life is biochemical and biochemical reactions exist. Furthermore, it is known that biochemical reactions can result in biochemical compounds which are regarded as the building blocks of life. And there is no hint to say that the origins of life had other causation.

So I'ld put my money on that, yes.

Do I believe that? No.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You don't see how you're in lockstep with each other? You're practically a hive mind. If your usernames and avatars weren't there I couldn't tell which one of you posted what.

*People hold the same view that your comment about dogma is flat out incorrect*
Yourself: "Ha! See! All you atheists are the same!"

That sort of thinking really worries me.

 

[Mountainmike]

It seems you need to study quantum chemistry. Indeed quantum phenomena.

No longer was "randomness" viewed as the result of an aggregation of large numbers of deterministic and causal events but too complex to predict other than in aggregate (eg thermodynamics)

What upset Einstein was the idea that quantum events were truly random, not predictable even with perfect knowledge of the previous state - things literally "pop into existence" if the "dice" fall a particular way. "Cadere" means to fall. The root of the word accident. It was the death knell of the deterministic causal assumption.

The fact a great many of them are needed in a chain of reactions to get to a useful outcome, does not alter the underlying indeterminacy or accidental nature. It is pointless discussing etymology of words here. Cadere means "to fall" and indeed many things are conjectured to fall into place for life to emerge. And the very presumption of supposed evolution is the process has many casualties in making genetic jumps, so indeed the word accident in normal usage is justified.

There is a defacto irreducible complexity,, because none have yet conceived of a precursor that can evolve into the present minimum cell structure. And to believe that such exists or existed is pure belief. Those who oppose the viewpoint are entitled to ask: if such a process was possible, why is it not still occuring? or where is the evidence it is? Why is there no continuous chain of chemicals into "lower forms" and those becoming the DNA based cell lines? Why is there no record of the lower forms ever existing?

Cutting to the chase: there is no conjectured mechanism for how a first reproducable cell "life" if you wish to call it that- came to exist by accident from previously inorganic. Nor is there evidence of it occuring , nor can it be repeated. There is therefore no experiment that can be done to confirm whether it was possible, let alone whether it occurred. So "life occuring as a series of biochemical accidents" is not a valid hypothesis in science, however strongly it is believed.

What I said was spot on. Atheists have a BELIEF that life occured as a sequence of random chance outcomes in chemistry ( I use the word accidents) , but have absolutely no hypothesis for how that occurred. It is pure belief on their part. There is no shame in that, provided they accept it is just a strong belief. But for some reason, they dislike owning up to having beliefs!.

Anyway. The conversation has run its course.

The wise ones will study the issues I raise, "give a wise man instruction , he will become yet wiser"
They will question what they really believe: about existence without observation.

All scientists have to confront this dilemma when they study the quantum world- when they realise that science conjectures that determinism and causality are no longer sacrosanct in the model, when the very basis on which science is built is deterministic and causal. It is the ultimate black crow paradox. You start with a black crow, and prove it is white. Start with causality and determinism, and end with precisely the opposite. It leaves you in a philosophical wilderness, in which there are rules but no rational basis for them. One hundred years on from Copenhagen and there is still no consensus on how to rationalise copenhagen or bell, other than by creating other irrational constructs like the multiverse.

Those with apriori atheist faith will keep repeating the mantra "we believe in science not faith" - not realising quite how silly that is, when you look at some of the paradox implications that come from believing science is any more than a projected observation model of reality, that has little to say about what things really "are" as opposed to how they are perceived.

Why is it atheists are unable to conduct a conversation without using words such as "ignorant?" - they feel they somehow have the right to belittle those with theistic views? And why is it they assume that they de facto have a greater knowledge of science, when in practice I observe often the reverse is true.

An "accident" is when one thing was intended and then another thing occured.
Like a traffic accident. you meant to stay on the road, but instead you lost control and hit a tree.

So i'ld say that it is 4/ a rather ignorant statement.

Furthermore, cells evolved. First live, was not a cell (with membranes and nuclei etc etc).

So let's rephrase: "first life was the result of a biochemical reaction".

I'ld call that the baseline of a hypothesis, but to be an actual hypothesis, it'll require quite a bit more detail.

To answer your other question of wheter or not I "believe" that.

I'ld say "no, I don't believe that".
I'ld rather say that I consider it "likely".

Why?

Because life is biochemical and biochemical reactions exist. Furthermore, it is known that biochemical reactions can result in biochemical compounds which are regarded as the building blocks of life. And there is no hint to say that the origins of life had other causation.

So I'ld put my money on that, yes.

Do I believe that? No.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

/facepalm

Atheism is not a belief.
Theism is the belief. Atheism is when you don't have theistic beliefs.

 

[Mountainmike]

I know you like to think that.

It is simply not true.

There is a massive amount of baggage of beliefs that atheists share consequent of their core belief.
One of which is "life is a biochemical accident". Another is that science is a philosophical crutch for existence. They believe in the shrinking God of the gaps falasy.

And so on....

The oddest thing about it, is that they seem to think that admitting they believe in anything is somehow a weakness (like the moon is objectively real without being observed - and the direct consequence for belief in the nature of existence and indeed nature of science)

So i wont get you to admit, you believe a lot of things, without proof, or contrary to science. Or indeed in "life as a random accident" without even any evidence!
It will be our secret you believe in them all.

On the other hand if you take sciences view. ( where evidence not belief counts)
Where whatever the claim it must be treated with same objectivity (ruling Carl Sagan and Dawkins out...)

Not only is there FAR more (criminal proof grade forensic) evidence for life occuring with theistic overtones, than there is for your pure belief of life as a random accident - not only that but also the evidence there is triggers the clause in Darwins theory that DARWIN says debunks his theory.

But atheists are too busy ramming their beliefs that "science explains all - without understanding it" down others throats to read such evidence!

A subject for a differnt thread perhaps.
Enough of this one.

/facepalm

Atheism is not a belief.
Theism is the belief. Atheism is when you don't have theistic beliefs.