budaatum: Now read the conversation below. It is what started this merry-go-round. Can you point out how my reaction differs to yours?
Now go back and see what I got, and which you seem to be supporting.
it is not about who he seems to be supporting, it is what should be the truth.... who knows he might even have a different view... i realized the atheist folks stay away from the discussion... sure, they will. who argue self evidence, who argue personal experience, only the great scientist budaa does. you will soon enter the Guinness book of record as the only scientist to ever prove axioms.... that is a great feet
There is no Topic I will not see on Nl besides op am not a long page reader if not I could have red all this you said. Op are you twin.if you are well Done on your post
budaatum: And do not ever forget that axiom please, that buda proves her axioms!
I have no choice. Or you will argue about my axioms, which are self evident, but which you force me to prove because they do not appear to be evident to yourself.
lol you guys are just making my day..... do not worry, it will enter Guinness book of record as the first scientist to ever prove his own axioms.....budaa the great scientist
superior1: Another theory or possibility is that Seun might not be a robot nor program but an extraterrestrial alien who finds its way to earth hiding among humans. UFOs and existence of ETA is no longer an ignoble fact among a lot of people.
lol.....awesome gymnastic..... since they are many infallible theory that rested on nothingness proposing alien exist, multiverse exist and all sort of pseudoscience concept... i also share the same pseudoscience idea that alien may find its way to earth to live like human being.... lol laugh wan kill me for here ... but let see how the defender will apply the mental gymnastic here ....
budaatum: Yet, let us not plug Sophia into an electric charge and see how much human like things she does then!
As to replacing you, might be a good idea.
let me spell what you wrote in humanly terms, let us not give you food as it is required for human being and see how much robot like things you can do .
As to replacing you , it might be a better idea.... our food will be protected
budaatum: Precisely! We would have to agree on our axioms! The assumed axioms in the analogy is that he knows vaxx and understands the meaning of "is" and "coming"! Basically, for the sake of the analogy, I have faith (considerable trust), that sc knows the axioms that define vaxx, and the meaning of "is" and "coming". Such that if I say "sc, look at vaxx coming", we agree that it is indeed vaxx who is coming based on the agreed axioms (whatever they may be) that constitute who vaxx is, and those that constitute "is", and those that constitute "coming".
If I can't have faith (considerable trust), that sc knows vaxx, or understands the definition of "is" and "coming", and that he is an honest individual (he isn't, but for the sake of the analogy, lets assume he is), I would have to start off by making sure sc has eyes and that he knows how to use them, and then telling sc who vaxx is, then defining "is" and "coming", and ascertaining that we are in agreement. That would be me defining my axioms, by making them evident to sc. Basically, I will have to prove the validity of my axioms to sc!
It is those axioms you are here quibbling about. And it is your quibbling that creates a need for me to have to define (or prove) them!
You yourself have indeed prove axioms to be assumptions,it is the assumptions we both agree upon and not because it is real or not. we both agree not to question the agreement so that we can base our proposed theory on it. so it is the theory that we are proposing that need to be verified if indeed it agree with our unprovable agreement.
so for us to both objectively verify that this is indeed vaxx, our perception(theory) must be tested if indeed it agree with our unprovable axioms... if it meet with the model , then we both agree we are saying the same thing but if it goes otherwise, then another research needs to be done so that our unprovable axioms can support our proveable theory that this is indeed vaxx.....
NO scientist prove or disprove axioms, it is only you budaa...
Look at another purposefully silly person who likes to argue against obvious facts.
He believes a robot built Nairaland and the Seun Osewa that spoke at interviews is robot. Lol.
you should know this guy is playing a mental gymnastic with you, just like you guys do when the GOD evidence is brought forward. he actually knows se..un exist as an individual. he is indirectly also educating you on the capacity of artificial intelligence(robot) that she can indeed replace most of the things done by human, which is develop, monitor and administer a website all by herself. to me i think the guy flawed your logic. let me also add this to it ... when works are complete on the artificial intelligence, she will also be capable of producing a copy of herself.... no need for human intervention....
budaatum: My analogy is not assuming two drunk people! Come on, work within the parameters of my axiom!
We both know vaxx. We both know what he looks like. He is expected perhaps etc. For the sake of analogy!
good point , you will actually answer this question yourself, you both know vaxx on what factor? at least for two able mind to say we both agree on this we should factor some common agreement and not just base on beer parlor settlement. is it because of vaxx look or his writing style? or what?
An interview video of Sophia, a robot, a valid citizen and passport carrier of Saudi Arabia. She is not human. Perhaps you can follow your own earlier advice and Google the capabilities of AIs
This is the reason elon musk is scared of ALS.....they will soon replace human capital which will in turn increase unemployment. this made me ask a particular question, are we indeed progressing? she was granted citizenship of Saudi Arabia last year
budaatum: Please stop with this stupid! You may as well claim we don't agree on the meaning of the words "coming towards", and my "coming towards" is sc's "going away from"!
The analogy assumes we both agree on who vaxx is and what he looks like! And the meaning of "coming towards" is coming towards (just in case you.......)
good . you both assume whom vaxx is base on what constraint?sometimes i do not know why you people do not see your flaws until someone point it out. what make you both assume? on what precept do you both assume on?
budaatum: That said. And if you agree with sc. You might understand why you might need to provide some evidence for the validity of axioms. Some people might not want to take your word for it!
i have given enough explanations on axioms, i still do not know why you can get it. you are just a person i cannot just ignore, but on this particular subject. i am done
budaatum: Oh, trust me, it takes more than that. One is dealing with a people who opened one eye, looked at something and then squeezed their eyes shut and refuse to take another look. It is difficult to make them open their eyes to look again and see that what they thought they saw is not what is actually there. To make it harder, the above is what they think one does!
So, more grease. Their eyes will open eventually. They have no choice! Then one drink. Nay, two, considering the effort we will have put in. I promise.
ScienceWatch: BudaAtum, I agree with your beautiful example because Sciencewatch will never believe what someone tells him. He always exhaust himself digging for evidence.
Yes BudaAtum, I will have to say prove it, if you say that VAXX is coming toward you. You say that you will simply point to VAXX. No Sir, that will not be enough for me because I have learned so much from Atheists here.
You have asserted elsewhere that self observable evidence is not objective, it is merely subjective. Which means that even if I agree with you, Atheists will forever doubt what we saw, we both could be hallucinating.
Therefore it is odd that I say to you Sir, "that is not proof."
The analogy is using is faulty for two reasons......1 first do you both have the same objective personality of whom vaxx is.....maybe you are both seeing vaxz for the first time....how will you judge that this is indeed vaxx...
2.... Let's assume you both know vaxx but it happens to see vaxx coming before you and he pointed that this is vaxx coming. How sure is he that you will not have your own subjective evidence of whom vaxx should be? Which might not even be the same with him.....both of you can only agree for the sake of mental convinency that vaxx should be this and that.....
The self evident claim here is that the black man is black.
Try again
l am lost .....you brought up a sily analogy, I try as much to sanitized the silliness from it .....by telling you court will verify if the crime is actually done by Asians as the black man claim.....the bone of your sily analogy is who committed the crime......how should the court rely on self evidence theory.....is it not sily to you.......please .......it is too early......am done.. For now ....in an hours time , you can quote me again....
So if a black man in court says that he is innocent of a crime because all the witnesses said the crime was done by an Asian man, does he need to prove the self evident claim that he is black?
The answer you are looking for rest on your question..... Court we seek to verified from the withnesses if it is false or true.....at least there were witnesses who claim it is Asians only. And not the Blackman
.the evidence will be gotten from the witnesses and not the black man.......self evidence is not enough in the court of law
budaatum: The problem is your use of the word "faith", and your reluctance to see that axioms are accepted on very particular criteria, or else, the axioms, "science rests on faith", and "buda has two heads", and 1+2=2+1, are all as valid axioms as any other. Basically, any statement can be an axiom, which we both agree is invalid.
What I wondered when I asked you to explain was that the "faith" you meant was not the religious "faith in unseen things". You have attempted to separate your faiths, but not sufficiently enough for my personal liking. You might not mind the mistake being made, but I guess I need the error not to be made that the faith of your science is not the faith of the religious.
The religious want to treat their postulates as axioms, and the evidence they provide for the validity of their 'axioms' is the supposed 'self evident word of god'! A problem arises because not everyone accepts the premises by which the religious accepts the written word of god. Some people do not accept the postulates of the religious as axioms because they do not fit particular criteria.
You claim axioms are self evident, yet claim they cannot be proven. Now that's funny. If I see vaxx coming towards me, I'll say, "I see vaxx coming towards me". Assume now that sciencewatch says "prove it", I just point to vaxx coming towards me. It would be odd if sc says, "that's not proof", since it is self evident. The evidence for proving that "vaxx is coming towards me", is the self observable evidence that Vaxx is indeed, at that particular moment, coming towards me!
The same goes for 2+1=1+2. It is self evident that every 2, added to every one, is equal to every 1 added to every 2. And any attempt to produce a different result using the same criteria - the agreed understanding of what 1 and 2 represent - will evidently fail.
The phrase, "axioms are self evident", does not mean they cannot be proved, as you wish to believe it to mean. It simply means that the evidence to prove axioms is that they are evident; that no more proof than, "Can't you see?" suffices. Axioms are only accepted because they are seen to hold true. Anyone looking at them would see that they are as described. The proof of the pudding, as is said, is in its eating. And yes, it is acceptable and reasonable to have faith in the evidence of things one sees.
Before an axiom is accepted as an axiom, some evidence to its validity must have been presented as evidence. In fact, you will find that scientists go to some extreme rigour to prove or disprove axioms. They are called axioms because all attempts to falsify them fail, yet the most compelling validity for their holding is evident, you can see for yourself.
But like I said, the fact you claim I do not know what I'm talking about shows how much of it you hear. Enjoy Sunday.
self evidence is tantamount to unseen, persomal experience, subjective stand and it cannot be enough in the court of law.... Bro.......I need to go for my swimming class
budaatum: Yeah, I thought as much. Your definition of faith is simply the rewording of "believing in things unseen".
Those two statements are not similar vaxx. They are in fact saying the opposite of each other.
A self evident thing is not unseen! The fact that it is evident implies it has been seen. The seeing is the proof of the validity. They are believed to be true only because they have been seen to be true. And hence are taken to be true by faith in the fact that anyone would see they are true, within the parameters in which they are proposed.
happy sunday bro....sciencewatch give you a good reply....
ScienceWatch: BudaAtum, I agree with your beautiful example because Sciencewatch will never believe what someone tells him. He always exhaust himself digging for evidence.
Yes BudaAtum, I will have to say prove it, if you say that VAXX is coming toward you. You say that you will simply point to VAXX. No Sir, that will not be enough for me because I have learned so much from Atheists here.
You have asserted elsewhere that self observable evidence is not objective, it is merely subjective. Which means that even if I agree with you, Atheists will forever doubt what we saw, we both could be hallucinating.
Therefore it is odd that I say to you Sir, "that is not proof."
budaatum: Thank you. I believe I showed my objections to your main premises already, but instead of elaborating you chose to insult my intelligence!
What's funny is that you fling at one, words that may be applied to yourself. Except if I do apply them to you it can only be as a ruse to avoid seeing my very own error and thinking no evidence is required for my axiomatic statements, because, they are, self evident!
Anyone with an ounce of sense would just about turn around and claim "it is an axiom, that axioms must have been found to be valid for them to be axioms in the first place"! Or else buda could claim "buda has two heads", is an axiom", and since axioms need not be tested nor proven, it is indeed therefore, an axiomatic truth that, "buda has two heads", and by nature of axioms, it is a true and valid statement! Oh, and since we need not test axioms, lets not bother counting how many heads buda has, the axiom states, two, so buda has two heads!
Oh, come on, of course I am not being circularly ridiculous and obtuse!
But here's the funnier thing. Since axioms require no evidence or proof, as you believe, it is therefore acceptable for you to assert, as an axiom, that, "science evidence rests on faith", and not provide evidence for the validity of your statement. For since you believe axioms must be accepted as valid truths that can not be proved anyway, you do not therefore have to provide evidence, and I should accept it with by faith.
No, surely not obtuse and ridiculously circular!
Any atheist would see you using the god people logic of, "It is true because the Bible says so". But since atheists are, well, who listens to atheists, right!
I post here definitions of "hypothesis". Not so much for you, but for others whom it may concern. hypothesis [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] noun, plural hy·poth·e·ses [hahy-poth-uh-seez, hi-] /haɪˈpɒθ əˌsiz, hɪ-/. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[1]
I propose that your statement, "science evidence rests on faith", is not an axiom, by any sense. It is at best, "a hypothesis". At the least, that is what it appears to be to me, and I have treated it as one by asking you to provide evidence to support its validity.
Thanks for the conversation. I would have liked to ask you to dump the, "you, buda, an atheist, is a fool" innuendos, but I guess its par for the course with you, and at the moment you do not see yourself doing it. I'll pray though. I know, someday, your eye will open. (That is my hypothesis. It is not a valid theory until I test and prove it!)
i repeat Science is built upon on unprovable set of philosophical assumptions. and i gave example of axioms... you said it can be tested.... i am still awaiting your response on it..... if you do additional mathematics where you have to prove the answer, the proven answer will be supported by the theorem which base its self evidence on axioms, what i mean here is axioms is the benchmark of any provable answer, therefore it cannot be falsify..
The great faith that holds science together is the assumptions that there is objective external reality and every hidden aspect of nature can be unlock by human intelligence...
your further post still show you do not really understood what axioms is.... i will do my best to explain a little here...'' axioms are assumptions accepted and chosen by individual scientific workers is certainly a fact but only a superficial one. A more penetrating notion is that while scientific axioms are continuous with the assumptions of everyday thinking they are factors necessary in carrying on intellectual and scientific work. Whether known or unknown to the worker no intellectual work can be organized into a system of interpretation and explanation without the operation of axioms as basic assumptions. In a notable sense scientific work attains its meaning and significance largely in the measure of its deliberate inclusion of assumptions guiding the work''.http://web.utk.edu/~wverplan/kan...
Even Richard darkwins( most famous atheist) accept that axioms is an assumption that can never be proven or tested http://richarddawkins.net/articl... at this junction if you are not getting it, there is nothing i can do
Axioms are not statements we're claiming without proving them. They set out the rules of a game that we'd like to play. The rules of a game can't be "true" or "false"; that's a type error. They can be interesting or uninteresting. i think this where you have the problem... treating axioms as statement, it is just a rules that should be follow.... one of the axioms of playing snookers is do not play the black ball first, it is set standard for the game, you can not prove nor disprove why it should be so.
you keep on conflating the definition of faith to the teaching of the bible, only FSM knows why you are doing so ... i have given you the faith definition according to science, i expect you to work around it...
hope you are not conflating hypothesis with axioms....?
hypothesis is the first approach in scientific investigation, it is consider an intelligence guess that work around some set of created axioms model to develop its own theorem.... it is when this theorem agree with the axioms model that it can be called a theory. using the theory of relativity as an example.... i will implore you to read extensively. on it...... Am sure you should be able to see your own error here..... pens up
vaxx: ok i will....since we all have different perspective , science work with axioms which aid in experimental of data and logical deduction . these axioms can not be proved and without it science will be meaningless...
If you a lover of Scientific procedure and you do not understand how all scientific findings rest on a foundation of unprovable assumptions, the axioms, then there is a big gap in your basic understanding of how Science works. the starting point of science investigation is rested on assumptions.... there is a coined name for it . it is called hypothesis.
This assumptions is rested on two gigantic faith principle... it goes thus
1 Principle of intelligibility (that secrets of nature can be unlocked by human mind).
2 Principle of objectification. (that all of human experience can be objectified).
so whenever uncertain principle are discover , science suffer a major blow..... for example why is big bang not repeatable, why does it happen once. instead of continues time and so on
budaatum i am quoting this my comment again for people to see if i have not clarify my point that science rested on faith evidence... i await unbiased response ....
budaatum: All that you say above may well be true, however, I do not see any particular portion of it that goes towards showing that "Science evidence rested on faith".
Now, perhaps you think buda knows all. Well, let me inform you that buda does not know all. Buda learns. And all this irrelevant stuff you are throwing at me just confuses my tiny brain more when all I asked for is that you present whatever it is that makes you posit as a valid axiom that "Science evidence rested on faith", (to which you now make me think is even "unproven faith" like the just holding something to be a certain way without any corresponding evidence for it!). Yet here you are asking me to prove things to you first!
Call me whatever names you want. I'm a big girl and can handle it. But stop this your dancing around and just show me what I requested.
Place the title of the post with the evidence in bolded red so I don't miss it.
Do note that until I receive what I requested, this dance stops!
[/color]
lol big girl, i know you can handle it and that is why i am exposing the truth you are trying to cover by playing around it like Microsoft invented world game. Aka. Xbox . i must say say you are a good player. you wanner hide the truth under the carpet, but you are dealing with someone who will not allow it to happen.
it is two things, it is either you still have some null space to fill on your scientific methodology or you just do not want to accept i cannot be wrong..... i will rather tell you to sometimes adjust your thinking cap positively when responding to my comment because i will always be pulling out the negative thinking out of it... you can not defend your assumptions again ..... HOW IS AXIOMS TESTED? i never said you know, but show it when you do not know instead of playing mental gymnastic..
faith simply means unproven believe that is hold to be true, axioms means self evident that cannot be proven.... how are they are not similar? both of them are base on thought process....
you will get serious problem if you are applying religious definition to it.... i forward you the scientific definition already...
budaatum: Google for "Axiom testing". Read some of the stuff that comes up. You may cherry pick. That's my evidence that axioms are tested.
Letters are real. If I combine some of them together in the following order:
"Vaxx unfairly accuses me of dishonesty, and I am hurt."
Your response, also presented in letters combined in a certain order, will show that I have used them to represent a thought and that you understand what I mean. Hence, I would not be wrong to claim the letters which convey a thought that I had have been relayed to you, which by effect, must exist, since I have made use of them and you too are aware of them and use them to respond!
If I add a, any number - for that is what the letters infer - to another number represented by b, the result will be the same as if I took the number represented by b and added it to the one represented by a. Essentially, 1 + 2 = 2 + 1. Hence self evident under the parameters that a and b represent discrete numbers (in this particular case).
Without axioms, science does not begin. An axiom has to be postulated, scientific rigour is then used to test its validity. If it holds true, we may use it as an axiomatic foundation for further axioms. If it fails to continue to be true, we discard it. We must therefore test all assertions to decide whether we keep them as axioms or throw them in the axiomatic dust bin.
Please stop making accusation as if you are asserting axioms that are true. I specifically asked you to post the bit from wiki that expressed what you meant. Axioms has many meanings in many different fields, so cherry pick please. Just let me know which meaning you have chosen.
You are just showing there is no element of truth in your assertions...... ( not an intended insult) it just an observation
Maybe you need to check how numbers and letter were first formed...., maybe you need to read versed on what is called axioms.....but if you know and you intentionally decide to display mental gymnastics on it......then this is very shocking to me.....
Maybe, I will suggest further reading .....read about axioms in mathematical philosophy , read about Euclid elements..... Pls do... How can you prove axioms mathematically, how will you prove it within the constraint of science..... This is a serious fallacy on your part....
Anyway you said axioms can be tested not me.....can you be kind enough to show me how? You should defend it..... even a quick search on axioms on google should tell you it cannot be proven, but it is more true than conjecture and even theorem..... how can you prove an element that serves as a basis for all proof, then it is no more axioms again...... abeg you need to read further? do you even proof tautology?1 + 2=2+1..... prove this to me? axioms is setting constraint for mathematician to follow, is the unproven evidence that buttress proof. i cannot explain better bro
budaatum: You said wiki was subjective. I then found, to my chagrin, that it did not mention that a prominent writer had committed suicide! The evidence you provided was verified by objective fact so I have no choice but to adjust my thinking regarding it and have done so.
Lol An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]
An axiom is not true, it is only taken to be true as a starting point. This is where falsifiability come in. The scientist works on the premise that a thing is so then tries to find ways to debunk the premise.
A bad scientist, on the other hand, assumes an axiom, or premise, is true, and refuses to check if it is true or not, and refuses to acknowledge or accept any evidence that contradicts the assumed premise.
The axioms are first developed, by thought, in the mind. The axioms are then tested to check if they hold true. If they do hold true, then then form the basis on which a scientist may base faith on.
I think that an axiom is so. I check whether said axiom is as I think it is. if I find axiom to be as I thought axiom was, I have faith that axiom is so. And if I find axiom not to be as I assumed axiom might be, I have faith that axiomis not so. Either ways, I should keep checking axiom to solidify my faith further, including asking why I assumed axiom was so in the first place.
Say, I want to build a bridge. I first observe where the bridge will go, check the span it would cover, the depth, width, consider the weights it will carry and how long my bridge will be in place. I then go do some mathematics (you may consider it abstract or not, if you want, but the fact that I took it from my observations mean its not exactly the bridge). My observations and mathematical formulas will inform the parameters by which my final built bridge might meet my expectations.
It is after all written, do not embark on a project without first considering the outcome. Besides, even God is said to have taken readings when it is written "His face hovered over the deep".
I read wiki. You convinced me on that one.
This shows you just cherry pick and you do not go through the whole article....... An "axiom", in classical terminology, referred to a self-evident assumption common to many branches of science. A good example would be the assertion that when an equal amount is taken from equals, an equal amount results." Wikipedia
You need to read the whole page before ressponding, it shows you like presenting half truth......but anyway I will do justice to it..... Axioms is not only taken to be true, Axioms and postulates are the basic assumptions underlying a given body of deductive knowledge. They are accepted without demonstration......Nothing can be deduced if nothing is assumed......Wikipedia
Therefore axioms itself is just an assumptions....
Again.....
Using the mathematical statement, an axioms is statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Whether it is meaningful (and, if so, what it means) for an axiom, or any mathematical statement, to be "true" is an open question. in the philosophy of mathematics itself."" Wikipedia
Therefore your analogy is wrong, this further prove you you do not actually read the wholev article..., you just cheery pick. .....we should not be doing mental gymnastics here.....we should be constructive and honest with the truth..
How is axioms tested? How can you proof numbers and letters are real.....or even this equation ., a + b = b + a) this are all substantive assertion....please this is fallacy on your part....give me one way how you can test axiom... Axioms simply means thought wordy or fit or that which commends itself as evident...... How do you wanner test it..... Waiting for you......
Axioms only set a constraint to work on, it is nether prove nor disproven.. And without it there is no science....
Am holding you on this very statement..... Axioms can be tested..... pls Google and send me any links of how axioms is tested.... I wanner see. read the wiki again pls....
Christianity Etc › Re: A Question Directed To The Atheist by vaxx: 8:32am On Feb 19, 2018
