Is God really real? page 28

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Originally posted by somebody613:

JBG
(Not surprised at all by your reaction…)
Hitler’s MAIN complaint word was “evil”, aka AGGRESSOR (which Russia wasn’t at all, even if it WAS “conquering” Germany at the moment).

1. As already explained Evil is subjective label.
2. Calling someone/something evil does not naturally imply them being the Aggressor in the English language.

Also, go to the SECOND example – it’s way less “emotional”, but shows an equally big conclusion mistake.

Your examples don´t show anything except you not knowing what your talking about. As redem points out and i have already we have not one single piece of evidence but “thousands upon thousands for dinosaurs, in multiple lines of evidence”.
Take for example your claim on how we can´t know if the Method we use to check the age actually works beyond the time we can ourselves experience directly or otherwise have living witnesses for.
I gave this link and a through explanation why your idea has no merit: Because we have a multitude of different dating mechanics each quite independent all coming to the same conclusions and reinforcing each other where they overlap. Because they are based on different natural processes its next to impossible for them all to be effected by an event that would make one of the natural processes stop working as expected.

JBG
1. I meant aggressor, I even explained it later on.
You’re making excuses for not paying attention to the key idea…
2. I explained it in later posts AND it was absolutely obvious what I meant.
Stop pretending, it’s not very smart-looking.
Or don’t you care as well?

WHAT kind of evidence?
Apart from PILES upon PILES of BONES?
No, seriously, what OTHER evidence do you have?
SHARE it, PLEASE.
(Like I explained above, BONES can only be evidence for BONES, not their LIVES. Unless we’re talking about KNOWN animals, which we AREN’T.)

As of age measuring.
Remember the 10-90C idea?
Somehow you seem to be OK with ignoring its implications…
VIDEO:
1. Dendrochronology = 0-10k. (Pretty much history, not my topic now. Maybe later, cause the idea is still the same.)
2. DNA = 0-150k. (Not applicable to inorganic issues.)
3. Radiometric = 100k-3.8b. (I wonder, why such a gap till TODAY?)
4. Thermoluminescence = 10-250k.
,,,And then I heard THIS:
“Choose a WRONG test – and you’ll get inaccurate results”.
Dude, how do you AGAIN know, which test is the RIGHT one?
Basically, you ARE saying:
“The sky is blue, cause we call the color that can be seen in the sky, blue.”
OR
“Use the right test to get the right results.”
But didn’t ALL OF YOU spoke a ton on VERIFICATION (or whatever) – which should imply the OPPOSITE:
“Choose ANY test, you MUST get comparable results.”
The guy was speaking about “weighing an elephant on a kitchen scales” – but HOW would you KNOW, which scales AREN’T the “kitchen” ones, if you can’t TEST them EMPIRICALLY..?
AGAIN, 10-90C, very seriously.
Honestly, dude, you just PROVED MY POINT of DISTRUST… :DDD
I’m serious.
VERY.

Originally posted by somebody613:

1. Excessive cursing, swearing and vulgar language may result in a hidden post and/or a silence. It may seem harmless but in reality, it only weakens your post and makes you look cruel.

Yes thank you for that, we really needed that copy-paste.

Originally posted by somebody613:

1. Excessive cursing, swearing and vulgar language may result in a hidden post and/or a silence. It may seem harmless but in reality, it only weakens your post and makes you look cruel.

Your point being?

I don’t trust the rest of science, however believable/trustable it looks to you. This is a personal choice, cause no one has anything ACTUAL to show to prove it (otherwise it would become 2, which I do trust). Everything that belongs to this group IS “guesses”, again, otherwise it automatically falls under 2, which has practical life application.

But this group you created is made-up, since you subjectively put in theories you don’t seem to like. I have no troubles with your points 1 (since you can religiously believe whatever you want) and 2 (since you accept certain scientific facts), but shooting down a part of science (the same which proves many things you also believe in) just because it doesn’t suit your beliefs? Redem covered the part where you go from “empirical” to “seeing it with your own eyes”. There are other ways of observation, but you don’t seem to acknowledge them.

As of “faith” (and other “definitions”) – I highly think it is due to me being a native Russian speaker, which means I constantly translate into English, and I SHOWED you, how the same word has a multitude of similar-yet-different translations BOTH WAYS.

Okay, this is mostly semantics, but I’d like to add that having universal definitions would stop communication problems. For me, faith means believing in something without questioning or doubting it, and without there being substantial proof.

Except, I trust only first-person experiments on theories, not what I call “guessing the past from the present”, in which case you’re NOT truly testing the past, but rather the present and your theory on it.

Yeah, this is basically just you assigning arbitrary values to something because it disagrees with your beliefs. Except tradition doesn’t fall under any of that.

I will provide one “crazy” example – you have no way to prove that all those bones weren’t ACTUALLY created as such and not real remains of real animals – for that, you need to be present at the time any of them was alive.

It’s a crazy example since it implies that everything should be held as equally likely while we have so many natural laws and logical conclusions to deal with first. It is not likely that if I type this post to you and submit reply, a bomb will go off on the Moon. But the future is never certain to anyone. So, according to that logic, it is equally likely a bomb will go off to my reply being posted.

Occam’s LIE

It’s really irritating when you put concepts like that in a bad light just to protect your beliefs.

Fossils are only evidence for fossils.
Bruises are only evidence for bruises.
If you’d want to actually prove dinos (or assaults), you must have some empirical evidence of the actual event, not just “I think it fits well into the result”.
No normal judge would convict anyone based ONLY on your claim “look at my bruised cheek, it’s HIM”.
He’d ask for either witnesses or additional evidence, then compare the evidence for and against, then may actually convict the accused, IF there was enough evidence against.
But the claim itself is no juridical proof of anything.
I’m pretty sure, science operates on similar grounds, so…

Once again, it starts with you misunderstanding a part of science, then you comparing it to a poor analogy, and then conclude they are the same, so science must be wrong in this. It doesn’t go “hey, a bone, it must have been a dinosaur, they lived X years ago”. It’s not a religion. A simple three-step plan of science for you:

1. Find thousands upon thousands of pieces of evidence.
2. Find hundreds of rough conclusions. Present the conclusions for which all evidence fits.
3. Have other scientists examine your evidence and findings. Have them debate. See which of the conclusions hold up in science.

Again, I don’t need you to “believe” the scientific method in cases like this, but I want you to understand it, and not make false conclusions about it.

They equally “prove” that they once walked OR were directly put there by someone.

No, they don’t. Really, get out of that “everything has equal likelihood” mindset.

R
Seriously, stop acting like a child…
Fossils are only evidence for fossils.
Bruises are only evidence for bruises.
If you’d want to actually prove dinos (or assaults), you must have some empirical evidence of the actual event, not just “I think it fits well into the result”.

Fossils are evidence of dinosaurs. You’re insane if you think otherwise.

No normal judge would convict anyone based ONLY on your claim “look at my bruised cheek, it’s HIM”.

A single piece of evidence? Sure.
A thousand pieces that all point in the same direction with no contradictory ones? Any jury would convict you if the CSI guys went over the scene, found fingerprints, DNA samples and a whole host of evidence that pointed to you being guilty. Similarly, the multiple lines of, massive quantity of, and quality of the evidence for dinosaurs being the source of those fossils is more than sufficient to reach a conclusion.

You seem to be acting as if the only permissible form of evidence in a court or science is a video or a witness. They aren’t. You don’t hold to that standard for religion, either, despite it making far more ridiculous claims.

No. I would sit and argue but in the end, you always get called ignorant.

DR/Redem
Guys, I now truly see the problem (though I did say it before):
You take “what we see now” as “highest priority possibility, overriding any other possibility, unless clearly proven false”.
Cause you seem to constantly speak of “most likely reason for stuff, according to natural laws and common sense”.
Basically, I’d call it “humanity bias”, as in “what I see takes priority over what I don’t see”.
(Btw, no one mentioned any other specific evidence for dinos apart from bones, except “there’s a ton”. OK – name it then. Cause like I said, bones can only prove there are bones, nothing more. The rest are your assumptions, backed up by nothing but your wish to see the past similarly to the present, which isn’t scientific per se.)
Like what DR said a while ago:
“If I claim a cat in my room, so it’s backed up by the statistic of there being cats in rooms”, roughly.
But for me, the likelihood of a cat being there, is no PROOF for a cat being there.
Not any more than a proof that there was a dragon – both must be proved empirically.
(The fact that we’ve never seen a dragon, is not a proof for there being a cat – was my point. Improbability of A is no proof for a more probable B. Each must be tested separately.)
THAT is why I demand first-hand experience, cause otherwise you leave no chance for “anti-statistical” stuff to ever occur.
But what makes you think, it didn’t or doesn’t?
(Eh, the old-as-thread 10-90C… Which is funny how you stubbornly dismiss it, though it’s a clear as Sun.)
You have no way to know that, OTHER than experiencing it first-hand (not you specifically, but at least someone can).
I do remember bringing an example about some aborigenes seeing a car and deciding it can’t exist, cause they have no “statistics” for it.
DR seemed to agree, to a point, but now you again act like that aborigine, by bravely claiming “common sense is the best arbiter in science”, which it isn’t, if spoken about REALITY, not HUMAN BIAS.
And it’s funny, how in one sentence DR “lets” me believe religiously in whatever I want, but the moment I “disbelieve” anything HE holds for granted, he starts blaming me in “trying to protect my religion from science”, which I don’t, I simply don’t TAKE that PART of science for granted, using MY common sense, which says: I don’t scientifically trust non-empirical evidence, for whatever reason.
And as of tradition, you seem to “like” the “common history” tradition, but dislike the “religious” tradition, but both rely on VERY similar procedures to not fall apart.
Let’s say one thing I’m quite sure about – you know close to nothing about MY tradition, but you are bold enough to claim it’s false, right?
Oh, but you can start claiming “there was a research on how there never were any Jews” (hint: there’s a real-life idiot like that).
Or other “scientific” mumbo-jumbo.
But if you actually experienced the thing itself, you’d see how these “theories” don’t make sense AT ALL.
But to see it, you must look from the INSIDE, not OUTSIDE.
Anyways, I’m SURE, nothing can break through the wall of your “common sense”… O_o

You take “what we see now” as “highest priority possibility, overriding any other possibility, unless clearly proven false”.
Cause you seem to constantly speak of “most likely reason for stuff, according to natural laws and common sense”.

Only one claim out of contradicting ones can possibly be true. Due to massive evidence (natural laws being one piece of them) we eventually come to a conclusion. Science does not make “100% true” statements. In some cases it’s not even 99.9%, or 95%. But in cases of a lower percentage, the articles in question do not generally lie about it. I’ve written a research paper myself, and I had to resort to conclusions that included more uncertainty. That doesn’t mean I 100% claim my conclusions to be true. But it has to hold up in science. If other scientists reluctantly agree, we know that we have a good possibility. Not a very certain one, but still one. If other scientists reluctantly disagree, then we can conclude evidence is not enough to claim either. See how it works?

Basically, I’d call it “humanity bias”, as in “what I see takes priority over what I don’t see”.

..do you even hear yourself? If I see a tree, I’m not going to assume it’s a cat. I’m going to assume it’s a tree. We could live in the matrix with it being a cat instead, but it’s not what is observed. Science never claims to know 100% of the truth. It only goes with “what we currently know”. We currently have our own observations, and that’s what we base our conclusions on. If we see a tree, we claim it’s a tree. We don’t claim that’s a 100% fact, but very nearly a certainty. However, in science it’s still a fact, an objective one, since we’ve used the scientific method properly. The more evidence doesn’t fit, or the less evidence exists, or the more counterevidence exists, the less certain we are. When we see a tree, every sane, rational person will agree it’s a tree. When a blind man feels a tree, he will converse with other blind people and they’ll all feel the tree too, then come to the conclusion they all felt the same thing, and they could use the concept of “tree” to define it as they felt it. That’s how objective issues work. It’ll be a tree, no matter which person observes it. That’s as much certainty as you’ll get.

How can you even call it bias? That really reeks of “I want my religion to be true, but I can’t observe it, so obviously everyone who doesn’t believe me must be biased”.

Btw, no one mentioned any other specific evidence for dinos apart from bones, except “there’s a ton”. OK – name it then. Cause like I said, bones can only prove there are bones, nothing more. The rest are your assumptions, backed up by nothing but your wish to see the past similarly to the present, which isn’t scientific per se.

Why don’t you start with the Wikipedia link, read the claims, and read the abundant of sources along with it?

Wikipedia isn’t a scientific source, but you can verify the sources posted there yourself. You probably want one, quick, scientific link with a quick read to see it all, but that leads to two problems:

1. It won’t be nearly enough to prove anything for you. You should read it all.
2. It’ll be too easy for you to “disprove” it.

You really should take some time to read all of it, and don’t expect to be done in a day or two. If you don’t want to read, suit yourself, pick a few of them and read their claims and evidence. You misinterpret and underestimate the vast evidence for dinosaurs so extremely much that you’re concluding based on your underestimations instead of the real evidence out there.

“If I claim a cat in my room, so it’s backed up by the statistic of there being cats in rooms”, roughly.
But for me, the likelihood of a cat being there, is no PROOF for a cat being there.
Not any more than a proof that there was a dragon – both must be proved empirically.

Of course you also misread, misinterpreted or wrongly remembered my post. It’s not me claiming there to have been a cat in my room and consequently everyone agreeing that cats exists so therefore it must be true. A proper anology towards dinosaurs would be that they’d find cat hair (of the same cat) on my clothing, on my hands, on my bed, on my chair, and on my table. Then they’d find the “toilet” of the cat (forgive me for not searching up the proper term, but I’m sure you understand), and that a cat actually was there. Then they’d find DNA. Then they’d find the cat has been deceased for a day and I show them the body. Does this mean it is absolutely certain, 100% true that the cat has been in my room? Nope. But 99.99% comes close. This is vast evidence for the claim. It is not 100% proof as you always want to see. That doesn’t exist. Even the claim “I have a carrot in my hand” can’t be 100% proven, because maybe we live in an alternate reality where everything is all silly and weird and nothing is true. But going with 99.99% is basically science’s way of saying “a sane, rational person having verified all of the information and pieces of evidence will agree with the claim”. Everyone will agree that a cat has been in my room with that vast amount of evidence. I may still be lying, but there is no evidence to counter the claim, and all evidence points towards it.

Same with dinosaurs.

THAT is why I demand first-hand experience, cause otherwise you leave no chance for “anti-statistical” stuff to ever occur.

There is nothing wrong with you personally rejecting most scientific theories and religious hypotheses (even though you’re wrong in the sense that they aren’t empirical, though currently you hang on to the thought of first-hand experience). As long as you don’t disagree that scientists more learned than you are properly examining the evidence involved and in many theories the majority of them simply cannot disagree.

The bones of dinosaurs can be experienced first-hand, too. The DNA can be researched. The locations can be further investigated. The bones that are lying together can be put together. There’s really much more involved than you think, and that’s what makes you reject it.

Eh, the old-as-thread 10-90C… Which is funny how you stubbornly dismiss it, though it’s a clear as Sun.

The reason that is to be rejected as you take an example all of us have no ability of observing while you somehow have and therefore can claim we’re wrong on the count that you observed something we couldn’t. It’s fallacious by default. If I observe the temperature at all times to be within 10-90, we probably wouldn’t even argue about any more temperatures (indeed, there’s a minimum temperature in the universe, and nobody has argued about anything below it). I’m not sure about any maximum temperatures, but the most logical step would be to argue it similarly as we already know. Arguing differently has less evidence. Arguing that everything is equally likely is simply false.

I do remember bringing an example about some aborigenes seeing a car and deciding it can’t exist, cause they have no “statistics” for it.
DR seemed to agree, to a point, but now you again act like that aborigine, by bravely claiming “common sense is the best arbiter in science”, which it isn’t, if spoken about REALITY, not HUMAN BIAS.

I remember your case study, but I’m not sure how much you’re not remembering this time. If I see a UFO, I could first argue I’m tired, or drunk, or didn’t wear my glasses. That’s all a possibility. Especially since UFOs haven’t been scientifically proven to exist yet, and the evidence that citizens put up was all sketchy and unreliable at best. If I claim to have seen a UFO without any evidence at all, I’d get laughed in the face. Why? Because there’s no reason for them to assume I’m right.

If an aboriginal whose clan never saw a car actually does see a car, nobody will believe him unless he starts showing them too, or (if they have cameras) shows pictures. It’s all about evidence. If I said I saw a cat today, nobody is going to argue I’m wrong, since it’s all too likely I did indeed see a cat. It doesn’t make it automatically true, but most likely. And you can’t seem to accept the “likelihood” as an actual concept. It should all be 100% true for you.

And it’s funny, how in one sentence DR “lets” me believe religiously in whatever I want, but the moment I “disbelieve” anything HE holds for granted, he starts blaming me in “trying to protect my religion from science”, which I don’t, I simply don’t TAKE that PART of science for granted, using MY common sense, which says: I don’t scientifically trust non-empirical evidence, for whatever reason.

Yeah, it’s really hilarious if you say a tree doesn’t exist that I observe, my parents observe, my neighbour observes, your friends observe, the whole scientific community observes, and Rick Astley observes. You can always argue “but it’s possible we’re in the matrix!”, sure, but does that help us above you acknowledging it’s better to go by what we observe?

And as of tradition, you seem to “like” the “common history” tradition, but dislike the “religious” tradition, but both rely on VERY similar procedures to not fall apart.

No, they really don’t. It’s a problem that you either lie or know so little about this. It allows your conclusions to be true, but you are making up all kind of things that aren’t true in order to reach such conclusions.

Let’s say one thing I’m quite sure about – you know close to nothing about MY tradition, but you are bold enough to claim it’s false, right?

No, I’m basing my preliminary, scientific judgment on what you tell me. I do not argue you’re wrong in other methods, but I don’t use such methods. You can religiously believe your tradition is all fine, but if you want to argue it’s scientifically correct, you’re going to have to bring in scientific sources. See the problem now?

DR

Only one claim out of contradicting ones can possibly be true. Due to massive evidence (natural laws being one piece of them) we eventually come to a conclusion. Science does not make “100% true” statements. In some cases it’s not even 99.9%, or 95%. But in cases of a lower percentage, the articles in question do not generally lie about it. I’ve written a research paper myself, and I had to resort to conclusions that included more uncertainty. That doesn’t mean I 100% claim my conclusions to be true. But it has to hold up in science. If other scientists reluctantly agree, we know that we have a good possibility. Not a very certain one, but still one. If other scientists reluctantly disagree, then we can conclude evidence is not enough to claim either. See how it works?

Yes, I require 100% surety in cases of DISMISSING other options.
If one says, there’s 80% of A and 5% of B – I’m OK with this.
But when one says, there’s 95% of A and therefore 1% of B CAN’T be true – THIS I disagree with.
Cause until you do have 100%, you CAN’T know whether that 1% really ISN’T true, however “unlikely” it SEEMS to be.
And empirical testing IS 100%, when repeatable of course.
100% isn’t the statistic, it’s the “A leads to B” surety.
And it must be tested the ENTIRE way, not having some untested gaps that get covered by “PROBABLY it must be true, it’s 95%”.
(Having a DNA-tested hair in your room, that belongs to that cat, isn’t 100%, cause you could bring it from the outside without the cat itself.
SEEING, by eye or camera, the cat in your room, is 100% proof though.
But that’s exactly what I say about dinos – SAME type of logical conclusion…)
But you’ll argue as always, right..?

..do you even hear yourself? If I see a tree, I’m not going to assume it’s a cat. I’m going to assume it’s a tree. We could live in the matrix with it being a cat instead, but it’s not what is observed. Science never claims to know 100% of the truth. It only goes with “what we currently know”. We currently have our own observations, and that’s what we base our conclusions on. If we see a tree, we claim it’s a tree. We don’t claim that’s a 100% fact, but very nearly a certainty. However, in science it’s still a fact, an objective one, since we’ve used the scientific method properly. The more evidence doesn’t fit, or the less evidence exists, or the more counterevidence exists, the less certain we are. When we see a tree, every sane, rational person will agree it’s a tree. When a blind man feels a tree, he will converse with other blind people and they’ll all feel the tree too, then come to the conclusion they all felt the same thing, and they could use the concept of “tree” to define it as they felt it. That’s how objective issues work. It’ll be a tree, no matter which person observes it. That’s as much certainty as you’ll get.
How can you even call it bias? That really reeks of “I want my religion to be true, but I can’t observe it, so obviously everyone who doesn’t believe me must be biased”.

Using your own words: “You’re lying.”
Cause you’re using an empirical example (seeing something) as if I used it as non-empirical, which I of course never did.
I’m not the one talking about “Matrix”, non-empirical science is.
And again, I’m not TRUSTING to consider “what we currently know” AS “we DO know”.
You are though.
That’s why we argue so much.
But I said it clearly before – I differentiate between “truly knowing” aka empirical and “not having a better option” aka guessing.
I simply don’t trust the latter SCIENTIFICALLY.
Unless you demand to consider “scientifically” to mean “fanatically trust whatever the GREAT SCIENTIST LORDS say”, sarcasm implied.
Cause if you demand CRITICISM, I’m talking about it for a few threads already.
I just chose another object to be MORE critical about, but my criticism itself is exactly like yours, just the opposite direction to apply it to.
You’ll surely disagree, for the aforementioned reasons… :(

Why don’t you start with the Wikipedia link, read the claims, and read the abundant of sources along with it?
Wikipedia isn’t a scientific source, but you can verify the sources posted there yourself. You probably want one, quick, scientific link with a quick read to see it all, but that leads to two problems:
1. It won’t be nearly enough to prove anything for you. You should read it all.
2. It’ll be too easy for you to “disprove” it.
You really should take some time to read all of it, and don’t expect to be done in a day or two. If you don’t want to read, suit yourself, pick a few of them and read their claims and evidence. You misinterpret and underestimate the vast evidence for dinosaurs so extremely much that you’re concluding based on your underestimations instead of the real evidence out there.

Their entire research is STILL based on the bones.
Which proves nothing about their origin.
You can SEE in the bones whatever you want, it won’t prove anything.
(I can take any fleshless skeleton and put it in any twisted pose you want, doesn’t mean it died in that position. And here you’re talking about millions of years, with a very non-zero possibility of being thrown through a multitude of conditions, each very likely to switch the skeleton’s pose a dozen times. Oh, and THEN fossilizing it again, so you won’t see it.)

Of course you also misread, misinterpreted or wrongly remembered my post. It’s not me claiming there to have been a cat in my room and consequently everyone agreeing that cats exists so therefore it must be true. A proper anology towards dinosaurs would be that they’d find cat hair (of the same cat) on my clothing, on my hands, on my bed, on my chair, and on my table. Then they’d find the “toilet” of the cat (forgive me for not searching up the proper term, but I’m sure you understand), and that a cat actually was there. Then they’d find DNA. Then they’d find the cat has been deceased for a day and I show them the body. Does this mean it is absolutely certain, 100% true that the cat has been in my room? Nope. But 99.99% comes close. This is vast evidence for the claim. It is not 100% proof as you always want to see. That doesn’t exist. Even the claim “I have a carrot in my hand” can’t be 100% proven, because maybe we live in an alternate reality where everything is all silly and weird and nothing is true. But going with 99.99% is basically science’s way of saying “a sane, rational person having verified all of the information and pieces of evidence will agree with the claim”. Everyone will agree that a cat has been in my room with that vast amount of evidence. I may still be lying, but there is no evidence to counter the claim, and all evidence points towards it.
Same with dinosaurs.

It proves that these things are present in your room.
It has zero proof against you bringing it in yourself, without the cat.
It’s perfectly falsifiable.
Same with the dino bones.
Unless you count “most probable” as “must be true”, which I simply don’t.
And I guess THIS is our main difference in how we view science in general, and why I so demand first-hand experiments.
You’re OK with 95%, while I demand 100% – otherwise I have full right to CHOOSE the 5%, cause I don’t RELY on probabilities, I RELY on 100% knowledge, which is EMPIRICAL evidence.
I see your point and I disagree with it.
You can call it unscientific, but I don’t need such “science”.
I can live happily without it.
(To all idiotic trolls, COMPUTERS are EMPIRICAL. DINOS are not. So using a computer is zero proof for Big Bang.)

There is nothing wrong with you personally rejecting most scientific theories and religious hypotheses (even though you’re wrong in the sense that they aren’t empirical, though currently you hang on to the thought of first-hand experience). As long as you don’t disagree that scientists more learned than you are properly examining the evidence involved and in many theories the majority of them simply cannot disagree.
The bones of dinosaurs can be experienced first-hand, too. The DNA can be researched. The locations can be further investigated. The bones that are lying together can be put together. There’s really much more involved than you think, and that’s what makes you reject it.

Define “empirical”, would you?
Any difference from “first-hand experience”?
Cause you seem to juggle what exactly IS empirical, when saying that bones are empirical proof for dinos.
Like I said, bones are empirical proof for bones, nothing more.
Cat hair is empirical evidence for cat hair, not the cat itself.
If you disagree, it boils down to semantics and opinions, and you can think of another name for what I’m talking about.
But you must understand what I mean, so the word itself doesn’t matter, when the problem lies in the ideas.
Ours are very different…

The reason that is to be rejected as you take an example all of us have no ability of observing while you somehow have and therefore can claim we’re wrong on the count that you observed something we couldn’t. It’s fallacious by default. If I observe the temperature at all times to be within 10-90, we probably wouldn’t even argue about any more temperatures (indeed, there’s a minimum temperature in the universe, and nobody has argued about anything below it). I’m not sure about any maximum temperatures, but the most logical step would be to argue it similarly as we already know. Arguing differently has less evidence. Arguing that everything is equally likely is simply false.

I’m just saying that if something wasn’t observed, and nothing has a definite empirical counter-proof against it, it CAN be CHOSEN to hold true.
To KNOW what is true, you MUST have it at 100%.
99.99999% WON’T do it.
Not for me, at least.
(Again, SCIENTIFICALLY!)

I remember your case study, but I’m not sure how much you’re not remembering this time. If I see a UFO, I could first argue I’m tired, or drunk, or didn’t wear my glasses. That’s all a possibility. Especially since UFOs haven’t been scientifically proven to exist yet, and the evidence that citizens put up was all sketchy and unreliable at best. If I claim to have seen a UFO without any evidence at all, I’d get laughed in the face. Why? Because there’s no reason for them to assume I’m right.
If an aboriginal whose clan never saw a car actually does see a car, nobody will believe him unless he starts showing them too, or (if they have cameras) shows pictures. It’s all about evidence. If I said I saw a cat today, nobody is going to argue I’m wrong, since it’s all too likely I did indeed see a cat. It doesn’t make it automatically true, but most likely. And you can’t seem to accept the “likelihood” as an actual concept. It should all be 100% true for you.

This one is the KEY paragraph…
“This is true, cause it resembles ANOTHER event” – is so UNSCIENTIFIC and HUMAN BIASED in my view, that it can’t get more…

Yeah, it’s really hilarious if you say a tree doesn’t exist that I observe, my parents observe, my neighbour observes, your friends observe, the whole scientific community observes, and Rick Astley observes. You can always argue “but it’s possible we’re in the matrix!”, sure, but does that help us above you acknowledging it’s better to go by what we observe?

YOU say so, when I speak about my national tradition, so BUSTED. :DDD

No, they really don’t. It’s a problem that you either lie or know so little about this. It allows your conclusions to be true, but you are making up all kind of things that aren’t true in order to reach such conclusions.

And allows you to say nothing beyond how stupid I am, without bringing anything actual to counter my words (beyond “it’s improbable, thus wrong”)…

No, I’m basing my preliminary, scientific judgment on what you tell me. I do not argue you’re wrong in other methods, but I don’t use such methods. You can religiously believe your tradition is all fine, but if you want to argue it’s scientifically correct, you’re going to have to bring in scientific sources. See the problem now?

You do argue, by constantly mixing up “religious belief” and “scientific method”, when “quoting” me.
And I never argued FOR “religion”, but rather AGAINST “science”.
If it’s the same for you, so it’s YOU who is BIASED, not me. O_o

A very small off-topic.
WE can EDIT→DELETE our posts.
Can’t admins do the same?
I mean, it looks weird, all that block of “This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator”…
(I could’ve deleted mine, if you asked…)

If one says, there’s 80% of A and 5% of B – I’m OK with this.
But when one says, there’s 95% of A and therefore 1% of B CAN’T be true – THIS I disagree with.
Cause until you do have 100%, you CAN’T know whether that 1% really ISN’T true, however “unlikely” it SEEMS to be.

It’s not “A is more likely than B, so A is true and B is false”, but more “A is more likely than B, fullstop”. That is to say, if there is scientific evidence for B (which you seem to imply for certain cases). However, in this case, I merely meant “A is 95% likely to be true, 5% unknown”. In which case there’s no evidence for other claims, merely not complete evidence for this claim. You then don’t claim 100% certainty.

Do note it’s impossible to pinpoint chances so exact like that. Usually you just cover an area (like 0-10%, 25-50%, 95-99%, 99-99.99%, etc), but even then you probably won’t see scientists actually stating their percentages. You’ll just see them state something like “it’s very unlikely to be true” or “it’s possible to be true, but it’s a little uncertain”.

And it must be tested the ENTIRE way, not having some untested gaps that get covered by “PROBABLY it must be true, it’s 95%”.

It is tested, but if there currently is no further evidence to be tested, and they’d still need it, they won’t claim 100% certainty. If 95% certainty, they’ll claim it. It’s better to be 95% sure now than to wait until you’re 100% sure, since you can base daily activities on that.

Having a DNA-tested hair in your room, that belongs to that cat, isn’t 100%, cause you could bring it from the outside without the cat itself.

I didn’t say it was 100% true based on that, but rather that each piece of evidence makes it more likely. I’ve frankly never wanted to claim 100% certainty, so get that out of your head.

SEEING, by eye or camera, the cat in your room, is 100% proof though.

No, it is not, at least not scientifically. And it is important you see that. Videos can be edited. Eye-witnesses can be bribed. It’s more likely they aren’t bribed, and the videos aren’t edited, but it’s never certain. There’s no 100%, it doesn’t exist.

That’s why we argue so much.

Why we argue is because you consider bones, DNA, pieces of evidence linking to certain claims to not be valid, and to not be empirical. The scientific community disagrees. Note that you’re trying to argue that science should disagree with itself. If all you’re trying to argue is that you personally disagree (which I’ve never stated to be false, you are in fact encouraged to have an opinion, no matter if you misunderstood something), then there’s no problem. For example, you’re also allowed to believe in solipsism, which according to what I read is something you’re still near to. But it wouldn’t be a very scientific opinion. It would just be your personal opinion. And that’s fine. As long as you don’t make statements about science that isn’t true.

You’ll surely disagree, for the aforementioned reasons

I don’t disagree with you on your personal grounds. You can think something is empirical, or something isn’t. As long as you agree that science does find things empirical you may disagree with. Which is what I’m trying to show you. Bones, DNA, etc, all the things for dinosaurs are empirical, according to science. Not according to you, but according to science.

Their entire research is STILL based on the bones.
Which proves nothing about their origin.
You can SEE in the bones whatever you want, it won’t prove anything.
(I can take any fleshless skeleton and put it in any twisted pose you want, doesn’t mean it died in that position. And here you’re talking about millions of years, with a very non-zero possibility of being thrown through a multitude of conditions, each very likely to switch the skeleton’s pose a dozen times. Oh, and THEN fossilizing it again, so you won’t see it.)

I agree that’s how you personally see it. I disagree that’s how the scientific method sees it.

The only concern I have remaining is you arguing that each usable method (personal experience, tradition, scientific) is equally objective or equally well-equipped to reach truth. The personal experience method won’t reach a conclusion about dinosaurs, while the scientific method does. And it does take into account every single possibility. But most possibilities don’t have any evidence. There’s no evidence for aliens placing the bones or they spawning out of nowhere. There is evidence that the bones were there, and consistent evidence leads to consistent conclusions.

It proves that these things are present in your room.
It has zero proof against you bringing it in yourself, without the cat.
It’s perfectly falsifiable.
Same with the dino bones.
Unless you count “most probable” as “must be true”, which I simply don’t.

I don’t. Science doesn’t. “Most probable” is “most probable”, not “only possibility”.

You’re OK with 95%, while I demand 100%

You’ll never get 100%. You base your 100% on personal requirements that you deem to be okay out of nowhere based on petty reasoning. More importantly, you’re using an entirely different method, not the scientific method. The scientific method will never reach 100%.

otherwise I have full right to CHOOSE the 5%, cause I don’t RELY on probabilities, I RELY on 100% knowledge, which is EMPIRICAL evidence.

You can choose the 99%, the 50%, the 5%, or the 0%, personally, for all I care. Especially if you agree with the 5% chance you’re taking an irrational stance. But if based on your method it’s 100%, that’s “rational” based on that method. As long as you don’t think science must as well.

Define “empirical”, would you?
Any difference from “first-hand experience”?

Yes.

First-hand experience is that which you personally verified. Empirical is that which you personally would be capable of verifying. (Note these aren’t official definitions, just to make it easier for you.) For example, I never studied dog diseases. That automatically excludes it from the first-hand experience group. But dogs exist. So they can be empirically tested on whatever disease we need to test.

Dinosaurs are not empirical. Bones are empirical. You can test them in whatever way you like. I’ve never had first-hand experience with them, so that one is excluded. But many scientists did. They studied them, examined them, investigated them, and researched on them. Their conclusions are pretty clear. Of course this carries assumptions. Such as “there wasn’t a weird matrix-style type of life back then” or “life as we know it, surprise, surprise, was also life as we know it back then”. The bones didn’t belong to any animals we knew thus far. So they must belong to another type of life. I still have the feeling you don’t understand the vast amount of evidence here, so I’m not sure how much needs to be explained to you. Regardless, I’m not going to explain the entire scientific history on dinosaurs.

Like I said, bones are empirical proof for bones, nothing more.
Cat hair is empirical evidence for cat hair, not the cat itself.

Bones are not empirical proof for bones. Bones are bones. Bones are empirical evidence for one type of (boned) life having lived somewhere in the past. This doesn’t make it automatically true, if you find only one bone. It makes it more and more likely the more bones you find, at the same altitude, and with the same setup.

Cat hair is not empirical evidence for cat hair. Cat hair is cat hair. It is empirical evidence that cat hair belonging to a cat was moved here at some point in the past, and one of the possibilities is that a cat was at that spot in the past. But, as with dinosaur bones, you don’t find just one cat hair. You find cat hair, you have an eye-witness, you have the cat’s toilet, the body, and the person’s ownership slip for all I care. This still doesn’t make it 100% true. It makes it more and more likely.

If you disagree, it boils down to semantics and opinions, and you can think of another name for what I’m talking about.

I think you’re not talking about empirical evidence. What I think you’re saying is that finding bones does not automatically mean dinosaurs lived exactly X years ago and they all looked precisely like the sketch made by a few artists. Nobody disagrees with you there.

I’m just saying that if something wasn’t observed, and nothing has a definite empirical counter-proof against it, it CAN be CHOSEN to hold true.

You can personally hold anything to be true. One chooses to do so in a scientific way, another chooses to do so in a religious way.

To KNOW what is true, you MUST have it at 100%.
99.99999% WON’T do it.
Not for me, at least.
(Again, SCIENTIFICALLY!)

No. Science is not capable of reaching 100%, so you’re not talking “scientifically” here. It’s for you personally.

“This is true, cause it resembles ANOTHER event” – is so UNSCIENTIFIC and HUMAN BIASED in my view, that it can’t get more…

I’m still finding it problematic that everything is equally likely to be true for you. It is more likely that I see a cat than a UFO. That is scientifically and empirically proven. I can’t see how you’d disagree with that. UFOs have never been scientifically observed, so we can’t take someone seriously unless it is extensively studied and agreed upon. Cats are proven to exist, so these scientific assumptions of cats’ existence can be taken for granted. I no longer have to prove to you cats exist when I state that I’ve seen one. All I need to prove is that I actually saw it. If I claim I saw a UFO, I first need to prove they actually exist.

It is not human bias, it is not unscientific. You don’t know what science is. What I just explained is exactly what science is.

YOU say so, when I speak about my national tradition, so BUSTED.

Yeah, I’m totally busted when you and your group of friends you paid to say you’re right in that you’ve seen a UFO claim all kind of silly things. I think you’re forgetting about independence here.

Also, be a little mature.

And allows you to say nothing beyond how stupid I am, without bringing anything actual to counter my words (beyond “it’s improbable, thus wrong”)…

I’d like you to find me some scientific sources for your stories of tradition. If they’re only accepted to be true with the tradition method, then I have no problems. History is different in that there’s an actual historical science. If your tradition falls under that historical science, there is no difference, and it wouldn’t be a religious belief.

…

Can’t admins do the same?
I mean, it looks weird, all that block of “This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator”…

They do that so you know you’ve posted something the moderators did not agree are according to the guidelines, and that you won’t think there has been an accident with post deletion.

DR
I’ll think about what you said.
But I probably won’t say it much differently from “we understand science to work on different grounds”…
Also, all your claims of “science works this way” are purely your opinion, cause you’re not “science” nor the entire group of world’s scientists embodied.
Thus, it is your opinion (and I also agree that you are 200% allowed to have one and to think it’s right), and this one is my opinion.
I finally understood (I did 90% long ago, but now it’s 100% clear) your way to see science (which is very different from mine), so we can stop here.
Opinions are very hard to change, so we shouldn’t waste our time on pointless stuff.
I’ll repeat what I said some time ago:
If something doesn’t interfere with your life, why bother breaking your head on the wall of another’s opinion on it? :D
Cheers.

As of deleting posts.
I’d agree, when it’s 3-4 of them, but an entire WALL looks funny. :DDD

Also, all your claims of “science works this way” are purely your opinion, cause you’re not “science” nor the entire group of world’s scientists embodied.

It’s not my opinion. You can read up on how it works. There is no “different way to see science”. What I think you’re instead saying here is that you simply do not entirely want to use the scientific method for all cases. That is an opinion. As long as you know that it’s no longer science when you do so.

If something doesn’t interfere with your life, why bother breaking your head on the wall of another’s opinion on it?

Scientific knowledge is one thing we’d like to achieve. Some would like to know if God actually exists, scientifically. Of course, nobody’s required to fund them, or join them, but many actually agree that it would be very interesting to see results on that.

DR
You won’t ever “discover G-d” under your-type scientific method.
Not until He becomes “scientifically empirical” (as in Messianic Revelation).

Originally posted by somebody613:

Is science anti-religious?
(A long article, but worth glancing at. Oh, and it does speak of empirical science specifically. :D)

Furthermore, in just about all of them the boundaries of shame and modesty have been
completely broken down, so much so that they laugh and ridicule those who do take modesty
into account. On the contrary, according to them, the more vulgar, the better, etc.

Yeah, sorry, but the guy who wrote that has about as much knowledge about science as you have.

I mean, come on! He criticises that religion has no place in a colleges courses that teach science and that there are “heretical teachings” and “idolatrous beliefs” there. What the fuck!?

EPR
Maybe not the best article in terms of such details – I’ll look for a better one to show my idea. :D

An article that covers most of my ideas.
(Funny enough, most of them I had BEFORE reading this and similar articles. Seriously.)

The second paragraph in your second article is quite a bummer. It says the Torah deals with absolute truths. He’s right about science, it deals with theories, since none of them are stupid enough to claim absolute truth. For that, you’ll need such an immense load of thick proof without counter-evidence, you’d never achieve that in the lifetime of mankind.

Any way, he has the same problems as you, sadly enough. He has an entirely different definition of “empirical”.

You won’t ever “discover G-d” under your-type scientific method.
Not until He becomes “scientifically empirical” (as in Messianic Revelation).

We can examine (and dismiss) certain claimed features, while others simply are non-scientific. That doesn’t mean truth or no truth, it means we cannot claim truth.