Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't follow the discussion. It's not easy or pleasant trying to follow you. You fixate and obsess, and you ignore most of what is written to you.

I'm sure that you don't remember and probably didn't even read my comments in the past about asking yourself what's in this for the other guy. There's nothing for me in your posting to others nor in your posting to me. Look at how much of that post you failed to comment on - all of the interesting to me stuff.

Sorry, Leroy, but since you aren't interested in giving me the courtesy of responding to my points, I have no interest in responding to your posts except the aspects that interest ME, and this isn't interesting to me.

Furthermore, I'm certain that if I gave you a good answer, you'd ignore most or all of it as you did my explanation of what evidence is and how it's evaluated. Why? Because there's nothing in it for me. I'd be doing it for you, and I'm no longer predisposed to do anything at all for you. That's the price of your self-absorption. That the price of your selfish posting etiquette. My responses to you are limited to what interests me, and I'd rather discuss your behavior than your questions. I don't care about what matters to you.

I think it is interesting that there are people on here with degrees and vocations in the sciences and they are ignored and great effort is made to marginalize and twist anything those folks have to say.

As we have been occasionally commenting, I find nothing in it for me to engage or continue engaging in relation to the topics of discussion. If these claims of ancient science and fine tuning aren't worth defending, then they are not worth my time either.

 

[YoursTrue]

I explained why twice. I linked an article that brought up the same point again for @YoursTrue . You are simply unwilling to learn how you screwed up.

The article didn't make much sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The article didn't make much sense.

Really? Why not? I do not think that it could have been written any simpler.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think it is interesting that there are people on here with degrees and vocations in the sciences and they are ignored and great effort is made to marginalize and twist anything those folks have to say.

As we have been occasionally commenting, I find nothing in it for me to engage or continue engaging in relation to the topics of discussion. If these claims of ancient science and fine tuning aren't worth defending, then they are not worth my time either.

And I agree that not all scientists agree with one another, not all are willing to overlook blanks in explanations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I agree that not all scientists agree with one another, not all are willing to overlook blanks in explanations.

Scientists look for "blanks in explanations". If you think that they ignore them then you do not understand the science that you are talking about.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that is not the case . When a student refuses to learn no matter who teaches that student it is clearly not the fault of the teachers.

All that you have to do is to get over your fears and try to be honest.

The more I think about it, look at what you and scientists say, the less inclined I am to believe the theory as posited by Darwinians.

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientists look for "blanks in explanations". If you think that they ignore them then you do not understand the science that you are talking about.

From what I see in general, yes, these blanks are there and the lineage is skipped over as if they're playing hopscotch. I am sure an honest scientist or examiner would say, "Well, yes, the blanks are there, but that's the best we can do."

 

[Subduction Zone]

From what I see in general, yes, these blanks are there and the lineage is skipped over as if they're playing hopscotch. I am sure an honest scientist or examiner would say, "Well, yes, the blanks are there, but that's the best we can do."

Please, you need to be more specific than that. If you are complaining about the fossil record being incomplete there are for all practical purposes not "blanks". It is as if you want to claim that only the balls that you observe rebounding from the Earth bounce and that the others do not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

that? what do you mean by "that" in this context?




why not?

That: Observation: shortly after the big bang the entropy was low

That is according to you derrived as a mathematical estimate by Roger Penrose. Thus it is not an observation.

 

[gnostic]

What if the witnesses contradict each-other?

Yeah. I don’t think @leroy has considered that.

How do Leroy would determine which testimonies are accurate or that one of them is embellishing or telling outright lies.

It would be like “he says, she says” scenario.

Plus, what if someone has problem recalling events they've witnessed. Witnesses have been known to wait for months or even years before something goes to trials, and taking the witness stand, they have to recollect something that happened some times ago.

Memories can deteriorate over time for some people.

That for court cases.

In sciences, evidence are used to test any model, in order to mitigate any human biases, lies, embellishments, etc, because testimonies are considered unreliable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And I agree that not all scientists agree with one another, not all are willing to overlook blanks in explanations.

I'm not sure how that is a response to what I said. I did not reference or question agreement amongst scientists. Are you sure you are responding to the right post?

The point I'm making is that many untrained people here have decided that their knowledge and understanding of science is greater than actual scientists. They can ignore other members who are trained and work in science and disregard their informed views as irrelevant to empty opinion.

That doesn't make a lot of sense to do, but that fact hasn't stopped anyone yet.

 

[Tomef]

It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:

A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.

So who is the one who believes in miracles?

It’s a miracle anyone could think up such daft bollocks.

 

[leroy]

A small summery for context
0 some people keep saying "there is no evidence for God".... I am accepting the challenge of proving evidence for God

1 but first ....I'm asking about the concept of evidence, aiming to find an objective way to determine when something counts as evidence // the purpose is to understand what do you mean by evidence when you say there is no evidence for God.

2 @Subduction Zone proposed that evidence is something that supports a hypothesis, that flows as a consequence of following the scientific method. .... So if my hypothesis is that God created the universe..... I would have to provide something that supports that hypothesis, but this something has to pass the filter of the scientific method . (This "something" would be the evidence)

3 I suggested that gravitational lensing is evidence for an invisible substance with gravity (Dark Matter) with the purpose of determining if I personally understand @Subduction Zone s concept of evidence ..... It is important that the main purpose of the dark matter exercise is to show that I understand the concept of evidence according to @Subduction Zone s rules

4 coming up next , @Subduction Zone explanation for why I failed in justifying that gravitational lensing is evidence for Dark Matter.......... Note that he doesn't disagree on that gravitational lensing is evidence for dark matter .... Just that I personally failed in justifying it. Implying that I still don't understand what evidence is


Is this a fair summery? Would you add or remove anything...... Am I representing your view correctly ?


For context... My hypothesis: Stars in Galaxies Remain attached because there is an invisible substance with gravitational force (Dark Matter)

As people explained to you again and again a hypothesis is an explanation. You never presented an explanation:

"A scientific hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world. It's the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an "educated guess" based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, a hypothesis is more informed than a guess. While an "educated guess" suggests a random prediction based on a person's expertise, developing a hypothesis requires active observation and background research. "

So you need much more than a statement. A hypothesis can often be described in a single sentence but in no way is that the hypothesis itself. And all that you had was a single sentence description

Many describe it as an "educated guess" based on prior knowledge and observation.

Is that your concern? I thought it was implicit and therefore not necessarily...... But you are the boss and you are correct we need prior knowledge in order to call it a hypothesis....... In the case of my hypothesis (in red letters above) the prior knowledge would be general theory of relativity, how gravity works, how strong the force is, how to measure the mass and force of gravity of stars and galaxies etc.....

Given this prior knowledge scientist where able of determining that there is not enough mass and gravitational force in stars..... to keep them attached to their galaxy

Is this good enough for you ,? ...... Yes I understand that I am oversimplifying the prior knowledge..... But this is just a forum..... You are not expecting me to write a book are you?

Not only that but the explanation has to be thorough enough so that one can make predictions with it, And those predictions are what can be used to test the hypothesis.

I think I did explained that..... If there is a substance with gravity we would predict to observe gravitational leansing

"The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no predetermined outcome. For a solution to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be an idea that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This concept, called falsifiability and testability, was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper in his famous book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (Routledge, 1959).

I think my example accomplished that standard..... The hypothesis is testable and falsifiable........ If there is no gravitational lensing then whatever is keeping the stars attached has nothing to do with gravity..... Falsifying the hypothesis

A key function of a hypothesis is to derive predictions about the results of future experiments and then perform those experiments to see whether they support the predictions."

Not sure why you think this is relevant.... Whether if the hypothesis makes predictions or not has no bearing on whether if gravitational leansing is evidence for the hypothesis.

If you think is relevant I would appreciate more details on what are you talking about.


I am also curious on why are you having so much focus in the concept of hypothesis....... the main focus in this conversation is the concept of " evidence"

Anyway a little bit of explaining would be appreciated

Do you understand now how you were not close to having a hypothesis?

Sorry I was influenced by your previous comment where you say that "I was close "



So conclusion

Gravitational Leansing is evidence for the hypothesis (in red letters above) because given all the prior knowledge that we have and according to general relativity..... Things with gravity produce this effect of gravitational leansing..and tests can be done to detect this leansing........... The success of this tests in detecting gravitational lensing support the claim that there is something invisible with gravity that keeps the stars attached.

Alternative hypothesis that claim that stars are attached for some other reason that has nothing to do with gravity.....are strongly refuted by gravitational leansing...


So for these reasons gravitational leansing is evidence for the hypothesis.



Do you think my understanding of evidence is correct? What would you add?


I am aware of the fact that I am oversimplifying the concepts.......but have I made any relevant mistakes?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A small summery for context
0 some people keep saying "there is no evidence for God".... I am accepting the challenge of proving evidence for God

1 but first ....I'm asking about the concept of evidence, aiming to find an objective way to determine when something counts as evidence // the purpose is to understand what do you mean by evidence when you say there is no evidence for God.

2 @Subduction Zone proposed that evidence is something that supports a hypothesis, that flows as a consequence of following the scientific method. .... So if my hypothesis is that God created the universe..... I would have to provide something that supports that hypothesis, but this something has to pass the filter of the scientific method . (This "something" would be the evidence)

...

What is objective evidence as per natural science?
Start there.

 

[cladking]

I respect science. I try to learn it.

Perhaps this is exactly where you et al have gone so very wrong.

We're not supposed to be "learning science" so much as studying reality with the tools of reason and science. Once you "learn science" all you can do is point and scream at heretics.

Just as we try to apply math to real world questions, anomalies, and "blanks" we should be trying to apply science to studying the nature of reality. Of course believers in science will see nothing but a semantical argument here because they already know science and are blind to everything they don't know. Nor can they see that they are blind since they already know it. A car mechanic uses science to know reality as surely as any cosmologist so they can both point and scream at those who don't accept pods in the sleeping areas or scientific dogma masquerading as truth.

 

[cladking]

But you seem to "protest" much of it, as when you call it dogma or say that Darwin was in error (something to do with induction: "the process Darwin used to get so very wrong."

I protest no science. Paradigms are not now and never were "science". They are constellations of experimental interpretation and no existing paradigm employs all experiment across the board. No existing paradigm (TMK) considers both experiments in colliders and experiments in consciousness to explain the double slit experiment. If one did it would mean nothing at all because there is no existing definition for "consciousness".

I protest the rape of science by those looking to make money at the expense of the masses and its perversion by those who see miracles in man's omniscience. I protest the deification of science by those whose only morality has become "greed is good". I protest its use as a weapon against the weak and dispossessed; the unfit of the world who need to shuffle aside to create more strong. I protest the belief that science is right and that any future changes will be to make it even more right creating ever more linear progress bestowed upon believers and heretics alike. I protest the species rushing headlong into oblivion as every convert cheers it on.

 

[cladking]

Isn't that healthy, assuming that we are careful about what we believe and don't begin accumulating false and unfalsifiable beliefs?

It is nether healthy nor unhealthy that we interpret all things in terms of our beliefs. It is our nature; "Homo circularis rationatio", see us run in circles.

Not recognizing that our beliefs and definitions pre-determine our conclusions is exceedingly unhealthy. Once we reason that the unfit are unnecessary it becomes easy to hack them up or cut them down. We rarely or never consider the consequences of our actions so we use 6,000 dollar hammers to swat flies. We create gasohol which worsens the problem it was created to solve. We now live in the only universe that has an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps despite the fact that there could be only one universe with no pyramids made by any ramps at all. We are not only certain of our conclusions but then our conclusions reinforce the very premises by which we came to them. The miracle comes when this circular reasoning then glorifies the process which gave it birth and they call "science".

Without experiment there is no science at all. Only experiment is capable of stopping our circular reasoning whether we are a cosmologist or a theist.

 

[cladking]

In biology, fittest means the most fecund. In economics, the fittest business is the most profitable one, as other less profitable business either just get by or close. In college applications, the fittest applicants are the ones that are accepted. I find the concept very much a description of reality and not only harmless, but helpful.

Wow!

We live in a world with governance for rent and college applicants selected by the Supreme Court. We live in a world where product design is to lower quality and fix them so they have as little lifespan as the "consumer" will tolerate (or even less). Companies compete to reduce product size such that it is unnoticeable thus ruining its long term viability since things like recipes will no longer work. Companies add vast amounts of impure sodium tripolyphosphate for the sole purpose of causing the product to retain more water so water can be sold as product as the alphabet soup of government agencies look the other way and employ vast networks of phone trees to dissuade even the most persistent complaints. Meanwhile longevity has begun crashing and leaders believe there are too many people, especially deplorables in flyover country.

 

[PureX]

Science is amoral. When science becomes our only means of defining reality, WE become amoral. All the more-so when the scientism cultists actively attack and disparage any means we humans have of determining and enforcing morality, like philosophy and religion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps this is exactly where you et al have gone so very wrong.

We're not supposed to be "learning science" so much as studying reality with the tools of reason and science. Once you "learn science" all you can do is point and scream at heretics.

Just as we try to apply math to real world questions, anomalies, and "blanks" we should be trying to apply science to studying the nature of reality. Of course believers in science will see nothing but a semantical argument here because they already know science and are blind to everything they don't know. Nor can they see that they are blind since they already know it. A car mechanic uses science to know reality as surely as any cosmologist so they can both point and scream at those who don't accept pods in the sleeping areas or scientific dogma masquerading as truth.

I can't see where you learn science or have learned from science.

You talk about things that there is no evidence for and you speak of them as if they are established and known to exist and just as you claim. Yet you cannot, at any turn, provide evidence for the existence of these things. When pressed, you dither, you divert or you run.

No talking squirrels. No brain scans from 2,000, 5,000, 12,000 or 40,000 years ago. No demonstration that all change in all living things is sudden. No assumptions of Darwin or explanation of how they are false. No examples of any language spoken by ancient, pre-literate societies. No evidence that ancient, cave-dwelling Homo sapiens were more intelligent and knowledgeable than modern Homo sapiens. No evidence that there exists or ever existed species of humans best described by new nomenclature like Homo omniscience, Homo running in circles and so forth. No evidence that all living things are conscious or that consciousness is required in speciation. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Just ever wilder claims that have all the appearance of fabrication from the mind of a single individual that has created their own reality in some fan fiction version of science. And with nothing corresponding to any evidence that anyone can examine or test for themselves.

You don't give anyone anything to be interested in discussing. It is just all your empty claims spoken like revealed truth in some rambling, twisting narrative.