This is the last post of this kind, amid my series: "Theists are probably trivially convertible"
No non-empirical theories were expressed.
See uncertainty principle, an empirically observed phenomena.
Mankind observes things probabilistically,
No. People with trained critical analytical skills may do this. People in general don't.
“theists” see yourselves as NON-OMNISCIENT)
Almost all human beings accept that we are not all knowing, theists and atheists.
You claim to believe or know the existence of God to be TRUE/ABSOLUTE, BUT, how do you know truth/absoluteness is possible?
A belief may have, but absolutely do not essentially have anything to do with absolute certainty. If you say you believe...then you believe...there are no other criteria. Belief requires no evidence, rational arguments, proof or any reasonable explanation. I don't understand how you can totally misunderstand what belief means.
Some people, helariously believe their belief is properly based on evidence: prayer works (no it doesn't), christianity changed the world for the better (revoltingly disgustingly not true), the unmoved mover argument (full of fallacies) and other falicious nonsense., and when you challenge that evidence they either make up new arguments or explanations (usually on the spot) or excuses. If they finally accept there are no rational arguments...they simply say "I feel god in my heart" or "We are born with this truth" or "Gods love transcends all" or some other absurd childish bullshit.
This will almost never work, unfortunately.
The uncertainty principle is NOT empirically observed. How can you observe uncertainty? The uncertainty principle is an approach to epistomoloy...not a fact. For the last time, the unncertainty principle is A PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENT. NOT SCIENCE.
For any event, we can't measure with absolute accuracy.
So say many people (I hold this approach to science myself) but others (includinG some scientists disaree). You are trying to turn a philosophical theory into an axiom...and people aren't going to buy it not the first time you make this claim, nor the second nor the third nor how ever many times you feel like repeating this flawed arument. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON THE POSSIBILITY OR NOT OF ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. THAT's NOT SCIENCE.
So, mankind observes things probabilistically.
Sometimes they do...sometimes they don't. Not everything is a numbers game. TRY TO THINK FOR ONCE IN A MODE THAT IS NOT BLACK OR WHITE
.However, belief may lead one to select terrible probabilities.
No. Belief can lead to making decisions that work against one's interests and also take down others as it goes...but that is not always about selecting terrible probabilites...it comes down to making bad choices (consciously or not) and PROBABILITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MANY CHOICES.
The uncertainty principle is empirically observed.
That is, we can't observe any event to absolute degree.
No You are repeating a bad argument again and again.
Are you omniscient of any event, Davis?
I see a lot of black & white thinking out there, and I've noticed how a lot of people feel overly comfortable with rules, rather than consider circumstances on a case by case basis. I nurture my own probabilistic thinking, but a lot of people don't like to think that much, nor work at informing themselves properly.
...but keep in mind that we all think probabilistically anyway (EMPIRICAL uncertainty principle).
However, belief may lead one to select terrible probabilities.
Nope, I'm still a theist. :-)
I think you're too caught up on black and white notions of "absolute" or "omniscient". Getting hung up on the "omni-" words seems to be an atheist thing I guess. We think it's sort of silly.