'Easy to be an atheist if you agnore science' [moved]

[SteveB28]

You can test ideas via logic to determine if they are true or false. In short they are logically falsifiable. Which means that you are not familiar with the basics of the scientific method which requires that a justifiable inductive leap be acknowledged as a justifiable inductive leap and that such an inductive leap provides the basis for a sound premise upon which a conclusion can be based.

A foetid pile of dog's vomit.....!

Your so-called 'intelligent design' is incapable of falsification. It therefore cannot be considered as a scientific hypothesis.

Stop your yammering..........you lose........it loses........

 

[Belk]

The reason that it doesn't cut it is because you certainly CAN SEE the difference between the designed and the not designed very clearly in other areas. It is only when the conclusion leads to an ID in nature that you suddenly claim this ridiculous obviously self inflicted bogus inability or blindness. In short, your feigned incomprehension is as transparent as glass.

No you can not. If your argument is the universe was designed then you have never seen anything not designed.

 

[Radrook]

No you can not. If your argument is the universe was designed then you have never seen anything not designed.

What makes that an impossibility?

 

[Radrook]

A foetid pile of dog's vomit.....!

Your so-called 'intelligent design' is incapable of falsification. It therefore cannot be considered as a scientific hypothesis.

Stop your yammering..........you lose........it loses........

Wishful thinking refutes nothing.
As the definition of falsification points out, falsification also involves cogent reasoning to the contrary of a statement or claim and proving it fallacious.
But you want to impose your own limited definition because otherwise the conclusion you would be forced to reach is unbearable to you. That is not only driveling but it is driveling in the service of quackery and in no way represents the scientific method. It merely represents your conveniently warped version of it.

 

[Belk]

What makes that an impossibility?

If the universe is designed then everything you have interacted with is designed. You can't tell the difference between something designed and not designed if you have no idea what something non designed would be.

 

[SteveB28]

Wishful thinking refutes nothing.
As the definition of falsification points out, falsification also involves cogent reasoning to the contrary of a statement or claim and proving it fallacious.
But you want to impose your own limited definition because otherwise the conclusion you would be forced to reach is unbearable to you. That is not only driveling but it is driveling in the service of quackery and in no way represents the scientific method. It merely represents your conveniently warped version of it.

Give one, specific, example of a possible falsification for your so-called hypothesis.



.

 

[Radrook]

Give one, specific, example of a possible falsification for your so-called hypothesis.



.

Why would I try to falsify logically what has been proven logically non-falsifiable. In fact, that's the reason why atheists say they cain't see. Because they know that it is logically non-falsifiable. So in order to avoid having to admit that it is logically unassailable they try to divorce the scientific method from cogent reasoning in order to make cogent reasoning seem totally unrelated to science. That's what qualifies their modus operandi as quackery.

Actually, most scientists are fully aware of their own chicanery. In contrast, their followers are a totally different matter. Such followers appear to genuinely believe that cogent reasoning has little to do with the scientific method. The remedy is of course, to attain a basic understanding of what the scientific method involves. But when a person doesn't know or doesn't admit he needs help-then help will not be sought.

It all boils down to an invincible ignorance which is time-wasting for any ID to be striving to overcome because in the long run-the final resounding response from theists will be the perennial and predictable and very conveniently enunciated- ""I cain't see!"" In fact, your very question is indicative of that intended response.

 

[Speedwell]

Why would I try to falsify logically what has been proven logically non-falsifiable. In fact, that's the reason why atheists say they cain't see. Because they know that it is logically non-falsifiable. So in order to avoid having to admit that it is logically unassailable they try to divorce the scientific method from cogent reasoning in order to make cogent reasoning seem totally unrelated to science. That's what qualifies their modus operandi as quackery.

I'm not quite sure I follow that. It might be a good idea at this point to re-state your logic step-by-step so we can be sure we're all talking about the same thing and are not arguing at cross purposes about it. Lay it all out as if you are explaining your position to someone who has never heard of it before.

 

[Radrook]

I'm not quite sure I follow that. It might be a good idea at this point to re-state your logic step-by-step so we can be sure we're all talking about the same thing and are not arguing at cross purposes about it. Lay it all out as if you are explaining your position to someone who has never heard of it before.

Explain the Logic? LOL! That is exactly the crux of the problem. Logic suddenly becomes irrelevant to the atheist position whenever logic is invoked in reference to ID. Unfortunately for them, claiming a sudden and inexplicable inability to reason is no rebuttal of the ID concept. It merely amounts to a cunning evasion which involves the fallacy of Inconsistency of Policy. That is to say, adhering to a policy of scientific investigation when deemed convenient but discarding it when deemed not. The reason I call it cunning is because scientists know that they are being inconsistent and when such inconsistency is brought to their attention they invariably choose to evade and change subjects instead of addressing the accusation head on.

BTW

Please note that:

I have clearly explained my position and it can be found among my other posts. There is nothing cryptic in the manner that I have explained myself since I am using clear English and the concepts are easy to grasp.

 

[Belk]

Why would I try to falsify logically what has been proven logically non-falsifiable. In fact, that's the reason why atheists say they cain't see. Because they know that it is logically non-falsifiable. So in order to avoid having to admit that it is logically unassailable they try to divorce the scientific method from cogent reasoning in order to make cogent reasoning seem totally unrelated to science. That's what qualifies their modus operandi as quackery.

Actually, most scientists are fully aware of their own chicanery. In contrast, their followers are a totally different matter. Such followers appear to genuinely believe that cogent reasoning has little to do with the scientific method. The remedy is of course, to attain a basic understanding of what the scientific method involves. But when a person doesn't know or doesn't admit he needs help-then help will not be sought.

It all boils down to an invincible ignorance which is time-wasting for any ID to be striving to overcome because in the long run-the final resounding response from theists will be the perennial and predictable and very conveniently enunciated- ""I cain't see!"" In fact, your very question is indicative of that intended response.

Something that is non-falsifiable is the exact opposite of logically unassailable. Something that is falsifiable is something that can be shown to be true. Something that is non-falsifiable can not be shown to be either true or false. That is why the scientific method uses it as the measuring stick.

 

[Radrook]

Something that is non-falsifiable is the exact opposite of logically unassailable. Something that is falsifiable is something that can be shown to be true. Something that is non-falsifiable can not be shown to be either true or false. That is why the scientific method uses it as the measuring stick.

Not according to the definition of falsifiable as I posted it but which you choose to ignore.
As I keep repeating but to no avail, logical thinking, both inductive and deductive, is an integral part of the scientific method.

You are unaware of that? Well, as strange as it might appear to you, that is basic!

Actually, truths are arrived at via logic alone and not just via experimentation in attempts to falsify them. The existence of a dark matter was such a truth. Effects were observed and an existence was assumed. No?

Also, falsification is not restricted to the lab. It is a mental process involving logical principles as well. In fact, I can reject an idea that you propose merely based on logic without having to subject it to lab testing. If you are unaware of that simple basic fact then you need to take a course where the scientific method is meticulously explained as I did. Otherwise you will tend to be vigorously expounding from ignorance.


The:
"Well, I still cain't see cuz I still cain't see!" response isn't very convincing.

 

[Belk]

AS I keep repeating but to no avail, logical thinking, both inductive and deductive, is part of the scientific method. You are unaware of that? LOL! That is basic! Truths are arrived at visa logic alone and not just via experimentation in attempts to falsify them my friend.

Logic alone is incapable of determining truth. It is only capable of determining internal consistency. It is entirely possible to have a logical conclusion that is completely wrong.

Also, falsification is not restricted to the lab. It is a mental process involving logical principles as well. In fact, I can reject an idea that you propose merely based on logic without having to subject it to lab testing. If you are unaware of that simple basic fact then you need to take a course where the scientific method is meticulously explained as I did. Otherwise you will tend to be vigorously expounding from ignorance.

This has nothing to do with my statement.

The:
"Well, I still cain't see cuz I still cain't see!" response isn't very convincing.

That your arguments are not convincing is not our fault.

 

[Speedwell]

Explain the Logic? LOL! That is exactly the crux of the problem. Logic suddenly becomes irrelevant to the atheist position whenever logic is invoked in reference to ID. Unfortunately for them, claiming a sudden and inexplicable inability to reason is no rebuttal of the ID concept. It merely amounts to a cunning evasion which involves the fallacy of Inconsistency of Policy. That is to say, adhering to a policy of scientific investigation when deemed convenient but discarding it when deemed not. The reason I call it cunning is because scientists know that they are being inconsistent and when such inconsistency is brought to their attention they invariably choose to evade and change subjects instead of addressing the accusation head on.

Or maybe some of us don't fully understand what you are talking about. Are you really trying to promote your idea of ID or merely looking for an opportunity to show that those who don't immediately see your proposition as self evident are wicked or stupid?

Please note that:

I have clearly explained my position and it can be found among my other posts. There is nothing cryptic in the manner that I have explained myself since I am using clear English and the concepts are easy to grasp.

That's the trouble; I don't think you have ever set it down completely in one place. On my part, for example, I am not sure how your proposal differs from that of the Discovery Institute, if it does, and you seem to regard even sincere questions as nothing but attempts to attack or deny. Perhaps if you do not wish to restate your position you could give us a source we could study.

 

[Radrook]

Logic alone is incapable of determining truth. It is only capable of determining internal consistency. It is entirely possible to have a logical conclusion that is completely wrong.



This has nothing to do with my statement.



That your arguments are not convincing is not our fault.

In other words you are Totally unaware that your hypothesis and theories are based on induction and deduction.
Which means that you are ignorant about the most basic and essential aspect of the scientific method.
Which means that you are discussing without having the basic requirements demanded of such a discussion.
Which of course means that since you are in need of learning what the scientific method involves-this conversation is really useless.

BTW
Yes it is your fault. Example:

What you refer to as being logical is actually caused by the using of a fallacy called an equivocation-giving a word a different meaning from what was intended. As I am sure you are aware, being irrational is definitely not being logical as I am employing the term. True, a conclusion can be valid, because it harmonizes with its premise, and yet be nonsense because its premise is nonsense. But to call such a conclusion logical in the sense in which it is relevant to our discussion is dishonest and has absolutely no relevance to the subject involved. So your attempted rebuttal is really based again on what appears to be your lack of true understanding of what you choose to discuss.

Also limiting the value of cogent reasoning to proving internal deductive consistency reveals a profound misunderstanding of what cogent reasoning is all about.


BTW
To be honest, the impression you are conveying is that you are assuming profound stupidity because you feel atheist scientists are right and are repeating nonsense without even understanding or evaluation the meaning of what you are saying. Also, I recommend that when you make claims that you please provide examples to support your conclusions. That will show that you are at least striving to delve deeply into your assertions and not merely chanting them as if they were a mantra needing nothing more than a mere repeated utterance in order to be effective.

 

[Radrook]

Or maybe some of us don't fully understand what you are talking about. Are you really trying to promote your idea of ID or merely looking for an opportunity to show that those who don't immediately see your proposition as self evident are wicked or stupid?


That's the trouble; I don't think you have ever set it down completely in one place. On my part, for example, I am not sure how your proposal differs from that of the Discovery Institute, if it does, and you seem to regard even sincere questions as nothing but attempts to attack or deny. Perhaps if you do not wish to restate your position you could give us a source we could study.

Thanks for the interest. But I a review of my previous posts on this thread clearly reveals what I believe and no constant, incessant, seemingly interminable, tiresome repetitions are necessary. Were I a machine-of course, it would not matter. But I haven't reached that machine state yet.

I would be glad to provide a source if I had one. As it stands I don't since I don't depend on any outside sources for my concepts. True, they are in harmony with the ID concept. But the exact arguments based on cogent reasoning themselves are not anywhere else that I can think of.

 

[Speedwell]

So you do

Thanks for the interest. But I a review of my previous posts on this thread clearly reveals what I believe and no constant, incessant, seemingly interminable, tiresome repetitions are necessary. Were I a machine-of course, it would not matter. But I haven't reached that machine state yet.

So you don't care whether we understand your proposal or not, you just want to make us all look wicked or stupid.

 

[Radrook]

So you do

So you don't care whether we understand your proposal or not, you just want to make us all look wicked or stupid.

No, that isn't my intention. Yes I do care. "Actually, to me it seems as if you don't care since you folks keep totally ignoring every single thing I say without really providing any real specific rebuttal but simply seen to prefer to deploy the "No it ain't!"" response.

If indeed my argument is flawed then you need to provide counter examples which demonstrate how it is flawed. Up to this point there hasn't been one. Also, if you folks want to argue that your logic is sound when dealing with the ID concept then you need to explain the reason for your inconsistency of policy. Yet instead you ignore and evade by changing the subject.

If indeed induction and deduction are totally irrelevant to the scientific method as you seem to believe-then you need to provide an example or examples of how that works. But the problem is that you don't. Instead you simply proclaim, back away from counterarguments-and then proclaim something different. That isn't a discussion.

Please provide some examples to show how I am being irrational and let's discuss them. Or provide a rebuttal as to why the ID concept is impossible. Let's examine the premise behind these assertions to see how it holds up to objective scrutiny. Then we will have a discussion and not this meaningless silliness that is now going on.

 

[Belk]

In other words you are Totally unaware that your hypothesis and theories are based on induction and deduction.
Which means that you are ignorant about the most basic and essential aspect of the scientific method.
Which means that you are discussing without having the basic requirements demanded of such a discussion.
Which of course means that since you are in need of learning what the scientific method involves-this conversation is really useless.

I made no claims of knowledge or lack thereof.

BTW
Yes it is your fault. Example:

What you refer to as being logical is actually caused by the using of a fallacy called an equivocation-giving a word a different meaning from what was intended. As I am sure you are aware, being irrational is definitely not being logical as I am employing the term. True, a conclusion can be valid, because it harmonizes with its premise, and yet be nonsense because its premise is nonsense. But to call such a conclusion logical in the sense in which it is relevant to our discussion is dishonest and has absolutely no relevance to the subject involved. So your attempted rebuttal is really based again on what appears to be your lack of true understanding of what you choose to discuss.

Also limiting the value of cogent reasoning to proving internal deductive consistency reveals a profound misunderstanding of what cogent reasoning is all about.

No. Your arguments rest on their own merits. Blaming us for not seeing your brilliance will not help.

BTW
To be honest, the impression you are conveying is that you are assuming profound stupidity because you feel atheist scientists are right and are repeating nonsense without even understanding or evaluation the meaning of what you are saying. Also, I recommend that when you make claims that you please provide examples to support your conclusions. That will show that you are at least striving to delve deeply into your assertions and not merely chanting them as if they were a mantra needing nothing more than a mere repeated utterance in order to be effective.

Uh huh.

 

[Radrook]

I made no claims of knowledge or lack thereof.



No. Your arguments rest on their own merits. Blaming us for not seeing your brilliance will not help.

Uh huh.

The claims are inferred from your condemnation of cogent reasoning as being relevant to the scientific method which reveals a deplorable deficiency in basic knowledge..


BTW
There is NOTHING which I consider brilliant about the things I am saying.
As for standing on their own merits, that is true. However, their merit hasn't even been addressed yet. Instead all I get in responses is the mindless: ""Ï cain't see!"" or else the subject is suddenly shifted away from the immediate issue and another issue is immediately introduced which is responded to with the same ""I cain't see!" mantra-like chant. ..

 

[Speedwell]

No, that isn't my intention. Yes I do care. "Actually, to me it seems as if you don't care since you folks keep totally ignoring every single thing I say without really providing any real specific rebuttal but simply seen to prefer to deploy the "No it ain't!"" response.

Not true. I have outlined my position on the subject and asked questions. I have never denied your position--I don't understand it well enough to do so.

If indeed my argument is flawed then you need to provide counter examples which demonstrate how it is flawed. Up to this point there hasn't been one. Also, if you folks want to argue that your logic is sound when dealing with the ID concept then you need to explain the reason for your inconsistency of policy. Yet instead you ignore and evade by changing the subject.

Not true. I have outlined my position on the subject and explained why it it does not appear to me to be inconsistent.

If indeed induction and deduction are totally irrelevant to the scientific method as you seem to believe-then you need to provide an example or examples of how that works. But the problem is that you don't. Instead you simply proclaim, back away from counterarguments-and then proclaim something different. That isn't a discussion.

Not true. I do not regard inductive and deductive logic as being irrelevant to the scientific method.

Please provide some examples to show how I am being irrational and let's discuss them. Or provide a rebuttal as to why the ID concept is impossible. Let's examine the premise behind these assertions to see how it holds up to objective scrutiny. Then we will have a discussion and not this meaningless silliness that is now going on.

Not true. I do not consider you to be irrational, merely obscure and too ready to regard any response as an attack.