Define the terms and explain why you are one but not the other.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
One word: evidence.
Would you describe yourself as a believer?
What would you rate your belief on the Descartes Scale?
What evidence do you have of a deity?
I will say this just to get it out of the way: Evidence is just a theory-dependant observation. I have stated this before on the forum. I take anyone that uses the word as seriously as I do conspiracy theorists, when they use the word. Observation is separate from interpretation; when you mix the two together you get "evidence."
To illustrate my point, look at the attached image. Can you find evidence that it is in fact a duck and not a rabbit?
If that was the case it would be impossible to collect evidence to see which of two theories does a better job. So as usual what you have to say on the matter is nonsense.
Why would it be impossible? That would depend on the theory. Here's another illustration to prove my point. Is this Red Dot evidence?
Because you said it is theory dependant. Let's take two theories of motion:
F=ma, and F=mv. In the real world: we collect evidence, which is simply data points to see which theory models reality better. The key feature is the data points are just positions and times, which are NOT theory dependant.
In your nonsense world: we can't do that because the collected data is dependant on one of the theories. That is what you just told us.
In my nonsense world, F=ma behaves as a law not a theory.
That is a common misconception. It is called Newton's second "law" because it is a theory that had been tested so well they started calling it a law. Theories don't stop being theories after they have been tested.
Laws have never been theories which are promoted to laws after examination. So I agree with you there; the two are separate.
It is fact called Newton's second law, not Newton's second theory.
" theories which are promoted to laws after examination. "
Nope, this simply isn't true.
In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory. ****It is a misconception that theories turn into laws**** with enough research.
"acts, theories and laws — as well as hypotheses — are separate parts of the scientific method. Though they may evolve, they aren't upgraded to something else."
""There are four major concepts in science: facts, hypotheses, laws, and theories," Coppinger told Live Science.
Though scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data, accepted by the majority of scientists within that area of scientific study and help to unify it, they are not the same thing.
"Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work,"
"An example of the difference between a theory and a law would be the case of Gregor Mendel. Mendel discovered that two different genetic traits would appear independently of each other in different offspring. "Yet Mendel knew nothing of DNA or chromosomes. It wasn't until a century later that scientists discovered DNA and chromosomes — the biochemical explanation of Mendel's laws. It was only then that scientists, such as T.H. Morgan working with fruit flies, explained the Law of Independent Assortment using the theory of chromosomal inheritance. Still today, this is the universally accepted explanation (theory) for Mendel's Law,"
"the Law of Gravity was discovered by Isaac Newton in the 17th century. This law mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. However, Newton's law doesn't explain what gravity is, or how it works. It wasn't until three centuries later, when Albert Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity, that scientists began to understand what gravity is, and how it works. "
That is a common misconception that is propogated by popularizers of science. All theories in physics (even the ones called laws) are axiomatic or depend on previous theories (which are themselves axiomatic). This old idea that theories (or laws) should describe why something happens is not a feature of modern physics, and hasn't been for about 400 years.
An interesting question is why would anyone think first principles would themselves have principles?
Right, and I already explained that is an anachronism. Sadly physics is full of misnomers and anachronisms which makes it hard for a neophyte to make progress.
Unless this gentlemen (Ian Bruce) mistranslated Newton's Principia Mathematica, I have to assume they have been proposed as laws since the beginning.
This appears to be the original work. I don't speak Latin, but given its similarities to Spanish. I have to assume Leges means Leyes, which in English means laws. Therefore the translation is accurate.
I would also like to point out that ignoring the law/theory distinction, your statement is still incorrect:
"In your nonsense world: we can't do that because the collected data is dependant on one of the theories."
You can collect data all day long. You just can't call it evidence except in the light of theory. Raw data is raw data until you try to prove something with it, then it becomes evidence.
First off, you can't prove anything with data.
Secondly, you told us it was theory dependant, which means data collected with respect to theory A, can't be used to test theory B; which is nonsense. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase it so you don't have that problem (like removing the word dependant); but I won't be holding my breath.
Finally, I already told you it was an anachronism. How in the world you think citing ancient documents to dispel the idea that something is an anachronism is just a layer of insanity on top of nonsense.
How does evidence being a theory-dependant observation, lead to the conclusion that data collected with respect to theory A, can't be used to test theory B? I agree that your second objection is nonsense.
I have no idea what you mean by anachronism. The dictionary tells me its something that doesn't belong in another time period, which I can't even imagine how it applies to this. Regardless, you said Newton's second law, is called a "law" because it is a theory that had been tested so well they started calling it a law.
Which is false, given that at no point was there a switch where people"started" calling it a law. Newton himself called it a law from its inception.
Newton also referred to it as a theory.
Newton also repeatedly called it natural philosophy; another anachronism you might as well attack it by saying it isn't physics since he didn't use that word.
You didn't bother to read it.
Newton is very meticulous with his references. He specifically mentions everything by name (First law, second law, first corollary, second corollary). At no point does he conflate these with theory: By the first two laws and from the first two corollaries Galileo found the fall of weights. .
He only says theories in reference to the ideas of the men he just mentioned (Wren, Huygens, Wallis, etc.). We know this because he later specifies: In the theory of Wren and Huygens absolutely hard bodies return with the speed of the encounter.
Not to mention that at the conclusion of his argument he states his laws are in agreement with theory: And with this agreed upon, the third law has agreed with theory as far as impacts and reflections are concerned...
Making the distinction clear. The two are not the same.
Actually, the axiom is also in there.
Axioms are things we accept without proof. Or a statements accepted/established to be true. In the case of F=ma, well, Newton basically defined Force to be mass times acceleration. A single unit of force is even called a Newton.
But we know it is neither: it is a [i]drawing[/i] of both a duck [i]and[/i] a rabbit.
1) I consider the omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omnipresent notion of god to be clearly false: not just on account of scripture, but from observation.
2) I "only" believe in the phenomenal (i.e. natural and observable) world. The supernatural is a meaningless construct, and thus I am certain that "god" does not exist in any meaningful way except as a facet of the universe, in which case, it would not be "god".
I appreciate your comment, though I'm afraid it doesn't answer the OP.
Ok,a more complete answer would be: an atheist at the most basic level lacks a belief in a/the god/s. An agnostic believes there is insufficient evidence to answer the question of whether or not god/s exist. It is actually possible to be an agnostic atheist for example.
Under those terms would it be possible to a gnostic atheist? An atheist that does believe there is sufficient evidence to answer the question.
Why or why not?
@John 6IX Breezy, Yes, it would be possible. I'd have no problem labelling myself as a gnostic atheist (although I prefer to consider myself a naturalist). I think the reasons I gave for me being an atheist in my first post in this thread represents this position.
I do prefer this method the most. Although I suppose my problem with an agnostic believing there is insufficient evidence to answer the question, is that it turns atheism/theism into a preference. What does it mean to be an agnostic atheist? You don't know the answer, you just don't happen to go to church?
A naturalist does seem like an interesting concept. If I ever dropped my theism, I would classify myself as a possibilian, not an atheist.
What does it mean to be an agnostic theist, you mean? I think a great part of the answer to that is related to the bizarre idea that any god cares whether you worship it or not, and that there is some merit in believing something contrary to the evidence.
My main issue with labelling myself an atheist is that it gives undue importance to "god" compared to other things that I also don't believe in. Obviously, the whole topic has indeed had a great effect on my life. I can't say I like the thought of theists getting great pleasure seeing me devoting a huge amount of time on something I think should have no consequence.
"My main issue with labelling myself an atheist is that it gives undue importance to "god" compared to other things that I also don't believe in."
bang on the money, I have tried to explain this before, that because theists attach so much importance to their belief, they wrongly attach the same importance to the lack of it, but atheists don't attach any more importance to their disbelief in the christian Islamic and jewish deities than they do in their disbelief of pixies or Zeus.
Well an agnostic theist is also a bit strange.
As someone who somewhat studies cognition, people don't normally form beliefs out of the blue. There's always some rationality behind it, some information that's being processed in order to create the belief. Everybody thinks their beliefs are right or likely to be right. Which means beliefs are knowledge based.
I do think that for any of this to make sense, the distinction between beliefs and knowledge has to be a difference in kind and not degree. In other words "I believe" should never become "I know" as confidence increases.
Correct, one is an epistemological claim the other a statement on belief. If something doesn't exist then you can't know anything about it's nature, if the claims made about it are unfalsifiable then epistemology demands you are agnostic, but you can still withhold belief, indeed it'd be bizarre to do otherwise.