kingxsamz:

Oh, yes. I'm enthusiastic about it. So what now? Do you want a cookie for saying that? Or are you gonna cry?


Yes, you're right, there's this Atheist Sunday school lesson I always participate in. Our Atheist master always teaches us new stuff to say to Christians and give us assignments to carry out and report back to him.

1. What is atheism?
2. Why are you an atheist?
3. Is your name in the book of the brights?

LordReed:


I said to quote 5 scientists saying so but apparently sky daddy magic can't even help you. LMAO! Just admit you don't have any scientist saying that instead of this braggado you are doing. Bwahahahahahaha!

As I said when I make a claim ask me for evidence. You make a claim you get to bring the evidence.

Lol!

I say it again today that THERE ARE NO SCIENTIFIC proofs for scientific laws. All are ASSUMED to be valid.

You can accept it as it is or keep crying for 5 scientists who said it. If you can’t counter it, then I know it is a fact.

If you have a contrary fact, say it here.
Or show me any scientific proof for any of our scientific laws.

Keep lazing around in shame

CandyOps:


Bro, kindly post a link or source to a research in favor of or against the topic at hand and stop beating around the bush about IQ.

Besides, an IQ has nothing to do with academic qualifications. I'm not replyin again because it's a waste of time

Next time respond to people respectfully.
Don’t brag about IQ and your science background again. Science didn’t turn you godless. Science didn’t turn your Christian lecturers to theists. You all have science background yet have differing worldviews and you think yours is because you studied science?
That’s a fatal error in your thinking.

And to make it worse, you just condemned religious people and their critical thinking abilities. Yet you never made a single critical and logical point in the discussion?

Too bad

kingxsamz:


You still haven't answered my question on how Noah lived for more than 400 years when bis life span should have been less than 100.
I thought we were dealing with logic here, why are you avoiding the question?

We are dealing with the Bible and logic.
If Noah lived 950 years, why should he not be active at 100-650 years?

Focus: Bible and logic

I already said you don’t even sound like one who understands the Bible you are arguing about?

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! There goes the delusion factory hard at work imagining all kinds of nonsense about me and believing it. It seems asking you for evidence or explanations is some kind of trigger for your song and dance reflex. LMAO!

Tell your god to make his magic happen in front of cameras so we can have a record. LMAO!

You made a claim you can't back up. Bring 5 scientists that say there is no proof of scientific laws, a simple request. Maybe ask your sky daddy for some magic to help you since it's too much for you to handle. Bwahahahahahaha!

Your failure yesterday was fully noted.
I said all scientists. You are just lazily asking for 5. Again I said all. I had thought you would brandish links everywhere here countering my claims. Lol

Too pathetic!

kingxsamz:


Lol, I was even one of those who didn't like people that criticized Christianity.
Been an atheist since 2019, never looked back at my vomit. If that's what's giving you heart break this afternoon, that's your headache o.
If you say I'm an "evangelical atheist", well so be it. I'm one then. Did I tell you I was bothered? Take your tears elsewhere abeg.

I already said you sound like a new enthusiastic atheist who doesn’t know his right from his left yet.

Your responses too give you away as one who never really knew the scriptures as a Christian. If you were a good Christian, you would had better responses and objections.

For now you are just vomiting and parroting what someone is telling you. Most of your emotional objections to Christianity had been successfully rebuffed.

LordReed:


LOL! Yeah your god of laws and order decided to use magic that one time but now the god is so camera shy he never does his magic tricks in an era where cameras are ubiquitous. Bwahahahahahaha!

Miracles happen now and then.
Even if happens to you, would you willingly tell me? You would delete it from your camera.
Only God knows how many you had deleted in the past and how many you had failed to report.

You have had many experiences that your 5 senses cannot fathom. Would I expect you to come tell us about them?

Miracles are the exclusive prerogatives of God. Whenever he WISHES to do them for his own glory, he will do it. It doesn’t require your unbelief and godlessness. It will just happen when he so desires it.

You couldn’t even show me empirical proofs for scientific laws the other time. You kept lazily asking for 5 scientists as if we were doing children jokes. Now you want to delve into investigations of supernatural phenomena with natural tools. You are joking right?

LordReed:


You said "All Bible accounts are true" so please go ahead to tell us was it the sun that stopped or the earth that stopped?

The God who made the universe and fixed the sun and the earth can and will always do what he likes with nature. Why? Because he is SUPER-natural.

LordReed:


LMAO! So the sun stood still? Can you tell us how that happened, was it the sun that stopped moving or the earth? Bwahahahahaha!

Out of point.

Are we done with Noah’s communication and animal science skills?

If you don’t believe in miracles, no miracle or supernatural phenomena would ever make sense to you. So a Christian is a notch ahead of you in the understanding of nature/matter and super-nature.

kingxsamz:


Lol, bro said obsession.
I was a Christian, lol.
Feels good to point out the rubbish in the outdated fictional book of fairy tales. if e pain you, cry about it.

You were never a Christian.
But now you are an evangelical atheist.
I guess you are just starting to read up atheism.
Just pointing it out.

CandyOps:


I didn't say I have a high IQ neither did I claim to be higher than you. I said discussing some issues dey dull my IQ and is not worth the effort. Don't make up words, mr man. Besides, you didn't make any points in favor of or against the topic being discussed.

You rather went on a rant about zoos, IQ and how Profs could be Christians. Still no points scored. Which further explains why I don't feel comfortable discussing these kinda things. I'm not saying all Biblical events are false. I'm only saying this particular one about flooding is illogical and cannot physically occur given the geographical design of the planet Earth

You speak as though you said anything logical or empirical. All were mere rhetorics.

You boasted about your IQ, you claimed discussions with religious people dull your IQ. And I wondered what IQ you were referring to? The one you already displayed here with only a first degree in sciences? Unknown to you that so many religious people have 2 phds in sciences? And you didn’t realize that all humans in spite of their religion affiliations or worldview are created by God to be intelligent?

That’s a foolish boast bereft of any high IQ.

And you didn’t know the difference between someone saying “ we do not have enough facts to think this happened” and “ this never happened”.

You also lied the matter had been dealt with online. I asked which online? How many platforms do you know exist where religious discussions are held? How many of them did you join? All? To have warranted such boastful conclusion.

I was hoping you would say why humans could keep different animals in a zoo for children to go watch whereas it is absurd ( according to you) for Noah to have done what humans do now back then in an ark. Are they not same animals?

Again, for you godless fellow to have a degree in science and for another Christian to also have a degree in science and to have taught you sciences implies that the degree you obtained in science didn’t make you godless just as the other’s didn’t make them Christians.
I hope this is not too deep for you to understand!

kingxsamz:



Lol, what are we going to call your obsession with me? You're always quoting me, now you're going through my posts. Lol. U go soon see wetin you dey find.

Your obsession with Christianity resulted into your constant research about Christianity and constant posts on Christianity warranting my responses to your obsession with Christianity.

Watch it! You are becoming evangelical

kingxsamz:


You didn't get my point.
Let me ask again.
How did an elderly man with adult kids manage to live through 120 more years?
Shouldn't his life span be around 100 years or so?

You don’t even know the Bible.
That’s not nice. If you want to have a firm grip of arguments with Christians, you will humble yourself and study the Bible.

We shouldn’t be discussing life spans of people in Genesis era. An online Bible can do the magic

kingxsamz:


The only error I see here is your bible.

It will be crazy of me to expect anything to the contrary from you.

If you don’t come to terms with SUPER-nature, we can’t help you.

And to think you are obsessively obsessed with Christianity despite all your hatred for them is amazing.

You are more like an EVANGELICAL atheist. Lol

kingxsamz:


Biko, tell us how an elderly man with 3 adult sons was able to live for more than 120 years trying to spread a message?

If you pick arguments in the Bible, be ready to read the Bible for further arguments. Don’t cherry pick.

The book of Genesis gave details of life span of humans at that time. Go read it up.
120 years was just like a starting point for one who lived 950 years.

People who live 80 years now were active around 40-60 years. Noah living 950 years would have still been active at 500-700 years.

kingxsamz:


True, people who believe the Noah story, the Moses dividing the sea story and the story of two people populating the earth are no different from those who believe the earth is flat. Another funny thing is that, most flat earthers are Christians. Tells you a lot.

Summary: you have a problem believing the Bible. Secondly you have a problem with miracle and supernatural phenomena.

We cannot help you solve that problem unless you follow the arguments and leads.

Your references to flat earth is just ridiculous.
Was there a time ALL scientists thought the earth was flat?
Was there a time most scientists think matter was discrete and others thought it was continuous?
How about arguments about wave-particle duality?

Was Einstein and Bohr not awarded Nobels in Physics within same period even after a contentious debate by the scientists panel on matter? Yet both were thought to be right.

Isn’t that what we believe science is all about? That it can be falsified and then life goes on?

Why do you always think a natural method of investigation by men using the 5 senses only in a science that isn’t definite can be used to unsettle the Bible with eternal truths?
That’s an error!

kingxsamz:


No one's gonna read all that bro. Rest!

Lol!

Please I want you to be reading the real Bible if you are going to present good arguments against Christianity.

If you draw your arguments from the Bible, then you really should listen to what the Bible is saying.

kingxsamz:

Lol... It's illogical because it never happened.

Or maybe they are simply above the wavelength and amplitude of your natural mind.
There is a realm called the SUPER-natural.

“For it is written, I will baffle and render useless and destroy the learning of the learned and the philosophy of the philosophers and the cleverness of the clever and the discernment of the discerning; I will frustrate and nullify [them] and bring [them] to nothing. [Isa. 29:14.]

Where is the wise man (the philosopher)? Where is the scribe (the scholar)? Where is the investigator (the logician, the debater) of this present time and age? Has not God shown up the nonsense and the folly of this world's wisdom?

For when the world with all its earthly wisdom failed to perceive and recognize and know God by means of its own philosophy, God in His wisdom was pleased through the foolishness of preaching [salvation, procured by Christ and to be had through Him], to save those who believed (who clung to and trusted in and relied on Him).

For while Jews [demandingly] ask for signs and miracles and Greeks pursue philosophy and wisdom, We preach Christ (the Messiah) crucified, [preaching which] to the Jews is a scandal and an offensive stumbling block [that springs a snare or trap], and to the Gentiles it is absurd and utterly unphilosophical nonsense.

But to those who are called, whether Jew or Greek (Gentile), Christ [is] the Power of God and the Wisdom of God.

[This is] because the foolish thing [that has its source in] God is wiser than men, and the weak thing [that springs] from God is stronger than men.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭1:19-25‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/1co.1.19-25.ampc

Dtruthspeaker:


We have severally answered all these shits before, they are just trying to find out how many of them are still Satanist.

Abeg no mind them.

Maybe these ones are new wannabe atheists testing a few rebuttals they read up on Christianity.

CandyOps:


Do yourself a favor and get a proper education. I'm not here to go back & forth with you over a topic that has already been discussed and disected by scholars of geography and geology. It's not my fault you lack the knowledge about these things because you've chosen not to read any other thing apart from the Holy Books.

Fr thou, discussing with super-religious folks de dull my IQ. Like I said, it's like arguing over if the Earth is flat or not in this age and time. Or arguing if man truly visited the moon & space... Like, I can't stoop so low to engage in such talks again. I can only listen and nod my head like I agree with you. I'll even echo an 'amen' at the end of your prayer session. No offense I don't waste energy on such talks. ..

It's truly demeaning of all the thousands of hours I spent getting my bachelor's degree in sciences.

So knock yourself out if you truly believe every animal on earth including Dinosaurs and penguins walked across the arid deserts from the poles of the earth to the middle east just to hop on Noah's ark.

https://www.google.com/search?&q=is+it+possible+for+the+all+earth+to+be+flooded

For someone who claims to be an intellectual and above me in IQ, your first impression is to boast about a mere degree in sciences? I mean a mere 1st degree ( maybe a 2.2) ? And that’s all to make one not believe in the Bible?

That’s pathetic!

If a PHD holder or a professor of a science field could be a Christian, then your senses should have told you that your holding a 1st degree or his/her holding a professorial chair in sciences are no qualifications for being a Christian or for being godless like you. But no, you won’t think and understand it that way. In your narcissistic folly thinking, you would conclude you alone had high IQ and Christians including the ones that taught you in your degree had low IQ.

Like I said, nobody had concluded empirically that the flood didn’t happen. Most sites would only suggest that it was unlikely because THEY HAVEN’T CONFIRMED IT. And they have continued to investigate. The Bible isn’t going to change for you. You are free to carry your shovel and go anywhere in the universe to confirm each and every claim in the Bible.

You ask foolish questions and when you get your responses, you add more foolish responses.

If anyone could keep animals in the zoo successfully for years, that would be okay for you. But if the Bible says someone gathered animals in an ark, then it sound ridiculous.

It sounds ridiculous not because keeping animals together in a zoo or even domesticating wild animals are ridiculous, rather it sounds ridiculous to you because of your a priori worldview.

helinues:
I mean Lions, Tigers, Hyena, Crocodiles e.t.c all stay together in the ark without any confrontation.

How did Noah communicate with animals in Arab land to come and board his ark?

If all other race was destroyed because of the flood, how come we are still having different race?

How do people keep dogs, lions, crocodiles, reptiles in their houses now? Some even get close to them, touch them , domesticate them, tame them in zoos altogether? How is that possible now but becomes a puzzle when it comes to the Bible?

Noah could communicate with everyone in the then known world in 100-120 years. What can you not do in 100-120 years? That’s a long time enough to achieve any form of communication.

You could ask your grandparents how possible it was to have started your village as a small settlement that spread up to the size you have now.
Noah’s family procreated and continued the civilization process. Have you read the Bible yourself ?

CandyOps:
Researchers have confirmed that It's geographically impossible for the earth to be flooded all over at the same time.

The funny thing with the way religious people think or argue is that.. people have already had all these arguments b4 onna global platform and the answers or conclusions to these talks are published and available online. There's no need going over them again.

It's like arguing with someone that the earth is flat in 2021.

Anyone who is religious at this age with the level of information on the internet is either not ready to explore the truth or just loves being mass-controlled

Which online or internet platform was this resolution concluded? Same internet in our hands?

You meant to say “they think or suggest “ that it was impossible? Or as some say “they cannot empirically verify “?

No one said it’s not possible. Scientists and archeologists are still searching out the account and will one day come to terms with the Bible account.

No scientist has confirmed the account was not possible. They have all offered suggestions why and why not. That’s different from definite empirical data.

The Noah’s account happened as written in the Bible. All Bible accounts are true and trustworthy.

budaatum:

Perhaps a definition of science might help you. I propose it means "ask, knock, seek with all your senses".

Now, drop a cup and tell me you do not observe the law that states, 'if you drop something it will fall to the ground'.


They obviously did not perform the exact same experiment, though I better wait for you to get your facts straight regarding who this father and son are.


Empirical means, 'based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic'.

Yes. Prior knowledge might have been flawed. The equipment to observe might have been limited. The test itself might have been flawed, as could be the understanding of that which is observed, etc.

One can not expect human observation or experience to be constant, which is why Genesis 1 is superseded flawed 'science', and why scientists are constantly asking and knocking and seeking, as in, doing science, instead of believing as you claim.



It is indeed safe to say some scientists 'believed' Newtonian theories were valid before Einsteins, but anyone who experienced what you call a belief in Newton would be silly to now believe Einstein since Einstein too might be proven to be not so valid as first thought. Or don't you expect scientists to learn from what they observe in the past?

Einstein was a scientist, and he obviously did not believe Newton, which is why he sought and knocked and asked. Once you believe, you'd assume you know, and would therefore not continue to ask and knock and seek.

“Sometimes, when people say "science requires faith", what they are trying to get at is the idea that scientists have to rely on assumptions that they can't prove. For instance, scientists have to assume that induction works (e.g. that you can generalize about the future laws of the universe by looking at the past laws). If tomorrow the laws of physics were suddenly different than they ever were before, science would be in pretty deep water. The thing is though that all methods for drawing conclusions about the world rely on some hidden assumptions, so saying this is true for science isn't saying much. In fact, the deep rooted assumptions that science relies on are pretty modest.”

Sometimes faith is used as an alternative to reason, a way to designate (and sometimes denigrate) beliefs that are aren't based on arguments or evidence, or that aren't assessed critically. On this view, science and faith almost certainly conflict; science is all about arguments, evidence and critical assessment.

At the other extreme, faith can simply mean something like a guiding assumption or presupposition, and on this view, science does require faith. Science as an enterprise is based on the premise that we can generalize from our experience, or as "The Mathematician" put it, that induction works.

Somewhere in between these extremes are the more interesting possibilities.“

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/09/23/225239775/does-science-require-faith

budaatum:

Perhaps a definition of science might help you. I propose it means "ask, knock, seek with all your senses".

Now, drop a cup and tell me you do not observe the law that states, 'if you drop something it will fall to the ground'.


They obviously did not perform the exact same experiment, though I better wait for you to get your facts straight regarding who this father and son are.


Empirical means, 'based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic'.

Yes. Prior knowledge might have been flawed. The equipment to observe might have been limited. The test itself might have been flawed, as could be the understanding of that which is observed, etc.

One can not expect human observation or experience to be constant, which is why Genesis 1 is superseded flawed 'science', and why scientists are constantly asking and knocking and seeking, as in, doing science, instead of believing as you claim.



It is indeed safe to say some scientists 'believed' Newtonian theories were valid before Einsteins, but anyone who experienced what you call a belief in Newton would be silly to now believe Einstein since Einstein too might be proven to be not so valid as first thought. Or don't you expect scientists to learn from what they observe in the past?

Einstein was a scientist, and he obviously did not believe Newton, which is why he sought and knocked and asked. Once you believe, you'd assume you know, and would therefore not continue to ask and knock and seek.

Ask, seek and knock is what every human basically does. That’s what people do in religion.
That’s what people do in philosophy.
So this method of science is really no different from our religious style.
Can you then conclude that science and religion use same investigative tools of ask, seek and knock?

budaatum:

Perhaps a definition of science might help you. I propose it means "ask, knock, seek with all your senses".

Now, drop a cup and tell me you do not observe the law that states, 'if you drop something it will fall to the ground'.


They obviously did not perform the exact same experiment, though I better wait for you to get your facts straight regarding who this father and son are.


Empirical means, 'based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic'.

Yes. Prior knowledge might have been flawed. The equipment to observe might have been limited. The test itself might have been flawed, as could be the understanding of that which is observed, etc.

One can not expect human observation or experience to be constant, which is why Genesis 1 is superseded flawed 'science', and why scientists are constantly asking and knocking and seeking, as in, doing science, instead of believing as you claim.



It is indeed safe to say some scientists 'believed' Newtonian theories were valid before Einsteins, but anyone who experienced what you call a belief in Newton would be silly to now believe Einstein since Einstein too might be proven to be not so valid as first thought. Or don't you expect scientists to learn from what they observe in the past?

Einstein was a scientist, and he obviously did not believe Newton, which is why he sought and knocked and asked. Once you believe, you'd assume you know, and would therefore not continue to ask and knock and seek.

Are you saying now that scientific laws are just proven by watching a cup drop and fall?
Are all the laws proven in a simple way as that?
Isn’t it the same way philosophical and religious experiences are observed? So we could lump all together and say they are verified same way.
I doubt that is all there is to empirical proofs for science.
That again is not a scientific proof for scientific law.

Heinsberg, Niels Bohr, Aage Borh, Einstein all got Nobel Prizes in physics for conflicting works on matter and the atom. There were a lot of debates on whether matter come in discrete packets or in continuous forms.
Even same year Einstein and Bohr were awarded the prizes, they had heated debates on who was right yet the panel awarded both.
Many of the scientists BELIEVED one of their favorites was right. Even today, scientists BELIEVE in works of their contemporaries or their revered colleagues.

Can we strictly say science considerations at such levels and panels were strictly empirical without any other a priori or philosophical considerations? No we cannot. If they were, the panels would have come up with just a single decision.

LordReed:


I have made no claim for you to demand such proof from me, on the other hand you have made a claim and all requests for you to provide your evidence has only led to a song and dance.

Your only recourse now is to start making up stuff about me and believing it. LMAO!

You are just funny.
So I tell you there are no scientific proofs for any of our scientific laws and you are just talking. I don’t need 5 scientists to show that.
Rather ALL the scientists in the world know that. ALL!

None has the proofs. ALL work on assumptions that the laws are valid.

You can keep up with the rhetorics but they really mean nothing. Go meet your scientists and ask them whether they have scientific proofs for their laws.

LordReed:


I didn't say there was scientific proof, when I do ask me to provide the proof.

You made a claim, back it up. I think that is a simple enough request.

I asked you to quote where these scientists are saying these things or you are just putting words in their mouths.

This is the thing with folks like you, you'll ask me a question, I would respond with little hesitation but when it comes to you, you will need to do a whole song and dance show before you respond.

That’s okay.
I will cut you some slack.
There are no scientific proofs for scientific laws.
I didn’t put words into any scientist. If you were a scientist I don’t think I have put any words into your mouth. If I say the sum of angles in a triangle isn’t 180^, you could show me how it is not. You don’t keep singing “show me 5 scientist a who said so”. You just say it is not so based on this proof.

Why are we playing around words on whether the proofs exist or not?
Science has done great things for us all. I appreciate science . I am pro-science.
But I don’t shy away from saying the limitations of science unless you don’t think science has limitations.

You just feel so bad that our darling science is no all empirical data as most of you assume . So it pains you that there are underlying assumptions and belief systems within science that are not empirically tested.

Maybe your a priori position is scientism and strict verificationism. Such have limits and deficiencies.

budaatum:

I don't need to convince you, Nothing, I just need to correct your misconceptions so you don't mislead others.

Scientists do not believe "all the laws of nature will remain same". Experience will show them that 'laws' are tentative and ever changing due to further discovery. An example is the laws of Newton being superseded by Einstein. Its why scientists can't believe. They know further evidence may prove their belief to be false.


I don't think you believe this, but maybe your cup floats when you drop it. Do let me know once you've scientifically checked.


If they perform the exact same experiment and come up with various outcomes, they can't claim a law.

Basically, if you and I perform the experiment of drop cup, and mine drops while your's floats, we will conduct further science to see why instead of us forming a law.


This last statement is just to show why you are antiscience.

Do know that not all scientists agree with each other. That's why they need experiments to be repeatable. Basically, if you drop a cup and it floats, and I drop a cup under the same conditions and it too floats, only then can we come up with a floating cup law, worldview and philosophy, and even then there'll be your sort constantly resisting and trying to disprove our floating cups philosophy wrong and false.

There's immense work still going on attempting to prove Einstein wrong.

Anti-science? Lol

That’s a new one. I have neither defended nor attacked science here. I am simply stating the obvious facts. No scientific text will say belief but the bedrock is belief/assumptions that the laws of nature will be same for scientific laws to hold.

I don’t think you have any scientific proof for scientific laws. There are none. You don’t have to argue it if there are any. You could point that out to us.

I remember a father and a son were given separate awards( not sure if it were Nobel prizes in physics ) for their conflicting works on matter being continuous or discrete. Yes both got them even with the conflicts. Once I get the names I will drop them. Why didn’t they get same results from same experiments?

Do you mean to say something empirically tested and proven could turn out to be wrong tomorrow? Why would that be possible? Do you mean to say most scientific researches done were products of guess work and not certainty?
So is it safe to say that scientists BELIEVED certain Newtonian theories were valid before but now BELIEVE Einstein’s are better? Shouldn’t empirical data be constant?

LordReed:


I don't know any such thing. You made a claim, prove the evidence.

I do not believe what you are saying. All you need to do to prove the correctness of your assertions is provide 5 scientists saying there is no scientific proof for scientific laws.

In secondary school I remember how they try deriving quadratic equations from 1st principles and it was easily done and shown.
I also remember us trying to prove some theorems in geometry with a QED at the end when one was done.

Even in calculus, derivatives were always done from 1st principles.

I can imagine anyone telling me that the sum of angels in a semi-circle isn’t equal to 180 degrees. I would gladly pick up a basic geometry text and show how that’s a fatal error.

Here I threw a scientific challenge to you and expect you to talk to refute my claims in empirical language. Is there any scientific proof for scientific laws? Just pick up one and show there is.

If you don’t have the proof, I put it to you that all scientific laws are BELIEVED AND ASSUMED to be scientifically true and valid. They are not proven to be so.

Mind you: I am not in any way attacking science or belittling its advances. I am simply telling you about assumptions/beliefs/presuppositions made that are not entirely empirical but are still valid.

You don’t need to interview many scientists to tell you about philosophical decisions they make at the highest level of scholarship on choice from many scientific outcomes.

budaatum:


"Presuppositions", are not "faith and belief".

You don't have "presuppositions about God, and you obviously do not have "faith and belief" in science.

Please do correct me if I am wrong about you.

You are playing around syntax but left the substance about the belief of scientists that all the laws of nature will remain same for scientific observations and principles to keep working. You haven’t convinced me otherwise.

It may also interest you to know there are really no scientific proofs for scientific laws. Those are also based on assumptions that they are all true and valid.

You may object to that if you wish to. Unless you present empirical objections, my claim remains valid.

Additionally scientists conduct experiments and come up with various outcomes.
They further make philosophical decisions on what to discard and what to uphold based on prior expectation from financiers, the scientists worldview and the scientists’ convictions.

LordReed:


You made the claim, provide the evidence. When I make a claim ask me for evidence.

Lol!

You know there are no scientific proof for scientific laws. That’s a fact you can take to the bank.

I am not asking you to prove it. There is none.

Any day you have it, you may present them to us. For now we all continue to ASSUME AND BELIEVE the scientific laws are all valid for all our scientific observations.

LordReed:


Quote 5 scientists that say that empirical data is based on presuppositions.



You know need to show where scientists have stated this presupposition.



Once again, quote 5 scientists who say this.



I would also need 5 examples of this.



Your examples will go along way to prove the validity of your claims. Otherwise we shall discard them as your exhortation to us to believe what you say.

You could start by showing me any scientific law that has been scientifically proven.