Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Of course they are going to look at what they consider to be evidence backing up their conjectures, but there is nothing that makes it true.

Nothing for you, but not nothing for those educated in the science. You still seem to have no concept of what others can and do know. To you. all opinions are as uninformed as yours and therefore equal. Everything is conjecture to such a person.

As presuming that we know something that we don’t actually know. If we knew it we would say that we know it. But instead we say we believe it, which means that we presume to know it’s so but don’t actually know that it’s so.

That's not how I use the word belief. I call even the most certain beliefs beliefs, but they are always associated with some degree of tentativeness, thus probably correct, very likely correct, and a certain as possible (fact) are all degrees of belief. The benefit of relying ONLY on critical analysis to accumulate beliefs is that all of them fit into one of those categories.

We humans can never know the truth of things with any surety because we are not omniscient.

We don't need to be omniscient to have useful knowledge. We don't need to be any more certain of things than we are to apply that knowledge successfully and achieve desired outcomes all day every day as you and I are doing now. I know how to get this message to you. Am I certain that you'll get it? No, but I don't need to be, either.

There are several RF posters with varying degrees of epistemic nihilism, you among them. They post about what we don't know, what we can't know as if that mattered with respect to what we can and do know. But I'm confident (to the degree of "very likely correct") that you all do what I do in daily life and do it well enough to accomplish most immediate goals such as getting to destinations, acquiring food, and the like, but then come home and armchair philosophize about what can't be known without much awareness of how much we know and can use to effect desired outcomes.

And now we live in a whole culture that constantly promotes fear and ego, and eschews honesty and humility. And look where we are as a result.

If you mean American culture, I'd say that the problems are a dwindling sense of community and interconnection and diminishing empathy. You like to cite greed, which I understand in those terms.

we decided the Bible writers were ignorant and believed rain came from a firmament above.

Yes, because they said that that is what they believed.

there is no such thing as linear progress.

I don't know what linear means in this context, but man has made progress in many areas over the centuries, and not just in science and technology. Moral theory has evolved and improved, for example.

We don't get to decide reality.

We are forced to decide how best to navigate it, and thus have an interest in acquiring an accurate belief set.

The reality is your premises are wrong

So you say, but [1] haven't convinced me of that and [2] those premises work for me. If they didn't, I'd modify them.

Of course they could see it was round.

They described the earth as flat, immobile, and resting on pillars. They might have thought it was coin-shaped, but not spherical. Even by Columbus' time, there was concern that he might sail off of the earth, although Columbus himself might have known better.

This from Revelation indicates that some thought the earth was square:

"After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, two holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind could blow on land or sea or against any tree." - Rev 7:1

Metaphysical language is wholly and utterly different. It is like computer code where each word is representative of either data (nouns) or operations. Rather than meaning being stated it is implied by understanding the code. Every word of necessity has a single meaning that does not vary over time or from user to user. Each word is binary and representative. It is a bee's Waggle Dance that each observer can use to know the source, direction, and size of a food source. Like Bee it utilizes all the knowledge of Beekind to communicate. The "words" themselves, their grammar, and their meaning requires that every observer must know everything about the nature of being a bee in order to understand the meaning which is not parsed but rather is apparent through context and a perspective that sees reality from the inside rather than infinite distance.

Metaphysical language is like mathematics that has no concept of any numbers but 1 and 0 just like the brains of each of its users. Virtually all brain cells are either on or off.

The use of such language makes the user not even experience "thought" which is why such words didn't even exist before the Tower of Babel but linguists couldn't possibly notice because they know the "tower of babel" is superstitious nonsense. They already know everything just like the rest of us. Homo omnisciencis; hear us boast.

OK. I might have called be language a natural language.

 

[leroy]

Not too bad. It would be better to say that the hypothesis of dark matter predicts that we would also observe gravitational lensing. If we did not see that it would be a very good sign that the hypothesis was false. Please note, the observation of gravitational lensing confirms the dark matter hypothesis. That does not mean that it is proven. It is possible that there is another better explanation. But as it stands right now there is evidence for the dark matter hypothesis due to that prediction being confirmed. Now see if you can apply that properly to other ideas. Please note that we had the possibility of a fail with something that was not known ahead of time. Your test is not a proper test if we already know the answer.

ok @SkepticThinker claims to agree with you, therefore this is also directed to him
------

Ok so given that we both agree on the concept of evidence, allow me to move one step forward.

Note that at this point nobody is taking about God (yet)

Observation: the entropy of the universe was very low at the big bang ( S = 1088kB)

Hypothesis: the low entropy of the universe is a result of a non-random mechanism (or cause)

Alternative hypothesis: the low entropy is the result of random chance (we simply got lucky)

Test: the odds have been calculated Roger Penrose estimated that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10 10^123. (this is a number with more than 1000 digits)

"Source

Although, it may seem that this picture is of such a marvelously romantic nature that it is completely immune from scientiWc attack, I do not believe that this is so. Let us return to the extraordinary degree of precision (or ‘Wne-tuning’) that seems to be required for a Big Bang of the nature that we appear to observe. As was argued in §27.13, the required precision, in phase-space-volume terms, is one part in 1010123 https://ia601208.us.archive.org/6/items/RoadToRealityRobertPenrose/road%20to%20reality-robert%20penrose.pdf"

Evidence: the fact that the initial entropy of the universe was very low + the fact that low entropy states are much, much much more unlikely than high entropy states, supports the hypothesis and not the alternative hypothesis

Therefore we have evidence that the low entropy of the universe is not a result of a random process. Therefore we have evidence for our hypothesis.

Agree at this point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok @SkepticThinker claims to agree with you, therefore this is also directed to him

------

Ok so given that we both agree on the concept of evidence, allow me to move one step forward.

Note that at this point nobody is taking about God (yet)

Observation: the entropy of the universe was very low at the big bang ( S = 1088kB)

Hypothesis: the low entropy of the universe is a result of a non-random mechanism (or cause)

Alternative hypothesis: the low entropy is the result of random chance (we simply got lucky)

Test: the odds have been calculated Roger Penrose estimated that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10 10^123. (this is a number with more than 1000 digits)

"Source

Although, it may seem that this picture is of such a marvelously romantic nature that it is completely immune from scientiWc attack, I do not believe that this is so. Let us return to the extraordinary degree of precision (or ‘Wne-tuning’) that seems to be required for a Big Bang of the nature that we appear to observe. As was argued in §27.13, the required precision, in phase-space-volume terms, is one part in 1010123 https://ia601208.us.archive.org/6/items/RoadToRealityRobertPenrose/road%20to%20reality-robert%20penrose.pdf"

Evidence: the fact that the initial entropy of the universe was very low + the fact that low entropy states are much, much much more unlikely than high entropy states, supports the hypothesis and not the alternative hypothesis

Therefore we have evidence that the low entropy of the universe is not a result of a random process. Therefore we have evidence for our hypothesis.

Agree at this point?

Sorry, but that is just wrong on several levels. Number one being that you do not have a hypothesis. You only have a general statement that appears to be based upon a strawman. You were doing well but then you tried to sneak God into the argument in a rather ham fisted manner.

 

[cladking]

Yes, because they said that that is what they believed.

Most probably true.

But you continue to elude my point. What the writers of the Bible believed was a confusion of an ancient science that held reality existed and could be understood through logic and observation just like bees and beavers.

I don't know what linear means in this context, but man has made progress in many areas over the centuries, and not just in science and technology. Moral theory has evolved and improved, for example.

By "linear" I mean continual; that each successive manifestation of human knowledge and omniscience is superior to previous manifestations. Most people extrapolate this far further and imagine even evolution brings improved species but this is NOT my point here. They imagine even the cosmos is approaching some perfect state where the galaxies are just the right distance and speed. They imagine that by having fun and making the world a better place that future generations will necessarily be happier, healthier, and wiser just as we area smarter, more knowledgeable, and better able to communicate than the pyramid builders and the Bible writers who were in turn smarter than cavemen.

I believe and can show evidence for, that there is no progress. There is only change and for the last 4000 years humans have been getting dumber and less capable. We allow usurpers to destroy products, brands, and lives while filling garbage dumps with the fruits of our own labor. Now they want to get even richer by putting them in charge of doubling down on waste and inefficiency in a game they call "global warming", which, if real, they themselves created.

The "progress" you and Darwin imagine is a unicorn because almost ever single caveman from 20,000 years ago was smarter and more knowledgeable than the vast majority of modern people. They expressed themselves differently and this is why we can't imagine the universal metaphysical language seen writ in caves and on the walls of ancient constructs. We can't imagine it so of course we can't read it. We can see that much of it shares a vocabulary so we believe we can "translate" it despite the fact these translations makes no sense at all and look like the word salad. And this despite the fact that there is a literal meaning which is simply ignored because it is too fantastic to believe. This literal meaning implies there is no linear progress and we are stinky footed bumpkins.

 

[cladking]

We are forced to decide how best to navigate it, and thus have an interest in acquiring an accurate belief set.

God no!!!!

How many times must I repeat that you can not navigate what you don't know? You are assuming you know everything about gravity because the earth causes a 32 ft/ s/ s acceleration. Until 15 years ago we knew nothing about it that cavemen didn't know. They used counterweights and gravity without ever knowing that it travels at similar speeds to light. Recently we decided it shuts off at galactic distances but no experiment has shown this.

Since you can't decide reality any navigation you're doing is based on what you believe reality is. Just like a witch doctor.

They described the earth as flat, immobile, and resting on pillars. They might have thought it was coin-shaped, but not spherical. Even by Columbus' time, there was concern that he might sail off of the earth, although Columbus himself might have known better.

This from Revelation indicates that some thought the earth was square:

"After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, two holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind could blow on land or sea or against any tree." - Rev 7:1

I agreed the Bible writers were "wrong" despite the fact I believe they were probably literally correct in terms of ancient science and the confusion that ensued at Babel.

I said a caveman could see the world was round. A bee knows the world is round.

The Bible writers were exactly like you and me: they could not see what they didn't believe. A caveman always made sense in terms of his understanding of natural science. We always make sense in terms of what we individually believe.

 

[leroy]

Sorry, but that is just wrong on several levels. Number one being that you do not have a hypothesis. You only have a general statement that appears to be based upon a strawman. You were doing well but then you tried to sneak God into the argument in a rather ham fisted manner.

Ohh come on……………..are we back to “you are wrong because you say so”

Justify your claim……………..why isn’t that a hypothesis?

1 “X” was caused by a random mechanism

2 “X” was cause by a non random mechanism

Both are valid hypothesis, if you disagree, explain why………….. isn’t this the purpose of the forum?

 

[ChristineM]

Recently we decided it shuts off at galactic distances but no experiment has shown this.

As far as i am aware, the strength of gravity at it distances from any given mass follows the inverse square rule and is thus infinite, getting weaker and weaker but never reaching zero

 

[cladking]

OK. I might have called be language a natural language.

Yes. Bee, Beaver, and Homo Sapien were natural languages. They were each formatted similarly to computer code. Homo Sapien arose from Proto-Homo Sapien after a mutation allowed closer communication between the wernickes area and higher brain functions. All these languages were specific and metaphysical and formatted according to natural law and the nature of consciousness.

All Homo Omnisciencis languages are formatted differently and in such a way that all communication must be parsed and every individual parses every utterance differently. They are not a "natural languages' but rather they arose as a replacement for metaphysical language when it became too complex for the average man. They are each pidgin forms of the original metaphysical natural human language that share vocabularies with it. It is largely this shared vocabulary that hides the change undergone in the original language, "Homo Sapien".

There was no linear progress. Society and the economy broke down and only ancient technology called "agriculture" saved the new species (homo omnisciencis) from extinction.

ALL experiment and ALL physical fact matters. We instinctively see only what supports our beliefs and don't even know it because we disregard the experiments that prove it.

 

[cladking]

As far as i am aware, the strength of gravity at it distances from any given mass follows the inverse square rule and is thus infinite, getting weaker and weaker but never reaching zero

Apparently this was changed recently to fit the beliefs in both dark matter and the increasing speed of galaxies.

I could well be wrong and it could be just one school of thought.

I have no such beliefs and do believe it likely you are right unless gravity is quantum.

 

[PureX]

We don't need to be omniscient to have useful knowledge.

But I was not talking about "useful knowledge". I was talking about knowing the truth of things.

Knowing how to build a car and drive it from here to there is useful knowledge. But it tells us nothing about why there is a 'here' and a 'there'. Or why the various forces that the car we built employs, exist. Or why the nature of our being makes it necessary that we go from here to there. The story of 'what is' does not end with how it functions to our advantage.

We don't need to be any more certain of things than we are to apply that knowledge successfully and achieve desired outcomes all day every day as you and I are doing now.

Yes, but this conversation was not about the efficacy of applied knowledge. It was about or inability to know the truth of 'what is'.

There are several RF posters with varying degrees of epistemic nihilism, you among them. They post about what we don't know, what we can't know as if that mattered with respect to what we can and do know.

Of course it matters. Because the ethics of applied knowledge matter a great deal.

But I'm confident (to the degree of "very likely correct") that you all do what I do in daily life and do it well enough to accomplish most immediate goals such as getting to destinations, acquiring food, and the like, but then come home and armchair philosophize about what can't be known without much awareness of how much we know and can use to effect desired outcomes.

None of this is relevant to the conversation, however.

 

[gnostic]

Ohh come on……………..are we back to “you are wrong because you say so”

Justify your claim……………..why isn’t that a hypothesis?

1 “X” was caused by a random mechanism

2 “X” was cause by a non random mechanism

Both are valid hypothesis, if you disagree, explain why………….. isn’t this the purpose of the forum?

You are still making claims.

A hypothesis is explanation, that are far more detailed than your 1-line sentence. A single sentence isn’t an explanation.

A hypothesis requires details on how the phenomena work (the mechanism), and you can’t do it with just a simple sentence.

Not only that, a hypothesis would include (A) HOW one would find the evidence, which would include the WHERE & WHEN, or (B) HOW one would do the experiments. This is testing part of the Scientific Method. Without these instructions on how to test the hypothesis, it would means the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. It would also mean that the explanations would disqualify it from being a hypothesis.

Plus, the hypothesis should provide predictions, which are vital as baseline that the evidence or experiments (or both) must meet.

So if the evidence & experiments don’t support the hypothesis’ predictions, then the tests have debunked or refuted the hypothesis.

your 1-liner is merely just a claim, not a hypothesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

As I said to you man times before, proofs are often seen as maths, like equations that contain numbers, variables, const, etc, or seen as formulas, like used in chemistry, with chemical symbols to represent the atoms, elements, molecules, compounds or chemical reactions.

These so-called proofs - whether they be used as formulas or equations, are parts of the explanations or predictions. And these proofs, like the explanations of hypotheses, are only provisional proposals that are not true, until scientists have tested the hypotheses. If a hypothesis has failed the tests, like the evidence or experiments don’t support the hypothesis, then those equations or formulas have also failed and been refuted.

Equations and formulas can be used in scientific theories or hypotheses, but they are not true until they have been rigorously tested.

Do not confuse proof with evidence…they are not synonymous with one another in science. Evidence are independent of any explanation and of any maths.

I'm not confusing proof with evidence. Btw.

 

[Pogo]

As far as i am aware, the strength of gravity at it distances from any given mass follows the inverse square rule and is thus infinite, getting weaker and weaker but never reaching zero

Yes there is a scale at which the expansion of the universe is significantly larger an effect than the gravitational attraction between distant masses.
Pop-sci articles often overlook this depth of explanation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing for you, but not nothing for those educated in the science. You still seem to have no concept of what others can and do know. To you. all opinions are as uninformed as yours and therefore equal. Everything is conjecture to such a person.

You have that wrong. For instance, a scientist might look in a vial and see certain things. Therefore he sees what he sees.

 

[YoursTrue]

How many people do hear about being killed by gorillas v's other humans?

Then explain again how humans are superior.

I understand your reason. But I don't think gorillas have laboratories and devise medicine, some of which work and some do not. That's about where I leave it now except birds can flap there wings and fly away...

 

[leroy]

You are still making claims.

A hypothesis is explanation, that are far more detailed than your 1-line sentence. A single sentence isn’t an explanation.

In fact hypotheses are usually just one sentence long

source:

Some hypothesis examples include:

• If I water plants daily they will grow faster.
• Adults can more accurately guess the temperature than children can.
• Butterflies prefer white flowers to orange ones.
• How to Write a Hypothesis in 6 Steps, With Examples.

And your friend @Subduction Zone already accepted these 2 one sentence hypothesis as valid………………….so do you have the intellectual honesty to correct him and tell him that he was wrong?

(related to dark matter)
Explanation/hypothesis: there is a type of “substance” that is invisible but has a gravitational force

alternative hypothesis: the stars are attached for some other reason that has nothign to do with gravity

A hypothesis requires details on how the phenomena work (the mechanism), and you can’t do it with just a simple sentence.

as my source claims.......this is a perfectly valid hypothesis (that may or may not be true)
"If I water plants daily they will grow faster."


You don’t need to explain the mechanism on how/why pants grow..............that would be an other question

Not only that, a hypothesis would include (A) HOW one would find the evidence, which would include the WHERE & WHEN, or (B) HOW one would do the experiments. This is testing part of the Scientific Method. Without these instructions on how to test the hypothesis, it would means the hypothesis is unfalsifiable. It would also mean that the explanations would disqualify it from being a hypothesis.

The testing part was also described in my previous example………… but the hypothesis is the hypothesis (1 sentence) and the testing is the testing

So if the evidence & experiments don’t support the hypothesis’ predictions, then the tests have debunked or refuted the hypothesis.

Luckily the test support my hypothesis

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ohh come on……………..are we back to “you are wrong because you say so”

Justify your claim……………..why isn’t that a hypothesis?

1 “X” was caused by a random mechanism

2 “X” was cause by a non random mechanism

Both are valid hypothesis, if you disagree, explain why………….. isn’t this the purpose of the forum?

No, you are wrong because I explained to you why. If you did not understand then politely ask for help.

I already justified my claim. 1. is not a hypothesis. It is a claim. A hypothesis has to be a testable explanation of some observation of nature. You lost the ability to demand support, you can look that up yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In fact hypotheses are usually just one sentence long

source:



And your friend @Subduction Zone already accepted these 2 one sentence hypothesis as valid………………….so do you have the intellectual honesty to correct him and tell him that he was wrong?

(related to dark matter)
Explanation/hypothesis: there is a type of “substance” that is invisible but has a gravitational force

alternative hypothesis: the stars are attached for some other reason that has nothign to do with gravity



as my source claims.......this is a perfectly valid hypothesis (that may or may not be true)
"If I water plants daily they will grow faster."


You don’t need to explain the mechanism on how/why pants grow..............that would be an other question



The testing part was also described in my previous example………… but the hypothesis is the hypothesis (1 sentence) and the testing is the testing


Luckily the test support my hypothesis

Once again wrong. A hypothesis has to be a testable explanation. If you are not explaining anything you only have a claim. And what hypotheses are you claiming that I accepted?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand your reason. But I don't think gorillas have laboratories and devise medicine, some of which work and some do not. That's about where I leave it now except birds can flap there wings and fly away...

Active self-treatment of a facial wound with a biologically active plant by a male Sumatran orangutan | Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA)

carta.anthropogeny.org

Pharmacological and behavioral investigation of putative self-medicative plants in Budongo chimpanzee diets | Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA)

carta.anthropogeny.org

Unusual feeding behavior in wild great apes, a window to understand origins of self-medication in humans: role of sociality and physiology on learning process. | Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA)

carta.anthropogeny.org

Geophagy: soil consumption enhances the bioactivities of plants eaten by chimpanzees. | Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny (CARTA)

carta.anthropogeny.org

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ohh come on……………..are we back to “you are wrong because you say so”

Justify your claim……………..why isn’t that a hypothesis?

1 “X” was caused by a random mechanism

2 “X” was cause by a non random mechanism

Both are valid hypothesis, if you disagree, explain why………….. isn’t this the purpose of the forum?

Well, they are tested by observation of what is the one or the other (1 or 2 amounts to what should be predictied to be observable). And if no observation is not possible (can't be done as present) then it is unknown.

So nevermind if they are as such a hypothesis. The question is how will you observe a cause to the universe? Remember it has to be an observation.