Yes true. religious evidence is evidence that people are gullible and generally stupid. — charleton

If you throw dice 100 times and get a six 99 times, that's evidence the dice are rigged, and those 99 times are evidence for that. The one throw that isn't a six is still evidence that the dice are not rigged. Maybe that isn't good evidence or there's more evidence for the opposite claim, but it's still false to say the claim has no evidence.

It's called knowledge and requires no belief. — charleton

Although those are heavily supported by evidence, they don't have proof, only evidence, and are therefore beliefs.

It's called induction. And despite its failings, as taken humans from primitive animals to technological experts, masters of the world. — charleton

Induction requires existing perceptions to induct from. All the humans you know have the power to dream up anything to have it, therefor I have as well?

I have the entire history of civilisation on my side as evidence. — charleton

Ah yes, the ancient Egyptian writings of BlueBanana conjuring things by the power of his will. Am I time traveler or immortal?

You can quickly see that religious "evidence" is not actual evidence, because religious stuff contradicts scientific stuff. — uncool

Doesn't mean it isn't evidence.

There's a limited amount of beliefs with no evidence, and a practically infinite amount of beliefs supported by evidence. For example, the existence of one's physical body, the existence of other people, the existence of any reality outside one's self, all the scientific theories, etc. just to mention some of the most common ones.

But more ridiculous in that your use of this claim is offered in some sort of mystcal claim that because a person is conscious they can exist outside the realms of cause and effect. — charleton

It's not anymore nonsensical than claiming consciousness is bound by those rules with no evidence. There's 0 evidence of either claim.

I bet you believe in the myth of positive thinking, where you just have to dream up something in order to have it.
Well DUH.
If you want something you have to DO SOMETHING to cause a thing to happen. — charleton

What is any of this based on? If you want to keep your comments brief, so be it, but don't fill them with ad hominems or unrelated and unbased claims.

2) The causal theory of reference implies that signification of future events is the signification of past events in disguise.

3) Therefore if S is true, its meaning is fully determined by past events and refers only to past events. — sime

Does not follow. The function is only determined by the past, but its value (=what it refers to) is the future.

But those patterns could be generalized to include, what would happen in the hypothetical case it was possible and happened?

But you can, based on those patterns, make expectations and generalizations?

Well something that allows people to mostly ignore evidence (namely belief), is actually counter to how humanity has progressed. — uncool

That's a great argument for the claim that the beliefs that ignore evidence are harmful, but there's a ton of beliefs that do not ignore it. I might even go as far as to say most of the beliefs are based on evidence and are the most logical and likely conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence.

So you have no opinion at all on what would happen in the case an observer was able to travel backwards in time?

Knowledge is contingent on evidence; in this case inductive evidence. — charleton

You only have that evience about non-conscious objects. You can't apply those conclusions to include people.

I'm sorry to have to inform you but it does imply that.
Every day to go and expect your car to start you are relying on determinism. And if he fails to start then you rely on determinism to find a solution, such as you forgot to put petrol in it; or you need to change a spark plug. — charleton

Indeterminism does not imply that causality never exists or isn't appliable to some things or situations.

You're arguing against rejection of causality in that comment. For example a view that events have causes that determine the probabilities of their outcomes can to an extent be interpreted to be causalitistic.

Furthermore, that comment, even if it was valid, would not answer my comment. An identical course of people's actions in an individual situation does not imply they share a view that leads to those actions. But even if that did, it would not be support of any sort for your absurd claim that indeterminism would lead to the Sun transforming into a melon.

So a thought experiment is not an argument anymore because it's impossible?

How about this: if you went back in time without affecting anything in that time, there's no reason to assume something would happen differently.

What are your arguments for not believing in determinisn again? That you dislike its implications?

Nope. I do not have to hold a belief for determinism to be true. I just have to wake up every morning and note that the sun has not turned into a melon — charleton

That's a strawman, indeterminism in no way implies those kinds of events happening.

You believe magic, I get it. — charleton

Apparently you don't get it because I do not believe in magic.

The claim that psychological (/cultural/social) gender exists independently of the biological sex.

One may wish one was a woman (when one is a man) or wish one was a man (when one is a woman); one may play the social role of the opposite sex; one may identify with people who are of the opposite sex; one can pretend that one is actually a member of the sex opposite that which one was born into. — Bitter Crank

A social role of a sex is an oxymoron. As I said before, biological sexes don't contradict the gender theory.

Determinism is a fact of the universe it does not have an opinion. It's true whether you believe it or not. — charleton

So you believe.

There's no such thing as magic. — charleton

You're the one who mentioned it, so that doesn't answer my point.

biology trumps gender theory — Bitter Crank

To me the relationship between the gender theory and biological sexes resembles a lot that between religion and science: ignorant people think they contradict each other. They don't.

GR is fatalistic. — tom

How so? Afaik it's just deterministic.

If it were not for determinism there would be no science at all, only magic. — charleton

1) Magic could be deterministic.
2) Scientific method requires neither determinism nor causality, they are results of it.

No. All choices are determined too. There is no way the brain is outside reality. — charleton

According to determinism.

What exactly in this article gives you hope for Determinism? — Rich

Why do you assume it does? It was merely meant to be an example of what might be true.

Allow me to repeat: I have not claimed that QM is deterministic or indeterministic. Can you understand that? — tom

Nothing he said implies otherwise, however you have claimed that the universe is not both determinisric and causal.

Take that simple example and apply it to everything. — RepThatMerch22

How about I just don't?

How different are we from ants, really? — RepThatMerch22

We aren't.

How different are ants from dice? — RepThatMerch22

Uh, a lot. One is a living being with a free will, one is an object with neither a consciousness nor an ability of any sorts to cause anything or react to anything.

Depending on the mass density, it could force omega > 1 and would therefore make the universe a closed system like a sphere or reduce omega < 1 and therefore the curvature would open and this is problematic viz., euclidean geometry. Flatness problem is when the geometry is a 1 exactly and perfectly between the two. — TimeLine

I'm taking Apokrisis' side, this isn't relevant to the comment you replied to, and not least because it doesn't contain a thesis of any sort.

No, that could be prioritizing the well-being of others before yours.

To be fair, we don't have any arguments for the view to disprove. Nothing can be disproven if they take their claim as a premise that just contradicts the premises of your own.

As for the actual counter arguments, you could try something along the lines of the following:
-There's no absolute personality, it always depends on the current context
-Even if the previous is false, there's no evidence what's described is the base personality
-The thought experiment of two different persons that act the same way under stress or drugs, but in some other situation act differently. Personality means how a person reacts to situations so they have different personalities, so their true personalities can't be deduced from individual situations.

What are your arguments against calvinism?

is there some correlation between high intelligence and productivity? — Posty McPostface

You need intelligence to make discoveries or inventions or to create something new. Most people would be as productive if they were as intelligent.

The thoughts are representations of something. The imagined thought of the greatest being represents the greatest being but it isn't the greatest being. We imagine the God existing outside of that thought in that thought, and whether that corresponds with the reality is irrelevant because we're imagining the God, not the thought of the God.

I was referring to you drinking Banno's beer.

Ha, I bet it was you that ate my popcorn as well!

If I PM my needed information, will you post me popcorn?

Belief is defined to be without proof. Your twist of belief being with or without evidence is in itself valid.

However, the question of whether science is a belief has risen in this discussion. To answer that, we must use the correct definition. Your "definition" is not a definition, only a partial description.

Science* isn't proven. It has scientific evidence and evidence. It has no proof.

*with the aforementioned exclusion

The very same dictionary definitions you've posted contradict the ones you're using.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/disagreement

Otherwise, the last several pages of nonsense only qualifies the thread' closure. — TimeLine

An expression of disagreement in such a state of considering the aforementioned to be blasphemy that no verbs are to be inserted in this sentence.

Also answer the question: do you accept the difference between the terms proof and evidence?