It's not really a double-edged sword. It's not even a butterknife. The first part is accurate, and the second part is a bunch of negatives of stuff you'd have difficulty defining. That statement is common on this site, but doesn't stand up to even informal criticism.

No. Just ... no. In the context of the scientific method, "theory" has a different meaning than in informal discussion. You'll need to read about that and come back.

K. Except DNA isn't a program. You're going to have to read about DNA now, too.

Not random. The reading list should now include some abiogenesis, big bang theory, and evolutionary theory.

Who believes that human observation is required for matter to exist? That's a pretty silly assertion.

You mean "speculate" in this case, not "debate".

Wow. I, as rationalist, don't actually have to believe anything supernatural. I don't have faith. None. I can trust what someone is telling me, but to be honest, I'd usually check it out. They could be wrong. Theists, for the most part, have tradition that dictates what they believe. It is absolute truth, and there is no "checking it out" by comparing it to observable reality. Tell me if you see the difference.

Evolution is bliss? What?

I doubt very much that admission of my own ignorance would give me the ability to know everything. Do you mean "anything"? Like, once I know I'm ignorant, I have the possibility of learning? That, I can see. But you're going to have to admit your own ignorance on this one, and learn something about the topics you're discussing.

Forgive my ignorance, but-- what is PPM?

If it's merely a "possibility," then I'd question the thought that the laws of thermodynamics are in any danger. They appear to be a fundamental aspect of the universe. However, since it's always possible that they might be superseded by a new theory, as Newtonian mechanics has been replaced with quantum mechanics and relativity in certain edge cases, I like to keep an open mind.

I'm assuming by "theory," you mean, "science." Otherwise, that sentence doesn't make sense.

The only faith required in science is that we live in an objective, observable, consistent, cohesive universe. That's it. The fact that the practice of the scientific method has gotten us so far is empirical evidence that this is true.

Our perceptions are just fine. Quantum mechanics is pretty cool, and quantum gravity may account for the birth of our universe. However, our observation of the atom does not change the atom itself. It still remains an atom of carbon, or what-have-you, with all the objective chemical properties thereof. By observation, we've merely collapsed the probability state of the electron (if it is indeed the electron we are observing).

Observing the polarity of one quantum-coupled photon collapses the polarity of the other photon in the pair. This is part of reality. That's it. Those photons don't need observation to exist-- just to collapse their quantum states. Those states are arbitrary, within a probability distribution.

More cool things-- the universe might not need intelligent observation to collapse a quantum state. That state will collapse when the state is required. For instance, the polarity of a photon collapses if it passes through a polarized screen, whether we observe it or not.

So, no. The things we observe are not an illusion. The are objective. It's just that some bits are a little more exotic than we imaged a century ago.

Coins have three sides-- the two faces, and a circular rim. Arguing in favor of intelligent design over evolution is like the rim-- a circular argument that gets you nothing but dizzy, and an uneasy feeling that you've been there before.

Evolution is not random. Some of the inputs are random, but that does not make the process of evolution (as opposed to the theory) random. It is in fact defined by some of the most subtle information theory around.

And DNA is completely different from a computer program. There are self-evolving programs, and they tend to be much more efficient than their designed cousins at performing similar tasks. However, there's very little similarity between the evolved program, and DNA. They merely ended up in a specific state through evolution.

What makes you think we can't see reality? The fact that science is repeatable, and that different research leads to the same conclusions, is strong empirical evidence that a properly-functioning mind has no trouble observing the objective reality of the universe. If that weren't true, then science would've gained us nothing. We would never have made it to the moon, or built fission power plants, or cured polio.

And-- reality is strongly biased. That's why stepping off the roof of a very tall building is not a good idea without a parachute. That's why you have the internet to ask these questions.

Reality is biased to rationality.

It's too bad many humans are not.

Or it could be that death is natures way of saying, "Let somebody else have a turn."

Observation is not required for matter to exist. I know there are a couple of physicists who think it might be true, but there's no experimental way to prove it, so it isn't science. The current data supports an objective reality independent of human observation. The fact that observation collapses quantum waveforms is a far cry from thinking observation changes the existence of the atom. Rather, it appears to be the opposite, as the quantum state must fall within the probability distribution.

I think "not existing" falls well outside the probability distribution.

The other side of the coin? It seems like I've been here before...

It's been annoying me from the beginning. False analogy and all.

Determination fell by the wayside with quantum theory, arrows of time, and chaos theory. Rewind the universe and let it play again, and things will be totally different. As it is, we can't even predict the position of the planets in a few thousand years, because of quantum uncertainty. We know they'll be in their probability distribution, but that gets pretty big after a time.

We're not monkeys. We're apes. Big difference.

And, yes. When you die, your thoughts stop, and it's time for your friends to have one big fuck-off party to say good-bye. I have a musical playlist planned. I might even have some stuff for them to read. But probably, it'll just be a huge party.

Science not only accepts ignorance, it recognizes it. Most scientists are well aware of what we don't know, at least within their field. That's the whole point of science and research-- to cure our ignorance, and learn more about our universe. Sometimes we learn that what we had before wasn't quite right (classic mechanics vs. relativity, for instance), but each step draws us closer to understanding new and wonderful things.

Sometimes our ignorance grows. Sometimes a new discovery will point to entire fields of study we didn't even know existed. It's not like we know exactly the questions we must ask before we know everything; but we often know the next step.

And that's the problem with theism. Theists are often blind to their own ignorance. They have the answer, and the answer is God. If there is a mystery, then God did it. In fact, theists prefer mysteries, as that makes their God more powerful. The more mysteries, the more God has done.

There are no coins here. There is only the objective universe for us to discover and explore and study. If we recognize that God has nothing to do with the universe, then we understand that reality is objective, observable, consistent, and cohesive. That means we can know its secrets, its wonders.

A belief in God cannot give us that. A belief in God can only hinder that search, as suddenly our ignorance is masked by the Works of God.

There are no coins here. There is only gold, and fools gold.

Welcome to the "Please be educated in the matters that you are attempting to discuss" club.

1. As indicated by your assertions, you are clearly not familiar with even the most basic logical fallacies.

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

The argumentum ad ignoratium or the argument from ignorance, is surely the most oft-abused and most poorly understood fallacy in the whole of debate, which is most odd, considering it is extremely simple.

The fallacy is double edged:

X is true because it has not been proved false

X is false because it has not been proved true

And usually, it is followed by the substitution of another hypothesis, in which case it becomes:

Hypothesis X is false because it has not been proven true, therefore hypothesis Y is true

Which is an obvious fallacy of false dichotomy.

To wit:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

So, let us take a common example.

Can you disprove God?

This commits the positive version of the argumentum ad ignoratium. The fact that God cannot be disproved is irrelevant. Positive proof of X does not depend on X not having been falsified. Otherwise, any proposition could be defended on grounds that it has hitherto not been falsified!

There is a subtle difference between saying that an argument has not been falsified and that it cannot be falsified. The first is invalid as a method of proving X. The second, however, is absolutely critical to burden of proof and epistemic rights. If something cannot be falsified, then it cannot be tested, and then, there cannot ever be evidence of it. If something is unfalsifiable, it is untestable, and if something is untestable, then there is no epistemic rights for saying it exists (the only exception to this is axioms, since they can be defended by retortion). However, this, again, is not grounds for saying that X does not exist. Strong atheism cannot be defended via the unfalsifiability of God, only by the creation of a deductive argument against God (obviously)

The misuse of the argument from ignorance is indicated heavily when one argues regarding atheism. Most people do not understand that atheism is inherently dichotomous, meaning there are two schools of thought. The first is mutually compatible with agnosticism, hence called agnostic or weak atheism. The position:

-There is no evidence for God. This absence of evidence does not mean that God does not exists. However, it does mean that there is no reason to suppose God exists, and the default position should be non-belief.

This is different from the strong atheist position:

-God does not exist. I am quite certain of this. I can disprove God.

And many strong atheists have indeed formulated arguments against God.

2. You have no idea what a theory is, do you? I'll have it spelled out for you. Todangst put it in the most eloquent fashion:

A fact is something difficult to define completely, and is in many ways somewhat of an axiomatic concept. We presume that a fact is something discoverable by empirical observation, or logical inference - and that it corresponds to reality in that it is not contradicted by observation or logic.

In popular usage, a theory is something less than a fact. This is an ignorant view that confuses theorizing for hypothesing, or even merely guessing. A theory is actually a conceptual framework, designed to describe, explain predict and help control some phenomenon, based on a preponderance of facts. The theory supports itself with non-vague, operationizable predictions that are held to be accurate and in accordance with observed reality. Theories and facts are not antonyms - they are inter-related and interpedent. Facts are used to support theories, and theories explain existing facts and predict new ones. A great example would be Mendelev's theory of elements, better known as the "periodic table of elements." When Mendelev proposed his theory, it was considered ludicrous. However, without any knowledge of atomic structure, the theory predicted the existence of then undiscovered elements. When these predicted elements were discovered AFTER THE PREDICTION, AND NOT BEFORE, the truth of the theory was supported. In other words, the table predicted reality, and was then therefore supported by reality. Evolution is yet another theory that has overwhelming predictive power. That the term "theory", a concept which can only thrive in an ocean of facts, became seen as something less than a fact, is a testament to our society's scientific ignorance.

One of the most galling statements that can be made in reference to theories is the oft heard whine: "That's only a theory" as if to then claim that dogmatic "certainty" is superior theoretical tentativeness. The truth is that dogma often exists in stark contradiction to fact, while theory can only exist on the basis of facts. Another glaring difference between theory and dogma is that theory offers a coherent explanation of a phenomena. Dogma often offers nothing other than blanket authority statements concomitant with blatant threats of violence and harm to non believers.

3. Your assertion about thermodynamics was ridiculous. Your statement was meaningless. I'm quite sure that a PPM is a type of magnetometer. If you want to explain kindly how precisely a PPM would violate the laws of thermodynamics, enlighten. I strongly doubt, however, that you are familiar with thermodynamics. I would wager that you cannot tell me how many laws of thermodynamics there are.