Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

Your argument is fairly good but is still largely semantical. It all hinges on the flawed logic quoted here.

Both science and religion study reality but neither can find it. We all grope in the dark like blind men trying to describe an elephant. By stating that science can find no reality in the supernatural you are putting the cart before the horse. Reality exists independently of belief, theory, and belief in theory.

Real scientists don't reach conclusions and would not conclude that the lack of evidence for the supernatural means it doesn't exist.



On a related topic there is magic everywhere from the look in a young girl's eyes to our very existence. Obviously it's possible that consciousness and all the magic might someday be found to have solely natural causations explicable it terms of equations but in the meantime there is far more unknown than known and any belief other than this is scientism. The belief in natural law borders on scientism since there is no known agent to administer or to obey such laws. All we really have is theory which might best be thought of as being correlated to reality that provides some insight into the logic that is reality. Perhaps some of this logic would even seem supernatural to us if we were aware of and understood it.

You are not a scientist obviously, Scientists do not claim that there are no gods /supernatural /magic, the claim is that we lack evidence and so we do not know,
Not knowing is not equivalent to knowing not. That you think it is, or that we do, is an example of scientism,

 

[cladking]

You are not a scientist obviously, Scientists do not claim that there are no gods /supernatural /magic, the claim is that we lack evidence and so we do not know,

I NEVER have said they did.

I said believers in science believe there is no God and all things are explicable in terms of their own narrow specialties. These beliefs are what is called "scientism" here and underlie the supernatural things that believers in science believe. Real scientists don't believe in science. They use the tool called "science" as a methodology to learn the nature of reality and to further human progress and knowledge. This is not to say every scientist believes this because some do believe in science.

You are not a scientist obviously,

I'm am more a metaphysician than a scientist now days. I have no applicable expertise in science so consider myself a generalist which some call a "nexialist", but not I.

Not knowing is not equivalent to knowing not.

You'll need to explain this sentence because I can not parse a logical meaning from it.

Our ignorance is virtually complete. The little knowledge we have is highly dependent on definitions and assumptions.

 

[cladking]

Here is a link to explain both generalism and nexialism;

The Nexialist approach: Van Vogt and the idea that specialisation is for insects

On a term that’s unfamiliar to most, but best describes what many generalists are doing.

archive.factordaily.com

Keep in mind though I was a self taught scientist from an early age before becoming a self taught generalist. I don't do the same kind of science as scientists. I perform many experiments and have in the past used mathematics extensively but now avoid math by framing questions such that all the variables cancel out.

To each his own.



Our society and economy are imploding because of specialization and specialization is the leading cause of scientism. We might go extinct because of specialization and Tower of Babel 2.0 approaches because of it. It is the greatest threat to our continued existence.

 

[Astrophile]

When we read these passages in the past we considered them inexplicable from a natural point of view. But a few years ago scientists experimented a new application to the discovery of water dipolarity. They discovered that by applying a strong magnetic field to a volume of water, it was possible to divide that volume into two parts, leaving a completely dry space in the center.

How strong was the magnetic field? How could such a magnetic field be produced over a large area and what effects would it have on living things? Have you got a link for this experiment?

 

[Pogo]

How strong was the magnetic field? How could such a magnetic field be produced over a large area and what effects would it have on living things? Have you got a link for this experiment?

I found this article on the use of magnetic fields generated with superconductors so I am guessing fairly high strength used in the separation of water from a few years ago.

Magnetic separation technique for environmental water purification by strong magnetic field generator loading HTS bulk magnets​

Unfortunately for Eli, the water doesn't separate, the impurities in the water separate from the water. LOL

 

[Pogo]

How strong was the magnetic field? How could such a magnetic field be produced over a large area and what effects would it have on living things? Have you got a link for this experiment?

I found this article on the use of magnetic fields generated with superconductors so I am guessing fairly high strength used in the separation of water from a few years ago.

Magnetic separation technique for environmental water purification by strong magnetic field generator loading HTS bulk magnets​

Unfortunately for Eli, the water doesn't separate, the impurities in the water separate from the water. LOL

 

[blü 2]

Your argument is fairly good but is still largely semantical. It all hinges on the flawed logic quoted here.

All statements are semantical.

Both science and religion study reality but neither can find it.

Reality (aka objective reality) is the world external to the self. It's where your air, water, food, shelter, society, parents &c are found.

It's also where the supernatural is NOT found. Not even once. The supernatural exists only as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains.

Otherwise you could give a demonstration of it out there in reality and make yourself a fortune.

By stating that science can find no reality in the supernatural

Psychiatrists encounter the supernatural all the time, I dare say.

Real scientists don't reach conclusions and would not conclude that the lack of evidence for the supernatural means it doesn't exist.

It exists as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains, exactly as I said. Now you know where to look for it, you can find as much of it as you wish.

On a related topic there is magic everywhere from the look in a young girl's eyes to our very existence.

You're referring to psychological reactions, not to real states of affairs.

Obviously it's possible that consciousness and all the magic

First specify the "magic" and demonstrate its objective existence. Especially the latter.

As I said, magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality. So set out a demonstration of magic in objective reality and show the scientists what they've missed.

Without such a demonstration, you have no case, no argument that requires an answer.

 

[cladking]

It's also where the supernatural is NOT found. Not even once. The supernatural exists only as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains.

You're still doing it. You are still assuming you know reality and its laws despite everything. You nor anyone else knows reality.

 

[Pogo]

You're still doing it. You are still assuming you know reality and its laws despite everything. You nor anyone else knows reality.

No he is just stating that no-one has demonstrated the supernatural outside of persons subjective thoughts.

You could be the first if you did. Till then it is still not found as he said.

 

[Madsaac]

Atheist do not believe in miracles more then believers.

Miracles only occur through an individuals subjective experience and not though the laws of science. Eg. Walking on water

And atheist generally believe in the laws of science.

 

[cladking]

You're referring to psychological reactions, not to real states of affairs.

Is the amygdala a mere abstraction?!

First specify the "magic" and demonstrate its objective existence.

It must be magical if all knowing science and omniscient humans can't even define it. If it isn't magic then why don't you prove it? Indeed, knowing that the undefinable is not supernatural is a supernatural belief. Scientism is the belief in the supernatural. This isn't the semantics you wield, this is reality. That I could be wrong and you could be right is irrelevant to your belief in the supernatural.

As I said, magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality.

Again we don't know the rules of reality and the belief such "rules" exist as well as that rules can exist is a belief in the supernatural.

What pray tell, is the difference between a belief in God and a belief in Mother Nature and the Laws of Nature? If such laws do exist then who handed them down? How do you explain the simple fact that every society in recorded history had every answer? How do you explain the fact that every individual in recorded history was a product of his place and time? How do you explain the fact that science changes one funeral at a time? How do you explain the fact that what is settled science one day is an old wives' tale the next? How can anyone believe that science is ever settled and that we finally have every answer including the knowledge that there is nothing unknown and we each have perfect vision to see reality?

At least religion or belief in a Higher Power is internally consistent and in accord with reason, science, and observation. Belief in science and its teachings are not internally consistent and everyone takes it in stride when science is proven wrong over and over and over again. It's never going to stop because science will always be wrong but still the only game in town. Just make sure you play it right and according to the rules which say you not believe in anything except reason and experiment. Reason works not because we're smart (we aren't) but rather because there is always some logic in reason and reality is logic manifest. Reason and reality normally correspond closely especially when there's less belief in the supernatural.

If you tried to understand the point, I'm sure you would.


Before you start a new lecture about the glory of science and omniscience try answering a few of the questions I posed. I don't type these out to see how my carpal tunnel is doing. I would like answers which are never forthcoming.

 

[cladking]

No he is just stating that no-one has demonstrated the supernatural outside of persons subjective thoughts.

This thread is about the supernatural beliefs of those who believe in science.

I believe this is already established.

I don't believe in the supernatural. I believe reality is infinitely more complex than any believer in science can ever imagine. I don't know what reality holds which is why I study it as well as the mechanisms we use to study it.

 

[blü 2]

You're still doing it. You are still assuming you know reality and its laws despite everything. You nor anyone else knows reality.

I've defined "objective reality" for you. I repeat, it's the world external to the self. Each of us, humans and critters, is on the inside, looking out.

On the inside we can dream, imagine, remember, hypothesize, create ideas, whether for a new novel or a thesis on cosmology. We can have gods, ghosts, demons, sprites, fairies, pixies, succubae, vampires, wizards, magic wands, wishing wells, magic rings, we can fly, rule, be world famous, be a racehorse, or elephant, or tiger, or flea. We can imagine anything we wish.

But not out there in the world external to the self. Not out there in (objective) reality. There you find no gods or magic mirrors or superman powers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Cladistics" do not necessarily reveal the truth about how life from the start came about, I.e., as purported in the theory of evolution. But if you want to believe that humans are monkeys as well as fish -- you go for it.

They do so to the point that God would have had to have lied for it to be otherwise. That is one of the reasons that I often have to tell creationists that they are claiming that their own God is a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How strong was the magnetic field? How could such a magnetic field be produced over a large area and what effects would it have on living things? Have you got a link for this experiment?

That reminds me of an early claim that I heard from a creationist in college about 45 years ago. And that was that some physicist supposedly did the math of the Sun holding still in the sky and how that explains all of the elliptical orbits of the planets. They were supposedly perfectly circular before that.

 

[Madsaac]

This thread is about the supernatural beliefs of those who believe in science.

I believe this is already established.

I don't believe in the supernatural. I believe reality is infinitely more complex than any believer in science can ever imagine. I don't know what reality holds which is why I study it as well as the mechanisms we use to study it.

Yeah, reality may be more complex than any believer in science can ever imagine but....

At the moment we know what we know through science and thinking that it's more complex without proof is just science fiction or make believe or supernatural

 

[cladking]

I've defined "objective reality" for you.

...and you are defining objective reality as what you believe.

Reality is independent of what anyone believes. Forget "objective" as this is just inserting yourself into what you believe is reality. You change reality into something very subjective with a belief a science.

Again, science is a tool and should not be mistaken for the job it can and does do.

 

[YoursTrue]

They do so to the point that God would have had to have lied for it to be otherwise. That is one of the reasons that I often have to tell creationists that they are claiming that their own God is a liar.

Sorry, but Taktaalik does not prove/show/or evidence that water dwelling fish became land rovers. (I mean Tiktaalik...)

 

[cladking]

At the moment we know what we know through science and thinking that it's more complex without proof is just science fiction or make believe or supernatural

I understand your point but I disagree. There is no knowledge outside of consciousness and self.

It is not "science" that creates knowledge. It is experience. It is thought. It is derived from reason and experiment.

Most people who believe in science don't understand that experiment is the basis of all science. For most practical purposes the terms are synonyms. Add in observation and you have a complete picture. They also don't understand that all experiment is always relevant to all of reality all the time. Just as every event in reality is dependent on every other event, every experiment must apply to our understanding of reality.

There is no clockwork reality. Reality is complex, chaotic, and unpredictable. The number of variables that affect every event/ observation is for practical purposes infinitely large and when that number is odd the result is harmonic and when it is even it is chaotic. There's no such thing as random but there is free will which derives from consciousness.

Belief in science is dangerous. It is belief in the supernatural.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but Taktaalik does not prove/show/or evidence that water dwelling fish became land rovers.

That is because it is only one of millions of pieces of evidence. One has to be dishonest and ignore all of those other pieces of evidence to be a creationist. And that is why we know that you call your own God a liar.