Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[Loudmouth]

There are only 16% who dont believe in some kind of creator. that leaves 84% who believe in some kind of creator.

If there are 6 billion people total, then there are 4 billion who think Christians are wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

1/3 isn't a minority,

Your education system has failed you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Right, which means the null hypothesis itself could be wrong and logic proves that it is wrong because the truth about reality would logically be unfalsifiable. IOW, You can't prove the truth about reality wrong and this is because it is the truth, no matter how much you try to prove it wrong, you can't.

The null hypothesis is the conditions under which the hypothesis is falsified. Sorry, but ignoring this fact doesn't make it go away.

This is also exactly why the goal of scientific method is not to figure out the truth about reality, but rather the goal is that every truth claim about reality should be falsifiable, which is an illogical way to go about figuring out the truth about reality. This is why the scientific method is not the best and only way to figure out the truth about reality.

What makes the scientific method illogical?

 

[Extraneous]

If there are 6 billion people total, then there are 4 billion who think Christians are wrong.

And they think each other are wrong as well. If you look at the strongest numbers, then Christians have that, but this isnt about Christianity is it? Its about a Creator. 84% believe in some sort of creator. The math doesn't lie.

 

[Loudmouth]

And they think each other are wrong as well. If you look at the strongest numbers, then Christians have that, but this isnt about Christianity is it? Its about a Creator. 84% believe in some sort of creator. The math doesn't lie.

No, it is about THE creator. People claim to have the truth about who created the universe, yet the very people who claim to know the truth can't agree with one another. Kind of exposes them all as being wrong, IMHO.

 

[Extraneous]

Your education system has failed you.

No it hasn't, you are just twisting statistics. Christians have the strongest numbers and if all people were to vote for their side in a pole, Christians would have the majority.

 

[Loudmouth]

No it hasn't,

Yes, it has. 33% of a population is a minority.

 

[Extraneous]

No, it is about THE creator. People claim to have the truth about who created the universe, yet the very people who claim to know the truth can't agree with one another. Kind of exposes them all as being wrong, IMHO.

Logical fallacy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Logical fallacy.

Which logical fallacy is that?

 

[Extraneous]

Yes, it has. 33% of a population is a minority.

Lets all go vote for our belief in a pole and see who would win. Christians would win by majority vote. End of story. Did you vote for Gore and his fuzzy math theory?

 

[Loudmouth]

Lets all go vote for our belief in a pole and see who would win.

Seems that has already been done. Non-Christian outpaces Christian 2 to 1.

Christians would win by majority vote.

Your education system has let you down. In order to get a majority you have to get over 50% of the vote.

 

[Extraneous]

Which logical fallacy is that?

You tell me. Does 16% outvote 31%? Or 21% outvote 31%?

 

[Loudmouth]

You tell me. Does 16% outvote 31%? Or 21% outvote 31%?

The majority of the human population believe that Christians are wrong. Do the math.

 

[Extraneous]

Seems that has already been done. Non-Christian outpaces Christian 2 to 1.

And people of faith outspace Atheists 84% to 16%

I got to go. Work on those math skills while i'm gone LM

 

[Loudmouth]

And people of faith outspace Atheists 84% to 16%

0% agreement among theists on who the creator is. So much for "spiritual truths".

I got to go. Work on those math skills while i'm gone LM

My math skills are just fine. At least I know the difference between a majority and a plurality.

 

[bhsmte]

You tell me. Does 16% outvote 31%? Or 21% outvote 31%?

Last i checked, 67% beats 33%, everytime.

 

[Chriliman]

The null hypothesis is the conditions under which the hypothesis is falsified. Sorry, but ignoring this fact doesn't make it go away.



What makes the scientific method illogical?

Regardless, if every truth claim should be falsifiable, then the goal becomes to prove every truth claim wrong and not to find the truth claim that is actually true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Regardless, if every truth claim should be falsifiable, then the goal becomes to prove every truth claim wrong and not to find the truth claim that is actually true.

It is about predicting what one should see if a hypothesis is true, and then seeing if the evidence matches that prediction. It is as much about proving a hypothesis true as it is false.

Still waiting for that alternative method you claimed to have.

 

[Freodin]

Regardless, if every truth claim should be falsifiable, then the goal becomes to prove every truth claim wrong and not to find the truth claim that is actually true.

If there is no way to find out if a claim is false, there is also no way to find out if it is true.

 

[PapaZoom]

Still waiting for you to present a logical method that is not the scientific method.

The scientific method is not itself testable. It is a philosophical position. It is logical and for the most part I agree with it. But consider this

Lynn White Jr., writing in the premier issue of Science 80, observed: “It should be no news that scientists—even great ones—are people too.... More damaging to the intellectual process is the tendency of everyone, including historians as well as scientists, to operate within a set of inherited and inadequately tested assumptions” (1979, pp. 73-74). When certain scientists, and those sympathetic with them, suggest that science alone is the “ultimate court of appeal,” the charge can be leveled, and sustained, that they have built their world view on “inadequately tested assumptions.” It is the height of intellectual bigotry to suggest that science and science alone—to the exclusion of all other areas of human thought and endeavor—somehow possesses the authority to answer every question that might be posed.

The scientific method has limitations. I don't need to show an alternative method for this to be true. We use our minds and make inferences from what we observe. Science after all simply means knowledge. Positing a Supernatural being from observations of what is made ( the material World) is not unscientific given an adequate explanation, relating to observed facts.

We can, and do, make logical inferences from observable data. Those inferences may be wrong, but scientists make inferences every day.

Gilbert Harman says:
"The inference to the best explanation" corresponds approximately to what others have called "abduction," the method of hypothesis," "hypothetic inference," "the method of elimination," "eliminative induction," and "theoretical inference."
I prefer my own terminology because I believe that it avoids most of the misleading suggestions of the alternative terminologies.
In making this inference one infers, from the fact that a certain hypothesis would explain the evidence, to the truth of that hypothesis. In general, there will be several hypotheses which might explain the evidence, so one must be able to reject all such alternative hypotheses before one is warranted in making the inference. Thus one infers, from the premise that a given hypothesis would provide a "better" explanation for the evidence than would any other hypothesis, to the conclusion that the given hypothesis is true.

As I'm on my iPad the typing is slow. More can be said. Chew on it a while before dismantling.