Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[cladking]

Physics unfolds as its laws dictate. The steps and mechanism of the BB are unknown, but no magic is claimed. A natural, understandable mechanism is assumed.

I don't really have that much trouble with the big bang but many do believe that it began with infinite density thus suggesting it originated from a theoretical point. Just as a square in Flatland could not live in two dimensions all of reality can not exist in no dimension. There seems to be most obviously a flaw in the model and calling it physical law is assuming conclusions including the dubious assumption that physical law even exists. With no means to a unified field theory we obviously don't know what these "laws" are anyway. How do gravity and electromagnetism relate at infinite density when the dividend is the weight of the universe and does the amount of mass affect the equation?

Abiogenesis? This is just basic chemistry. We know more about it than I think you realize, though the details remain unknown.

I have even less problem here. Obviously life arose somewhere even if it didn't happen on earth and we blew in on the cosmic wind.

But it remains most highly illogical to go about speculating on the origin of life when life is consciousness. We should be looking for the nature and then origin of consciousness so we can recognize its properties if and when we ever see it. "Abiogenesis" in its current form simply assumes you can factor out consciousness and rely on "Evolution" to give it rise. It is assuming the conclusion and is just extrapolation from a nonsensical "theory" invented from whole cloth by Darwin.

Wherever and whenever life arose it probably did not require the miracles envisioned by science.

What Makes you think there's some magical force behind life or the universe? It's a special pleading.

[sigh]

It is believers in science who see miracles and do not see the evidence. They can not see that our definitions and axioms are wrong so that we see instead what we believe based on language and assumptions. They don't see that our species of necessity reason in circles and always comes back around to our assumptions despite half a century of experiment that "proves" it.

Perhaps it might be said that the only real miracle for our species is seeing (catching a glimpse) of reality but that reality is the only thing that can be seen by a whale or an acorn. Our predecessor species (homo sapiens) called reality "The Hidden" which we laughingly translate as "Amun" and gave rise to our word "amen" because they knew they could see only fleeting glimpses of it. Many believers in science today don't even accept the concept of "reality" and envision infinite pyramids built with infinite ramps, infinite density, and abstractions they call "species" without consciousness and free will.

These are the miracles and they all depend from beliefs and circular reasoning. Meanwhile those being accused of believing in miracles actually often believe only in a initial cause of reality. At this time such a belief is much less far fetched than beliefs spawned by "science".

There is nothing miraculous about science. There are natural, explainable mechanisms. Nobody's claiming everything in the Bible is wrong, or that everything believed by science is right, but science, unlike religion, is evidence based and tested. No magic is claimed.

I never said there is any problem with science. Within its metaphysics it is an important tool. The problem comes from the believers in "evidence", "Peers", and the rightness of conclusions not based in experiment. No theory exists outside experiment. It is a mirage created by circular reasoning.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You must have missed the umbrella topic being described here: “….when it [the process resulting in mutations] goes awry…” When the process “goes awry”, the majority of mutations are deleterious. If they’re “inconsequential”, like blonde parents having blacked-haired progeny, there’s nothing “awry” about it.

I guess I don't know what you're saying here. A bolus of mutagenic radiation impacts a DNA base and modifies the genetic code, or maybe there is a copying error, and the genome is slightly modified. Is that the process that you are suggesting can go awry?

What can go awry is the development of offspring if that mutation occurred in an egg or sperm cell. The mutation might cause death, disease, or disability. It's the process of constructing this offspring that goes awry when this happens.

Or, there might be no effect. Many amino acids have more than one codon (in case you've forgotten, that's a three-base group on the DNA that corresponds to a "negative" set of three bases on a piece of transfer RNA called an anti-codon connected to an amino acid). Here's a corner of the table of all possible anticodons (4^3=64) for the tRNA. Look at phenylalanine (Phe), which is coded UUU and UUC. These are nucleic acids that will bind to DNA codons AAA and AAG (also nucleic acids). Suppose the DNA mutates from AAA to AAG. That will have no effect on the protein generated by the process. Phe will remain in the same spot:

But maybe the mutation changes the amino acid coded, and there is a change in the protein generated. Maybe that protein is an enzyme, and maybe the mutation caused an inconsequential change in its overall conformation (3D shape) remote from the active catalytic site (where the chemistry occurs).

Or maybe the new enzymes is slightly more efficient. That's a beneficial mutation if it results in increased survival and reproduction in the offspring.

What can go awry is the growth and development of the conceptus, not the mutation process.

Are you picking a fight where there is none? That’s unlike you. I can’t help it if the author is wrong. Or at least worded it wrong.

No, I wouldn't pick a fight with you. I was disagreeing your interpretation of the quote, which was that some and some and some imply 1/3 each.

Best wishes, my cousin.

Thanks, and you, too. Hope it's safe and comfortable where you live.

 

[cladking]

I never said there is any problem with science. Within its metaphysics it is an important tool. The problem comes from the believers in "evidence", "Peers", and the rightness of conclusions not based in experiment. No theory exists outside experiment. It is a mirage created by circular reasoning.

I had a fascinating conversation with a young person the other day. She suggested that most change originates in the young and is spread among its peers and eventually reaches the old. And then things change when the old die. Not only does this seem to ring true but it even can be observed in animals.

How Monkeys Learned to Wash Potatoes : Networks Course blog for INFO 2040/CS 2850/Econ 2040/SOC 2090

Science can be just wonderful but what most people call "science" is a belief system used to guard the status quo.

Reality will forever be beyond what we see because every experiment shows we see what we believe.

 

[cladking]

I had a fascinating conversation with a young person the other day. She suggested that most change originates in the young and is spread among its peers and eventually reaches the old. And then things change when the old die. Not only does this seem to ring true but it even can be observed in animals.

Young Egyptologists must go along with the status quo to keep their jobs but even though they are not allowed to see data proving the status quo is wrong they often don't agree with it anyway.

It's the circle of life for homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio. When we shuffle off the mortal coil one leg and one arm forward we take all our stupid beliefs with us and the world is often a better place for it. So try to do some good and have fun before you die.

 

[cladking]

So try to do some good and have fun before you die.

The greatest fear for a man of reason is to make the world a better place by dying than all the good he ever did.

Of course this is principally a danger only for those who allow others to take their word as gospel. No peer should encourage followers in or out of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

A thought just occurred to me!

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a sound?

It is obvious that your thought was not heard by anyone else.

If there were no thinking humans to ponder the fossil record and Darwin was right that every individual was the same species as its parents then could dinosaurs have evolved into birds? We are like Gods since without us birds couldn't chirp or the flowers bloom. Who needs bees when homo omnisciencis rules?

The nature of our physical existence exists beyond any egocentric human belief in the nature of our physical existence.

Of course, you may be the product of warped demented AI program and no one would know that.

 

[gnostic]

Of course, you may be the product of warped demented AI program and no one would know that.

oh…if only one could wish it was so.

 

[Bear Wild]

Both the Odesy and the books in the new testament (and any other historical document) has to be judged according to the standards commonly used by scholars

Here is your error. The Iliad and the Odessey just like the New Testament were not historical documents. They may contain facts but to treat them as historical is to completely misunderstand them. They are representations of truth within the context of a religion. Treating them as truth of factual events is to degrade thier meaning.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fruitful communication is not possible without a common language. The language used on this board is standard English, redefining words to suit yourself is both impolite and destructive of any purpose in posting you may have. If you want to assign a philosophical name to "the basis of science" it would be methodological naturalism. The study of causes and effects in the natural world, I.e. not including magic, gods, or anything in general considered supernatural. It is not that the supernatural can't be studied or believed in, it is just not science. It is also true that if you can demonstrate a supernatural effect, as with alternative medicine, it ceases to be alternative and becomes just medicine.

Metaphysics, whatever this amorphous term even means these days is not science, it has long since lost its connection to Aristotle. If anything, the word is an example of the danger of using alternate definitions of a word.

I'm going to define metaphysics as the basis of modern muscle cars.

There you go. It is a definition. It doesn't tell you anything. It doesn't establish a factual relationship. It isn't very useful at all. All it tells you is that a person established a connection of dubious validity and value by declaring it so. But I did something and in doing something that seems like having done nothing, I have freed myself from future challenges that I don't provide definitions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fruitful communication is not possible without a common language. The language used on this board is standard English, redefining words to suit yourself is both impolite and destructive of any purpose in posting you may have. If you want to assign a philosophical name to "the basis of science" it would be methodological naturalism. The study of causes and effects in the natural world, I.e. not including magic, gods, or anything in general considered supernatural. It is not that the supernatural can't be studied or believed in, it is just not science. It is also true that if you can demonstrate a supernatural effect, as with alternative medicine, it ceases to be alternative and becomes just medicine.

Metaphysics, whatever this amorphous term even means these days is not science, it has long since lost its connection to Aristotle. If anything, the word is an example of the danger of using alternate definitions of a word.

Well, methodological naturalism belongs to philosophy of science, which is a part of philosophy and thus also connectes to another part metaphysics. It even goes further as methodological naturalism is sometimes understood as the use of the assumption of the metaphysical claim in philosophical naturalism as an axiomatic assumption without evidence.

 

[wellwisher]

A fast rooster might be so confident in its speed that it will take a chance eating the seeds where a fox often prowls. But a scared chicken might rather go hungry than take on the risk.

So which one has the better odds of survival? How many times did the chicken and the rooster see the fox? Is the rooster rally faster than the chicken? How many times has a biologist run this experiment with same individuals to get statistically significant results?

When the fox is distracted by having a sick kit how does this affect the odds? How many times does such an experiment need to be run?

Do you think nature will select for chicken or cockiness"?

Of course you believe it's all automatic and nature works its miracle without any concern for any specifics but this is the exact same miracle that God performs. Unlike nature He knows in advance who will live and who will die and He can affect the outcome. He can add the element of randomness at will while nature is at the mercy of scared or confident abstractions we call "poultry".

A rooster will give a better fight than a chicken, because the rooster has pointy bony spurs on its ankles. If confronted, a rooster can jump straight up and come down with his spurs like two knives. He can leave a good wound or two, each attack.

The main job of the rooster is to keep watch for predators so the chicken can forage in peace; free range. The rooster looks both in the air for hawks and on the ground for the fox. Fox will prefer get a chicken or their eggs. The watchful rooster will make a lot of noise if he sees the fox and fight if confronted. If the chickens hear the warning they will run for cover.

The fox will prefer ambush a chicken before the rooster gets wind. Or wait for the night and get them as they sleep. This is where a secure night shelter comes in. Typically, there is only one rooster per about 12 chickens or hens. If you have too many roosters they will fight and spur each other. Chickens or hens will peck each other but since they usually do not have spurs, this is much less fatal. This helps defines the pecking order or their social status.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, methodological naturalism belongs to philosophy of science, which is a part of philosophy and thus also connectes to another part metaphysics. It even goes further as methodological naturalism is sometimes understood as the use of the assumption of the metaphysical claim in philosophical naturalism as an axiomatic assumption without evidence.

This is warped biased view of the relationship between the philosophy of Popper and science, Methodological Naturalism does not belong to philosophy. No Methodological Naturalism is not another part of metaphysics. There is a historical relationship between science and metaphysics.

You are projecting an anti-science perspective making a personal artificial construction of the contemporary nature of science in relation to philosophy and metaphysics. Other than Popper's philosophy that is the basis for Methodological Naturalism, philosophy and metaphysics does not propose a scientific method for utilizing objective verifiable evidence in falsifying theories and hypothesis concerning the nature of our physical existence.

Metaphysics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Metaphysics is traditionally understood as a study of mind-independent features of reality. Starting with Immanuel Kant's critical philosophy, an alternative conception gained prominence that focuses on conceptual schemes rather than external reality. Kant distinguishes transcendent metaphysics, which aims to describe the objective features of reality beyond sense experience, from critical metaphysics, which outlines the aspects and principles underlying all human thought and experience.[7] Regarding the analysis of conceptual schemes, philosopher P. F. Strawson contrasts descriptive metaphysics, which articulates conceptual schemes commonly used to understand the world, with revisionary metaphysics, which aims to produce better conceptual schemes.[8]

Metaphysics differs from the individual sciences by studying very general and abstract aspects of reality. The individual sciences, by contrast, examine more specific and concrete features and restrict themselves to certain classes of entities, such as the focus on physical things in physics, living entities in biology, and cultures in anthropology.[9] It is disputed to what extent this contrast is a strict dichotomy rather than a gradual continuum.[10]

Philosophers engaged in metaphysics are called metaphysicians or metaphysicists.[11] Outside the academic discourse, the term metaphysics is sometimes used in a different sense for the study of occult and paranormal phenomena, like metaphysical healing, auras, and the power of pyramids.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, methodological naturalism belongs to philosophy of science, which is a part of philosophy and thus also connectes to another part metaphysics. It even goes further as methodological naturalism is sometimes understood as the use of the assumption of the metaphysical claim in philosophical naturalism as an axiomatic assumption without evidence.

This is warped biased view of the relationship between the philosophy of Popper and science, Methodological Naturalism does not belong to philosophy. No Methodological Naturalism is not another part of metaphysics. There is a historical relationship between science and metaphysics.

You are projecting an anti-science perspective making a personal artificial construction of the contemporary nature of science in relation to philosophy and metaphysics. Other than Popper's philosophy that is the basis for Methodological Naturalism, philosophy and metaphysics does not propose a scientific method for utilizing objective verifiable evidence in falsifying theories and hypothesis concerning the nature of our physical existence.

Metaphysics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Metaphysics is traditionally understood as a study of mind-independent features of reality. Starting with Immanuel Kant's critical philosophy, an alternative conception gained prominence that focuses on conceptual schemes rather than external reality. Kant distinguishes transcendent metaphysics, which aims to describe the objective features of reality beyond sense experience, from critical metaphysics, which outlines the aspects and principles underlying all human thought and experience.[7] Regarding the analysis of conceptual schemes, philosopher P. F. Strawson contrasts descriptive metaphysics, which articulates conceptual schemes commonly used to understand the world, with revisionary metaphysics, which aims to produce better conceptual schemes.[8]

Metaphysics differs from the individual sciences by studying very general and abstract aspects of reality. The individual sciences, by contrast, examine more specific and concrete features and restrict themselves to certain classes of entities, such as the focus on physical things in physics, living entities in biology, and cultures in anthropology.[9] It is disputed to what extent this contrast is a strict dichotomy rather than a gradual continuum.[10]

Philosophers engaged in metaphysics are called metaphysicians or metaphysicists.[11] Outside the academic discourse, the term metaphysics is sometimes used in a different sense for the study of occult and paranormal phenomena, like metaphysical healing, auras, and the power of pyramids.

 

[shunyadragon]

A rooster will give a better fight than a chicken, because the rooster has pointy bony spurs on its ankles. If confronted, a rooster can jump straight up and come down with his spurs like two knives. He can leave a good wound or two, each attack.

The main job of the rooster is to keep watch for predators so the chicken can forage in peace; free range. The rooster looks both in the air for hawks and on the ground for the fox. Fox will prefer get a chicken or their eggs. The watchful rooster will make a lot of noise if he sees the fox and fight if confronted. If the chickens hear the warning they will run for cover.

The fox will prefer ambush a chicken before the rooster gets wind. Or wait for the night and get them as they sleep. This is where a secure night shelter comes in. Typically, there is only one rooster per about 12 chickens or hens. If you have too many roosters they will fight and spur each other. Chickens or hens will peck each other but since they usually do not have spurs, this is much less fatal. This helps defines the pecking order or their social status.

How does this remotely related to the subject of the thread. Are you a fan of Cock Fighting?

 

[shunyadragon]

Young Egyptologists must go along with the status quo to keep their jobs but even though they are not allowed to see data proving the status quo is wrong they often don't agree with it anyway.

It's the circle of life for homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio. When we shuffle off the mortal coil one leg and one arm forward we take all our stupid beliefs with us and the world is often a better place for it. So try to do some good and have fun before you die.

Cynical philosophy based on a warped philosophical agenda,

 

[shunyadragon]

A fast rooster might be so confident in its speed that it will take a chance eating the seeds where a fox often prowls. But a scared chicken might rather go hungry than take on the risk.

So which one has the better odds of survival? How many times did the chicken and the rooster see the fox? Is the rooster rally faster than the chicken? How many times has a biologist run this experiment with same individuals to get statistically significant results?

When the fox is distracted by having a sick kit how does this affect the odds? How many times does such an experiment need to be run?

Do you think nature will select for chicken or cockiness"?

Of course you believe it's all automatic and nature works its miracle without any concern for any specifics but this is the exact same miracle that God performs. Unlike nature He knows in advance who will live and who will die and He can affect the outcome. He can add the element of randomness at will while nature is at the mercy of scared or confident abstractions we call "poultry".

The anthropomorphic perspective of simply what is that natural behavior of animals, which can be easily explained by natural processes and natural evolution, contributes nothing to your biased lack of understanding and intentional lack of knowledge of the English language concerning the definition of 'miracle.'

There is no evidence for randomness in the processes of nature.

 

[cladking]

A rooster will give a better fight than a chicken, because the rooster has pointy bony spurs on its ankles. If confronted, a rooster can jump straight up and come down with his spurs like two knives. He can leave a good wound or two, each attack.

The main job of the rooster is to keep watch for predators so the chicken can forage in peace; free range. The rooster looks both in the air for hawks and on the ground for the fox. Fox will prefer get a chicken or their eggs. The watchful rooster will make a lot of noise if he sees the fox and fight if confronted. If the chickens hear the warning they will run for cover.

The fox will prefer ambush a chicken before the rooster gets wind. Or wait for the night and get them as they sleep. This is where a secure night shelter comes in. Typically, there is only one rooster per about 12 chickens or hens. If you have too many roosters they will fight and spur each other. Chickens or hens will peck each other but since they usually do not have spurs, this is much less fatal. This helps defines the pecking order or their social status.

Thank you. I wasn't aware the rooster was so much of a threat. I did know that blue jays will come down on your head and dig in if sufficiently provoked and it doesn't take much to provoke a jay. I once saw a film of a mother rescuing her bunny from a bobcat. The thing just kicked it into next week.

Life is very complicated and so are the causes of speciation. How anyone thinks you can summarize it with "survival of the fittest" while ignoring consciousness and communication is beyond me. But our species likes to reduce everything to elemental processes without considering any complicating factors. We get so big for our britches that we just assume experts must be right or they wouldn't have the support of their Peers.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, because you say so



If all possible alternatives have the same “problem” then it is obviously not a problem ……..




whos defintinon?

this is what I mean by causation....
Causation, Relation that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect).

Causation | Secondary Keywords: Cause & Effect, Correlation, Causal Relationships

Causation, Relation that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect). According to David Hume, when we say of two types of object or event that “X causes Y” (e.g., fire causes smoke), we mean that (i) Xs are

www.britannica.com

Am i wrong just because I am not using your own personal favorite definition?...... well the above definition describes what I mean by “causation” if you think the definition is inappropriate, then please tell me what word should I use?

This definition simply describes the nature of causation between the relationship between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect). It does not address the range of possible outcomes in a chain of cause and effect outcomes. It does not justify your 'personal belief in randomness in nature. The key above is causation. If there is causation as in the limited range of the chains outcomes of cause and effect events defined by chaos theory and known causation. This is not randomness. Remember the citation repeated here:

Random variable - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A random variable (also called random quantity, aleatory variable, or stochastic variable) is a mathematical formalization of a quantity or object which depends on random events.[1] The term 'random variable' in its mathematical definition refers to neither randomness nor variability[2] but instead is a mathematical function

The random events are the timing and occurrence of individual events, and not the process involving a chain of of cause and effect events, which is not random. There are of course probability estimates for the timing of individual cause and effect outcomes within a range of possible outcomes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you. I wasn't aware the rooster was so much of a threat. I did know that blue jays will come down on your head and dig in if sufficiently provoked and it doesn't take much to provoke a jay. I once saw a film of a mother rescuing her bunny from a bobcat. The thing just kicked it into next week.

Life is very complicated and so are the causes of speciation. How anyone thinks you can summarize it with "survival of the fittest" while ignoring consciousness and communication is beyond me. But our species likes to reduce everything to elemental processes without considering any complicating factors. We get so big for our britches that we just assume experts must be right or they wouldn't have the support of their Peers.

Life is complicated, but that does not mean that we don't know anything or that it can't be known. It just seems like a meaningless throwing up of the hands when there is nothing better to say.

You have a very complicated, convoluted and mixed belief system. I don't subscribe to it and I see you have had much trouble in getting anyone to believe even part of it.

You have been corrected on this for years and you refuse to acknowledge that. Survival of the fittest is an antiquated and crude approximation of natural selection that only persists in use today in those that don't have a clue about the science and reject it on the basis of their belief system. Following your posts as I have, that appears to be all you have ever done.

You ramble on about consciousness and how no one knows what it is, but YOU know it is the basis of biology and speciation. You pit that against theory with established and widely understood definitions, sound assumptions and evidence that explains what is observed. How can both be correct? They can't be. I'm going with the one that doesn't entail a belief system, is based on evidence (something you never provide) and reasonably explains observations.

What I see is that you believe things about consciousness that have not been demonstrated. You ignore anything that challenges that belief and you just repeat your belief.

Here's another correction to a misconception of yours.

Experiments test hypotheses by developing a body of observations. Experiment is not required to develop this body of observations. You have been told this so often, it is staggers the mind that it hasn't sunk in.

You have been corrected on your claim that all change in all living things is sudden. Again, the mind staggers at how these corrections are ignored.

You are not someone I would consider to be well-versed in science and scientific knowledge. From what I see, you have a strange belief system that seems to be based largely on your personal misunderstanding and refusal that you frequent here to preach on. A system that appears very closed-minded and nonresponsive to questions or requests for support of the assertions that remain continually empty. I don't find it useful or all that interesting. It destroys discourse rather than fostering.

Perhaps you should study some science outside of your own thinking and engage in a different approach.

Don't forget to respond with "Sigh!" or "No!!!". It is very amusing to see, since the implication is that you have all the answers and others don't. That is the amusing part.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thank you. I wasn't aware the rooster was so much of a threat. I did know that blue jays will come down on your head and dig in if sufficiently provoked and it doesn't take much to provoke a jay. I once saw a film of a mother rescuing her bunny from a bobcat. The thing just kicked it into next week.

Life is very complicated and so are the causes of speciation. How anyone thinks you can summarize it with "survival of the fittest" while ignoring consciousness and communication is beyond me. But our species likes to reduce everything to elemental processes without considering any complicating factors. We get so big for our britches that we just assume experts must be right or they wouldn't have the support of their Peers.

It is obvious science is beyond your comprehension based on an intentional ignorance of science based on and ancient philosophical/religious agenda without science.