Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[cladking]

No magic in science! Who knew???

Very good!!!

And here we get to the very root of the problem and the subject of the thread; "Atheists believe in miracles more than believers".

And remarkably enough they don't seem to believe in believers either!!!

There may well be such a thing as miracles but belief in them flies in the face of methodological naturalism, but not the metaphysics of modern science. Metaphysics does not exclude the possibility of miracles but your term does by definition.

 

[cladking]

You really should stop trying to give science lessons

Another miracle!!!!

You believe someone can teach science something. Only individuals can think or learn.

 

[Pogo]

It certainly is magical if you can't show it, predict it, or observe it.

It is simply assumed that those which survive are fitter than those which do not. It is assumed before, during, and after the fact. This is not how science is done. It is metametaphysical. We can't do science this way or everyone could insert his own reason for the causation from it's "God's will" or "the most conscious survive". These things are not science and no experiment support them.



Again you are assuming competition where observation supports cooperation but even if there were competition this would hardly support the contention that species change gradually as a result of the manifestation of survival of the fittest. You need proper experiment.

All of this is false, you can show, predict and observe Natural Selection and even experiment with it.

Fitness is not an assumption, it is by definition the ability to reproduce successfully in an environment.

I planted several species of native perennials in an area of my yard that was typically too wet to mow until at least july. All reproduced with some success though differences became apparent. The one species that required the most water declined over time till now only one second generation example exists outside of the original area. Three have increased their numbers and are filling in more of the space, one species has all but disappeared except for a few tall weedy examples. The survivors are taller than the background grasses, weeds and the decliners did not spread out enough to compete with the other vegetation. This is as expected and predicted according to the concept of Natural Selection and I further predict that the few taller survivors of the shorter plants will disappear as while their variation was enough to survive longer it has not been fit enough for the environment to reproduce.

You can do this "experiment" to any level of propperness that you desire and will find the same basic results as has been shown formally since Darwin's time and informally throughout history.

If you have a demonstrable alternative theory to explain the observations, we are waiting, but remember to qualify as science it can't involve invisible entities with undemonstrable powers.

 

[Audie]

With bees, some are workers, some are drones, and some are queens. That statement doesn't imply that it's 1/3 each: "Honey bees are social insects that live in colonies. Honey bee colonies consist of a single queen, hundreds of male drones and 20,000 to 80,000 female worker bees."

And yes, there are inconsequential mutations. You seem surprised at the claim (you used an exclamation mark).

Who wrote this? Somebody who was correct.

Who peer reviewed it? That term refers to scientific research. The passage you cited might have been reviewed by nobody, or perhaps an editor.

As in, how to read something, anything,
then run it thro' the Converter and turn it into
something wholly different that now confirms
whatever one wishes.

I can kind of understand dishonesty- people
may gain from it. Being dishonest with one's self
that way, though?

So foolish and self destructive!

 

[shunyadragon]

I am defining "metaphysics" as the basis of science which is the very first definition in the unabridged dictionary from which I learned English. Obviously there are always other words but "methodological naturalism" is NOT what I mean. It assumes the existence of "natural laws" and I don't believe in natural laws so will continue to use the more precise word. I could also use "epistemology" but this word doesn't really fit either.

Try reading Burtt's "Metaphysics of Modern Science". It is the best work ever written on how and why science works. The subject is the basis of modern science.

Having a knee jerk reaction to not even being able to properly parse the word that means "basis of science" seems to be a characteristic of many who believe in science or practice scientism.

I do not consider this reference published in 189 relevant to contemporary science,

 

[shunyadragon]

Very good!!!

And here we get to the very root of the problem and the subject of the thread; "Atheists believe in miracles more than believers".

And remarkably enough they don't seem to believe in believers either!!!

There may well be such a thing as miracles but belief in them flies in the face of methodological naturalism, but not the metaphysics of modern science. Metaphysics does not exclude the possibility of miracles but your term does by definition.

Yes metaphysics does not exclude the possibility of miracles, and yes contemporary science does not exclude the possibility of miracles. but the possibility of the existence of miracles is beyond the scope of Methodological Naturalism, because of the lack of objective verifiable evidence for miracles, If there is found objective verifiable evidence for a miracle it would no longer be a miracle.

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

languages.oup.com

Miracle- a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

The next word in the diction is mirage.

 

[Pogo]

I am defining "metaphysics" as the basis of science which is the very first definition in the unabridged dictionary from which I learned English. Obviously there are always other words but "methodological naturalism" is NOT what I mean. It assumes the existence of "natural laws" and I don't believe in natural laws so will continue to use the more precise word. I could also use "epistemology" but this word doesn't really fit either.

Try reading Burtt's "Metaphysics of Modern Science". It is the best work ever written on how and why science works. The subject is the basis of modern science.

Having a knee jerk reaction to not even being able to properly parse the word that means "basis of science" seems to be a characteristic of many who believe in science or practice scientism.

Wow, a citation, I can even chase it.

The metaphysical foundations of modern physical science; a historical and critical essay
by Burtt, Edwin A. (Edwin Arthur), 1892-

Publication date 1923
Topics Newton, Isaac, Sir, 1642-1727, Metaphysics, Physics, Science -- Philosophy

An essay in philosophy from 1923 which I will grant thus far uses the word metaphysics generally in the terms that you are using it as opposed to many of the newer variations. As a history of some of the thought processes behind some of the "discoveries" by Newton and others since it looks like it even might be an interesting read and if I can read it in something other than an ocr raw text version I might even continue with it.

It is however ultimately evidence that we are not speaking the same language. You are speaking a language of philosophy, and we are using that subset of philosophies that is currently called methodological naturalism that concerns itself only with shall I use the word material when discussing science.

As such since our science can materially demonstrate evolution's theories without further add-ons we generally do not discuss them. If you would like to explain your additions or rationals behind them, feel free to do so in language that is understandable by all.

 

[Pogo]

Very good!!!

And here we get to the very root of the problem and the subject of the thread; "Atheists believe in miracles more than believers".

And remarkably enough they don't seem to believe in believers either!!!

There may well be such a thing as miracles but belief in them flies in the face of methodological naturalism, but not the metaphysics of modern science. Metaphysics does not exclude the possibility of miracles but your term does by definition.

Which is where your terminology and modern science part ways. It has been a long process, but they are no longer the same.

 

[Pogo]

I do not consider this reference published in 189 relevant to contemporary science,

1923, The metaphysical foundations of modern physical science; a historical and critical essay : Burtt, Edwin A. (Edwin Arthur), 1892- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
You can get a paper copy still.
We will see if he can make a case for his interpretation in terms of current practice.

 

[leroy]

Just how many times, must it be pointed out to @leroy, @YoursTrue and other science illiterate creationists that Natural Selection isn’t random, before they realise these tiresome assumptions are not only incorrect, they are untenable and intellectually dishonest?

They also don’t seem capable of understanding that mutations are not necessary for Natural Selection to occur.

Natural Selection isn’t random,

I used to grant that, but then I “learned atheists dishonest tactics” and decided to apply them …….in this case the tactic that I learned was to “change definitions” instead of addressing your actual point





I define random as anything that has at least one aleatory or stochastic variable, so according to this defitnion that I personally like, NS is random

 

[cladking]

The basis of science can not change except through new experiment. It is fixed because of the nature of homo omniscience to see only what he believes. Statistics, linguistics, computer modelling, etc etc, are not science now and were not in the 1920's when physics ground to a halt.

We have the same metaphysics today, the same methodology, and the same processes that we did then. The only difference is that we now know that many of the 19th century assumptions are false. And many today worship science rather than practice or respect it.

 

[leroy]

Such a pity. You still do not know what a strawman argument is. Actually it is a twofer. You also had a reading comprehension fail in an incredibly short and clear post.

• A Strawman is when you address or challenge a misrepresentation of an argument .
• You misrepresented my argument (I didn’t say that tags definition is bogus nor invented)
• Therefore you made a strawman

I am Ready for your 100+ nonsense excuses for not admitting your mistake

 

[cladking]

I used to grant that, but then I “learned atheists dishonest tactics” and decided to apply them …….in this case the tactic that I learned was to “change definitions” instead of addressing your actual point

Yes! They not only change their own definitions but even yours.

My favorite example is Egyptologists call every little pile of rubble a "pyramid" and use the exact same term to apply to the giant masonry pyramids built earlier. Then they act as though the only difficulty in building them is the amount of quarrying that need to have been done. This goes on throughout the sciences and "natural selection" through "survival of the fittest" really is another example because the latter term sounds so harsh after they kill off individuals without a desired characteristic in lab demonstrations they call "experiments".

 

[leroy]

No I did not.

I don't have to apologize for something I didn't do.

Your opinion means nothing to me. You have ensured that.

..you words

he latter is something that you do and that I recognized early on in our interactions. You do not seem to be able to admit error

You are wrongly implying that I don’t admit errors............given that the accusation is false, an apology is expected

 

[shunyadragon]

I used to grant that, but then I “learned atheists dishonest tactics” and decided to apply them …….in this case the tactic that I learned was to “change definitions” instead of addressing your actual point

I doubt you used to grant atheists anything. I find the atheists use of definition correctly in accordance with science and science,

I define random as anything that has at least one aleatory or stochastic variable, so according to this defitnion that I personally like, NS is random.

The problem begins with "I define define random," and "I personally like" and ends with "your definition" that is not the definition of random.

An event with "one aleatory or stochastic variable" does apply to math and probability but it is not necessarily randomness as it is claimed to occur in nature,.

You are the one deciding on your own "personal definition."

Again . . . Natural Selection is not random, Whether genetic mutations are random or not is indifferent to Natural Selection. Natural selection is based on genetic diversity of a population I argue that the chain of cause and effect events of mutations are not random, but the timing and occurrence of individual mutations is random. Mutations simply contribute to the diversity of the genetics of a population indifferent to whether any particular gene is beneficial, neutral or harmful. It is a combination of genes in the genetic diversity that is most common role in Natural Selection and not individual genetic, unless the mutation is terminal to the individuals in the population.

Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions - Evolution: Education and Outreach

Natural selection is one of the central mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the process responsible for the evolution of adaptive features. Without a working knowledge of natural selection, it is impossible to understand how or why living things have come to exhibit their diversity and...

evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com

Natural selection is a non-random difference in reproductive output among replicating entities, often due indirectly to differences in survival in a particular environment, leading to an increase in the proportion of beneficial, heritable characteristics within a population from one generation to the next. That this process can be encapsulated within a single (admittedly lengthy) sentence should not diminish the appreciation of its profundity and power. It is one of the core mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the main process responsible for the complexity and adaptive intricacy of the living world. According to philosopher Daniel Dennett (1995), this qualifies evolution by natural selection as “the single best idea anyone has ever had.”

 

[leroy]

An event with "one aleatory or stochastic variable" is not necessarily random.

It is, (according to my own personal definition / understanding of random)

Obviously I am just being sarcastic, this is a parody of what @TagliatelliMonster is doing

 

[shunyadragon]

It is, (according to my own personal definition / understanding of random)

Obviously I am just being sarcastic, this is a parody of what @TagliatelliMonster is doing

Please avoid parodies. My responses remains as is concerning randomness in nature.

I do not accept your definition as applied to the patterns of chains of cause and effect outcomes in nature that can be explained as fractal and predictable within a range of possible outcomes of the individual events.,

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes! They not only change their own definitions but even yours.

My favorite example is Egyptologists call every little pile of rubble a "pyramid" and use the exact same term to apply to the giant masonry pyramids built earlier. Then they act as though the only difficulty in building them is the amount of quarrying that need to have been done. This goes on throughout the sciences and "natural selection" through "survival of the fittest" really is another example because the latter term sounds so harsh after they kill off individuals without a desired characteristic in lab demonstrations they call "experiments".

So outrageously false bouncing off the walls of the padded cell it is laughable. If I did not know your history and beliefs I would have thought you were joking.

 

[Pogo]

The basis of science can not change except through new experiment. It is fixed because of the nature of homo omniscience to see only what he believes. Statistics, linguistics, computer modelling, etc etc, are not science now and were not in the 1920's when physics ground to a halt.

We have the same metaphysics today, the same methodology, and the same processes that we did then. The only difference is that we now know that many of the 19th century assumptions are false. And many today worship science rather than practice or respect it.

What 19th century assumptions do we know to be false?
What new experiment can change the basis of science?
What is there to see beyond our varied beliefs? Anything in particular in your opinion?

 

[cladking]

What 19th century assumptions do we know to be false?

Do you even read my posts. I've listed hundreds of them from linear progress to survival of thew fittest.

What new experiment can change the basis of science?

Every new experiment that confirms an hypothesis that runs counter to theory changes the basis of science.

Metaphysics IS the definitions, axioms, and experiment. The "scientific method" is a loosely defined process used by most practitioners. "Paradigms" are loosely defined summations of existing theory and these change at funerals.

Science works because of experiment. Scientists work best when they understand metaphysics and keep a scientific perspective to their observations.

People today are confused about the nature of science.

What is there to see beyond our varied beliefs? Anything in particular in your opinion?

Reality always lies right beyond our beliefs. Understanding reality and making predictions are the primary reason to use science at all. Technology springs from the ability to make prediction.