Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[dianaiad]

re dianaiad Post 2830--"quite possible' and "highly likely" are considerably closer than "highly likely" and "absolute certainty."


Thank You for your reply. I would not like to have to defend the above position within the context of the maths being used by scientist to describe the universe. It would degenerate into the mathematical folly ie 1=.999999999.....

Actually, no, it doesn't. "Absolute certainty" is absolute. Anything less, no matter how squishily described, is not absolute.

I understand your reluctance to address the opening post and I share this.
The simple question that I asked in the last post is. Does it confine its range to religious beliefs only or does it include scientific speculation.

The word used was 'supernatural.' I don't think that science deals with the supernatural: anything described by science is, by definition, 'natural.'

.......which, btw, is why science should not deal with the religious field, and religion shouldn't mess with science. They are entirely different, with radically different goals and systems.

I have no belief in any of the items mentioned specifically but I would be reasonably confident that radio active spiders are plentiful around the old Chernobyl nuclear plant. There would be some in Japan as well. If enough of these creatures bit you I do not know what would happen and I do not plan on doing the research.

Given where you would have to go to be bitten by these critters, I doubt that it would matter much. Indeed, they might be harmed by biting your radioactive self.

[Danmark]

What is your very specific flavour of religious belief? You dismiss at least 75% of the population.

75% of the population is atheists? Sorry, but you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it.

I really don't know what you think you are talking about, but it might enhance your education if you looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

Among other things if you peruse this site you might learn that it is meaningless to make conclusions about 'truth' based on percentages of who believes what. You should be able to learn that people's religious beliefs are strongly correlated with the culture in which they are raised, rather than on some notion of truth.

Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including Agnostics and Atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007):

China 82% (details)
Estonia 71-82% (76,6%)
Japan 64"88% (76%)[106]
Sweden 46"82% (64%)
Vietnam 44%"81% (62.5%)
Denmark 72%
Macau 60.9%[107]
Czech Republic 54"61% (57.5%)
Hong Kong 57%[108]
France 43"64%[109] (53.5%)

Now, I'm no sort of a mathematician. However, I fail to see how these numbers, the majority of which reflect less than 75% of their separate populations, can add up to 75% of the world population, even considering the population of China.

Now, that's just me being picky, I realize.

That was not my point and I did not use the figure of 75% nor did I make the claim the percentages added up to 75%. The point is that 'Sir Hamilton' absurdly claimed:

It is estimated that atheists make up about 2% of the world population. So going by that atheism is backwards and wrong.

He was not simply wrong on his facts, his argument was flawed since it was an appeal to popularity. The other charts on that site point out convincingly that one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) correlate with the culture the individual is raised in, further damaging the appeal to popularity he attempted.

[Danmark]

re Danmark Post2817-- You should be able to learn that people's religious beliefs are strongly correlated with the culture in which they are raised, rather than on some notion of truth.
Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including Agnostics and Atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007):
China 82% (details)
Estonia 71-82% (76,6%)
Japan 64"88% (76%)[106]
Sweden 46"82% (64%)
Vietnam 44%"81% (62.5%)
Denmark 72%
Macau 60.9%[107]
Czech Republic 54"61% (57.5%)
Hong Kong 57%[108]
France 43"64%[109] (53.5%)
What you should be able to learn from this is that your idea about proving some 'truth' based on the percentage of who believes what is absurd.

How could you learn this from that?

Sir Hamilton's original argument was not one of those ad_populum things that we watch for. His point was that if you use data and percentages for items on a list of scientists then you must be prepared to have the fact back at you that most people choose religious belief.

The difference is he simply made up his own facts to suit HIS ad populum argument.

Since you function as if you were 'Sir' Hamilton's sock puppet, perhaps you can defend his assertions here that the facts don't matter to him; that he will believe what he wants to regardless of the 'data.'

Here's the exact quote from him: "...you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it."

[olavisjo]

.

I rather think that perhaps you are confusing quines with genetic algorithms:

A genetic algorithm (GA) is great for finding solutions for complex problems. They're used in engineering to design all sorts of products because they're brilliant at finding just the right materials and the right shapes to create stronger, faster and overall better products. They're also used to design computer algorithms, to schedule tasks, and to solve other optimization problems. Genetic algorithms work by mimicking the way life finds solutions to real world problems using the process of evolution. Although genetic algorithms are capable of solving incredibly complicated problems, they are themselves pretty simple to understand.

http://www.theprojectspot.com/tutorial- ... eginners/3

You can find out more about genetic algorithms here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

Not at all, I meant quines. You do not understand my argument, read it again.
Genetic algorithms are only useful if you have a goal to achieve. True evolution can have no goal.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Dammark Post2386--Here's the exact quote from him: "...you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it."


and here is the exact context, a debate point between Joab and Sir Hamilton. Sir Hamilton is just another debater to me on this site.

Joab wrote:
What is your very specific flavour of religious belief? You dismiss at least 75% of the population.
Sir Hamilton wrote:
75% of the population is atheists? Sorry, but you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it.


If I am a Catholic that does not exclude 83% of the world population from having a relevance to me. Is this Joab's suggestion that Sir Hamilton responds to here. You check it out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
re Danmark Post 2386--The difference is he simply made up his own facts to suit HIS ad populum argument.

I tried to explain to you why the argument was not as described by you but rather an issue of fairness. He was asked for a specific list of scientists who stated a particular position. He offered a list to the forum where it was immediately attacked as is usual on a debate site. This list was reduced by various onslaughts until the opponents of Sir Hamilton's viewpoint felt empowered enough to assert that the percentages were in their favour. An appeal to authority is what you call it here. Sir Hamilton can speak for himself but I state that his retort to this appeal to authority was initially a request for fairness within the debate, ie if you can use the fact that the majority of scientists support your viewpoint then he can use the fact that the vast majority of people lead religious lives to counteract your appeal. His argument is not an appeal to a populous but rather an appeal for fairness and consistency.
Sir Hamilton can object to my use of his name if he so wishes .

[Danmark]

.

In response to my request for evidence i.e. the publication in which Crick debunks Darwinian Evolution...

I never claimed that there was a publication in which Crick debunks Darwinian Evolution. Read it again...

Since the time that Darwinian evolution was debunked by Francis Crick in 1958, the only tenable theory of evolution is Intelligent Design.

You claim that Darwinian evolution was debunked by Francis Crick in either 1953 or 1958. You should be able to show where and how Crick did this. I have shown you the opposite, that Crick held Darwin in high esteem and that Crick's joint discovery demonstrated the mechanism by which evolution functions. Your continued claim makes it seem as if the discovery of DNA destroyed the theory of evolution when in fact it did the opposite. It is time for you to retract your claim, restate it, or prove its truth.

[Danmark]

You must not be aware that these so-called experts are nothing more than humans. Finite imperfect humans who are capable of honest mistakes and deliberate misinterpretation of data. Data that can be interpreted differently by other humans who are experts in the fields of cosmology, geology, physics, biology, etc. I think i will go with the experts that interpret the data in a way pleasing to my mind and you can go with the "experts" who interpret the data in a way pleasing to your mind. Like i am saying and i am going to keep on saying it....you appeal to authority and i appeal to authority. You don't know anymore about the origin of the universe, life, or humans than i do based on science. I have the added truth of divine revelation as well.

This is an excellent demonstration of your oft repeated position that the facts simply don't matter to you; that you will not seek truth, but rather facts that are "pleasing to your mind." In the 14 or 15 months I've been on this forum I don't think I have previously seen such clear admission that a debater will simply choose to believe whatever he wants and pretend those are correct facts. Thank you for your candor.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 2838 by zeromeansnothing]

By your failure to respond to the question:
Since you function as if you were 'Sir' Hamilton's sock puppet, perhaps you can defend his assertions here that the facts don't matter to him; that he will believe what he wants to regardless of the 'data.'

I conclude you can't defend it. You have quoted and supported 'Sir' Hamilton a dozen times or more. You do seem to speak for him, as if you thought him incapable of defending his statements. Perhaps this time you'll agree he went too far, or will you evade the question again?

[zeromeansnothing]

re Star Post2717--Are you aware that an overwhelming majority of scientists reject young-Earth creation myths wholeheartedly? There's a reason for that. 93% of members of the National Academy of Sciences don't believe in a personal god. The percentage of scientists who accept evolution and an old Earth is much higher, above 99.8% (citations at end).


This is an example of the onslaught of appeals to authority that Sir Hamilton was defending his position against. The percentage war was not started by him because his point was that both sides of this issue do likewise and that it is a pointless position to deny this fact. He is probably correct.

re Danmark Post2840

This post primarily relates to a question of subjectivity within both science and religion . It is less to do with mathematical proof than it is to do with the interpretations and conclusions drawn from them. I have tried to answer your inquiries here.

Why is a belief in the highly likely presence of biogenesis in the universe, as expressed by you, not relevant to the opening post? I cannot understand this.

[Danmark]

re Star Post2717--Are you aware that an overwhelming majority of scientists reject young-Earth creation myths wholeheartedly? There's a reason for that. 93% of members of the National Academy of Sciences don't believe in a personal god. The percentage of scientists who accept evolution and an old Earth is much higher, above 99.8% (citations at end).


This is an example of the onslaught of appeals to authority that Sir Hamilton was defending his position against. The percentage war was not started by him because his point was that both sides of this issue do likewise and that it is a pointless position to deny this fact. He is probably correct.

No. His point is that he will believe whatever he wants; that he will pick authorities to appeal to based on one thing alone, that they agree with him. He refuses to analyze the facts or the quality of the science or the data. Nothing matters to him accept that someone agrees with him. This is an excellent method for protecting oneself from learning, and perhaps from even thinking.