If you didn't laugh at that, you're dead inside...

(May 9, 2025 at 1:07 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: That's unfortunate. There's a reason why falsification is the gold standard in science and not confirmation. Take a wild guess which is used synonymously with evidence.

Existing. Evidence for god does not.

The Bible: Word of mouth that doesn't even rise to the level of hearsay.
Miracles: Ended when the Age of Historians began.
Relics: How many Jesuses do you want to assemble from those?
The Church: Which one?

I wanted a picture of an ostrich with its head up its ass but AI has failed me. None of the resulting splinches were viable.

(May 9, 2025 at 2:47 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: I wanted a picture of an ostrich with its head up its ass but AI has failed me. None of the resulting splinches were viable.

I get that most of you here don't have a science background. Here's a brief explanation, what people call evidence is structurally identical to affirming the consequent.

Take the following argument or hypothesis: "If it rained, the grass would be wet."

Now, if you go make an observation and the grass is wet, and you take this to be evidence that it rained, then congratulations you just got yourself kicked out of science.

Johnny keeps digging 

(May 9, 2025 at 12:37 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 12:29 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: We've now reached a point where John is trying to convince people evidence is a bad thing.

It's certainly bad science practice. 

science
noun
1.the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

More comedy gold...

(May 9, 2025 at 3:20 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I get that most of you here don't have a science background. Here's a brief explanation, what people call evidence is structurally identical to affirming the consequent.

Take the following argument or hypothesis: "If it rained, the grass would be wet."

Now, if you go make an observation and the grass is wet, and you take this to be evidence that it rained, then congratulations you just got yourself kicked out of science.

You sure are a ballsy bitch.  You don't know who here has a science background and who does not.  We won't get into just how many things fall under the label of science.

(May 9, 2025 at 3:20 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I'll briefly explain. What people call evidence is structurally identical to affirming the consequent.

Ohhh, johnny johnny johnny, you just used AI, comedy gold...

https://www.google.com/search?q=evidence...e&ie=UTF-8



Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy, it has nothing to do with following the objective evidence, it has to do with misinterpreting it with subjective bias. For example, someone prays for X, X happens, they then claim the prayer cause X, that one is called a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. 

Evidence
noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.