Hello DeepSight,

Deep Sight:

^^^ Viaro has a great head on his shoulders, and has brought much to the Religion Section in terms of Quality.

I admire his thoroughness.

By way of criticism, i will say that he is excessively stubborn: will not see a glaring or simple point once it is in contra-distiinction to his jewish-inspired dogma, can be rabidly bitter and ranks amongst the most terribly abusive and insultive persons on Nairaland.

Nonetheless he is a valuable asset to the Forum and has enriched the quality of discourse greatly.

_{Not to mention his monstrous vocabulary.}

Well, let me leave it at that - I own the criticisms and value them far more than anything else. Thanks.

Deep Sight:

Quote from viaro -

The atheist cannot claim that he is not responsible to adduce 'proof' for his negative claim - because that would be something other than metaphysics. This was why I earlier talked about propositional logic.

No no no, son. Let's go back to Russell's Tea Pot -

I said this on another thread early in my arrival on NL -

Prizm disagreed with me -

And i responded with -

Lol, I took the time to go through the responses, but it seems you guys don't understand what propositional logic is all about. Prizm has quite an interesting response to your arguments; but you seemed to have been going merely by the sound of your ideas than by any substance on the ground.

Are u so blind that u couldn't see urself as a significant evidence of God?


b4 u were born, u only God knows where u are and now u re on earth,and later u will be no were to be found not even in ur grave where we buried u.

if u can't see evidence of God in urself, then look at d sky and answer d question urself

I'm sorry, viaro. I was only joking. Take care.

Deep Sight, I agree with you in part. The part where I disagree is that I'm sure that if viaro is as intelligent as you have asserted, then I guess he knows what he's doing. His excessive stubbornness that you mention is only an indication that he is strongly convicted about what he says.

bilms:

Are u so blind that u couldn't see urself as a significant evidence of God?


b4 u were born, u only God knows where u are and now u re on earth,and later u will be no were to be found not even in your grave where we buried u.

if u can't see evidence of God in urself, then look at d sky and answer d question urself

and how does looking at the sky help?

On Nl we av reasonable&unreasonable folks.The reasonable pple are those dat says things& are able to defend their statements significantly/unsignificantly.Whilst d unreasonable folks are those dat says things but cant defend their claims significantly/unsignificantly, rather they use frivolous questions to answer reasonable enquiry.
Lets watch&see my point

Deep Sight:

@ Mazaje -

Mount Everest is a physical thing.

Answer me these questions -

When solid materials are heated up what do they become?

Is the answer that they melt and become liquid?

When Liquid is heated up, what does it become?

Is the answer that it becomes a gas?

Does this tell you anything about a progression of solids to non - solids?

Now look at the process in reverse.

Does this tell you anything about the emergence of solids from non-solids?

Thus the emergence of tangibles from intangibles?

See me see wahala just when I packed my things and left this thread deep sight is tempting me, abeg do you care to explain what the above means?

Deep Sight:

@ Mazaje -

Mount Everest is a physical thing.

Answer me these questions -

When solid materials are heated up what do they become?

Is the answer that they melt and become liquid?

When Liquid is heated up, what does it become?

Is the answer that it becomes a gas?

Does this tell you anything about a progression of solids to non - solids?

Now look at the process in reverse.

Does this tell you anything about the emergence of solids from non-solids?

Thus the emergence of tangibles from intangibles?

haha. Monsieur deepsight. How na? Remember when I said any semblance would do? Now gas to solid = spiritual to physical, abi? or what do u mean by tangible from intangible?

Krayola:

haha. Monsieur deepsight. How na? Remember when I said any semblance would do? Now gas to solid = spiritual to physical, abi? or what do u mean by tangible from intangible?

I don't think Deep Sight's gas to solid = intangible to tangible is a good argument IMHO because the former (gas/solid phases) is relatively reversible under appropriate conditions but not so with the latter. That which is intangible will in fact remain so, though it may exert influence upon tangible frames of reference by which its existence can be inferred.

viaro:

There's actually no need to try to deny the fact that data (whether used as a singular or plural) is actually information at its most basic form. I didn't get that off the top of my head - it is incontrovertibly established that data is information.

No it's not.

viaro:

There's no difference between "3" and "14159265" - both are still information at its basic level and therefore data. The reference to the idea of attaching "more information" is simply including more data that tend to a pattern - it is that pattern or form that becomes information at a higher level. Any unit of input one provides is information at its basic level, and that is what is meant by data.

Hang on, mate. Did you not realise that the link you provided was actually saying the very same thing I pointed out? Let me quote you an excerpt:

       'The main difference is in the level of abstraction being considered.
        Data is the lowest level of abstraction, information is the next level,
        and finally, knowledge is the highest level among all three'

I very early noted that "data is actually a type of information at its most basic form", and that is nothing different from what that excerpt from your link says. The fact that the difference is simply a matter of the level of abstraction considered does not mean that it is only at the second level that we find "information" - no.

Information actually occurs at the basic level of 'data', and even the example used in that link is quite simply an allusion to data as a kind of information. That example says:

        'the height of Mt. Everest is generally considered as "data", a book on Mt. Everest
        geological characteristics may be considered as "information", and a report containing
        practical information on the best way to reach Mt. Everest's peak may be considered
        as "knowledge"'

Lol, what has happened is that the height of Mt. Everest is actually the most basic information that has been provided - it is not meaningless, otherwise the author would not have been able to identify it as "height". You do not refer to a "height" as meaningless, because it immediately identifies a particular character of Mt. Everest - and this is a clear example where even Wikipedia authors sometimes confuse issues for themselves and the public.

Data at its lowest level is not information. Sure at some higher levels, what may be considered information would depend on the person's point of view.

In that example, you've been given several other pointers; the referral to Mt. Everest, the measurement given as height, etc.
Now consider that all you were given was "8848". No units, nothing linking it to being a mountain. Would you consider this as data or information?

How about "1989" what do you make of it without my adding anything else to it?

viaro:

I could go on and take up this issue in more practical examples; but the point is that data is still a form of information at the most basic level. The idea that data is "meaningless" is patently false - otherwise the example in your link would mean that "height" as an example of data is meaningless - then why is it called "height"? Data is a type of information.

Oh yes discrete data points are meaningless. You need groups of data to make anything out.
By the time you've given the height in relation to Mt. Everest it wouldn't be meaningless. But if e.g someone makes a statement like this to someone else on the street. "Something is 8849 metres high". Has the speaker conveyed information or provided data? If the recipient knows something about mountains, it would be information. But if the person doesn't know much about mountains, he would consider it data requiring more input for him to make sense of it.
Another thing I should point out is that since you need multiple data to be grouped/processed etc for it to be information, how can you claim that the whole group (information) is the same as a small bit used to make it up?

For me the rejection of Werner Gitt's whole information theory project against evolution, by the scientific community as pseudoscience and pseudomathematics is enough for now since I don't have the time now to go digging through his works and digesting them and then start trying to prove him wrong.

viaro:

@thehomer,
No, it does not refer to them all without particulars - that is why such things are distinguished.

All three are used in arriving at scientific facts.

viaro:

Of course, but I have not witnessed every case of a miracle - which was why I did not want to go down the route of 'anecdotal evidence'. I have seen cases of other types of healings; and I could also point to the "science" of such - but here is what I need to ask you pointedly: what would you be thinking of as "testable by science"?

When I say testable by science, I mean phenomena that are observable, testable and/or logical.
So does the God you wish to prove do anything here on earth for/to humans?

viaro:

I did not assume. Please go and ask atheists who are informed and they will tell you no different.

Victor Stenger an informed atheist disagrees too. He is also a philosopher.
Check here. http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20020426-9999_mz1c26proof.html

toba:

u talked about information coming from non-information,which science says its impossible&used data as eg of non-information.Code system requires data to give information,i gave dat eg to show u dat datas supplied into a code system can never be regarded as non information.In a census,u gather datas of male in a local govt as 50.d data has informed u dat there are 50pple dat re males,when u further analyse u may break down into age group,education,marital status etc using code system to give full information,however d fact that data tells u there are 50pple its an information&a guide.

And like I've been trying to point out to you, counting just one person is not enough to get information about the whole community. You need to count enough people or use some sort of random sampling to get enough data to generate information from.

toba:

Same applies to existence of God,dat God exists came from us being informed of his existence through data/any other means

What data did God provide for his existence?

thehomer:

No it's not.

Yes it is - and solidly so. It is not enough to just deny the clear fact, you ought to also discuss how those other references showing the fact are wrong, if at all. {"Strictly speaking, data is the plural of datum, a single piece of information"} - please refer.

Data at its lowest level is not information. Sure at some higher levels, what may be considered information would depend on the person's point of view.

Dude, please. It is not "data at its lowest level" we're talking about; but rather "information at its most basic form" which is called data. There is a world of difference between the two, but they both point to the fact that data is information.

Let me explain so that we are very, very clear on this and rather not bandying words about carelessly.

        (a)  "data at its lowest level" {is information}

        (b)  "data is {information at its most basic level}

In your case as in (a) above, "data at its lowest level" points to processed information usually occuring in a series or group as a single unit. As such it is used in any number of applications as logistics and statistical comparisons (e.g., forecasts between periods, or market supply and demand over a period between chain suppliers, etc.); or in computing, where it describes the smallest addresable unit of any operation: "the smallest addressable unit of data is usually a group of bits called a byte (usually an octet, which is 8 bits)" - [Wikipedia].

In the example of computing, we may find such things as mega[i]bytes[/i], giga[i]bytes[/i], tera[i]bytes[/i], etc.; but in this case we know that "data at its lowest level" is the byte - which is defined as information in a series or group taken as a single unit:

[list][li]byte:
- In computer technology, a unit of information made up of bits (often eight bits). ~ [The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company][/li][/list]

[list][li]byte:
- the basic unit of information in computer storage and processing. ~ [Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008][/li][/list]

[list][li]byte:
- a sequence of 8 bits (enough to represent one character of alphanumeric data) processed as a single unit of information[/li][/list]

Thus, when you say "data at its lowest level", you're pointing to any form of information that occurs in a series or group taken as a single unit.


However, to say that ""data is {information at its most basic level}" as in (b) is simply saying that data is the lowest level of abstraction of information - it is "information at its most basic level", whether or not it occurs on its own without reference to any series or group.

In both (a) and (b), data is information - it all depends in how it is considered, nonetheless it is information, whether as a level of abstraction; or as a series or group taken as a single unit. As noted, "Strictly speaking, data is the plural of datum, a single piece of information" (see again).


In all of this, the point is that you don't have any reference to "information" coming from "non-information". Data is not an example of "non-information", because it is clear that data is information at its most basic level of abstraction.

thehomer:

In that example, you've been given several other pointers; the referral to Mt. Everest, the measurement given as height, etc.
Now consider that all you were given was "8848". No units, nothing linking it to being a mountain. Would you consider this as data or information?

Yes. Why? Because the link you provided quite clearly said that 'the height of Mt. Everest is generally considered as "data".' It is not the conversions to any form of unit that makes it 'information'; rather, it is still information that is called data - that is why that link notes that the height is generally considered as data. You may have a problem with that - but then you would be arguing against your own link, not mine.

How about "1989" what do you make of it without my adding anything else to it?

It is still data as information at its most basic abstraction.

[table]
[tr][td]

Oh yes discrete data points are meaningless. You need groups of data to make anything out.

Did you thehomer actually say that?!?[/td][td][img]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:NHvBLj3HoFFpwM:http://1.bp..com/_A2D2m8pAw58/SdqT223dI3I/AAAAAAAAA-U/Bp5k4QkFxYE/s320/irritated.jpg[/img][/td][/tr][/table]

Since you have taken it to a level of applicability (discrete data), let me help bring you round once more in looking at it with a few examples of areas of applications:

(1) Data ~ 'pieces of information, especially those that are part of a collection to be used in an analysis of a problem, such as the diagnosis of a health problem.' - [Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.]

(2) discrete data - A set of data is said to be discrete if the values / observations belonging to it are distinct and separate, i.e. they can be counted (1,2,3,, ). Examples might include the number of kittens in a litter; the number of patients in a doctors surgery; the number of flaws in one metre of cloth; gender (male, female); blood group (O, A, B, AB). [Statistics Glossary]

(3) Other examples of 'discrete data' may include ~

[list][li]property lines and streets (in cartography, [url=http://support.esri.com/index.cfm?fa=knowledgebase.gisDictionary.search&searchTerm=discrete%20data]ESRI[/url]);[/li][/list]

[list][li]types of vegetation (category data), or speed zones (class data) - generally in GIS applications[/li][/list]

All I'm saying here is that "discrete data" is meaningful because of their application types. When you narrow it down to "discrete data points", you are unwittingly distinguishing between examples of category data and class data.

And because "discrete data points" are meaningful, you could use them in such applications as polynomials in mathematical modelling - see this example of '[url=http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~klbooksite/1.01/101.html]Modelling Discrete Data[/url]' (java applet required to see graphical results). Further, it is because discrete data is/are meaningful that analysis could be performed - like in this other example of Inverse Problems of 'stability and regularisation', where 'a general definition of an inverse problem with discrete data has been given and an analysis in terms of singular systems has been performed.'

Dude thehomer, I don't think you have a solid grasp of what you tend to argue. In all these, I don't see how you have demonstrated anywhere that data is not information, not even when you bring it down to its basics of types of data like "discrete data". These are all pointing to information - and as such do not help your arguments about "non-information" one tiny dot.

thehomer:

For me the rejection of Werner Gitt's whole information theory project against evolution, by the scientific community as pseudoscience and pseudomathematics is enough for now since I don't have the time now to go digging through his works and digesting them and then start trying to prove him wrong.

The 'scientific establishment', we all know, is highly politicized these days. Anyone may talk about the "scientific community" rejecting this and that as pseudoscience and pseudomathematics - but even in the field of evolution itself, most of the celebrated works are pseudoscientific - an example: memetics. I like the way this is discussed in Wikipedia:

[list]Memetics is an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer based on the concept that units of information, or "memes", have an independent existence, are self-replicating, and are subject to selective evolution through environmental forces.^[59] Starting from a proposition put forward in the writings of Richard Dawkins, it has since turned into a new area of study, one that looks at the self-replicating units of culture. It has been proposed that just as memes are analogous to genes, memetics is analogous to genetics. Memetics has been deemed a pseudoscience on several fronts.^[59] Its proponents' assertions have been labeled "untested, unsupported or incorrect"[/list]

The funny thing here is that the "scientific establishment" celebrates such pseudosciences because it helps their politics, not because there is any scientific support for it. But all that is another matter entirely and should not distract us here on the subject of information.

The thing here is for you to show any 'information' that comes from 'non-information'. It has nothing to do with digging up Dr. Werner Gitt's arguments against evolution - that would be as much as appealing to the fallacies of evolution highpriests (like Richard Dawkins) who like to wave their own pseudosciences in a celebrated fashion. Not even Dawkins himself in his memetics of "cultural information transfer" has demonstrated how information comes from non-information - care to dig on that one as well?

All three are used in arriving at scientific facts.

Not all are used in the same way, nor are the results a clone between themselves.

When I say testable by science, I mean phenomena that are observable, testable and/or logical.
So does the God you wish to prove do anything here on earth for/to humans?

It does - I already pointed out that I would like to approach my subject by LOGIC - particularly epistemic logic in propositional logic or metaphysical philosophy. Choose your poison and let's see you discuss your naturalism within the matrix of that kind of logic. You notice I have recently stayed on just this one question offered you by toba about information coming from non-information. I still don't see how you have demonstrated that you know what you want to argue, and that's probably why I feel we should not waste our time arguing back and forth where you don't know how to approach a subject.

Victor Stenger an informed atheist disagrees too. He is also a philosopher.
Check here. http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20020426-9999_mz1c26proof.html

Dude, don't kid yourself. Stenger did NOT discuss anything about metaphysics, nor did he even look in that direction at all. I like the fact that the article summarises for me that he was "like preaching to the choir". What philosophy of reality did he even mention in that article?

Hehehe. . thehomer, you're just quite simply floundering.

Krayola:

haha. Monsieur deepsight. How na? Remember when I said any semblance would do? Now gas to solid = spiritual to physical, abi? or what do u mean by tangible from intangible?

You guys will not kill me with laughter!

InesQor:

I'm sorry, viaro. I was only joking. Take care.

Lol, I knew you were just teasing, so no offences there.

viaro:

Yes it is - and solidly so. It is not enough to just deny the clear fact, you ought to also discuss how those other references showing the fact are wrong, if at all. {"Strictly speaking, data is the plural of datum, a single piece of information"} - please refer.

Aah I meant datum then not data. I thought data could be used singly that was why when I referred to it previously, I placed singular behind it.
My bad.

viaro:

In all of this, the point is that you don't have any reference to "information" coming from "non-information". Data is not an example of "non-information", because it is clear that data is information at its most basic level of abstraction.

I should have given the example as datum being the non-information not data and information.

viaro:

The 'scientific establishment', we all know, is highly politicized these days. Anyone may talk about the "scientific community" rejecting this and that as pseudoscience and pseudomathematics - but even in the field of evolution itself, most of the celebrated works are pseudoscientific - an example: memetics. I like the way this is discussed in Wikipedia:

[list]Memetics is an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer based on the concept that units of information, or "memes", have an independent existence, are self-replicating, and are subject to selective evolution through environmental forces.^[59] Starting from a proposition put forward in the writings of Richard Dawkins, it has since turned into a new area of study, one that looks at the self-replicating units of culture. It has been proposed that just as memes are analogous to genes, memetics is analogous to genetics. Memetics has been deemed a pseudoscience on several fronts.^[59] Its proponents' assertions have been labeled "untested, unsupported or incorrect"[/list]

The funny thing here is that the "scientific establishment" celebrates such pseudosciences because it helps their politics, not because there is any scientific support for it. But all that is another matter entirely and should not distract us here on the subject of information.

The scientific establishment does not support memetics.

viaro:

The thing here is for you to show any 'information' that comes from 'non-information'. It has nothing to do with digging up Dr. Werner Gitt's arguments against evolution - that would be as much as appealing to the fallacies of evolution highpriests (like Richard Dawkins) who like to wave their own pseudosciences in a celebrated fashion. Not even Dawkins himself in his memetics of "cultural information transfer" has demonstrated how information comes from non-information - care to dig on that one as well?

I wasn't aware he was trying to do that with memetics.

viaro:

Not all are used in the same way, nor are the results a clone between themselves.

Different approaches for different phenomena.

viaro:

It does - I already pointed out that I would like to approach my subject by LOGIC - particularly epistemic logic in propositional logic or metaphysical philosophy. Choose your poison and let's see you discuss your naturalism within the matrix of that kind of logic. You notice I have recently stayed on just this one question offered you by toba about information coming from non-information. I still don't see how you have demonstrated that you know what you want to argue, and that's probably why I feel we should not waste our time arguing back and forth where you don't know how to approach a subject.

Ok what are the examples of what it does here?
If you wish to approach it by logic, it should be amenable to scientific analysis. So go ahead and present your evidence.
I've told you I will approach it scientifically.

viaro:

Dude, don't kid yourself. Stenger did NOT discuss anything about metaphysics, nor did he even look in that direction at all. I like the fact that the article summarises for me that he was "like preaching to the choir". What philosophy of reality did he even mention in that article?

You're doing it again. You're assuming that it can only be approached metaphysically. I gave you Stenger since you asked for knowledgeable people approaching it scientifically.

thehomer:

Aah I meant datum then not data. I thought data could be used singly that was why when I referred to it previously, I placed singular behind it.
My bad.

I should have given the example as datum being the non-information not data and information.

It makes no difference - whether data or datum, it still refers to information at its most basic level of abstraction. Neither data nor datum are examples of non-information.

The scientific establishment does not support memetics.

Please search - memetics, even though its is pseudoscience, is still bandied about as a "science".

I wasn't aware he was trying to do that with memetics.

I wonder why he then would have been trying to defend his pseudoscience of memetics when it has been criticised for what it actually is?

Different approaches for different phenomena.

Which is the more reason you should pay attention to the fact that it is not a matter of 'one-size-fits-all'.

Ok what are the examples of what it does here?
If you wish to approach it by logic, it should be amenable to scientific analysis. So go ahead and present your evidence.
I've told you I will approach it scientifically.

You only tell me things, never at one point do you ever show any demonstration. As soon as you tell me how science discusses and investigates the metaphysics, then we begin our discussion. Please do so, and let's discuss.

You're doing it again. You're assuming that it can only be approached metaphysically. I gave you Stenger since you asked for knowledgeable people approaching it scientifically.

I didn't assume anything. You show me what Stenger said about METAPHYSICS and let's take it from there. As far as I'm concerned, he was only preaching to the choir.

if ur alarm clock woke u up dis morning, why did it not wake de guy next door? think and ask again if there is a God.

Idea.ng:

if your alarm clock woke u up dis morning, why did it not wake de guy next door? think and ask again if there is a God.

welcome on board

Idea.ng:

if your alarm clock woke u up dis morning, why did it not wake de guy next door? think and ask again if there is a God.

welcome on board

that you have eyes to read what i am typing

viaro:

It makes no difference - whether data or datum, it still refers to information at its most basic level of abstraction. Neither data nor datum are examples of non-information.

From your example with computers, the datum would be the bits that make up a byte. How much information can you get from a bit that would make sense in the whole scheme? It's either on or off, 0 or 1. It has to be grouped i.e to become a byte before one can make any sense out of it. To show how low level it is, you cannot even address one directly. Even at that there is very little sense to be made out of it.

From your example with the blood groups, if you just said O without referring to other letters of the blood group or to the fact that you were speaking of blood groups what information do you have from it? For datum to become information, you have to either collect enough to form a group or add some vital piece of information to it.

How can you claim that the whole group (information) is the same as a small bit used to make it up? Is the 5th bit in the 200th byte from the start instruction of the RAM the same as the whole byte? (You're yet to answer).

viaro:

Please search - memetics, even though its is pseudoscience, is still bandied about as a "science".

No it's not considered a science. It's more of an attempt to explain some cultural characteristics that people share.

viaro:

I wonder why he then would have been trying to defend his pseudoscience of memetics when it has been criticised for what it actually is?

It's simply not science (at least not yet). For it to be considered science, it still has several steps to go. Of course he'll try to protect it. He's proposing a hypothesis. In science, such new hypotheses are criticized. It's not a religion where someone makes a statement and all who believe the person just follow whatever he says. It simply is not considered science.

viaro:

Which is the more reason you should pay attention to the fact that it is not a matter of 'one-size-fits-all'.

From the article you recommended,

The deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and hypothetic-deductive or hypothesis testing are the three scientific methods, which are referred to by the generic name of the scientific method.

i.e all three are used in science. For a scientific conclusion to have been arrived at, at least one of these methods must have been used. So your "one-size-fits-all" statement is pointless. All three are used

viaro:

You only tell me things, never at one point do you ever show any demonstration. As soon as you tell me how science discusses and investigates the metaphysics, then we begin our discussion. Please do so, and let's discuss.

What have I simply told you without demonstration?
I have given you several examples (demonstrations) for you to easily grasp what I'm saying.
You're the one who never demonstrates any thing.
1. You've not demonstrated what the metaphysical God does here on earth. (His present actions)
2. You've not demonstrated what you consider evidence.
2. You've not demonstrated your claimed evidence.
3. You've not demonstrated why the evidence should not be amenable to science while I've shown why it will.

I had to give the example of miracles since you did not give any examples of the supernatural, which you tried to defend but couldn't beyond your anecdotal evidence. And I'm saying that the activities of this metaphysical God if they actually do occur, they must be detectable scientifically.
You asked for my outline which I gave with reasons.

viaro:

I didn't assume anything. You show me what Stenger said about METAPHYSICS and let's take it from there. As far as I'm concerned, he was only preaching to the choir.

You are [/b]doing it again. You have unilaterally assumed the [b]evidence for God must be metaphysical. Yet you said it was amenable to logic. You have also assumed no one could tell you anything different despite being shown with examples why your metaphysical God must leave evidence at least if he really performs miracles. I thought you were also able to present the evidence using logic. Which I said was amenable to the scientific method. Even if all you want to do is to present your evidence by metaphysics you may do so but I'll prefer you using logic.

All you've done is to stretch this thread requesting for [b]your own[b] evidence for a God this far.
You have not given the said evidence.
I'm really getting bored with this. If you have no evidence or if you believe because you believe you've found evidence for this metaphysical miracle performing christian God whose word is the bible through philosophy then good luck to you.
So you can go ahead and present your evidence whether through logic since you asked my preference and let's get on from there.

thehomer:

From your example with computers, the datum would be the bits that make up a byte.

Data is also datum - either terms are not confused: they basically mean "information" and not "non-information". In this case as well, the 'bit' is still regarded as information ~

'bit:
a unit of measurement of information (from binary + digit);
the amount of information in a system having two equiprobable states'
(Concise English Dictionary)

bit:
'Short for bi[/b]nary digi[b]t, the smallest unit of information on a machine'
(Webopedia)

The whole point here for several pages is simply this: do you have any example of information that comes from non-information? So far all we have been doing is define information in its varied level of abstraction - every time you return we have had to turn you right back to show that all the terms you appeal to are still information and not "non-information". The 'bit' is still a type of information, even though it is the smallest unit of information - it is not the smallest unit of "non-information".

How much information can you get from a bit that would make sense in the whole scheme?

Very simple: your answer is the first line in the quote below ~

>> A 1-bit image is monochrome;
an 8-bit image supports 256 colors or grayscales;
and a 24- or 32-bit graphic supports true color.
(Webopedia again)

It's either on or off, 0 or 1. It has to be grouped i.e to become a byte before one can make any sense out of it. To show how low level it is, you cannot even address one directly. Even at that there is very little sense to be made out of it.

There's a lot of sense to be made from a '1-bit' image - it is a monochrome, and designers use the monochrome for various applications. The byte is only the next level of abstraction; and the megabyte still another level of abstraction higher than the previous ones; and then on to the next at the gigabyte, and then further to the level of the terabyte. . . etc. For all of these, you don't have anything to hold on to for your argument of "non-information" - all the foregoing are examples of information at various levels of abstraction.

From your example with the blood groups, if you just said O without referring to other letters of the blood group or to the fact that you were speaking of blood groups what information do you have from it?

I cannot just belch out the letter 'O' like an automaton. If someone had asked me quite plainly: 'what blood group did you find in the sample?', there would be no confusion at all in my reply if I said simply: 'O' without adding anything further. The enquirer absolutely understands me - and in that case I have passed a full information, and not a "non-information".

For datum to become information, you have to either collect enough to form a group or add some vital piece of information to it.

Wrong. Rather, datum is factually defined as information -

(a) "datum: a single piece of information" (Wikitionary)
(b) "datum: a fact or piece of information" (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

How can you claim that the whole group (information) is the same as a small bit used to make it up? Is the 5th bit in the 200th byte from the start instruction of the RAM the same as the whole byte? (You're yet to answer).

You're confusing issues here. I did not claim any such thing as that the whole group (information) is the same as a small bit used to make it up. This is precisely what I said:

"It makes no difference - whether data or datum, it still refers to information
at its most basic level of abstraction. Neither data nor datum are examples
of non-information"

Whether data or datum, what you have is still information and not "non-information". As you can see from all that I have been consistently pointing out, we're dealing with information, and not in one instance have you provided an example of "non-information". So, whether it is datum ('a single piece of information') or data ('information at its most basic level of abstraction'), we're still being presented with "information" and not "non-information".

No it's not considered a science. It's more of an attempt to explain some cultural characteristics that people share.

It's simply not science (at least not yet). For it to be considered science, it still has several steps to go. Of course he'll try to protect it. He's proposing a hypothesis. In science, such new hypotheses are criticized. It's not a religion where someone makes a statement and all who believe the person just follow whatever he says. It simply is not considered science.

Thanks for confirming that even Dawkins' memetics which he touted as "science" is actually pseudoscience. Next?

You see, it is not Dawkins' memetics or Dr. Werner's argument against evolution that is central here. Please thehomer, for several pages going now, you have not been able to present even ONE case of "non-information" so we can progress the thread. All you have been arguing thus far point directly to information and not "non-information". If you have searched endlessly for an example of "non-information" and can't find one, please wrap it up and let's be content therewith.

From the article you recommended,
i.e all three are used in science. For a scientific conclusion to have been arrived at, at least one of these methods must have been used. So your "one-size-fits-all" statement is pointless. All three are used

My statement was not pointless - please stay on course. In science, it is not a matter of one-size-fits all; and the link I provided shows that same thing. You do not pretend that deductiive is the same thing as inductive - and you cannot just jump on any approach willy-nilly. They are pointing to 'scientific method', and I didn't argue against that; but you cannot just keep saying "scientific method" without knowing what exactly in that method you want to employ.

What have I simply told you without demonstration?
I have given you several examples (demonstrations) for you to easily grasp what I'm saying.
You're the one who never demonstrates any thing.

I have done so. I repeated it several times. I also had to post links where I have said so several times and demonstrated it in the past. If you're just going round in denial, please let me know so I can roundly ignore you - afterall, it is not as if your cyclical argument so far even for your "non-information" has yielded any fruit in your defence.

1. You've not demonstrated what the metaphysical God does here on earth. (His present actions)

You show me what type of science you know that discusses the metaphysics, and then we proceed. You have done nothing of the sort - not even your Stenger was helpful. What is this redundancy of your making hot-air repetitions? Dude, if you can't show me that simple thing, please just let it be.

2. You've not demonstrated what you consider evidence.

Please read my outline here and follow the links.

2. You've not demonstrated your claimed evidence.

You oblige me my simple request, then we discuss further.

3. You've not demonstrated why the evidence should not be amenable to science while I've shown why it will.

Dude, please don't resort to outright lies - for the umpteenth time, please. I demonstrated why and how I would be discussing my subject on metaphysical premises; also showed from an atheist source which was in agreement. If you had one clue about metaphysics, you would have proceeded to demonstrate the same rather than come back repeatedly with empty excuses.

I had to give the example of miracles since you did not give any examples of the supernatural, which you tried to defend but couldn't beyond your anecdotal evidence.

That's not true, and I would appreciate that you please try to not misquote or misread me. I declined using anecdotal evidence, since neither you nor I myself felt that is the proper approach. If you only wanted anecdotal evidence, I already hinted that I've seen an actual healing occur in one of my own experiences - and if that was what you sought, then for pete's sake use your science to argue that all you want! But if you find that way beyond your ability, then smart up like a grown up and let's discuss this subject free from your usual strawman and circular excuses.

And I'm saying that the activities of this metaphysical God if they actually do occur, they must be detectable scientifically.

No worries - you oblige me my request. That's all I have been asking for eons.

You asked for my outline which I gave with reasons.

Please show me the link - I saw no outline of yours. If I missed it, I shall reconsider.

You are [/b]doing it again. You have unilaterally assumed the [b]evidence for God must be metaphysical. Yet you said it was amenable to logic. You have also assumed no one could tell you anything different despite being shown with examples why your metaphysical God must leave evidence at least if he really performs miracles. I thought you were also able to present the evidence using logic. Which I said was amenable to the scientific method. Even if all you want to do is to present your evidence by metaphysics you may do so but I'll prefer you using logic.

I did not "do it again" nor assume anything. If you can read, is it my fault? If you find metaphysics too much to your flavour, is that my fault, too? Why, if I may ask, have you been complaining about the metaphysics all along?

All you've done is to stretch this thread requesting for [b]your own[b] evidence for a God this far.

No worries. I long realised you're just are not a serious discussant.

You have not given the said evidence.
I'm really getting bored with this. If you have no evidence or if you believe because you believe you've found evidence for this metaphysical miracle performing christian God whose word is the bible through philosophy then good luck to you.
So you can go ahead and present your evidence whether through logic since you asked my preference and let's get on from there.

I got bored already seeing the way you negotiate the issue of "information" and "non-information". I tried to see the sort of discussant you were by taking up that issue - and up until now, you have done nothing but present fallacy after fallacy. . . at the end of the day, we still don't have your example of "non-information". If that simple issue was far way out of your league, would I be surprised you can't habdle metaphysics? Please.

thehomer:

What data did God provide for his existence?

U ve alleged dat information is superior to data.God gave vivid info about his existence.He doesnt need any data.But as a doubting researcher u can generate data for urself/be given a data to substantiate ur claim.
Like i said information cant come from non information.Theists are informed about Gods existence&their information came from information provided by God,nature&man.

thehomer your arguments surprise me.

the very existence of information excludes the the possibility of a pre-existent state of absolute void - except you are willing to further entertain teh absurdity that even the smallest block of information may emerge from non-information. Thus that pre-existence can only be conceived in terms of a permanent and non-contingent element which itself is, contains and spawns the infinite series of all conceivable information.

toba:

U ve alleged dat information is superior to data.God gave vivid info about his existence.

Did any god give you vivid information about his existence? How can we use such vivid information to objectively get information from this god directly? If there is a god that gives people vivid information about his existence them why are there so many different gods with so many different information about their existence?

Like i said information cant come from non information.Theists are informed about Gods existence&their information came from information provided by God,nature&man.

So according to you the information about Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, Chineke, Brahamidu all came from those gods?

The arguments for christianity and the God it is trying to sell are by now ancient. They all go back to Augustine, then, 650 years later, to Aquinas, and basically all a rehash thereafter.

Back in ancient times, philosophy was science. But as science progressed, the arguments for christianity (and deism) have remain rooted in the arguments of the old philosophers. In the logic of the scholastic school. In the manipulations of language and verbiage and nothing more. Nothing new ever seems to be added by christian apologists even in the face of the fact of advancement of science and the scientific process. "Proofs" for the christian God are static, unchanging, and repetitious. The modern day apologist are now trying to take very different approaches but they still end up short most of the time. They are now trying to drop most if not all the traditional attributes of the christian God because they notice that those traditional attributes are contradictory.

How many times per month does a new christian apologist show up espousing the argument for natural religion as a "proof" of the existence of the christian God?

toneyb:

How many times per month does a new christian apologist show up espousing the argument for natural religion as a "proof" of the existence of the christian God?

And how many times do we see atheists reharshing their retired strawman fallacies for their atheism? Is it any wonder that even in the matrix of modern philosophy, atheists are generally spectators and never able to attempt any discussion on philosophy?