Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[PureX]

Mathematically, it's a pseudo-Riemannian or Lorentzian manifold. Using this exact model has been extensively tested and has never failed to provide correct predictions.

Worthless, intuitive hand-waving in the face of hard science.

There is no "hard science" here, just scientific jargon that you think makes it more authoritative.

I'm not a 'guru' nor am I pretending. I know what I know about the science through the hard work of actually studying it.

You don't even know that it isn't science. It's just basic observational logic.

That's not what I said, and motion requires time, not the other way around.

If you would stop that ole' knee from jerking for a minute, and just think about it, you will realize that time is just our perceiving 'this' going from 'here' to 'there' (motion). No motion (here to there), no time. Time does not create motion, It simple 'records' (cognates) it.

There can't be a 'before' time, it's a contradiction in terms.

But there must be a possibility before anything can happen. Even time. Thus, the source of that possibility logically transcends time. (Proposition #3.)

The word 'before' is meaningless without time. You're again implicitly using Newtonian time, and you don't seem to even realise it.

More evidence that the source that determines existence possible transcends the existence that results. Including any manifestations or limitations regarding time. You are not able to understand this because as a philosophical materialists, there is no transcendence of the physical expression of existence possible In your mind). You have disallowed that possibility to maintain your materialist paradigm. And thereby trapped yourself in it.

The space-time as a whole is timeless (not subject to time) you said timeless is what eternal means. The rest is more hand-waving nonsense.

"Space-time" is an IDEA. Not a "thing". Can you at least inderstand this much?

Well, space, time and matter all exist within the space-time manifold. You have provided no evidence or reasoning that actually support anything else.

The "space-time manifold" is just a term for a specific kind of relational perception among humans. it is not a thing. There is no "space-time manifold" apart from the perceived/conceived idea of it in your mind.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no "hard science" here, just scientific jargon that you think makes it more authoritative.

Now you're just being silly. When a model of reality works so well that it has a 100% track record, despite endless observational and experimental tests, it is hard science.

You don't even know that it isn't science. It's just basic observational logic.

Do you even know what science means? Because you don't seem to, from what you're saying.

If you would stop that ole' knee from jerking for a minute, and just think about it, you will realize that time is just our perceiving 'this' going from 'here' to 'there' (motion). No motion (here to there), no time.

And if you'd stop your knee from jerking to protect your own intuitions, despite hard evidence that they are wrong, and looked at the evidence, then you'd know why this makes no sense. I obviously gave you too much credit when I said you were using Newtonian time. Even Newton worked out this was the wrong way around.

But there must be a possibility before anything can happen. Even time.

No. It's simply self-contradictory to say 'before time'. The word 'before' is meaningless when you use it that way. You're even contradicting your own intuitive nonsense view of time that you gave above. What you're saying isn't even self-consistent, let alone backed up by logic or evidence.

More evidence that the source that determines existence possible transcends the existence that results. Including any manifestations or limitations regarding time.

Wibble.

You are not able to understand this because as a philosophical materialists, there is no transcendence of the physical expression of existence possible In your mind). You have disallowed that possibility to maintain your materialist paradigm. And thereby trapped yourself in it.

I'm looking for logic or evidence. You have contradicted the evidence (science) and even contradicted yourself in the alternative, evidence denying fantasy alternative 'reality' you've made up. Logic appears to be a stranger to you.

"Space-time" is an IDEA. Not a "thing". Can you at least inderstand this much?

There is, as I said, solid evidence that space-time is a good model of reality, and therefore corresponds to a thing. As I said to @ChristineM, the real (testable) phenomena of time dilation and length contraction are a direct result of different observers using different directions (coordinates) through space-time as their time direction. In short, these phenomena are a direct result of the geometry of space-time.

There are multiple other measurable phenomena that correspond to the properties of space-time. If it isn't a thing, reality is going to a lot of trouble to behave as if it was.

The "space-time manifold" is just a term for a specific kind of relational perception among humans. it is not a thing. There is no "space-time manifold" apart from the perceived/conceived idea of it in your mind.

Nonsense.

I can point to measurable, repeatable facts to support the scientific view, you seem to be living in an evidence- and logic-free fantasy world all of your own. I guess that's up to you, if you don't really care about reality and logic, but it doesn't even seem to make you happy, considering all the angry ranting you do on here....

Ho-hum.

 

[cladking]

Now you're just being silly. When a model of reality works so well that it has a 100% track record, despite endless observational and experimental tests, it is hard science.

There is nothing, no fact, no theory, no belief, no observation and no experiment with no anomalies. It is a miracle that anomalies are invisible right up until someone points at them. Everyone saw a fine new suit on the naked king until a boy did not. Then they laughed. Now days the naked king then takes a bow and the suit can magically reappear.

 

[YoursTrue]

what evidence is there that you know of that God does not exist?

@It Aint Necessarily So You replied to my question: "If you mean the god of Abraham, science has ruled that deity out. There may be a god, but if so, it's not the one that is said to have created, the world in six days including a first pair of humans. I understand that that's probably not important to you. You'll go on believing in that deity whatever evidence or argument is presented to you, because even though you ask for it, you're not considering the answer, which means that you can never be persuaded by what is recognized as a compelling argument to a critical thinker."

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying there may be a God but you don't really know of any.

 

[YoursTrue]

The "God did it" as it is above quote, is nothing more than superstitions.

Nothing what the Bible say, are generally wrong, about the Earth, the order of creation of life in Genesis 1 is contradicted by the order of creation 2.

Plus the order of plants, marine animals, birds and land animals don't match with the evidence in the fossil record and with geological evidence.

Genesis Creation as you have given, it is taken on faith.

@YellowFeather made a good point when he related how from a tiny particle the earth expanded to what it is today.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@It Aint Necessarily So You replied to my question: "If you mean the god of Abraham, science has ruled that deity out. There may be a god, but if so, it's not the one that is said to have created, the world in six days including a first pair of humans. I understand that that's probably not important to you. You'll go on believing in that deity whatever evidence or argument is presented to you, because even though you ask for it, you're not considering the answer, which means that you can never be persuaded by what is recognized as a compelling argument to a critical thinker."

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying there may be a God, but you don't really know of any.

Yes, I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in gods because I am aware of none, but I also don't say none exist.

I said more than that, however. I explained how I know that that god doesn't exist. The world took more than six days to form and there were no first human beings. If a god or gods exist, it would have to be one that that science has not ruled out.

Think of it like this. A child is told that Santa will come down his chimney and deliver toys to him Christmas eve. Being a bit of a scientist and a skeptic already, he places a camera in front of the fireplace and records all night. Sure enough, toys have appeared under the tree that night, but nobody came down the chimney. The child knows he has a benefactor, but not the one described. Likewise, I know the world has a history and a source, but not the one Genesis describes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in gods because I am aware of none, but I also don't say none exist.

I said more than that, however. I explained how I know that that god doesn't exist. The world took more than six days to form and there were no first human beings. If a god or gods exist, it would have to be one that that science has not ruled out.

Think of it like this. A child is told that Santa will come down his chimney and deliver toys to him Christmas eve. Being a bit of a scientist and a skeptic already, he places a camera in front of the fireplace and records all night. Sure enough, toys have appeared under the tree that night, but nobody came down the chimney. The child knows he has a benefactor, but not the one described. Likewise, I know the world has a history and a source, but not the one Genesis describes.

An "Agnostic atheist." The Oxford Dictionary describes agnostic this way: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." (Interesting they say "material phenomena," that's another story though I guess. And I"m not going into it because either a person believes in God or he does not.
I always felt agnostic means "I don't know.. if there is a God." But "agnostic atheist" gets a bit complicated as far as I'm concerned. Anyway, not wishing to argue with your concept, I'll just leave it there.

 

[gnostic]

@YellowFeather made a good point when he related how from a tiny particle the earth expanded to what it is today.

What @YellowFeather described is based on his or her personal opinion, that God is invisible Spirit, who created Earth from one tiny particle -

It took God thousands of years to create the earth. He started with just one little spectrum floating in space. He took it and started working it to where it became larger and was able to then create things inside. Everything God created took time. God is a Spirit and is invisible.

- which is no better than saying God created the first human from “dust of the ground“ (Genesis 2:7; Quran 30:20), or from “clay” (Qur’an 15:26).

Neither one (YellowFeather’s spectrum”), nor the Genesis “dust” (or Qur’an’s clay) are scientifically probable.

Clay or any other type of soil (eg other soil types include silt & sand), are largely made of silicate minerals, like feldspar, that are inorganic, and silicate (silicon-based mineral) cannot transform into organic materials, like tissues, and tissues are made of cells, to be more precise, tissues are made of proteins that exist in every cells. We know what proteins are made of, and they are chain of amino acid, not made of silicate.

Cells and tissues are not made of any soil type, silicate cannot give life, and it cannot reproduce. Clay are made of silicate that are structured chemically as hydrous aluminium phyllosilicate, Al2Si2O5(OH)4), the most common clay mineral is called kaolin.

As to what YellowFeather has claimed, about “one little spectrum” or yours, “tiny particle”: neither you, nor could specify what this particle is.

The Earth are made of, are many things which all have masses, and a single particle cannot possibly become multiple myriads of different particles.

You know the Solar System currently have two asteroid belts, but according to nebula hypothesis, say that prior to formation of planets and asteroid belts, it was just young forming star, surrounded by disk of massive asteroids and less massive planetesimals, and this disk is known as accretion disk, similar to what images you have seen from Voyagers 1 & 2.

There was a lot more asteroids back then, 4.6 billion years ago. These asteroid, especially larger & massive ones would collide into the smaller asteroids and planetesimals, building the masses. The collisions would release massive energies, hot enough to fuse them together, into increasingly larger bodies, planet-size, first creating the planetary cores, eg Earth’s core. The more build-up of mass each proto-planet has, the more objects it will draw into itself.

By the time, each planets have reached the size as they are, most of the asteroids and other objects would have cleared the paths from the planetary orbits. The Earth formation required more mass to form, so it could not began with a single particle.

The Earth is the second largest rocky planet, in diameter, but the Earth is more massive (have more mass) than Venus…which would mean, the Earth is denser.

The Nebula Hypothesis, and the accretion disk, is the most plausible explanation as to how the inner rocky planets (from Mercury to Mars) form. The gas giants (eg Jupiter & Saturn) and ice giants (Uranus & Neptune), would have formed different from I have described about the rocky planets.

It far more plausible than the Earth being made only from a single particle…and neither you, nor YellowFeather, could tell us what this particle is.

 

[YoursTrue]

What @YellowFeather described is based on his or her personal opinion, that God is invisible Spirit, who created Earth from one tiny particle -



- which is no better than saying God created the first human from “dust of the ground“ (Genesis 2:7; Quran 30:20), or from “clay” (Qur’an 15:26).

Neither one (YellowFeather’s spectrum”), nor the Genesis “dust” (or Qur’an’s clay) are scientifically probable.

Clay or any other type of soil (eg other soil types include silt & sand), are largely made of silicate minerals, like feldspar, that are inorganic, and silicate (silicon-based mineral) cannot transform into organic materials, like tissues, and tissues are made of cells, to be more precise, tissues are made of proteins that exist in every cells. We know what proteins are made of, and they are chain of amino acid, not made of silicate.

Cells and tissues are not made of any soil type, silicate cannot give life, and it cannot reproduce. Clay are made of silicate that are structured chemically as hydrous aluminium phyllosilicate, Al2Si2O5(OH)4), the most common clay mineral is called kaolin.

As to what YellowFeather has claimed, about “one little spectrum” or yours, “tiny particle”: neither you, nor could specify what this particle is.

And so? Would you say according to science or what you think that the earth formed as a big sphere right from the start of its existence rather than a speck from explosion of whatever it was that started as a "Big Bang"? Do you believe the earth in its present size was always there? I mean, of course, without green grass and animals. Just as a big round-ish mass. Did it start as a speck of whatever? I'm asking about the size when it started,not proteins.

 

[Pogo]

Now you're just being silly. When a model of reality works so well that it has a 100% track record, despite endless observational and experimental tests, it is hard science.


Do you even know what science means? Because you don't seem to, from what you're saying.


And if you'd stop your knee from jerking to protect your own intuitions, despite hard evidence that they are wrong, and looked at the evidence, then you'd know why this makes no sense. I obviously gave you too much credit when I said you were using Newtonian time. Even Newton worked out this was the wrong way around.


No. It's simply self-contradictory to say 'before time'. The word 'before' is meaningless when you use it that way. You're even contradicting your own intuitive nonsense view of time that you gave above. What you're saying isn't even self-consistent, let alone backed up by logic or evidence.


Wibble.


I'm looking for logic or evidence. You have contradicted the evidence (science) and even contradicted yourself in the alternative, evidence denying fantasy alternative 'reality' you've made up. Logic appears to be a stranger to you.


There is, as I said, solid evidence that space-time is a good model of reality, and therefore corresponds to a thing. As I said to @ChristineM, the real (testable) phenomena of time dilation and length contraction are a direct result of different observers using different directions (coordinates) through space-time as their time direction. In short, these phenomena are a direct result of the geometry of space-time.

There are multiple other measurable phenomena that correspond to the properties of space-time. If it isn't a thing, reality is going to a lot of trouble to behave as if it was.


Nonsense.

I can point to measurable, repeatable facts to support the scientific view, you seem to be living in an evidence- and logic-free fantasy world all of your own. I guess that's up to you, if you don't really care about reality and logic, but it doesn't even seem to make you happy, considering all the angry ranting you do on here....

Ho-hum.

You want to bet he trusts his GPS unit?

 

[Pogo]

@It Aint Necessarily So You replied to my question: "If you mean the god of Abraham, science has ruled that deity out. There may be a god, but if so, it's not the one that is said to have created, the world in six days including a first pair of humans. I understand that that's probably not important to you. You'll go on believing in that deity whatever evidence or argument is presented to you, because even though you ask for it, you're not considering the answer, which means that you can never be persuaded by what is recognized as a compelling argument to a critical thinker."

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying there may be a God but you don't really know of any.

That is what the evidence indicates and what a lack of belief in gods means, now how long will it take you to misinterpret and strawman this understanding?

 

[Pogo]

@YellowFeather made a good point when he related how from a tiny particle the earth expanded to what it is today.

Oh, please explain? With something that is not just an after the fact force fit.

 

[cladking]

God beliefs are superstitious. Look at the definition: "a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief"

That's very convenient. You've defined superstition such that all religious people are superstitious and all "scientific" people are not.

As I say, believers in science are the holiest of all thous.

Superstition is a belief. Whether you believe in religious miracles or "survival of the fittest" it's all the same. The miracles in which Dawkins believes are that with virtually no knowledge we can exclude the existence of a Creator and that Science and its Peers can address any question from the nature of consciousness to the origin of species and the delineation of morals. We are given "greed is good" as the only morality and the world is going to hell.

 

[cladking]

Superstitious belief isn't necessarily selected for just because it's prevalent.

In every single species but homo omnisciencis superstition is impossible. It is fatal to individuals and societies. But it kills very selectively.

Dawkins wrote an interesting piece about moths and flames in which he said that the correct question is not to ask what benefit flying toward and into light sources is to moths inasmuch as it is so prevalent among them, but rather to understand that phenomenon as an instinct that evolved when such light sources were heavenly bodies at a virtually intine distance away generating nearly parallel rays that was exploited by evolution in navigation.

But eons later, man starts making much closer light sources with diverging rays that coopt this system and cause moths to navigate in circles.

Interesting. I'll try to check it out when I have some time.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is nothing, no fact, no theory, no belief, no observation and no experiment with no anomalies. It is a miracle that anomalies are invisible right up until someone points at them. Everyone saw a fine new suit on the naked king until a boy did not. Then they laughed. Now days the naked king then takes a bow and the suit can magically reappear.

Nonsensical. Many theories are tested countless times every minute when anybody uses technology (like posting on this forum). The device you are using to post here uses semiconductors which test quantum mechanics and every time you use GPS, you test both special and general relativity.

It is a recorded fact that both quantum theory and relativity have passed every single test we've been able to devise to try to disprove them - that's a 100% track record for both. The only 'anomaly' is that they don't play nicely with each other, and testing situations in which both would be significant has thus far been impractical. How they work together only becomes significant in very extreme cases, like the where general relativity predicts a singularity, for example.

 

[ratiocinator]

That's very convenient. You've defined superstition such that all religious people are superstitious and all "scientific" people are not.

It wasn't his definition, it's from a dictionary (as he said). A quick search tells me it's from the New Oxford American Dictionary.

Here's another, from Dictionary.com:

1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

How about trying Cambridge Dictionary:

belief that is not based on human reason or scientific knowledge, but is connected with old ideas about magic, etc.​

We could try Merriam-Webster:

1. a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
   b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2. : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Oh, dear.

Superstition is a belief. Whether you believe in religious miracles or "survival of the fittest" it's all the same.

News Flash: individuals cannot simply redefine words just to suit their beliefs.

Quite clearly, belief in "religious miracles" is in a totally different category to scientific theories. This much is entirely clear from the basis of each.

 

[leroy]

Okay, so address my points and rephrase your options so that they make sense for the whole space-time.

First explain with your words the claim that you think I am making.... Because it seems to me that you are very confused.......

 

[ratiocinator]

First explain with your words the claim that you think I am making.... Because it seems to me that you are very confused.......

It would help if you read my posts before 'answering':-

You are looking back in time and thinking the universe must have existed forever or not, and in the latter case, you think it must have 'come from nothing'.

 

[gnostic]

And so? Would you say according to science or what you think that the earth formed as a big sphere right from the start of its existence rather than a speck from explosion of whatever it was that started as a "Big Bang"?

You really don’t know anything, do you?

You object science without even knowing what it say…you need to read, research and understand the latest scientific news regarding to the Earth, and about the Universe, the current knowledge of cosmology.

From what we know about the age of the Earth, is based on dating some of the oldest minerals - zircon and neodymium - have been dated to 4.4 Ga, so it more than likely that the Earth is about 4.54 Ga, when it formed.

The current estimate of the Solar System, is 4.5682 Ga, and that based on the meteorites, like that of Allende meteorite, one of the largest and most recent impact, 1969, Chihuahua, Mexico, which dated to 4.567 Ga.

These dates are what scientists are able to use.

And before you bring up radiocarbon dating, scientists don’t use carbon 14 isotope, as its half-life is too short (5730 years), with reliable dating range is only 50,000 years. Dating anything older than would require recalibration. To date something older, like millions of years or billion of years, a number of different isotopes, such as

uranium-235, hl 704,000 years​

​

potassium-40, hl 1.27 billion years​

​

uranium-238, hl 4.68 billion years​

​

lutetium-176, hl 37.8 billion years​

​

rubidium-87, hl 48.8 billion years​

All of these can date, right up to the age of the Earth, but the bottom 3 isotopes are capable of dating things older than the Earth, eg the Murchison Meteorite (1969), have dated the silicon carbide particles to 7 billion years.

The materials that created the planets, moons, asteroids, etc, most likely are debris that from one or more nearby supernova. There are even more dwarf planets, asteroids and other objects (particularly planetesimals) known as the Kuiper Belt.

As to the age of universe, these require whole communities of astronomers, astrophysicists & cosmologists to work with observatories around the world, including NASA & ESA space programs, to come with observational data, analysing & calculating, particularly the CMBR maps from WMAP & Planck programs. Even though they are over 10 years, these whole decades of data that still reveal much information. Plus there are the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), and it’s near infrared instruments, capturing images of, some of the earliest galaxies.

From the Planck data, its latest of universe age is 13.798 billion years old, with the date of the last scattering to 370,000 millions after the Big Bang.

Our Solar System being 4.568 billion years old, meaning there are gap of about 9 billion years. Our Solar System didn’t exist when the Milky Way and other galaxies formed, and despite what the Genesis 1 say, the Earth didn’t form before the stars.

 

[cladking]

News Flash: individuals cannot simply redefine words just to suit their beliefs.

I don't think you understand how a dictionary works. Every individual chooses the best definition he can remember to express the meaning of a word in a sentence he composes. But EVERY definition of the word and every definition of every word in the definition still apply. If someone wants to make a definition of "superstition" that can apply only to religious people and not to believers in science then that's OK; he can do that. But the moment you do that then there's no longer any point in this thread because we're talking about the supernatural beliefs of believers in science.

When we parse a sentence we assign the meaning the author apparently intended (that's what I do anyway). Henceforth I'll know exactly what ItAin'tNecessarilySo means when he uses the word since he was kind enough to define it. This is convenient too and will save us from engaging in semantical arguments like the one you raised here.