Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is a simple reality of design. Go to an art museum, or see a printed book with printed pictures in it. So say it randomly existed would be insane.
It is obviously the work of a creative mind ie man.

We've been over the design issue many times in these forums, and no-one has come up with workable criteria for detecting non-human design that doesn't either suggest that everything is designed, or accept natural processes as the authors of design.

I think the former suggestion is vacuous, and the latter quite acceptable - I have no problem with calling the products of evolution 'designs', but it doesn't distinguish supposed non-human intelligent design from natural design.

If you have some criteria that will distinguish natural design from intelligent design I'd be interested to hear them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The same argument is rather lame.
I know "I am" is unique and so is Jesus.
I have spent a lifetime listening to Him and sharing His word.

The more I learn the more alive it comes to be.
I would describe His word as emotional truth, that is only truly seen and understood when it take root in your heart.

Most of religion is myths, about impossible figures on adventures and conversations.
Adam and Eve are close to this, and possibly Noah.
Israel out of Egypt is difficult because it is a whole nation written about in detail.
And the law of Moses is so detailed and involved about human behaviour and the
definition of sinful and acceptable behaviour there is nothing like it.

What was not acceptable to God then is still as bad today.
With wealth, prisons and a fully working justice system we can be more lenient and
caring, but for its time, there is nothing from 1,000 AD that compares where the
nations were happy to sacrifice their children to bring in food at harvest time.

The influence of this book has founded ideas of individuality, the rights of all, justice
truth and honesty, let your yes be yes and your no be no.

So powerful were these basic moral principles, all other social systems have conformed
to the model as the message has spread. It is why we have 3 main faiths in the world
Christianity, Islam and Buddihism/Hinduism.

I would rank the western civilisation is based around humanism which roots are from
Christianity, and the propogation of truth and knowledge and the assent of the individual
over the dictated edicts of feudal Lords.

I would love to see a different picture if true, but this is the one I see.

You are great at telling us all what you believe.
You fail miserably at explaining why anyone else should believe it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is a simple reality of design. Go to an art museum, or see a printed book with printed pictures in it. So say it randomly existed would be insane.

That would be insane, yes.
So I guess it's a good thing that nobody is saying that pieces of art or printed books just randomly exist.

It is obviously the work of a creative mind ie man.

Yes, we actually know this for a fact.
We wouldn't be recognizing it as art or books if it wasn't for that knowledge.

Understanding something is always limited but its structure gives indication of the mechanism of its creation.

Actually, it's signs of manufacturing do.

 

[Strathos]

This sounds like a classic example of in-group vs out-group familiarity, but it says more about your discriminatory abilities than it does about the non-Christians here.

Are you saying you could tell the posts apart under those circumstances?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you saying you could tell the posts apart under those circumstances?

I expect I could do considerably better than chance - some posters have very distinctive styles, and others have specialised knowledge.

I find it surprising that you think they're so similar.

Although having said that, speculating, it does seem plausible that, on average, more consistently scientific, reasoned, and logical posts will tend to show greater uniformity than posts that have a tendency to be unscientific, poorly reasoned, and logically flawed; there are infinitely more ways to be wrong than there are to be right

 

[LightLoveHope]

That would be insane, yes.
So I guess it's a good thing that nobody is saying that pieces of art or printed books just randomly exist.

Yes, we actually know this for a fact.
We wouldn't be recognizing it as art or books if it wasn't for that knowledge.

Actually, it's signs of manufacturing do.

My point is there is a subjective element which version of origins one believes.
Now it is this subjective element that needs to be recognised or else you end up denying the whole basis of truth and the nature of scientific enquiry.

Once one goes beyond this, dictatorships arise, which is why it has taken so long to get this far.

 

[LightLoveHope]

"Currently there’s no satisfying explanation about how that could have happened, or how life could form on other planets,” continues Rheinstadter. “Solving that mystery is what this lab is all about."
Ground-breaking lab poised to unlock the mystery of the origins of life on Earth and beyond

This is a new group who claim to have make an advance in the origins of life.
Now I do not know how good their theory is or if they have found good proof, but I appreciate their summary of current explanations.

My immediate observation about life on earth very early on with water being present is the surface of the planet needs water, yet all we have is a molten blob way beyond water temperature which now has to suddenly be cool with puddles to enable the development of complex molecules.

As I have said before, at what point does the specialist environment have to be so special it is impossible and will not be able to be maintained to allow for the emergence of a adaptable life form that can spread to all reasonable environments. Established created life already possess all the ability to adapt and spread everywhere.

 

[Strathos]

I expect I could do considerably better than chance - some posters have very distinctive styles, and others have specialised knowledge.

I find it surprising that you think they're so similar.

Although having said that, speculating, it does seem plausible that, on average, more consistently scientific, reasoned, and logical posts will tend to show greater uniformity than posts that have a tendency to be unscientific, poorly reasoned, and logically flawed; there are infinitely more ways to be wrong than there are to be right

There's nothing consistently reasonable about philosophical naturalism.

 

[Gene2memE]

There's nothing consistently reasonable about philosophical naturalism.

What's inconsistent, or unreasonable, about philosophical naturalism?

(And please don't use Plantinga's EAAN, it's sophistry via wordplay)

 

[Mountainmike]

Your knowledge of Quantum theory history is seemingly inadequate -

There is little point in giving a detailed technical treatise it would go over people's head, But as a general context:

" hidden variables" were the attempt of Einstein ( et al) to give the strange world of quantum physics a classical interpretation in the height of the argument with ( Bohr et al) over what is now known as Copenhagen. It was a battle for the soul of physics itself.

Bell proposed the test which could discriminate the interpretations. The experiments that used bells inequality proved a problem in practice , removing all experimental uncertainty so refinements appeared for many decades indeed comtinuing till recently.

All conclude bohrs interpretation was right - not Einstein and classical physics - which result challenges the very basis of "existence" , objectivity, unique history, causation and determinism and the rest.

Whilst schrodinger did not coin the phrase multiverse (that came later) he was the first to say in conference " you may think I am mad, but this does suggest that history is not unique - there can be multiple histories" or words to that effect.

Which indeed is the interpretation of such as wheelers experiment , in which the test ground was particle / wave duality - even single particles appearing to exhibit interference patterns, the experiments devised to test the effect of observation on outcome. And similar results have been obtained with larger particles than electrons.

I have found there is little point in discussing real science in places like this forum: those who make science their false God, and use it to support materialist atheism never seem to want to know what a fickle thing they put their faith in, so I will probably refrain from bothering in future.

The bottom line is most materialists / atheists BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY in a deterministic causal world, Which is how they rationalise absence of need for other interpretation or explanation, and they use it as a kneejerk response against theist claims. This particular forum full of it.

They have yet to realise science does not believe in such - indeed it what it does believe in is ludicrous at the level of experience or phenomenology. They get annoyed with people who point such things out.

Science still fascinates me as a model. ( although I am now too old to keep up )It is rare to find an atheist in a place like this who shares that passion or who uses science as other than a ( false ) armoury of stones of causal determinism to throw at theists, not realising The stones they throw are not deterministic, and may not even exist depending on observers!

And there is plenty of evidence out there that defies the possibility of rational explanation in causal deterministic terms, but there are none so blind as those who do not want to see.

No, it doesn't.

From your earlier posts, you seem to be confusing the mainstream Copenhagen interpretation with a version known as the 'conscious collapse' or Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation, that was never mainstream and has long been abandoned by all but a few mavericks.

Bell was a person who proposed a theorem that local hidden variables cannot explain the predictions of QM and developed a test for this known as Bell's Inequality. This is not particularly relevant to distinguishing between QM interpretations.

 

[Mountainmike]

Read it better: I didn't equate them.

The most embarrassing issue in physics is it has no rational explanation, the multiverse the most prominent of the non explanations, which my view goes from philosophical frying pan to fire, if you regard it as other than model.

But FYI it was schrodinger himself who first postulated non unique multiple histories , before the " multiverse" phrase was coined.

All I would say to atheists most of whom Believe strongly in causal determinism as explanation ,is science does not believe in it - indeed what it does believe is ludicrous.

This applies in spades to you as you do not understand the QM options. That is amply demonstrated by your equating the Copenhagen and Many Worlds Interpretations when they are actually radically different. I note you have not even had the good grace to acknowledge your error. 10 out of 10 for pestistence. 1 out of 10 for integrity.

 

[VirOptimus]

Dammit, there where more then 4 last posts.

 

[Mountainmike]

It was wrong the first time you stated it, and it's still wrong. But by all means, explain how the 3rd LoT is relevant.

It's not absurd if you allow that it can happen incrementally and non-randomly. If you look at some of the abiogenesis hypotheses being studied, you'll find that all of them start with far simpler components than those you mention.

So....now let's take the scientific view.

You have no evidence any such incremental development Ever took place.
( why is there no evidence?)
You have No evidence it is still taking place,
( why so, if there is a possible process, why does it not repeat?,
why no evidence of the production line of intermediates?)
You have no proposed end to end mechanism for it.

So in summary, no evidence that :
It has repeated or can be repeated, ever happened or any experiment to test whether it can or any experiment to test whether it did. Not even a model of how it might!

Which in scientific terms means you have NO HYPOTHESIS at all....let alone a multiple of them.

That really is the state of play!

In short - All you have is pure BELIEF it happened at all , and conjectured BELIEFS on how some parts of the process might or might not have happened if it did, speculative experiments on how some parts might or might not have happened if they ever did....or not.

Why is it atheists take such liberties with scientific method and definition?

You are welcome to your beliefs, science sometimes moves forward on a hunch , ( far more commonly on evidence) but just please don't conflate your beliefs with science or " hypotheses". It's all belief.

On the other hand I have forensic evidence of life originating with theistic implication , and other theistic phenomena so on a pure evidential basis I win!
Some evidence always beats none!

 

[Ophiolite]

Read it better: I didn't equate them.

Read the second line in my signature. Here, I'll save you the trouble:

"If you have not understood what I have posted the fault is probably mine. Ask for clarification. I expect the same courtesy from you."

In other words you need to write it better. I asked you for clarification. I indicated I may have misunderstood you. You made no detectable effort to clarify.

Let's just get this specific issue very clear Mike. Let's look at the sequence of our exchanges:

1. You had asked a number of questions, which you repeated for my benefit. They included the this one.

Do you beLieve there are an infinite number of you in universes of all possible pasts and futures? I don't, but science does.

2. This was my reply. I have emboldened the most relevant part.

I would like to offer you some sound advice: feel free to reject it. Stop getting your understanding of science from popular articles in books and magazines, or documentaries on the Discovery Channel! One interpretation of QM does suggest this as a possibility, however it is seriously misleading (i.e. untrue) to say that this is science's position.

In other words, one interpretation of QM does make the assertion that you state is what "science believes". However, that is not the case. This interpretation is not the only one, nor is it the one that has the most support among experts. Your claim is demonstrably - at best - misleading and more accurately simply wrong.

3. This was your dismissive and mocking repsonse:

I will stop right here.

Copenhagen and bell are the mainstream view of science. I am a professional electronic physicist. So since you are substituting your own opinion of what is minority there is no point in further discussion.

The multiverse is the prime method used to explain away one irrational paradox by using another. Frying pan to fire in causality and objectivity. All of which proves what those who take the trouble to understand the philosophy of science already know : that science is just a limited observation model with no greater fundamental significance. The paradoxes are therefore not real, nor can you use science as absolute truth. Even the model cannot be unique, Hawkings view not just mine, THAT was the point I was making first off. Science is a strange tool for those who seek a philosophy of existence, despite many atheists trying to use it as a philosophical crutch for their beliefs or as a stick to beat theists with.

But if you wont accept the true mainstream view of science, end of conversation.

I extract your two key statements:
"Copenhagen and bell(sic) are the mainstream view of science."
"The multiverse is the prime method used to explain away one irrational paradox by using another."

In my version of English mainstream view and prime method are all but equivalent. Therefore, as written you are equating Copenhagen (by which I take you to mean the Copenhagen Interpretation) and multiverse (by which I take you to mean the Many Worlds Interpretation). As written it is clear cut.

4. Since I doubted that a "professional electronic physicist" could get things so wrong I gave you an opportunity to correct yourself.

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.

My key words: "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."

Since then none of your posts have addressed this with any clarity. Do you wish to do so now? My position remains this:
1. There are two main interpretations of QM, the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Interpretation.
2. Neither can be properly described as "this is what science believes".
3. The Copenhagen Interpretation has generally more support among relevant scientists than the Many Worlds Interpretation.

Your posts appear to challenge this position. More than that you have ridiculed me for holding this position. You have, to my mind, clearly equated two contrasting interpretations and blamed my reading comprehension for believing that to be the case rather than your writing skills. Do you wish now to clarify what you were actually trying to say and, perhaps, along the way offer an apology?

 

[Mountainmike]

I think this subject is possibly a deviation from the thread. So I shan't continue.
It simply questions the perception of " fact"

My answer would have to be long.
But the essence point is you assume Copenhagen - ie the non classical quantum world - is alternative to multiverse. It isn't.

The following is not totally precise... its hard science to explain. And Copenhagen is not a single idea. It is a collective use of a word for a number of them. If you like the bohr perception of QM..

But Multiverse is in essence an attempt to rationalise what I am calling Copenhagen

It attempts to reconcile common day experience ( the unique line of state evolving through past to present) with the conjectured discontinuity resulting from wave collapse on observatuion creating a present, with Existence not determined till observation, so begging the question how can the past uniquely exist? Leading to Schrödinger's cat etc.

Einstein tried to keep classical with hidden variables. He failed,

One way of rationalising it is to say it's still a causal deterministic world , but one of an infinite number that you select on observation, which is rationised as the process of collapse. Which is a way of hiding the problem philosophically not solving it! So Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive, but in different universes which coexist, you are just lucky which you experience.

So Copenhagen/ multiverse are not alternative.
One is an attempt to rationalise the other. Badly in my view.

All beg the question - is objective wave function collapse a reality? Or not? I say it is just a model, so it is not reality.
So Multiverse to me is a very bad answer to a non existent question!

Enough of this.

All I pointed out is the presumed universe evolving entirely from causal deterministic phenomena , which paradigm is the essence of materialist beliefs and assumed by many atheists to be backed by science, is not what science thinks in the quantum world - which turns what you think you know on its head.

Read the second line in my signature. Here, I'll save you the trouble:

"If you have not understood what I have posted the fault is probably mine. Ask for clarification. I expect the same courtesy from you."

In other words you need to write it better. I asked you for clarification. I indicated I may have misunderstood you. You made no detectable effort to clarify.

Let's just get this specific issue very clear Mike. Let's look at the sequence of our exchanges:

1. You had asked a number of questions, which you repeated for my benefit. They included the this one.


2. This was my reply. I have emboldened the most relevant part.
In other words, one interpretation of QM does make the assertion that you state is what "science believes". However, that is not the case. This interpretation is not the only one, nor is it the one that has the most support among experts. Your claim is demonstrably - at best - misleading and more accurately simply wrong.

3. This was your dismissive and mocking repsonse:
I extract your two key statements:
"Copenhagen and bell(sic) are the mainstream view of science."
"The multiverse is the prime method used to explain away one irrational paradox by using another."

In my version of English mainstream view and prime method are all but equivalent. Therefore, as written you are equating Copenhagen (by which I take you to mean the Copenhagen Interpretation) and multiverse (by which I take you to mean the Many Worlds Interpretation). As written it is clear cut.

4. Since I doubted that a "professional electronic physicist" could get things so wrong I gave you an opportunity to correct yourself.
My key words: "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."

Since then none of your posts have addressed this with any clarity. Do you wish to do so now? My position remains this:
1. There are two main interpretations of QM, the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Interpretation.
2. Neither can be properly described as "this is what science believes".
3. The Copenhagen Interpretation has generally more support among relevant scientists than the Many Worlds Interpretation.

Your posts appear to challenge this position. More than that you have ridiculed me for holding this position. You have, to my mind, clearly equated two contrasting interpretations and blamed my reading comprehension for believing that to be the case rather than your writing skills. Do you wish now to clarify what you were actually trying to say and, perhaps, along the way offer an apology?

 

[Strathos]

What's inconsistent, or unreasonable, about philosophical naturalism?

(And please don't use Plantinga's EAAN, it's sophistry via wordplay)

It makes an a priori assumption about all of existence, when our knowledge of the universe far too limited to justify such a sweeping claim.

 

[essentialsaltes]

My answer would have to be long.
But the essence point is you assume Copenhagen - ie the non classical quantum world - is alternative to multiverse. It isn't.

Certainly it is. Many worlds hypothesis is QM without any collapse, since all possibilities propagate into the future.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My point is there is a subjective element which version of origins one believes.

Not for all of us....
The point.

Wheter something is of natural origins or not, or better put: how to find out, is not a question of subjective opinion at all in reality.

Now it is this subjective element that needs to be recognised

There is nothing "subjective" about the knowledge of how printed books come about.

or else you end up denying the whole basis of truth and the nature of scientific enquiry.

Truth and science, aren't a matter of subjective opinion either. Au contraire.
You have it, literally, backwards.

Once one goes beyond this, dictatorships arise, which is why it has taken so long to get this far.

Usually theocracies.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My immediate observation about life on earth very early on with water being present is the surface of the planet needs water, yet all we have is a molten blob way beyond water temperature

Which then cooled down to a temperature where hydrogen gas could and would condense into water.

which now has to suddenly be cool with puddles to enable the development of complex molecules.

"suddenly"???
Earth is approx 4.5 billion years old.
Our oldest records of life go back some 3.8 billion years.

That's a period of 700 million years.
The word "sudden" seems not that accurate.

Also: you seem unaware that plenty of the "building blocks" of life, which are in itself quite complex organic molecules, are actually even found in space rocks. So clearly, not all complex organic molecules require oceans of water to form.

Having said that, even if we assume the premise that big bodies of liquid water are required (which doesn't seem to be an unjustified assumption, I agree), it's not like there is a problem with that. Nobody is saying that life originated when the earth was still a ball of molten rock with a surface temperature that would melt lead.

As I have said before, at what point does the specialist environment have to be so special it is impossible and will not be able to be maintained to allow for the emergence of a adaptable life form that can spread to all reasonable environments.

The fact is that you are wrong. The earth has had plenty of time to cool down to reasonable temperatures which would also allow for liquid water.

Established created life already possess all the ability to adapt and spread everywhere.

Who says that requires extra explanation?
It's in the nature of life to evolve and spread.
So once it exists, that's what happens. Either that or extinction.

 

[tas8831]

There is a simple reality of design. Go to an art museum, or see a printed book with printed pictures in it. So say it randomly existed would be insane. It is obviously the work of a creative mind ie man.

I would agree that it is insane to think that a printed book or art in a museum arose randomly.
I would also say that such things are obviously the works of humans.

Understanding something is always limited but its structure gives indication of the mechanism of its creation.

Yes. That is why written letters in a recognized language in a book is clearly the work of humans, just as a sculpture or painting in a museum also bears the 'fingerprint' of human 'design' - because we know that humans do such things, and were we to investigate, we could discover evidence that this is the case.

I remember the first time I saw an electron micrograph of T7 bacteriophage - if you've not seen it, it looks a bit like a lunar lander. I remember thinking to myself 'that looks man-made.' Later, I realized that its shape is really due to the way molecules interact with each other at the scale we need to consider for such things - there are only so many ways amino acids, for example, can go together and interact with one another.

It is all well and good to understand that a book is "designed" by 'an intelligence' - humans - but to then try to extend this 'common sense' to things that we do NOT know to be human contrivances is simply a fallacious exercise.