My point is that I truly doubt the earth "emerged" from that Big Bang (or whatever it was) in the form it is today. What do you think? Here is what one website says about this: "The Earth was formed about 4.6 billion years ago, that's 4,600,000,000 years ago. It was formed by collisions of particles in a large cloud of material. Slowly gravity gathered together all these particles of dust and gas and formed larger clumps. These clumps continued to collide and gradually grew bigger and bigger eventually forming the Earth. The earth at this time was very different to how we know it today."
The Earth through time
The science supports your doubt. The universe began expanding some 13.7 billion years ago followed by the formation of stars to cook heavy elements and then explode to distribute those elements to nebulae (gas clouds), one of which collapsed some 4.6 billion years ago to form our solar system. Earth began forming after the sun, and grew by accretion for some 20 million years into a red-hot planet, which subsequently cooled and hardened on its surface. Later, oceans and an atmosphere appeared, and one fateful day came earth's first rain.
But you believe the Genesis version, correct?
All I am saying is that if “the natural world” was caused by something, then this something by definition had to be “non-natural” Granted? Please answer yes or no
He already answered you. Nature may not be limited to our universe. If a multiverse exists and was the source of our universe, then that is just another aspect of nature albeit an unfamiliar one to us. You might call the rest of nature extra-universal. You like to say supernatural, but that word carries too much baggage and is incorrect anyway if it implies that outside of the universe is "above nature."
What experiment shows that natural law exists?
All of them that lead to testable inductions that are later confirmed.
What experiment shows how life or reality came into existence?
None show how reality came to exist. Abiogenesis research is experimental science, but the work is in progress.
What experiment shows there is no free will?
None, which is why the question of its existence has been intractable to date.
What experiment explains why science should change one funeral at a time?
It shouldn't, assuming that you mean that older scientists don't change their minds even in the face of compelling evidence that convinces younger scientists.
Why do you think only beliefs founded in science have validity and reflect reason?
Experience tells me that knowledge about how the world works only comes from observation of reality (empiricism). Nobody has generated knowledge (apart from pure logic like mathematics) in any other manner, and by knowledge, I mean ideas that can be used to anticipate outcomes. Others who have claimed to see further using some other way of knowing have given us no useful ideas (knowledge).
How do you think every hypothesis, every experiment, and beliefs in a Higher Power came into existence without reason and logic?
I've already answered that. Having a god belief is probably the result of having instincts suggesting agency underlying natural phenomena which we inherited from the beasts, and then evolving to be able to reason using symbols (human language). Now, man doesn't just understand thunder as something to fear, he begins making up stories and rituals to explain and appease whoever is banging like that in the sky.
Why are only YOUR beliefs not superstitious?
I am not the only one who is not superstitious. Anybody who sticks exclusively to critical thinking and empiricism to decide what is true about the world will avoid superstition.
Belief in natural law is superstitious and living a life based on this belief is superstitious.
Disagree, and I don't know why you would say that. Nature clearly follows rules, which is why we can use our inductions about it to predict future outcomes.
Believing in any natural origin of reality or life is superstition.
Believing that it's natural that science changes one funeral at a time or ignoring the fact is superstition.
Believing in every extrapolation of experiment is superstition.
Believing that science arises through genius or human progress is superstition.
Believing that any logical and reasonable process can not end up at truth is superstitious.
It's pretty difficult to understand why you write like this or even what you mean. You have some idiosyncratic understanding of how reality works. My worldview atheistic humanism - is a common one, and it works for me and millions of others. You think differently, and I don't see where it has done you any good.
Living a life holding onto superstitions will lead into circles; if you believe it will come true.
Agree, but since we don't agree about what constitutes a superstition, we're probably not referring to the same thing.
You just did. "I don't do inductions" is a general rule making it an induction.
The world is falling apart because of specialization and the belief in greed. We are approaching Tower of Babel two point 0 which will spare not even the greediest or the wealthiest because this time there is no fall back position. There is no viable means to communicate between specialists nor with the uneducated or those who don't speak "science". We're already seeing it with widespread incompetence and an inability to make quality products. It will get worse even if we can fix an educational system already in shambles.
You are looking around and seeing everything only in terms of your beliefs as surely as we all do. You believe in omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and you see the miracles it generates with every gaze at every single thing. You are missing the anomalies and every single thing of which you are ignorant because your eyes are full of beliefs. The ancients said thing we attend to are in the center of our eyes because that it what appears to observers. What is in the center of our eyes is our beliefs. This only changes with experience and then what we know appears in them and almost like magic. Anyone can understand this paragraph by actually reading it, trying to parse it correctly, and taking it literally. But nobody has the time to consider other peoples' words and certainly not those of a crackpot or fools on or off of hills. You've already been composing a response for several sentences now. Of course the response won't address much of anything at all in this post because this post is not really even being read.
These two paragraphs are examples of your idiosyncratic thinking and belief set, or what I called "other ways of knowing." I don't see any benefit to you.
And your final sentence is wrong. I can't address much of that specifically because I don't know what much of it means or why you wrote it, but I did address it collectively. I said that it is a nonproductive way of thinking and that I find no value there.
But on to specifics where possible:
I disagree that the world is falling apart or that if it were, it would be because of specialization.
I disagree there, "There is no viable means to communicate between specialists." I'm a retired physician and specialized in internal medicine. I had no difficulty communicating with other physicians. Engineers and architects communicate with one another and with builders effectively. Counterexamples are endless.
Regarding, "We're already seeing it with widespread incompetence" Incompetence has always been widespread. I was commenting on that just yesterday when a waiter got several things wrong even after taking our order twice. But there are still people that seek excellence in themselves and are more than competent. I like to think that I'm one in three different areas (medicine, musical performance, and contract bridge)
I don't believe in omniscience, omnipresence, or omnipotence.
I disagree that, "Anyone can understand this paragraph by actually reading it, trying to parse it correctly, and taking it literally." As I indicated, I don't know what your point is or why you wanted to tell others such things. Shall I understand "What is in the center of our eyes is our beliefs" or "We are approaching Tower of Babel two point 0" literally?
Regarding, "nobody has the time to consider other peoples' words and certainly not those of a crackpot or fools on or off of hills" I do and just did. Are you referring to yourself as a crackpot? You're different, but I don't want to insult you. Idiosyncratic was the word I chose to describe your thinking.
You also have a touch of what I facetiously called
seeing further or having
other ways of knowing, as when you wrote, "you are missing the anomalies and every single thing of which you are ignorant because your eyes are full of beliefs." A lot of people represent that they have special knowledge, but they can never say what advantage they gain with it.
No!!! I said experiments and observation.
