Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

I love crab but it's a lot of work for little reward. Kind of like discussion forums.

I better get to bed. Soon enough I'll have to be awake again. Too soon.

 

[John53]

I tend to stay out of the political forums. I've noticed there are some fragile egos with political opinions and they get roused easily. I just wish their opinions had more fact and less bias. I don't doubt the existence of my own bias and I probably shared some of it earlier, but it is a bias towards using the best information I can find. And, admittedly an irritation of some of the things I see that I should let go. I'm trying not to accept too many invitations to run down rabbit holes. Maybe I'm offered so often, because it is thought that I really am a rabbit.

In Australia we hate all politicians equally. I think I only know 2 people who publicly voice their support for one of the major parties and I try to avoid them.

 

[John53]

I better get to bed. Soon enough I'll have to be awake again. Too soon.

Sleep well rodent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In Australia we hate all politicians equally. I think I only know 2 people who publicly voice their support for one of the major parties and I try to avoid them.

That seems like reasonable way to go. Here we deify one and vilify the other.

 

[John53]

That seems like reasonable way to go. Here we deify one and vilify the other.

I noticed

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Not sure what exactly you are asking for.

In what field, if not physics, would you think causality be studied while also yielding actual results?

Causality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Causality is one of the most fundamental and essential notions of physics.[45]

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not sure what exactly you are asking for.

In what field, if not physics, would you think causality be studied while also yielding actual results?

Causality - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Causality is one of the most fundamental and essential notions of physics.[45]

The wiki article also mentions philosophy and causality being metaphysical.
So based on the article it is a toss up as far as I can tell.

BTW Wiki is not generally evidence. It is more if done good, a good starting point.

 

[ratiocinator]

The wiki article also mentions philosophy and causality being metaphysical.
So based on the article it is a toss up as far as I can tell.

The problem with discussing the meaning of words is that they come with history and often multiple meanings.

In this debate, the word entered the conversation in the sense of physics because, @leroy was trying to extrapolate causation within the universe to posit a cause for the universe, in saying that it either had an infinite past, came from nothing, or there was some magic supernatural cause (e.g. #1,343). William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument (which was also brought up), also associates the start of the universe with the need for a cause, again implying a temporal meaning of 'cause'.

I have explained repeatedly why this is invalid (latest in #2,834) and even suggested that we could use the word reason (for), to avoid the temporal implications that were clearly being used.

The irony is that if we used the word 'reason' it would apply equally to a universe with an infinite past. I suspect that theists don't like this because it would also apply to any God, so they tend to insist on the temporal meaning, to try to avoid the accusation of special pleading.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem with discussing the meaning of words is that they come with history and often multiple meanings.

In this debate, the word entered the conversation in the sense of physics because, @leroy was trying to extrapolate causation within the universe to posit a cause for the universe, in saying that it either had an infinite past, came from nothing, or there was some magic supernatural cause (e.g. #1,343). William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument (which was also brought up), also associates the start of the universe with the need for a cause, again implying a temporal meaning of 'cause'.

I have explained repeatedly why this is invalid (latest in #2,834) and even suggested that we could use the word reason (for), to avoid the temporal implications that were clearly being used.

The irony is that if we used the word 'reason' it would apply equally to a universe with an infinite past. I suspect that theists don't like this because it would also apply to any God, so they tend to insist on the temporal meaning, to try to avoid the accusation of special pleading.

Well, I consider the start of the universe as being theorectical physics as it has no direct observation and for the cause of the universe that is theorectical physics or in effect philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok gotcha meaning your explanation. If you reason that way, i.e. that maybe the screen I'm typing into isn't really there, it's probably time to say "so long, take care...been good to know ya..."

Yes, you didn't show beyound any doubt that the screen in front of you is real. So you don't live up to your own standadtd of beyound doubt. That is a double standard and morally wrong.

I won't check your other posts, as it ends here. You use a morally wrong double standard.

 

[ratiocinator]

Care to present this objective verifiable evidence?

Hasn't Abiogenesis been disproven already?

Theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation was finally disapproved by

Theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation was finally disapproved by

byjus.com

No. That was an entirely different idea that things like fleas and maggots could be spontaneously appear in the modern world from dust or rotting meat.

Absolutely nothing to do with modern hypotheses of abiogenesis that happened under very different circumstances in the early Earth, over a long period of time, and produced simple replicators that were probably hardly recognisable as life, but were subject to natural selection and hence evolution.

The level of scientific illiteracy involved in linking these two ideas is frightening.

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, I consider the start of the universe as being theorectical physics as it has no direct observation and for the cause of the universe that is theorectical physics or in effect philosophy.

Eh? I don't think you understand what theoretical physics means. Newton's laws are theoretical physics, relativity is theoretical physics, quantum mechanics is theoretical physics, and so on, and so on....

Perhaps you are confusing theoretical in the scientific sense with the colloquial sense?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Eh? I don't think you understand what theoretical physics means. Newton's laws are theoretical physics, relativity is theoretical physics, quantum mechanics is theoretical physics, and so on, and so on....

Perhaps you are confusing theoretical in the scientific sense with the colloquial sense?

"Theoretical physics is a branch of physics that employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain, and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena."

Theoretical physics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

E.g. so if you in effect can use tools directly on the singularity of "the big bang# is physics. If you can't, but claim science for that, it is theoretical physics.

 

[ratiocinator]

"Theoretical physics is a branch of physics that employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain, and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena."

Theoretical physics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

E.g. so if you in effect can use tools directly on the singularity of "the big bang# is physics. If you can't, but claim science for that, it is theoretical physics.

Nothing becomes a theory in science until it has been tested by experiment or observation. The Wiki article isn't very good on that point.

Einstein worked out special relativity based on previous well tested theories, mainly Maxwell's, and observations like the constancy of the speed of light. It remained hypothetical until it was independently tested, and is now so well tested as to become a theory.

This is actually the way science works. People work out hypotheses that can then be tested. When it has resisted multiple attempts to falsify it, it becomes a theory.

The problem with the start of the universe is that it runs into the problem that we don't have a theory that unites general relativity with quantum field theory, and the inherent problems with testing any proposed hypotheses.

However, there are hypotheses, based on the theories we have and some reasonable extrapolations, and some of those potentially have testable predictions (such as patterns in the CMB).

That's very different from philosophy.

ETA: And, of course, my objections here have been about the well tested theory of General Relativity, not the start of the time direction through the space-time at the 'start' of the universe. I am arguing from the point of view of our already well tested ideas of (space-)time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing becomes a theory in science until it has been tested by experiment or observation. The Wiki article isn't very good on that point.

Einstein worked out special relativity based on previous well tested theories, mainly Maxwell's, and observations like the constancy of the speed of light. It remained hypothetical until it was independently tested, and is now so well tested as to become a theory.

This is actually the way science works. People work out hypotheses that can then be tested. When it has resisted multiple attempts to falsify it, it becomes a theory.

The problem with the start of the universe is that it runs into the problem that we don't have a theory that unites general relativity with quantum field theory, and the inherent problems with testing any proposed hypotheses.

However, there are hypotheses, based on the theories we have and some reasonable extrapolations, and some of those potentially have testable predictions (such as patterns in the CMB).

That's very different from philosophy.

Theoretical physics - Latest research and news | Nature

www.nature.com

"Theoretical physics is the development of mathematical formalisms and computational protocols for describing all aspects of objects found in the world around us and their interaction. This can involve both providing models for understanding empirical results or constructing self-logical theories for explain phenomena beyond current experiments."

Welcome | Department of Theoretical Physics

theory.cern

"
Welcome to CERN
Department of Theoretical Physics"

How come an actual science organisation, CERN, has a deparment of theoretical physics?

So I can't help that you don't understand the difference.
So for what if anything casued the universe as such, that is philosophy just as the Kalam argument is.

Edit:
Part 2:

History and Philosophy of Contemporary Theoretical Physics | Consortium for History of Science, Technology and Medicine

www.chstm.org

"... The group focuses on the mathematization of fundamental theoretical physics, its historical development and philosophical implications. ..."

That one is the theoretical part of theorectical physics, whether you like it or not.

 

[ratiocinator]

Theoretical physics - Latest research and news | Nature

www.nature.com

"Theoretical physics is the development of mathematical formalisms and computational protocols for describing all aspects of objects found in the world around us and their interaction. This can involve both providing models for understanding empirical results or constructing self-logical theories for explain phenomena beyond current experiments."

This is exactly what I described.

I guess the confusion is that 'theoretical physics' is about producing hypotheses (potential theories) that then need to be tested. 'Theoretical physics' and 'experimental physics' have to work together to produce actual science or theories.

How come an actual science organisation, CERN, has a deparment of theoretical physics?

See above.

In fact, at a cutting edge experimental sites like CERN, the collaboration is very important, because the theorists need to assess the experimental results with respect to hypotheses, and suggest experiments to confirm or falsify hypotheses. The Higgs boson was hypothetical until it was observed.

So I can't help that you don't understand the difference.

So for what if anything casued the universe as such, that is philosophy just as the Kalam argument is.

Kalam is philosophy, but is just plain wrong for solid scientific reasons (that refute the premises). The hypotheses produced from known science are just science doing what it does.

Edit:
Part 2:

History and Philosophy of Contemporary Theoretical Physics | Consortium for History of Science, Technology and Medicine

www.chstm.org

"... The group focuses on the mathematization of fundamental theoretical physics, its historical development and philosophical implications. ..."

That one is the theoretical part of theorectical physics, whether you like it or not.

Nonsense. Try reading the whole page. They are doing philosophy about theoretical physics, they are not doing theoretical physics.

Karl Popper did philosophy of science, he didn't do any science. This is totally clear from his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Fascinating as it is, it is not a science book, it's about the nature of scientific discovery, the clue's in the title.

 

[leroy]

The problem with discussing the meaning of words is that they come with history and often multiple meanings.

In this debate, the word entered the conversation in the sense of physics because, @leroy was trying to extrapolate causation within the universe to posit a cause for the universe, in saying that it either had an infinite past, came from nothing, or there was some magic supernatural cause (e.g. #1,343). William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument (which was also brought up), also associates the start of the universe with the need for a cause, again implying a temporal meaning of 'cause'.

I have explained repeatedly why this is invalid (latest in #2,834) and even suggested that we could use the word reason (for), to avoid the temporal implications that were clearly being used.

The irony is that if we used the word 'reason' it would apply equally to a universe with an infinite past. I suspect that theists don't like this because it would also apply to any God, so they tend to insist on the temporal meaning, to try to avoid the accusation of special pleading.

Assigning temporality to the word cause us just your own personal decision.... But sure I am ok with the word reason .....

I don't understand your special pleading accusation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is exactly what I described.

I guess the confusion is that 'theoretical physics' is about producing hypotheses (potential theories) that then need to be tested. 'Theoretical physics' and 'experimental physics' have to work together to produce actual science or theories.


See above.

In fact, at a cutting edge experimental sites like CERN, the collaboration is very important, because the theorists need to assess the experimental results with respect to hypotheses, and suggest experiments to confirm or falsify hypotheses. The Higgs boson was hypothetical until it was observed.

Kalam is philosophy, but is just plain wrong for solid scientific reasons (that refute the premises). The hypotheses produced from known science are just science doing what it does.


Nonsense. Try reading the whole page. They are doing philosophy about theoretical physics, they are not doing theoretical physics.

Karl Popper did philosophy of science, he didn't do any science. This is totally clear from his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Fascinating as it is, it is not a science book, it's about the nature of scientific discovery, the clue's in the title.

You are overall right and I am wrong. So I will leave it for now.

 

[ratiocinator]

Assigning temporality to the word cause us just your own personal decision....

No, it was directly implied by the choices you proposed, most explicitly in #1,343. Most of what you've been saying is about a universe with a start requires a cause.

I don't understand your special pleading accusation.

Really?

If we can ask for a reason why the universe (or all of physical reality) exists, we can ask the same question about any proposed God. Any attempt to say the question is valid for the universe but not for a God would be special pleading.

In the temporal case, you could just about get away with claiming that God has always existed....

 

[leroy]

No, it was directly implied by the choices you proposed, most explicitly in #1,343. Most of what you've been saying is about a universe with a start requires a cause.


Really?

If we can ask for a reason why the universe (or all of physical reality) exists, we can ask the same question about any proposed God. Any attempt to say the question is valid for the universe but not for a God would be special pleading.

In the temporal case, you could just about get away with claiming that God has always existed....

Under the logic of the KCA...

Unlike the universe god didn't begin to exist therefore it requieres no "reason" .... It is not special pleading because God and the universe are disanalogous

If you think that platonic objects like numbers exist they would also required no reason because they did begin to exist ether.... The same was thought to be true about the universe 100 years ago......So I am not putting God in a special category.