sinequanon:


Can you understand the difference between..

Science assumes that the universe is governed by fixed laws.

AND

Science assumes that it has found such laws.

All your rigmarole so far seems to revolve around you confusing these two statements. You will then deny your mistake and try to make it everybody else's fault, and blame semantics.

And you are still so in denial that you are hedging your bets and not explicitly stating which point you disagree with. You need space to spin.

No matter how much I try to understand what you are saying , it never sinks in.
You make no sense.
Drop all the grammar and sophistry. Reserve it for your Sunday school children.
Say something that we can actually hold on to.

Or, are you deliberately trying to be slippery?

sinequanon:


A law is a condition that ALWAYS holds.

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

Don't try to twist it or water it down.

Unless you are claiming that Science accepts that some things don't have a natural cause.

You again equivocate the arbitrary meaning of laws....
A scientific law is;
" A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental
observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A
scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies
that there is a causal relationship involving its elements."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

It is a specific set of conditions that allow a law to hold....
gravity doesn't hold without mass...
Your method is to form a faulty dichotomy and project it to your opponent...
I.e Either this is A or it is Z...
And you keep straying off your original claim "science assumes laws"...
with redefinitions and non sequitors...

Science assumes this , science assumes that.

The scientific method, the scientific system for observing, testing and analyzing reality has proven itself to be far superior to anything before it.
The current level of human advancement is a testimony to that.

Science addresses its questions, its enquiries to the Natural world, until such a time where there is evidence suggestive of a reality other than the natural world, in which case also, only empirical science can find that link between our natural world and other non mechanistic worlds.

Anyone who thinks science is inadequate to find answers about existence in the natural world, should propose an alternative system.
Not religion, because we have been there and we have done that.

davien:
You again equivocate the arbitrary meaning of laws....
A scientific law is;
" A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental
observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A
scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies
that there is a causal relationship involving its elements."
It is a specific set of conditions that allow a law to hold....
gravity doesn't hold without mass...
Your method is to form a faulty dichotomy and project it to your opponent...
I.e Either this is A or it is Z...
And you keep straying off your original claim "science assumes laws"...
with redefinitions and non sequitors...

You see, you are the one playing with words.

I am saying that, to avoid any ambiguity, we can simply replace the words with their long description.

So, do you or do you not agree that..

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

(You are the one trying to stray by making words a stumbling block.)

sinequanon:


You see, you are the one playing with words.

I am saying that, to avoid any ambiguity, we can simply replace the words with their long description.

So, do you or do you not agree that..

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

(You are the one trying to stray by making words a stumbling block.)

I can only say science concerns itself with things that can be investigated...and/or detected..

davien:
I can only say science concerns itself with things that can be investigated...and/or detected..

So now that you can no longer play with words, you are back to avoiding the question.

Do you or do you not agree that..

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

sinequanon:


So now that you can no longer play with words, you are back to avoiding the question.

Do you or do you not agree that..

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

Your question is a structured one and as such the only thing I can say to be accurate is what i've just said...
science concerns itself with the things that are/can be detected and/or investigated...
If anything has a natural origin....science can detect such...because it is what it concerns itself with...
Anyone offering "magical" and/or "supernatural" claims would have to justify their method of detection and its reliability with evidence...

davien:
Your question is a structured one and as such the only thing I can say to be accurate is what i've just said...
science concerns itself with the things that are/can be detected and/or investigated...
If anything has a natural origin....science can detect such...because it is what it concerns itself with...
Anyone offering "magical" and/or "supernatural" claims would have to justify their method of detection and its reliability with evidence...

So you can't answer the question:

Do you or do you not agree that..

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

OK next...

Explain what makes a claim supernatural. I don't want a list of examples and arm waving. I want a description of what makes a claim supernatural.

sinequanon:


So you can't answer the question:

Do you or do you not agree that..

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

OK next...

Explain what makes a claim supernatural. I don't want a list of examples and arm waving. I want a description of what makes a claim supernatural.

I would not answer the initial question with a yes/no response because it offers a presupposition....

A claim is supernatural if it offers no method of verification apart from faith or make-believe... inwhich the conclusion has been made beforehand with "evidences" structured to it
A supernatural claim could also defy logic e.g A five sided square...
A supernatural claim can offer to fill the gaps of ignorance with an answer not given for accuracy....

sinequanon:

So you can't answer the question:
Do you or do you not agree that..
Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.
OK next...
Explain what makes a claim supernatural. I don't want a list of examples and arm waving. I want a description of what makes a claim supernatural.

What does this have to do with "ten ways atheism is a religion?!"

davien:
Your question is a structured one and as such the only thing I can say to be accurate is what i've just said...
science concerns itself with the things that are/can be detected and/or investigated...
If anything has a natural origin....science can detect such...because it is what it concerns itself with...
Anyone offering "magical" and/or "supernatural" claims would have to justify their method of detection and its reliability with evidence...

That is the simplest way to put it.

How can anyone deny and feign ignorance of the great strides humans have made at all levels through the scientific system

Science is a question that keeps on asking.

davien:
I would not answer the initial question with a yes/no response because it offers a presupposition....

You are prevaricating. In a debate you simply state clearly what you think the presupposition is instead of avoiding the question.

Do you or do you not agree that..

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

If your answer is "I don't agree because it presupposes X" then say so, instead of prevaricating.

davien:
A claim is supernatural if it offers no method of verification apart from faith or make-believe... inwhich the conclusion has been made beforehand with "evidences" structured to it

Please explain what you mean by "evidences" structured to it, and how you distinguish between evidence that you would accept.

sinequanon:


You are prevaricating. In a debate you simply state clearly what you think the presupposition is instead of avoiding the question.

Do you or do you not agree that..

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

If your answer is "I don't agree because it presupposes X" then say so, instead of prevaricating.



Please explain what you mean by "evidences" structured to it, and how you distinguish between evidence that you would accept.

Science starts out with questions, not assumptions.

Science makes assumptions based on questions for which the scientific system have already answered.

Before we made this assumption that E=MC2, we first understood what E was and it's properties.
We also understood M and C and their properties.
From there we tied it all together to make this assumption of E = MC2.

No one made the assumption first before trying to make it fit.

Since science is not dogma, if we discover a hidden variable that affects or nullifies this assumption, we easily plug it in.

That is the way science works.

^

davien, is that your answer, LOL.

sinequanon:


You are prevaricating. In a debate you simply state clearly what you think the presupposition is instead of avoiding the question.

Do you or do you not agree that..

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

If your answer is "I don't agree because it presupposes X" then say so, instead of prevaricating.



Please explain what you mean by "evidences" structured to it, and how you distinguish between evidence that you would accept.

It has a presupposition that science assumes answers that have absolute certainty in what should be the case on all events....
And evidences being structured to meet "supernatural" claims would be in the form of "since the moon has crators,that means..."
Anything I would accept are things based on verified evidence and a method of error-margin...or atleast be justified by enough evidence and not statements like "flower exists, that means a flower maker exists"

sinequanon:
^

davien, is that your answer, LOL.

so plaetton is suddenly davien?

plaetton:

That is the simplest way to put it.
How can anyone deny and feign ignorance of the great strides humans have made at all levels through the scientific system
Science is a question that keeps on asking.

Oh! We cannot deny them.

Neither can anyone deny the destrution (backward strides) that have been wrought by humans through the scientific system.

Just saying.

plaetton:

Science starts out with questions, not assumptions.
Science makes assumptions based on questions for which the scientific system have already answered.
Before we made this assumption that E=MC2, we first understood what E was and it's properties.
We also understood M and C and their properties.
From there we tied it all together to make this assumption of E = MC2.
No one made the assumption first before trying to make it fit.
Since science is not dogma, if we discover a hidden variable that affects or nullifies this assumption, we easily plug it in.
That is the way science works.

So science is fallible.

It is possible then, that even "E" was misunderstood...and its purported meaning was only assumed?

Yet many put their faith in religion science without certain evidence.

We all live by faith afterall.

plaetton:
Science assumes this , science assumes that.

The scientific method, the scientific system for observing, testing and analyzing reality has proven itself to be far superior to anything before it.
The current level of human advancement is a testimony to that.

Science addresses its questions, its enquiries to the Natural world, until such a time where there is evidence suggestive of a reality other than the natural world, in which case also, only empirical science can find that link between our natural world and other non mechanistic worlds.

Anyone who thinks science is inadequate to find answers about existence in the natural world, should propose an alternative system.
Not religion, because we have been there and we have done that.

1. This is only a weak attempt to dodge sinequanon's question.

2. The bold is not a scientific law...so it is a private fallacy of yours. You can go force it down the throat of your congregation who will have blind faith in you, not us.

davien:
so plaetton is suddenly davien?

Another illogical question.

I asked you if plaettons answer is the answer you would have given.

sinequanon:


Another illogical question.

I asked you if plaettons answer is the answer you would have given.

I've already given a reply.

davien:
It has a presupposition that science assumes answers that have absolute certainty in what should be the case on all events....

Here is the QUESTION for the 4th or 5th time:

Do you or do you not agree that science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause?

It is clearly asking you IF you agree with something, not presupposing it.

Since you are stuck and reluctant to answer the question, as was plaetton, there is no point continuing.

The only useful thing you have to say is that you are disingenuous, and you have effectively shouted it from the rooftops.

sinequanon:


Here is the QUESTION for the 4th or 5th time:

Do you or do you not agree that science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause?

It is clearly asking you IF you agree with something, not presupposing it.

Since you are stuck and reluctant to answer the question, as was plaetton, there is no point continuing.

The only useful thing you have to say is that you are disingenuous, and you have effectively shouted it from the rooftops.

And I will keep on telling you....your question is structured and my answer to that will always be science can only observe that which can be detected...
I know it is not an answer you are satisfied with....it is an answer that is accurate nonetheless...
The least I could say is....if the cause is detectable....science could find it...

plaetton:


No matter how much I try to understand what you are saying , it never sinks in.
You make no sense.
Drop all the grammar and sophistry. Reserve it for your Sunday school children.
Say something that we can actually hold on to.

Or, are you deliberately trying to be slippery?

There is nothing difficult in what I am saying.

It is your level of intellect that is the problem. You certainly have no business talking about E=mc^2, as you did in your other post (which was very naive, btw)

I said earlier, it is your level of intellect that is holding you back. There is no way to bring the level of the discussion down to your level. Scientists and philosophers don't use words for the fun of it. They use words for precision. I suggest you take a few years out to find a Sunday school and improve your comprehension, if you are struggling.

davien:
The least I could say is....if the cause is detectable....science could find it...

So, you accept that SOME causes MAY NOT be detectable.

sinequanon:


Here is the QUESTION for the 4th or 5th time:

Do you or do you not agree that science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause?

It is clearly asking you IF you agree with something, not presupposing it.

Since you are stuck and reluctant to answer the question, as was plaetton, there is no point continuing.

The only useful thing you have to say is that you are disingenuous, and you have effectively shouted it from the rooftops.

They are not willing to confront your question honestly...because that is the only way they can continue to hold on to their inconsistencies.

That's why they continue to use every method possible to deviate from your question.

sinequanon:


There is nothing difficult in what I am saying.

It is your level of intellect that is the problem. You certainly have no business talking about E=mc^2, as you did in your other post (which was very naive, btw)

I said earlier, it is your level of intellect that is holding you back. There is no way to bring the level of the discussion down to your level. Scientists and philosophers don't use words for the fun of it. They use words for precision. I suggest you take a few years out to find a Sunday school and improve your comprehension, if you are struggling.

There is a remote chance that he plays dumb to avoid the glaring points in a superior argument to his.

italo:


There is a remote chance that he plays dumb to avoid the glaring points in a superior argument to his.

I have noticed his appeal to ignorance.

His inability to understand the question or inability to face the question are both signs of lack of intellect.

His own explanation is the former.

davien:
I [size=16pt]do not know[/size] if any cause is undectable....can you?

So you are open to the possibility that a cause may be undetectable.

Are you going to go round in circles avoiding this question, too? Let me see, you can't answer it because it is "structured"...LOL!!

sinequanon:


Here is the QUESTION for the 4th or 5th time:

Do you or do you not agree that science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause?

It is clearly asking you IF you agree with something, not presupposing it.

Since you are stuck and reluctant to answer the question, as was plaetton, there is no point continuing.

The only useful thing you have to say is that you are disingenuous, and you have effectively shouted it from the rooftops.

Assumptions are necessary in order to create a starting point. . Assumptions build premises before conclusions can be erected. Science creates a natural cause because such cause is readily perceptible. For such purposes the assumptions are valid.

In contrast with Faith, it depends on how far the faithful is willing to stretch his faith.