Atheism's big LIE

[Grumblenuts]

Remarks upon:

Law of nature, in the philosophy of science, a stated regularity in the relations or order of phenomena in the world that holds, under a stipulated set of conditions, either universally or in a stated proportion of instances. (The notion is distinct from that of a natural law—i.e., a law of right or justice supposedly derived from nature.)

Laws of nature are of two basic forms: (1) a law is universal if it states that some conditions, so far as are known, invariably are found together with certain other conditions; and (2) a law is probabilistic if it affirms that, on the average, a stated fraction of cases displaying a given condition will display a certain other condition as well.

Note that "laws of nature" (to some extent at least) are conditioned upon probability. Or probability is a driving force of nature, if you will.

In either case, a law may be valid even though it obtains only under special circumstances or as a convenient approximation. Moreover, a law of nature has no logical necessity; rather, it rests directly or indirectly upon the evidence of experience.

Experience dictates that this thing, though falsifiable, has either never been falsified or always occurs in such a way within such and such hard limits of confidence.

Laws of universal form must be distinguished from generalizations, such as “All chairs in this office are gray,” which appear to be accidental. Generalizations, for example, cannot support counterfactual conditional statements such as “If this chair had been in my office, it would be gray” nor subjunctive conditionals such as “If this chair were put in my office, it would be gray.” On the other hand, the statement “All planetary objects move in nearly elliptical paths about their stars” does provide this support. All scientific laws appear to give similar results. The class of universal statements that can be candidates for the status of laws, however, is determined at any time in history by the theories of science then current.

Laws of nature cannot simply be generalizations, but are unfortunately subject to current institutional biases publicly expressed by and within the scientific community.

Several positive attributes are commonly required of a law of nature. Statements about things or events limited to one location or one date cannot be lawlike. Also, most scientists hold that the predicate must apply to evidence not used in deriving the law: though the law is founded upon experience, it must predict or help one to understand matters not included among those experiences. Finally, it is normally expected that a law will be explainable by more embracing laws or by some theory. Thus, a regularity for which there are general theoretical grounds will be more readily called a law of nature than an empirical regularity that cannot be subsumed under more general laws or theories.

So more or less in general but not simply a generalization.

Universal laws are of several types. Many assert a dependence between varying quantities measuring certain properties, as in the law that the pressure of a gas under steady temperature is inversely proportional to its volume (see Boyle’s law). Others state that events occur in an invariant order, as in “Vertebrates always occur in the fossil record after the rise of invertebrates.” Last, there are laws affirming that if an object is of a stated sort it will have certain observable properties. Part of the reason for the ambiguity of the term law of nature lies in the temptation to apply it only to statements of one of these sorts of laws, as in the claim that science deals solely with cause and effect relationships, when in fact all three kinds are equally valid.

"What" quantity and "how" relative to another. "Order" pointing to "when" chronologically. "Reason" referring to "why." All remains complicated. Such "laws" don't serve to resolve matters of religion or none.

 

[Turtlesoup]

View attachment 499686
View attachment 499688
Hitler, like fellow atheist Sam Harris, would do away with Christianity if he only could.

Please stop the lies about Hitler. Mendacity is the metier of atheists/Leftists.

Hitler was a CATHOLIC...most of the nazis were. Communism is actually the jewish form of the Catholic socialism.

 

[ding]

"Everything is evidence for gods!"

So painfully fallacious and stupid.

Considering you dismiss everything there's no real difference.

Well, except for a burden of proof. A compelling argument to believe something. But yeah, other than the most important difference there is: no difference.. Good one.

You mean other than Jesus Christ, Patrick?

Yeah, that was provided too. The first cause can be no thing.

Now where's your evidence that God doesn't exist, Patrick?

.

The first cause can be no thing.

.
is that suppose to make sense - * repeating it really isn't helping your cause ... whatever that might be.

physiology is a physical, metaphysical substance and proof the metaphysical "can be" - physical. and is a "thing" {sic}.

You can't comprehend a "no thing" because you are a thing.

 

[ding]

Yeah, that was provided too.

Haha, no, then you are delusional.

No idea who Patrick is. Jesus's boyfriend?

Ding.. Are you trying to stalk posters outside the board? Oooh, how devilish of you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Laws of nature cannot simply be generalizations, but are unfortunately subject to current institutional biases publicly expressed by and within the scientific community.

Then prove one of them wrong.

We are all looking forward to that. You will be famous.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Laws of nature cannot simply be generalizations, but are unfortunately subject to current institutional biases publicly expressed by and within the scientific community.

Then prove one of them wrong.

We are all looking forward to that. You will be famous.

Sorry the point flew over your head there. I stated nothing controversial. Try cleaning your glasses.
Would you really like me to "prove" that AGW deniers exist within the scientific community? Don't be an idiot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sorry the point flew over your head there. I stated nothing controversial.

Nor did i. If you think the natural laws are skewed by bias (and thus not correct), then demonstrate it. No really, you will be famous. Have you started the work, yet?

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hmm. Not very compelling.

 

[ding]

If I were grumblenuts, I'd start with one of the lesser theories... like say evolution or man made climate change.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If I were grumblenuts, I'd start with one of the lesser theories... like say evolution or man made climate change.

But he said "natural laws".

How ironic that you list maybe the two most robust scientific theories in history. Yes, please, haha...have at them...

 

[ding]

If I were grumblenuts, I'd start with one of the lesser theories... like say evolution or man made climate change.

But he said "natural laws".

How ironic that you list maybe the two most robust scientific theories in history. Yes, please, haha...have at them...

https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf

 

[ding]

If I were grumblenuts, I'd start with one of the lesser theories... like say evolution or man made climate change.

But he said "natural laws".

How ironic that you list maybe the two most robust scientific theories in history. Yes, please, haha...have at them...

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If I were grumblenuts, I'd start with one of the lesser theories... like say evolution or man made climate change.

But he said "natural laws".

How ironic that you list maybe the two most robust scientific theories in history. Yes, please, haha...have at them...

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

Cool link. Is there a point, smileyboi?

 

[ding]

If I were grumblenuts, I'd start with one of the lesser theories... like say evolution or man made climate change.

But he said "natural laws".

How ironic that you list maybe the two most robust scientific theories in history. Yes, please, haha...have at them...

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

Cool link. Is there a point, smileyboi?

Yeah, that there may be bias involved as long as anything is manifested by mind, which by necessity it always will be.

Darwin got so much wrong it's not funny. But you accept it on faith even though punctuated equilibrium explains what we actually see.

 

[ding]

If I were grumblenuts, I'd start with one of the lesser theories... like say evolution or man made climate change.

But he said "natural laws".

How ironic that you list maybe the two most robust scientific theories in history. Yes, please, haha...have at them...

So given that your bias leads you to believe that man made climate change is one of the two most robust theories in history, can you show me the experiment that they did to confirm that theory?

Because for you to go that far out on a limb with absolutely zero scientific evidence on such a complex subject as the earth's climate definitely points to you having a bias.

 

[Hollie]

Atheists NEVER make "hasty generalizations" about Christians, do you?
"Stupid."
"Anti-science."
"Believe in a fairy tale."
"Magic man in the sky."
"Sinful hypocrites."
"No proof."

Besides, you're so VERY busy, everyone reading here thanks you for gracing us with your occasional presence, royal as it assuredly is.

Appreciate it, sweety.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Darwin got so much wrong it's not funny. But you accept it on fait

Liar

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So given that your bias leads you to believe that man made climate change is one of the two most robust theories in history

That's a fact. And if you don't agree, you're wrong. Sorry troll... I don't debate denier goobers on the truth of that theory. And especially not the mountains of evidence we have collected.

 

[ding]

Darwin got so much wrong it's not funny. But you accept it on fait

Liar

That's your bias speaking.

Darwin's ideas on transference were all wrong, missing transitional fossils indicates that major evolutionary changes are not due to slight successive changes and natural selection falls apart when coextensive traits exist. And I'm not even going to bring up the ridiculous argument that animals choose or rejecting mates based upon anything other than which mate is the biggest. They don't know what is an advantage and what isn't.