Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

I'll ask this too. Are you suggesting it has meaning to science? What meaning do you derive from it and how do you think that fits with our understanding of life and consciousness arrived at through science?

Or do you find meaning from a personal theological sense? It seems offered as if part of a theology, but that isn't what I mean, since you aren't likely to accept the apparent theology that @cladking seems to be promoting.

I agree that I likely would not accept cladking's theological viewpoint. But sometimes interesting points are expressed by @cladking .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think it's only what's on the bingo card.

I understand the frustration of asking for clarification and seeing none. I pray that we all receive better statements with greater clarity, but it seems to be something unusually difficult to find.

Personally, I attribute it to ignorance of the subject, but whether you state that as a matter of fact with no insult meant or intended or you do it with sarcasm, the response seems to be the same.

I also note that those claiming to be insulted are often perpetrators of that behavior in their own right. Again, pointing that out will be seen as an insult I think.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is a widely understood and I don't know scientists are claiming otherwise. But is there anything else to infer here?

The evidence indicates that and the scientists are relating this discovery? Do you doubt it? If so, what evidence can you share with me and others to support that doubt?

You asked what I inferred from the science about when life came about. I have no opinion as to the accuracy but I'm not contesting it. So again, before life came to be on the earth there was no life on the earth. I certainly am not arguing against that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree that I likely would not accept cladking's theological viewpoint. But sometimes interesting points are expressed by @cladking .

Do you have any in mind? I'd be interested to know if I missed something that was significant. I'm sure I have overlooked the trivial, but those could be accidental as well as intentional. And generally have little bearing on establishing and embellishing what are predominantly empty claims delivered as if they are widely recognized truths.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You asked what I inferred from the science about when life came about. I have no opinion as to the accuracy but I'm not contesting it. So again, before life came to be on the earth there was no life on the earth. I certainly am not arguing against that.

OK. What are you challenging with this particular line of inquiry? Does the fact that scientists don't know all the details or haven't yet made significant discoveries that fill in the gaps in our knowledge of early life mean something to you that knowing might mean something to us?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You asked what I inferred from the science about when life came about. I have no opinion as to the accuracy but I'm not contesting it. So again, before life came to be on the earth there was no life on the earth. I certainly am not arguing against that.

What if we do find out these details and discover the mechanism for the natural origin of life? Have you considered that and given it much thought?

Science has done these things before. It is why science was developed in the first place. To learn new things and for that to lead to asking better questions and knowing what about and where to ask better questions?

We are communicating with a worldwide network that would have been called fantasy 100 years ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you have any in mind? I'd be interested to know if I missed something that was significant. I'm sure I have overlooked the trivial, but those could be accidental as well as intentional. And generally have little bearing on establishing and embellishing what are predominantly empty claims delivered as if they are widely recognized truths.

I find the assertion by @cladking that life is consciousness an interesting statement. Perhaps later to be discussed.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK. What are you challenging with this particular line of inquiry? Does the fact that scientists don't know all the details or haven't yet made significant discoveries that fill in the gaps in our knowledge of early life mean something to you that knowing might mean something to us?

When you say us do you mean all of mankind or a particular segment of mankind? As far as challenging I am simply saying that there are many questions that have not and may not ever be answered in biological scientific detail.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I find the assertion by @cladking that life is consciousness an interesting statement. Perhaps later to be discussed.

Unfortunately, I do not. I don't know what that is supposed to mean. I don't know of any evidence that would support such a claim nor have definitions been offered to help understand what it is supposed to mean.

Perhaps some things may yet be explained, but history doesn't lead me to have much hope for that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When you say us do you mean all of mankind or a particular segment of mankind?

Mankind. Science is a tool to serve mankind.

As far as challenging I am simply saying that there are many questions that have not and may not ever be answered in biological scientific detail.

OK. While it is understood among scientists and many people in general, thank you for elaborating.

 

[YoursTrue]

What if we do find out these details and discover the mechanism for the natural origin of life? Have you considered that and given it much thought?

Science has done these things before. It is why science was developed in the first place. To learn new things and for that to lead to asking better questions and knowing what about and where to ask better questions?

We are communicating with a worldwide network that would have been called fantasy 100 years ago.

I realize that. I used to work for publishers. I never liked science fiction but met many authors that were well known. Most of them were very nice. I have no real interest in science fiction but I did like my work with the publishers. Hopefully that helps to answer as to the question what if we find out and discover the mechanism for the natural origin of life.

 

[YoursTrue]

Signing off now...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When you say us do you mean all of mankind or a particular segment of mankind? As far as challenging I am simply saying that there are many questions that have not and may not ever be answered in biological scientific detail.

When I was a boy, a minister told a group of us a story about a boy that asked his mother if he could play on a construction site with his friends. His mother, knowing that it was dangerous place for kids to play, forbid him from going there. She told him that there was a bear on that construction site and it would kill the kids.

So, he tells his friends he can't play with them. He tells them why. Of course, they have played there and never seen a bear and never heard of a bear being on the construction site. They tell him this. The boy thinks his mother must be mistaken, so it should be ok to play there since there really isn't a bear there. He joins his friends and in the course of wondering around the construction site he is hurt.

Would it have been better for the boy to know the real facts and reasons for his mother's concern? Would this knowledge have better served him than the story she tried to get him to believe?

What do you think?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I realize that. I used to work for publishers. I never liked science fiction but met many authors that were well known. Most of them were very nice. I have no real interest in science fiction but I did like my work with the publishers. Hopefully that helps to answer as to the question what if we find out and discover the mechanism for the natural origin of life.

Knowing the history of many science fiction writers, I am aware that many of them have vocations in mathematics, physics, engineering and other sciences. Three very famous science fiction authors were involved in the Manhattan Project. Sometimes they use science fiction as a means to speculate on things that stem from their knowledge of science, but are technically outside of science. Some of them using this means have been pretty good at predicting technologies that we use today.

I'm not sure that it does help. We are talking about science here and not science fiction. Speculating is part of science too. An hypothesis can be seen as speculation.

It seems that you are trying to equate the fact that the evidence indicates that life arose from non-life as some sort of fiction. You've agreed that the evidence shows this and not provided an alternative explanation. Do you have one or just the attempt to falsify the facts by association?

 

[cladking]

Well then, I think it is time for you to state the axioms that you are using so that we can potentially agree on them.

You already can't remember that cause precedes effect, everyone makes sense, and life is consciousness so why should I attempt a comprehensive list of my other premises for you to not see?

 

[cladking]

I agree that I likely would not accept cladking's theological viewpoint.

Certainly no one is more surprised than I that I am coming to believe much if not all of the Old Testament is based on literal truth and that this truth arose naturally so that it still resonates with people. "Thou shalt not steal", who knew?

40,000 years of ancient science that looked at life from the inside without even having concepts like "species" while naming the animals allowed them insights into reality of which Newton and Darwin would be jealous. But they were all different stripes of sun addled bumpkins according to anthropology, archaeology, Egyptology et al so we can ignore them with impunity and maintain our omniscience.

One of these days I'll have to take a closer look at the New Testament.

 

[cladking]

I don't know of any evidence that would support such a claim nor have definitions been offered to help understand what it is supposed to mean.

If you don't know what it means how would you recognize any evidence for it.

Evidence is meaningless and lies mostly behind the eyes rather than before them. Experiment in terms of its metaphysics is what counts in science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you don't know what it means how would you recognize any evidence for it.

Of course, it isn't your fault for failing to provide the evidence. It is the fault of others. As always it seems. Why is that?

Evidence is meaningless and lies mostly behind the eyes rather than before them.

Yet, you claim to provide billions and billions and billions of bits of evidence. Your story sort of changes on the fly doesn't it.

Experiment in terms of its metaphysics is what counts in science.

Now it isn't just experiment, but experiment in terms of metaphysics. Whatever you mean by that and I predict will never explain.

That seems to be the state of your position over all. So, why would I or anyone be interested in discussing these things with you.

If all of us so flawed and fall short of your grace and knowledge, why bother with us at all?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Certainly no one is more surprised than I that I am coming to believe much if not all of the Old Testament is based on literal truth and that this truth arose naturally so that it still resonates with people. "Thou shalt not steal", who knew?

40,000 years of ancient science that looked at life from the inside without even having concepts like "species" while naming the animals allowed them insights into reality of which Newton and Darwin would be jealous. But they were all different stripes of sun addled bumpkins according to anthropology, archaeology, Egyptology et al so we can ignore them with impunity and maintain our omniscience.

One of these days I'll have to take a closer look at the New Testament.

Whose omniscience do you reckon is being maintained by all of this really?

You are the one alluding to absolute knowledge of things not in evidence. You keep repeating claims that require robust support without any support at all. As if you are repeating truths that only you see.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You already can't remember that cause precedes effect, everyone makes sense, and life is consciousness so why should I attempt a comprehensive list of my other premises for you to not see?

Elaborate on these truths that you reveal to us. Enquiring minds want to know.