DiscussMormonism.com

Buffalo wrote:

Milesius wrote:
To the contrary, as a statistician, I know well what evidence means. Formal logical arguments and probabilistic/statistical arguments that are valid and sound most certainly are evidence.

Apart from Mormonism, you have shown yourself to be a dilettante on every subject on which you've chosen to opine.

No, arguments do not count as evidence in any way, shape or form. Come back to me when you've got some valid evidence instead of philosophical naval gazing.

Yes, they do, your delusions of competency in this area (as in some others) notwithstanding. A logical argument (i.e., mathematical proof) for the existence of Brownian motion (i.e., a stochastic process with the appropriate properties) is evidence for its existence. This is akin to the modal ontological arguments.

The other arguments I mentioned take in account the nature of the physical universe and the last is inspired by likelihood ratio tests in statistics.

Buffalo wrote:

Milesius wrote:
That [i.e., "Deutero-Isaiah" wasn't written by Isaiah], of course, is disputed.

Not by any serious scholar.

That is false. Let's get one thing straight here, [Personal insult deleted by mod Scottie]: I am far better versed in Biblical scholarship than you and that will always be the case.

Previously hayseed (i.e., "Buffalo") wrote:

"Scientists inevitably abandon errors once they have been shown to be errors. The competition in the marketplace of scientific research guarantees that sooner or later, erroneous hypotheses WILL be rooted out by someone eventually. Scientists won't continue to hold on to them once disproven"

I responded with:

LOL

And he rejoined

"What a rebuttal."

There was no argument to rebut. Just a string of assertions from someone who is clueless about science and scientists. While your comments are most likely true of most practicing scientists, scientists are just as human as anyone else.

Milesius wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Not by any serious scholar.

That is false. Let's get one thing straight here, hayseed: I am far better versed in Biblical scholarship than you and that will always be the case.

Obvious you aren't if you think Deutero Isaiah was written by Isaiah. Or do you think Isaiah survived into the Babylonian captivity? :D

Milesius wrote:Previously hayseed (i.e., "Buffalo") wrote:

"Scientists inevitably abandon errors once they have been shown to be errors. The competition in the marketplace of scientific research guarantees that sooner or later, erroneous hypotheses WILL be rooted out by someone eventually. Scientists won't continue to hold on to them once disproven"

I responded with:

LOL

And he rejoined

"What a rebuttal."

There was no argument to rebut. Just a string of assertions from someone who is clueless about science and scientists. While your comments are most likely true of most practicing scientists, scientists are just as human as anyone else.

What you missed with all you posturing and ignorant bluster is the fact that the progress of science is not dependent upon the ego of any one scientist. Science is a competitive field, and weak theories will be torn down by the competition.

Milesius wrote:

Yes, they do, your delusions of competency in this area (as in some others) notwithstanding. A logical argument (i.e., mathematical proof) for the existence of Brownian motion (i.e., a stochastic process with the appropriate properties) is evidence for its existence. This is akin to the modal ontological arguments.

The other arguments I mentioned take in account the nature of the physical universe and the last is inspired by likelihood ratio tests in statistics.

An argument is not evidence. Arguments should be based on evidence. Unfortunately, yours are devoid of any. And unless you're prepared to show that god is a mathematical concept, bringing mathematical proofs into the discussion is a total red herring.

Come back to me when you find a strand of god's pubic hair.

Forgive my intrusion but I was thinking that someone (with the proper authority do so so, obviously) should seal Buffalo and Milesius for all eternity.

That would be delicious :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Buffalo wrote:

Milesius wrote:

Yes, they do, your delusions of competency in this area (as in some others) notwithstanding. A logical argument (i.e., mathematical proof) for the existence of Brownian motion (i.e., a stochastic process with the appropriate properties) is evidence for its existence. This is akin to the modal ontological arguments.

The other arguments I mentioned take in account the nature of the physical universe and the last is inspired by likelihood ratio tests in statistics.

An argument is not evidence. Arguments should be based on evidence. Unfortunately, yours are devoid of any. And unless you're prepared to show that god is a mathematical concept, bringing mathematical proofs into the discussion is a total red herring.

Come back to me when you find a strand of god's pubic hair.

Shades, we need to get images back!

Ceeboo wrote:Forgive my intrusion but I was thinking that someone (with the proper authority do so so, obviously) should seal Buffalo and Milesius for all eternity.

That would be delicious :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Milesius already has a pet name for me. I guess I need to think of one for him. Maybe Gomer?

From what I have learned, I would also say evidence is different than an argument. Arguments are supported by evidence.

But I realize there is much dispute in the broad theory of evidence.

I understand we have the following types of evidence:

Personal experience
Testimony
Scientific evidence
Anecdotal evidence

Hmmm, I just read that intuition can be considered evidence. That seems sort of odd but I know I have used that before to help with decision making.