Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What we know about the universe is that We live in a finely tuned world rich in information and the only thing we know by experience that can create finely tuned information rich things is the mind. And there are many examples of the mind doing that.
So as a mind is the only only thing we know that can create finely tune, information rich things logically a mind would also be behind the universe.
First. None of this has anything to do with quotes you supposedly respond to.
Second. Mind is not the only thing we know that can create finely tune, information rich things.
This is default position in science - nothing is until and unless it is shown to be.
It's called ""no" hypothesis".
Here how it works.
If you claim that nature has a mind, intentions, or feelings I'm presenting you a "no" hypothesis - nature does not have a mind, intentions, or feelings.
I do it to help you to prove your claim.
Now you have two ways to do it instead of one.
1. Prove directly that nature has a mind, intentions, or feelings.
or
2. Prove that my "no" hypothesis is wrong. Disprove it.
It is your choice. Do whatever you think you are better equipped to do.
But in any case, doing is up to you. It is your job to prove or disprove.
And if you will not do your job, you and your claim will be ignored.
That's your price to pay for making claims you cannot substantiate.
If you don't like this scientific approach, if it is somewhat inconvenient for you and massing up your works, I am sorry, but I really don't care.
That is easy. Novel testable prediction.
Novel testable prediction using WHAT MEASURE??? Until science has a MEASURE of the presence or absence of those attributes, it has no business making a Null Hypothesis and asking to test it. The LACK of such a measure is WHY science does NOT address that issue at all. A default consensus is NOT evidence of anything but consensus. It remains a presumption, period!
You are using the term measure in very mysterious way. How do you explain measuring absence? LOL
By pointing out that novel testable prediction is the scientific measure I'm interpreting your use of this term in a most charitable way. Otherwise what your are saying would not make any sense at all.
Quote:
Until science has a MEASURE of the presence or absence of those attributes, it has no business making a Null Hypothesis and asking to test it.
Null Hypothesis is not "no" hypothesis. Those are two different things. That's first.
Second, science has business presenting "no" hypothesis as a respond to any claim as soon as claim is made. Unconditionally. No string attached.
Claimer has no business to object in any way at any point. That's for sure.
And if he does - he is ignored on the spot and his claim is forgotten.
Sorry if you don't like it, but no one cares. Nobody is twisting your hands to make a claim in a first place.
If you don't like facing "no" hypothesis, don't make claim you are not ready to substantiate.
no,
because mixing together chemicals does not produce life.
Mixing together chemicals by humans has not produced life yet.
But chemicals mixed together naturally have produced life.
It is called chemical evolution. That's how organic chemistry turned into biology.
You are using the term measure in very mysterious way. How do you explain measuring absence? LOL
By pointing out that novel testable prediction is the scientific measure I'm interpreting your use of this term in a most charitable way. Otherwise what your are saying would not make any sense at all.
Null Hypothesis is not "no" hypothesis. Those are two different things. That's first.
Second, science has business presenting "no" hypothesis as a respond to any claim as soon as claim is made. Unconditionally. No string attached.
Claimer has no business to object in any way at any point. That's for sure.
And if he does - he is ignored on the spot and his claim is forgotten.
Sorry if you don't like it, but no one cares. Nobody is twisting your hands to make a claim in a first place.
If you don't like facing "no" hypothesis, don't make claim you are not ready to substantiate.
Clearly, you have no clue what science is about and what it needs to test anything. Using that stupid "making a claim" nonsense reveals the myopic level at which your mind operates. My initial assessment and doubts about the likelihood of a fruitful discussion with you have proven valid. Since we do not KNOW what existence is (or what you call Nature), everyone's belief about it is a claim, even yours.
By having a measure of its presence. With a measure of it, you can know if it is there or not.
What is "it" ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
