common Atheistic terms debunked. [#785]

[Ambassador Pony]

bm

[bgb]

Nothing unreal exists.

[source]

Basing all conclusions on our own limits of testing is to equate nothing is true if it hasn't been tested?

QUOTE:
And a scientific theory, or even a hypothesis, is more than just a "possibility" - or indeed a "guess" or simply an "idea". It is a testable idea with criteria for falsifiability. So how is your particular brand of speculation testable or falsifiable? What criteria and methodology do you apply?

So another words your saying the absence of criteria to be tested is equal to being false?
Or are you saying the absence of GOD and the absence of criteria to study means he doesn't Exist?

Absence of falsifiability does not equal falsifiability...lol. Means absence. Not falsified yet, nor tested.

[Deus ex Machina]

Again, please cite your sources. From which dictionary do these definitions come?

a?the?ist
? ?/?e??i?st/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Its not only disbelief, it is considered denial as well.

Syntax fail. It's disbelief or denial, not disbelief and denial.

the?ism
? ?/??i?z?m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun
1.    the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.    belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

Apposing Atheism, is to appose denial or disbelief. One who doesn't deny.

'Opposed to' in the sense of 'as opposed to', or 'in contrast with'.

lol... just making fun speculations.

Well, when you're reduced to these kinds of word games, I get the impression that there's nothing of value left to discuss.

Science

–noun
1.    a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.    systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.    any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.    systematized knowledge in general.
5.    knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.    a particular branch of knowledge.
7.    skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

#1 There is no personal knowledge or facts, nor truths of non existence.

Actually, there is (or are). It's a scientific fact that the luminiferous aether and phlogiston are not evidenced in reality, are superfluous to requirements, and as such - to all intents and purposes - don't exist.

#2 Denying existence purely on a physical level of our dimension is non conclusive.

Irrelevant, unless you can demonstrate the existence of anything else.

#3 Science only pertaining to physical or natural properties is false. i.e. =

Multi-Dimensional Science, or MDS is an attempt to fully integrate science with mysticism, and religion. Naturally enough, it includes parapsychology, or psychical research which is the evolving science into claimed "supernatural" phenomena. It is a study. But not proven. Possibility is of course considered.
source: http://www.kheper.net/essays/Multi-Dimensional_Science.html. The study of multi dimensions is, yes, you guess it, a science.

And you assert that, on what grounds? One crackpot web site? You think that has any standing against the definitions above?

#4 Systematized knowledge is confined to our own limitations. We do not exist on more than one  dimension of time.

So there's stuff we not only don't know, but that we may not be able to know. So what?

#5 There is no knowledge or facts of non existence because it can't be studied systematically. Not being able to study is also non conclusive of disbelief. Absence of facts or the ability to study equates to limitations. Anything bound by limits doesn't constitute that nothing is limitless.

java.text.ParseException: Cannot parse mangled English.

#6 Any particular branch of knowledge is perceived on a physical level. i.e. evidence. No physical evidence doesn't not conclude non existence.

Irrelevant. It's still sheer speculation.

#7 skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. There are no facts nor principles of a Supernatural being. No human application to reflect such a being makes that being Supernatural in relation to our own limitations.  

IOW, your proposition is not only sheer speculation, it's sheer speculation by definition. Thank you for playing.

[Dragnet]

BM

[source]

QUOTE:
Syntax fail. It's disbelief or denial, not disbelief and denial.

A disbelief based on absence by either side.

QUOTE:
'Opposed to' in the sense of 'as opposed to', or 'in contrast with'.

I agree, it works both ways.

QUOTE:
Well, when you're reduced to these kinds of word games, I get the impression that there's nothing of value left to discuss. Smiley

lol... if you come to that conclusion, I won't be upset.

QUOTE:
Actually, there is (or are). It's a scientific fact that the luminiferous aether and phlogiston are not evidenced in reality, are superfluous to requirements, and as such - to all intents and purposes - don't exist.


producing light: the luminiferous properties of a gas. aether? lol... phlogiston is a non existent chemical.

so lets put this word game together. The producing light of aether and phlogiston is not evidence in reality and they are  superfluous "more than enough; overabundant; extra to requirements", and such as to all intents and purposes - don't exist.  Simplified = A chemical that doesn't exist of course shows no evidence. Equating a non existence of a chemical is no where near a non existence of a Supernatural being. That was a nice try though. This is also called speculation.

QUOTE:
Irrelevant, unless you can demonstrate the existence of anything else.

Wrong. It's totally relevant based on the possibility of a fallacy. Being non conclusive is irrelevant? lmao...

QUOTE:
And you assert that, on what grounds? One crackpot web site? You think that has any standing against the definitions above?

Your not relating the study of multi-dimensions as a crackpot idea are you? To you it is a crackpot idea even though science is studying it? Wouldn't that be hypocritical being a scientific thinker>? lol...

QUOTE:
IOW, your proposition is not only sheer speculation, it's sheer speculation by definition. Thank you for playing.

All propositions are sheer speculation till proven other wise. I don't deny its a proposition. In fact, propositions are known as theories as well. Back to square one, we all choose a theory, belief or propositions.


THEORY
–noun, plural -ries.
1.    a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.    a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.    Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.    the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.    a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.    contemplation or speculation.
7.    guess or conjecture.


I have just begun to play 

[Deus ex Machina]

A disbelief based on absence by either side.

More word games. Disbelief is merely the non-adoption of a postulate.

producing light: the luminiferous properties of a gas. aether? lol... phlogiston is a non existent chemical.

so lets put this word game together. The producing light of aether and phlogiston is not evidence in reality and they are  superfluous "more than enough; overabundant; extra to requirements", and such as to all intents and purposes - don't exist.  Simplified = A chemical that doesn't exist of course shows no evidence. Equating a non existence of a chemical is no where near a non existence of a Supernatural being. That was a nice try though. This is also called speculation.

No, it isn't. It's called an inductive inference.

Wrong. It's totally relevant based on the possibility of a fallacy. Being non conclusive is irrelevant? lmao...

Way to miss the point - yet again. See above.

And you assert that, on what grounds? One crackpot web site? You think that has any standing against the definitions above?

Your not relating the study of multi-dimensions as a crackpot idea are you? To you it is a crackpot idea even though science is studying it? Wouldn't that be hypocritical being a scientific thinker>? lol...

Can you point to any serious publication that support the notion that the notions espoused on that web site have anything to do with science? A reputable peer-reviewed journal would be just the ticket.

IOW, your proposition is not only sheer speculation, it's sheer speculation by definition. Thank you for playing.

All propositions are sheer speculation till proven other wise.

False. As already stated, propositions that are testable and have criteria for falsification are a step above "sheer speculation".

{...}
I have just begun to play 

No, what you're doing now is trolling. You're just spouting nonsense. It's clear you have no worthwhile argument to provide, which is why you're just time-wasting with this rubbish.

[source]

QUOTE:
Way to miss the point - yet again. See above.

The point your making is that there is no criteria to study and this makes it irrelevant.  Is this not what your saying?

QUOTE:
Can you point to any serious publication that support the notion that the notions espoused on that web site have anything to do with science? A reputable peer-reviewed journal would be just the ticket.

Do you deny that to prove or disprove multi-dimensions would be done with science? And are you saying I need to post more sites about the SMD studies?

QUOTE:
False. As already stated, propositions that are testable and have criteria for falsification are a step above "sheer speculation".

I agree, proposing there is a supernatural being is not testable therefore there is no criteria for falsification. But it doesn't make it true, nor false of an existance. It makes it not testable, I think this is were we differ.

QUOTE:
No, what you're doing now is trolling. You're just spouting nonsense. It's clear you have no worthwhile argument to provide, which is why you're just time-wasting with this rubbish.

Well I think your cool and you do make some good points. I'm not trying to waste your time, but I do find this stimulating on my behalf. We both have our own beliefs or non beliefs, and to convict either side of delusions, or impose a belief, or to try to take one's belief away is an act of religion. This is why I respect all points of views.

[Deus ex Machina]

The point your making is that there is no criteria to study and this makes it irrelevant.  Is this not what your saying?

No, the point I'm making is that your talk of conclusions is an irrelevance. It is a category error. The rejection of the notion of supernatural entities is not a deductive conclusion, but an inductive inference, which is a quite different beast.

Do you deny that to prove or disprove multi-dimensions would be done with science?

That has no bearing on my opinion of the site. Try focusing on the article's content, not its title (any old fool can write a sciency-sounding title to confuse the uninitiated), then tell me how many of its assertions are testable hypotheses, better still if they're backed by any peer-reviewed and published articles.

And are you saying I need to post more sites about the SMD studies?

I'm suggesting that just because a site has an article entitled "Multi-Dimensional Science" doesn't mean that it's actually engaged in scientific study, or that it has anything to do with science - any more than "Scientology" has anything to do with science.

I agree, proposing there is a supernatural being is not testable therefore there is no criteria for falsification. But it doesn't make it true, nor false of an existance. It makes it not testable, I think this is were we differ.

On the contrary, I agree with that statement. Where we differ IMO is that you apparently think it's somehow necessary to consider such wild speculations as possibility. Absent any criteria by which one might assess such notions, I frankly don't see why. They're superfluous to requirements, there's no evidence for them, and simply saying - as you did earlier when I commented on the non-existent chemical phlogiston - that "it's not the same!", without qualification, is resorting to the deductive fallacy of special pleading, which I do not give the time of day. Sorry, your speculative notions don't deserve any special status over anyone else's.

Well I think your cool and you do make some good points. I'm not trying to waste your time, but I do find this stimulating on my behalf.

That's fine as far as it goes, but when one starts getting into word-chopping, one is really "scraping the barrel" as we say.

We both have our own beliefs or non beliefs, and to convict either side of delusions, or impose a belief, or to try to take one's belief away is an act of religion. This is why I respect all points of views.

Well, I'm not attempting to impose or remove any beliefs here - save, perhaps, to correct any misconceptions you might have had with respect to how I (for I cannot speak for anyone else, though I am lumbered with that wholly undescriptive umbrella-term, "atheist", so I felt compelled to respond) view reality.

[source]

Yeah this is where we differ.

QUOTE:
On the contrary, I agree with that statement. Where we differ IMO is that you apparently think it's somehow necessary to consider such wild speculations as possibility. Absent any criteria by which one might assess such notions, I frankly don't see why. They're superfluous to requirements, there's no evidence for them, and simply saying - as you did earlier when I commented on the non-existent chemical phlogiston - that "it's not the same!", without qualification, is resorting to the deductive fallacy of special pleading, which I do not give the time of day. Sorry, your speculative notions don't deserve any special status over anyone else's.

Speculations neither makes something true, nor false. The absence of criteria to study doesn't equal falsification. This is where we are different. Am I right? I don't consider my speculations of a GOD a necessity, it's a want more than need. And your right, my speculations don't deserve any special status over anyone else's. That would be arrogant and religious like.

QUOTE:
Well, I'm not attempting to impose or remove any beliefs here - save, perhaps, to correct any misconceptions you might have had with respect to how I (for I cannot speak for anyone else, though I am lumbered with that wholly undescriptive umbrella-term, "atheist", so I felt compelled to respond) view reality.

Understood.

[Deus ex Machina]

Speculations neither makes something true, nor false. The absence of criteria to study doesn't equal falsification. This is where we are different. Am I right?

No, I think I agree with you there, too. I'm not suggesting that a notion is automatically false because there are no criteria by which to test it. I am, rather, suggesting that the notion is completely 'out of bounds' as far as any rational discourse is concerned. As I said earlier, we could sit here and invent billions of "possibilities" (if not more) as far as Ultimate Reality, alternate realities, parallel Universes or other such fanciful notions are concerned, all wholly speculative because none of them could ever be confirmed or disconfirmed - if we had the time.

But it wouldn't get us anywhere, and it wouldn't establish to one third of a degree the credibility of any single one of those notions. This is what I meant earlier when you talked of having an open mind: if you could grasp just how many possibilities there are, you'd realise how pointless it is to talk about considering the possibility of any one of them. Because if you grant the possibility to one, you have to grant it to all, or you're engaging in special pleading: but if you grant equal possibility to all, the possibility of each is as near zero as makes no odds, because the phase space of imaginable - and even, potentially, unimaginable - Ultimate Realities is simply colossal.

That's where we differ, I think. As the number of possibilities that we have available for consideration tends towards infinity, the relevance - never mind probability - of any single one of them tends towards zero. Which is why I tend to use scare-quotes when people talk of "possibilities".

I don't consider my speculations of a GOD a necessity, it's a want more than need. And your right, my speculations don't deserve any special status over anyone else's. That would be arrogant and religious like.

Interesting. I don't get the "want" thing, I have to confess. Reality is what it is; I neither want nor expect it to conform to my wishes.

[source]

QUOTE:
No, I think I agree with you there, too. I'm not suggesting that a notion is automatically false because there are no criteria by which to test it. I am, rather, suggesting that the notion is completely 'out of bounds' as far as any rational discourse is concerned. As I said earlier, we could sit here and invent billions of "possibilities" (if not more) as far as Ultimate Reality, alternate realities, parallel Universes or other such fanciful notions are concerned, all wholly speculative because none of them could ever be confirmed or disconfirmed - if we had the time.

If there was no possibilities there would be no scientific studies. There would be no theories. You couldn't eve ask the question is it possible to travel faster than the speed of light. Being that you say to consider one possibility is to consider all possibilities. If i asked you is it possible to travel faster than the speed of light, would you say I don't know? The fact to even study the possibility to travel faster than the speed of light is in fact considering a possibility. This absolutely makes no since to say it is irrelevant to consider possibilities. To say there is no such thing as a possibility, would be reason to study nothing. In terms of 'out of bounds' , is measured by our own understanding. Out of bounds is man made conclusions.  But anyways, thanx for talking with me. ;-)

[Deus ex Machina]

If there was no possibilities there would be no scientific studies. There would be no theories.

I've already refuted this. Again, this is false: scientific studies are a step above "sheer speculation" because there are criteria by which a particular notion can be confirmed or disconfirmed in science.

You couldn't eve ask the question is it possible to travel faster than the speed of light. Being that you say to consider one possibility is to consider all possibilities. If i asked you is it possible to travel faster than the speed of light, would you say I don't know? The fact to even study the possibility to travel faster than the speed of light is in fact considering a possibility.

Actually, I would say that all the evidence we have in reality points to the inference that it is not possible to travel faster than the speed of light. It is up to the proponent of such an idea to come up with criteria whereby such a phenomenon can be tested if they with to elevat it above the realms of sheer speculation.

This absolutely makes no since to say it is irrelevant to consider possibilities. To say there is no such thing as a possibility, would be reason to study nothing. In terms of 'out of bounds' , is measured by our own understanding. Out of bounds is man made conclusions.

Again, this misses the point: what I mean by 'out of bounds' is that it is irrelevant to discuss notions that are sheer speculation by definition. If you wish to elevate a notion above a sheer speculation, you need to come up with some criteria by which it can be tested. Failing that, you've got nothing.

But anyways, thanx for talking with me. ;-)

[Tails_155]

Deus, may it be known, the scientific definition means an explanation for why something happens, not an unproven idea... you might have meant that by what you said, but I can't quite tell

[Deus ex Machina]

Deus, may it be known, the scientific definition means an explanation for why something happens, not an unproven idea... you might have meant that by what you said, but I can't quite tell

I avoided getting into that whole "definition of the word 'theory'" thing because I was tired of word-chopping, but someone else is free to have a go