Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The discussion you are having over the meaning of 'some' is what I think of as an invitation down a rabbit hole

I have nothing more to add to that discussion, and I'm not expecting @Hockeycowboy to have much more to say, either. His disposition is different from many in that he tends not to treat these issues like dogs do their chew bones.

if your interest is in how people come to think about and consider seemingly meaningless details as worthwhile to propagate and proliferate and even consider as some sort of challenge to the sciences, I can certainly see a reason to be interested in that

Yes, that always intrigues me - how people process information. The subject of discussion isn't as interesting as how it develops. This poster is capable of learning. I'll go further for him than some others because of that and because he has always been respectful and friendly to me. So has the next poster (been friendly and respectful).

But my interest ends when I've decided that we're going in circles, which begins when a poster repeats himself having disregarded a rebuttal, i.e., when dialectic ends.

since atheists do not believe in a higher intelligent power, then there obviously could not be an unseen intelligence with power that caused life to begin.

I don't believe "in a higher intelligent power," but do not claim that there, "could not be an unseen intelligence with power that caused life to begin."

You made progress recently learning not to use the word prove with scientific theories. You said verify instead. I'm hoping that you don't relapse there.

But this area is one in which you haven't made progress. Most atheists are agnostic, and do NOT claim that gods don't exist. Can you learn that? Can we never again read from you that atheists say that there is no god?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Likely because google serves you with links on what it thinks might interest you, based on your browser history. I, for example, get different results.

If a flat earther googles "moon landing" it will get served with plenty of links to conspiracy websites saying the moon landing never happened.
You can find all sorts of nonsense on the internet.

Yeah, now post evidence that causality is a phenomenon of physics.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have nothing more to add to that discussion, and I'm not expecting @Hockeycowboy to have much more to say, either. His disposition is different from many in that he tends not to treat these issues like dogs do their chew bones.

Yes, that always intrigues me - how people process information. The subject of discussion isn't as interesting as how it develops. This poster is capable of learning.Good I'll go further for him than some others because of that and because he has always been respectful and friendly to me. So has the next poster (been friendly and respectful).

But my interest ends when I've decided that we're going in circles, which begins when a poster repeats himself having disregarded a rebuttal, i.e., when dialectic ends.

I don't believe "in a higher intelligent power," but do not claim that there, "could not be an unseen intelligence with power that caused life to begin."

You made progress recently learning not to use the word prove with scientific theories. You said verify instead. I'm hoping that you don't relapse there.

But this area is one in which you haven't made progress. Most atheists are agnostic, and do NOT claim that gods don't exist. Can you learn that? Can we never again read from you that atheists say that there is no god?

Good morning! Thank you for a peaceful enough post. True that I don't use the word 'prove' much any more in these conversations because of the 'scientific' minded criticism I've received about the use of the word. However, and it's a big however in my mind at least, the word prove means to me that it's beyond doubt given the ingredients. But--I restraint myself from using the word prove now for the most part. Thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good morning! Thank you for a peaceful enough post. True that I don't use the word 'prove' much any more in these conversations because of the 'scientific' minded criticism I've received about the use of the word. However, and it's a big however in my mind at least, the word prove means to me that it's beyond doubt given the ingredients. But--I restraint myself from using the word prove now for the most part. Thanks.

Yeah, a skeptic you are not.

Try reading up on Descartes' evil demon.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, now post evidence that causality is a phenomenon of physics.

See post #2,758.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have nothing more to add to that discussion, and I'm not expecting @Hockeycowboy to have much more to say, either. His disposition is different from many in that he tends not to treat these issues like dogs do their chew bones.

Yes, that always intrigues me - how people process information. The subject of discussion isn't as interesting as how it develops. This poster is capable of learning. I'll go further for him than some others because of that and because he has always been respectful and friendly to me. So has the next poster (been friendly and respectful).

But my interest ends when I've decided that we're going in circles, which begins when a poster repeats himself having disregarded a rebuttal, i.e., when dialectic ends.

I don't believe "in a higher intelligent power," but do not claim that there, "could not be an unseen intelligence with power that caused life to begin."

You made progress recently learning not to use the word prove with scientific theories. You said verify instead. I'm hoping that you don't relapse there.

But this area is one in which you haven't made progress. Most atheists are agnostic, and do NOT claim that gods don't exist. Can you learn that? Can we never again read from you that atheists say that there is no god?

OK, here's my story and I'll tell it again about "God," which I consider to be the ultimate source of power -- it's hard to phrase because I was confused about God as I grew into maturity from my childhood. Which God? Who is He (it)? Where was He? Was Alan Watts telling the truth? Was Judaism? Catholics? Protestants? Who? Well, by now you know me a little bit I think and I like to keep things short. So that's only the description of what I thought before I believed what I believe now and -- am satisfied, very satisfied. To sum up, yes, I believe in God and I believe He allows people to know Him in part by means of the Bible. But there's more to it. Which I leave open for now. Thank you, and hope you have a good day. (By the way, because we, as humans cannot truly describe God in gender attribution, the Bible does use the masculine for 'Him,' and that's how I think of 'Him'. It's the language. Perhaps @Hockeycowboy can discuss more about this, or I'll get back to that part later. (Again -- have a good day, thank you for your peaceful and kind post.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Yeah, a skeptic you are not.

Try reading up on Descartes' evil demon.

I'm more or less finished with philosophy. When I was younger I used to wonder whatever did Descartes mean when he said, "I rhink, therefore I am." What, I thought? I'm not even going to try to explain it or analyze it. Been through that. But I'll look at what you say if I can and get back to you. Do I believe now that there are demons? Yes, I do believe there are demons because of my study and understanding of the Bible. Maybe not of Descartes' kind though so I will definitely try to look up something about what Descartes meant and get back to you. about that.

 

[Pogo]

No. first Natural Selection is only dependent on the genetic diversity of a population as a result environmental change. Mutations simply increase the genetic diversity of a population whether they are random or not.

The only thing that has been objectively determined is that the timing and occurrence of individual is random. References have been provided that not only the processes of genetic mutation are not random, but many types of genetic mutation are not random.

I think it might be useful and appreciated if you could give us a more in depth example of your use of random relative to mutations as it is being used as a cudgel by some who are looking for any excuse to ignore evidence for evolution.

 

[Pogo]

I know what you mean. But I'm purty sure you would agree that verifying the theory (in some people's minds) doesn't mean the theory is TRUE. Maybe you think that verifying the theory means it's true. I don't think so.

Here we have a problem with the definition of true. And further, how to determine whether some statement is true,

 

[Pogo]

Natural Selection is a non random process independent of genetic mutation whether mutations are random or not. The "processes" of genetic mutation are not random they are determined by Natural Laws and predictable. The only aspects of genetic mutations that are documented as random are the timing and the occurrence of individual mutations. The patterns of genetic mutations are predictable over time within a possible range of outcomes. and as described in references has been increasingly demonstrated as not random.

Randomness is one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts by scientists and layman. These are relects of old views in science and religious layman trying to justify their agenda. For amusement I read a scientific research paper describe fractal relationships as "almost random."

I could say the same thing of fractal and I would like to see the context of this "almost random" statement.

How and why are you determining mutations or evolution to be repetitive patterns across scale?

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm more or less finished with philosophy. When I was younger I used to wonder whatever did Descartes mean when he said, "I rhink, therefore I am." What, I thought? I'm not even going to try to explain it or analyze it. Been through that. But I'll look at what you say if I can and get back to you. Do I believe now that there are demons? Yes, I do believe there are demons because of my study and understanding of the Bible. Maybe not of Descartes' kind though so I will definitely try to look up something about what Descartes meant and get back to you. about that.

@mikkel_the_dane -- I'll be back as Arnold Schwarzenneger said -- have a lot to do today, Later...

 

[leroy]

Strawman. I didn't say it did, nether does it have to. Theism postulates an entire new realm, of which we have not one shred of evidence.

Well and what is wrong with the arguments commonly provided by theists………say William lane creig´s version of the kalam cosmological argument ? (o pick any other common argument)



Btw…..I agree with your premise…………….if there is no evidence for the “supernatural” then naturalism becomes the default and more likely world view

My disagreement is on that I don’t grant that there is no evidence

Nothing like it at all.

ok my mistake, my strawman

 

[Pogo]

Natural Selection is a non random process independent of genetic mutation whether mutations are random or not. The "processes" of genetic mutation are not random they are determined by Natural Laws and predictable. The only aspects of genetic mutations that are documented as random are the timing and the occurrence of individual mutations. The patterns of genetic mutations are predictable over time within a possible range of outcomes. and as described in references has been increasingly demonstrated as not random.

Randomness is one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts by scientists and layman. These are relects of old views in science and religious layman trying to justify their agenda. For amusement I read a scientific research paper describe fractal relationships as "almost random."

On reading this again, when you say "determined by Natural Laws and predictable" are you referring to the chemistry involved or what more specifically?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@mikkel_the_dane -- I'll be back as Arnold Schwarzenneger said -- have a lot to do today, Later...

Yeah, you did that before. You never answered that time and I guess you won't either this time around.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think it might be useful and appreciated if you could give us a more in depth example of your use of random relative to mutations as it is being used as a cudgel by some who are looking for any excuse to ignore evidence for evolution.

The justification of Intelligent Design is heavily based the belief that the nature of the process of genetic mutation is fundamentally random and cannot come about naturally, which justifies their unethical use of statistical probability to show that natural evolution is impossible based on the work of the Discovery Institute.

What Is Intelligent Design?

Chances are if you’ve heard anything about intelligent design, you’ve heard that it’s faith-based, not science-based. Is that true? Or does modern science, in fact, point us in the direction of a…

www.discovery.org

Yet to date no theory of undirected chemical evolution can explain the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell from simpler non-living chemicals — in other words, the problem of getting life from non-life.

Why is this a problem? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. The probability of generating a section of DNA code capable of building just one functional protein by chance is vanishingly small, even taking into account the multi-billion-year history of the universe. And even the simplest living cells require hundreds of proteins.

I have addressed this before on the unethical use of statistics and the methods of the Discovery Institute, and their assumptions that the claim of randomness of one event can be extrapolated to the claim of randomness determines the outcome of the chain of mutation events without consideration that natural causes constraining the outcomes of the chain of events. I may cite these sources again.

 

[shunyadragon]

On reading this again, when you say "determined by Natural Laws and predictable" are you referring to the chemistry involved or what more specifically?

Yes. The basis of the predictability of the processes of genetic mutations is based on chemistry, and confirmed by objective observations.

Chemistry limits the range of possible outcome of any single genetic mutation, and the range of outcomes of a series of cause and effect outcome of the chain or collective outcomes of genetic mutations.

 

[Pogo]

Well and what is wrong with the arguments commonly provided by theists………say William lane creig´s version of the kalam cosmological argument ? (o pick any other common argument)



Btw…..I agree with your premise…………….if there is no evidence for the “supernatural” then naturalism becomes the default and more likely world view

My disagreement is on that I don’t grant that there is no evidence

That is nice, where is the evidence, not just thoughts and desires?

ok my mistake, my strawman

Kalam and the special pleading of turtles.
problems with the kalam

 

[ratiocinator]

Well and what is wrong with the arguments commonly provided by theists………say William lane creig´s version of the kalam cosmological argument ? (o pick any other common argument)

I've never seen an argument by theists for their various versions of God that aren't obviously flawed. As for Kalam, from Wiki, we have:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Both premises are wrong. Within the universe, we have quantum phenomena like vacuum fluctuations. Then the universe, (space-time) did not begin to exist, even if time is finite in the past (as I've kept on trying to explain to you). It then gets worse:

1. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
2. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

Even if we accepted the first part, the jump to "personal Creator" is just silly.

In fact, all of William Lane Craig's arguments are silly. I don't recall them all from the top of my head, but I do recall a poster on another forum going through them all in turn, and thinking "is this guy just having a laugh?"

 

[Pogo]

The justification of Intelligent Design is heavily based the belief that the nature of the process of genetic mutation is fundamentally random and come about naturally, which justifies their unethical use of statistical probability to show that natural evolution is impossible based on the work of the Discovery Institute.

What Is Intelligent Design?

Chances are if you’ve heard anything about intelligent design, you’ve heard that it’s faith-based, not science-based. Is that true? Or does modern science, in fact, point us in the direction of a…

www.discovery.org

Yet to date no theory of undirected chemical evolution can explain the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell from simpler non-living chemicals — in other words, the problem of getting life from non-life.

Why is this a problem? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. The probability of generating a section of DNA code capable of building just one functional protein by chance is vanishingly small, even taking into account the multi-billion-year history of the universe. And even the simplest living cells require hundreds of proteins.

I have addressed this before on the unethical use of statistics and the methods of the Discovery Institute, and their assumptions that the claim of randomness of one event can be extrapolated to the claim of randomness determines the outcome of the chain of mutation events without consideration that natural causes constraining the outcomes of the chain of events. I may cite these sources again.

Ok, I agree that the Discotute has a totally useless metric in their version of information vs randomness, they have never done anything but assert some non-quantifiable measure that supposedly cannot increase or decrease but has exceeded some arbitrary threshold and so requires a god.
Nothing they have to say is relevant to biology and randomness of mutations, it is just a pile of meaningless assertions.

 

[leroy]

They would be steps, and the number of generations required would be unknown.

Well then in my opinion it is misleading to say that we know how the eye evolved……………..you can´t really provide a viable step by step path………(meaning 1 generation steps)

Im am not interested in a fight, this is just my opinion, my own personal opinion is that the average “internet evolutionists” misleads the reader with respect to what scientists actually say.............Don’t worry I take the blame…………..maybe I am the one who is misunderstanding what internet evolutionists actually say