Rob Hall

Someone is shy

Edit profile

Rob hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Rob Hall
Posted about 1 year ago
How do we prove an answer
I will add that i will not be responding any further. I forgot how unrewarding internet debates were. Alot of effort for very little gain. That's no reflection on you ofcourse, if it was in person i'd be happy to continue.
Noface
Rob Hall
Posted about 1 year ago
How do we prove an answer
And i'm saying you can discard a theory without proving it false, if you show that another theory explains the facts more accurately. You haven't disproven the first theory, just shown that it is less likely to be true. Now, you are getting mixed up because of the expression "someone made this". Ofcourse it's easier to actually say out loud, but it explains nothing. It doesn't give you the mechanism by which he/she made it. If we were to explain it, we'd then have to explain how the most complex thing one can possibly imagine either came into existence or just exists. You are stuck with the same problem that we have with explaining the universe's existence, the only difference is you have added an extra step (and it just happens to be the biggest step we could possibly add). Occam's razon DOES NOT allow for that. Forgive me for thinking you were a believer, but with the "this is where faith comes in for normal people" line, you have only yourself to blame. Religion is not a theory, it is a hypothesis, and a failed one. A theory requires evidence. Whether it enters into the field of science depends on the individual claims made in the texts. Some do, some don't. The existence of God is not testable by any scientific standard. Because no matter what data comes back, you could simply state that God is not subject the the laws of physics. So even if we "prove" that something can become almighty (how on earth would we go about doing that?) It wouldn't apply to God. And the only assumption that you should be making is that you MAY be wrong in not believing. You should not assume that just because you can't be sure, there must be a God. Imagine you have never heard of a God. The claim had never been made that there is one. You just knew the physics (to a degree) involved in the universe's birth. If i then came to you with the emply claim of an almighty being that made it all happen, would you be forced to assume i was right? Of course not. Not without evidence...
Noface
Rob Hall
Posted about 1 year ago
How do we prove an answer
I do not choose which theories to believe, i am forced to accept them, like them or not, based on the evidence. The difference between assuming something is true and accepting that it may (or may not) be true is very big! I can't even imagine how you came to that conclusion. But yes, one of the most basic laws of propsitional logic is that something cannot be both true and false. There either is a God or there is not. Occums razor is a tested system and the data suggest that it works. And no, that is what YOU are saying not me, that discarded theories should be assumed true because they haven't be disproven. If another theory seems to explain the facts more accurately, the first theory can generally be discarded and forgotten. However it is often unreasonable to say that it is definitely not true. But that is not the same as saying, "well it must be true because nobody has disproven it yet". If you make a claim, the burden of evidence is on you. If you can produce the evidence you may convince some people, if you cannot, your claim should be assumed false untill evidence does emerge. I knew that it was likely that you were a believer (hence i picked God as an example) because it is generally believers who think that they can make a claim and that it is up to everybody else to disprove it. This is simply not the case, sorry. And you say, "normal people" like the fact that i don't accept your God makes me abnormal. I don't accept that. And as i said, you are forced to assume God does not exist until you can provide evidence. However, you not forced to assume he does exist just because there is a lack of evidnece that he does not, because providing evidence that something supernatural does not exist is not possible. You are taking it out of the field of science. In that case the laws of logic no longer apply and you are forced to rely entirely on faith. i.e. belief without reason for believe. You've slaughtered your own argument.
Noface
Rob Hall
Posted about 1 year ago
How do we prove an answer
No thats Wrong. B is not the question with the answer A. B is instead the question we ask A in order to get the answer C. If we do not get the answer C, it is clear that A is the wrong "person" (hypothesis) to ask. We then go back to the drawing board and try to adjust A so the when we ask it B, we get the answer C. When we do get C we know that A holds merit and can be called a theory. A theory simply explains certain facts. For example, we know that groups of a given species will evolve over generations, it's be recorded in data collection. Natural selection is the theory that explains the facts of evolution. Theories do not grow up and become facts.
Noface
Rob Hall
Posted about 1 year ago
How do we prove an answer
We cannot disprove the existence of God. Must we therefore assume there is a God? We do not assume all things to be true which we are unable to disprove. Instead we accept the possibilty that they may be true. We determine the likelyhood that something is true and following Occum's Razor, we tend to accept the theory that requires the fewest steps in order to be true. For example, The universe coming into existence requires fewer steps than the universe coming into existence with the help of a God. We therefore accept that it is more likely that the universe does not require a God in order to exist. We cannot disprove God but we certainly do not assume one exists.
Noface
Rob Hall
Posted about 1 year ago
How do we prove an answer
No, B is not the question to the answer A, B is the question (experiment) you ask A to get the answer C. If you do not get C, A is the wrong person (hypothesis) to ask the question B. We then go back to the drawing board and find out what A should be in order for us to get C when we ask the question B. (This is getting confusing, haha)
Noface
Rob Hall
Posted about 1 year ago
How do we prove an answer
Yes, thats's exactly what i'm saying. You're asking how we prove an answer. I'm saying we don't really "Prove" anything (unless we use maths). We just establish the likelyhood of something being true. We often use the word "proof" to mean substantial and overwhelming evidence.
Noface
Rob Hall
Posted about 1 year ago
How do we prove an answer
Something is either true or false, even if we cannot prove it either way. How you view things, and how you feel about things has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the matter. Unless, of course, the matter in question is how you are feeling at a given moment.
Noface
Rob Hall
Posted about 1 year ago
How do we prove an answer
"Proof", in the science community is word usually reserved for mathematics. When it comes to a scientific hypothesis, the only question that should be asked is, "Is this testable?" If it's not testable, it does not qualify as science, but mere speculation. Once it is established that the hypothesis is testable, the test is performed and the data collected. If the data corresponds to the original hypothesis, it then qualifies as a theory (that is, of course, slightly oversimplified). If it does not, the hypothesis is either disregarded or reworked and retested. That is to say, if i believe 'A' to be true, and then theorise that if i perform 'B' to 'A' then 'C' should occur (as with all science, this should be entirely blind) i can then test the action of performing 'B' to 'A'. If 'C' does infact occur then, to any reasonble person, i have, "proven" my hypothesis (again, oversimplified). If 'C' does not occur, then my hypothesis needs work. The point i'm trying to make is that in science, with the exception of mathematics, a theory is the highest form of evidence. No reasonable biologist would say that evolution by natural selection has been 100% proven. But it has been proven to the satisfaction of any reasonable person.