EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Autodidact]

You miss the point. We understand the processes of mutation . . . not the source.

We understand that mutations are copying errors.

 

[MysticPhD]

Well, shouldn't you be able to imply you know those things when...you know those things?

But we don't.

From your perspective, no one should say they know those things because that's God.

No . . . we shouldn't say those things because we DON'T know, period.

Well, we can explain them without God, too, so why shouldn't we? You're assuming everyone should assume that God is behind it all. You're more than welcome to believe that, but it's just as plausible that He's not.

Just as plausible is insufficient to attach the imprimatur of science to your preferred plausibility.

If you want to add something to "what makes atoms dance", then fine, but nothing needs to be added to claim we understand it.

Yes . . . claims of understanding require more than the ability to predict using mathematical fictions. "God is no part of it" . . . is a non-neutral position that science is not supposed to take without proof. Science does NOT UNDERSTAND what makes atoms dance . . . or what an atom really even is . . . or why it is as it is . . . etc.etc. Delving into the philosophical levels of understanding is not to be done lightly or cavalierly.

 

[MysticPhD]

You mean an explanation that makes predictions and is useful DOES NOT constitute an alternative to god (which neither makes predictions nor is useful)?? This strikes me as the preposterous ravings of a scientific illiterate.

I mean a non-explanation that just makes predictions does not constitute an alternative to God. This is the sort of scientific illiteracy and misunderstanding of the role of mathematics in empirical science that causes the mistaken impression I have been trying to combat. Probabilistic prediction is done from IGNORANCE . . . if we understood it we wouldn't need to speculate about the probability.

 

[Magic Man]

Just as plausible is insufficient to attach the imprimatur of science to your preferred plausibility.

How many times do people have to tell you that science does not say there is no God?

Yes . . . claims of understanding require more than the ability to predict using mathematical fictions. God is no part of it is a non-neutral position that science is not supposed to take without proof. Science does NOT UNDERSTAND what makes atoms dance . . . or what an atom really even is . . . or why it is as it is . . . etc.etc. Delving into the philosophical levels of understanding is not to be done lightly or cavalierly.

Yes, according to you, they don't. You're assuming God "makes them dance". Basically, you're saying "They don't know what makes atoms dance, that's God" and they're saying "We know that ____ makes atoms dance. Of course God could cause that to happen, but that's the explanation of how he does it.".

Your argument is pointless. You think God makes atoms do what they do, and he might. However, that doesn't really explain much in the end. In the end, science explains how atoms do what they do. If God causes them to behave that way, great. But we do understand "what makes them dance".

 

[Magic Man]

Probabilistic prediction is done from IGNORANCE . . . if we understood it we wouldn't need to speculate about the probability.

The probability of what? And what don't we understand according to you?

 

[MysticPhD]

Hardly. As a scientist I make it my job to critically examine nature on a regular basis.
"Nature" is a highly complex set of interactions between a myriad of forces on the micro and macroscopic level.
"Magic man did it" is just as vapid a non-answer as "it just is".

But "we have no idea but it is here and we can investigate it as well as we can" is superior to both. Your jargonese was philosophically empty verbiage and you should know that . . . if you are a scientist.

Philosophical issues are not scientific issues. I keep my science and my metaphysics separate.

Admirable. . . but the vast majority of scientific illiterates do not and little is done to disabuse them because of the antipathy to religions (which deserve it . . . but God doesn't).

Philosophy is about feelings and interpretations, science is about testable fact the limitation of bias.

Perhaps a little more study of philosophy would be in order if you truly believe what you just wrote.

So essentially you want God to be used to plug the gaps then? That is IMHO a poor use for God.

Absolutely NOT!. I don't want science to deceptively usurp the gaps (inadvertently or not).

You seem to have more of a problem with Math in general than Science in particular.
wa:do

No . . . I have a problem with the schism between theism and science that results from the religious fanatics of the past (and present). Anytime science efforts impinge on the unknowable . . . they should make it unambiguously clear that science has not made (and cannot make) God a less plausible source of the phenomena we investigate and seek to understand because we could just as likely be investigating God . . . as far as we know.

 

[MysticPhD]

How many times do people have to tell you that science does not say there is no God?

They imply it by using non-explanations as explanations . . . as you do here . . and assume that using God is some ADDITIONAL explanation. Your explanation is NOT one . . . randomness and probabilities are no explanation of anything. But you pretend they are and that God is an additional or alternative explanation. There is no UNDERSTANDING . . . only prediction using the concepts of probabilities and randomness . . . which are useful mathematical fictions created in our minds to aid us in predicting "measured" aspects of reality.

Yes, according to you, they don't. You're assuming God "makes them dance". Basically, you're saying "They don't know what makes atoms dance, that's God" and they're saying "We know that ____ makes atoms dance. Of course God could cause that to happen, but that's the explanation of how he does it.".

No . . . we have no idea whatsoever why they dance . . . we just can predict how the "measurable" aspects of them dance.

Your argument is pointless. You think God makes atoms do what they do, and he might. However, that doesn't really explain much in the end. In the end, science explains how atoms do what they do. If God causes them to behave that way, great. But we do understand "what makes them dance".

Agree with everything up to your last sentence. We do NOT understand . . . we can predict "measurable events," period.

 

[Magic Man]

But "we have no idea but it is here and we can investigate it as well as we can" is superior to both.Your jargonese was philosophically empty verbiage and you should know that . . . if you are a scientist.

I have to say, that last line is quite hilarious coming from you, the guy who uses the phrase "mathematical fiction". The only philosophically empty verbiage I've seen here is yours.

Admirable. . . but the vast majority of scientific illiterates do not and little is done to disabuse them because of the antipathy to religions (which deserve it . . . but God doesn't).

Basically all I hear here is that we need to improve science education in this country. That I agree with. I'm just not sure how you go from that to all of the other rhetoric.

Perhaps a little more study of philosophy would be in order if you truly believe what you just wrote. Absolutely NOT!. I don't want science to deceptively usurp the gaps (inadvertently or not).

I'm sorry, how does science "deceptively usurp the gaps"?

No . . . I have a problem with the schism between theism and science that results from the religious fanatics of the past (and present). Anytime science efforts impinge on the unknowable . . . they should make it unambiguously clear that science has not made (and cannot make) God a less plausible source of the phenomena we investigate and seek to understand because we could just as likely be investigating God . . . as far as we know.

What are you talking about? Science says nothing about God. It might cover some aspects of a particular religion or concept of God, though. Some people say that the earth is 6,000 years old. Science disproves that. That's not to say that it disproves that whole religion of that God, just that one bit of info.

 

[Magic Man]

They imply it by using non-explanations as explanations . . . as you do here . . and assume that using God is some ADDITIONAL explanation. Your explanation is NOT one . . . randomness and probabilities are no explanation of anything. But you pretend they are and that God is an additional or alternative explanation. There is no UNDERSTANDING . . . only prediction using the concepts of probabilities and randomness . . . which are useful mathematical fictions created in our minds to aid us in predicting "measured" aspects of reality.

Let me make it as clear as I can for you. Science does not say or imply that there is no God. They also don't say or imply that there is a God. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "non-explanations", but you seem to be very confused. Science explains what we sense in the universe. In those explanations, God is unnecessary and, in fact, unhelpful. He could be the ultimate cause of things, but that doesn't help us understand them.

God would be an additional explanation. For instance, we know how humans reproduce. We understand that process completely. Now, it's possible that God put that process in place, but that's additional to the explanation. Whether or not God was involved with that process, we still understand it. Bringing God into it doesn't add to our understanding of the process itself.

Randomness and probability are not supposed to be explanations by themselves. They are descriptions.

No . . . we have no idea whatsoever why they dance . . . we just can predict how the "measurable" aspects of them dance.Agree with everything up to your last sentence. We do NOT understand . . . we can predict "measurable events," period.

No, we know causes and effects. You think we don't know the ultimate cause and that that means we don't understand them. You're wrong. Again, we understand how animals reproduce. Whether or not God made that possible is irrelevant, and doesn't add to our understanding of the process.

 

[MysticPhD]

It doesn't. Science is neutral on the question.

Hardly.

Mathematical fictions?!? I have to take issue with you there. That's just wrong. They are mathematical realities.

Mathematics itself is not real . . . it is an artificial rubric created in our minds to mimic and model the "measurable" aspects of reality for predictive purposes. It is very useful . . . but nothing about it is real.

Nevertheless they do not take any position on the question of whether God is responsible for them.

True . . . but they should . . . because without SOME universal field establishing the metrics they use to model real processes it wouldn't work. That is why Einstein said "the biggest mystery of the universe is that we can understand it at all."

 

[painted wolf]

But "we have no idea but it is here and we can investigate it as well as we can" is superior to both.

That is what science does.

Your jargonese was philosophically empty verbiage and you should know that . . . if you are a scientist.

How so? Nature is the result of every interaction from the weak microscopic levels such as gravity to the macroscopic level such as predator-prey relationships. Each interaction builds on and from the rest in a tangled web.

Admirable. . . but the vast majority of scientific illiterates do not and little is done to disabuse them because of the antipathy to religions (which deserve it . . . but God doesn't).

I don't know about scientific illiterates, I deal with a lot of scientists and they are quite capable, by and large to keep the two apart. Science is science and discussions of metaphysics are kept out of said discussions.

Perhaps a little more study of philosophy would be in order if you truly believe what you just wrote.

My philosophy professors have suggested I take it up as a minor... I think I'm doing ok on the philosophy front.

Absolutely NOT!. I don't want science to deceptively usurp the gaps (inadvertently or not).

If you don't want god plugging gaps then why are you angry about science "usurping" said gaps?

No . . . I have a problem with the schism between theism and science that results from the religious fanatics of the past (and present). Anytime science efforts impinge on the unknowable . . .

How exactly does science impinge on the unknowable? If it's truly unknowable then we wouldn't be examining it would we? Science explores the real world and uncovers the knowable. If it is part of reality then we can know it.

they should make it unambiguously clear that science has not made (and cannot make) God a less plausible source of the phenomena we investigate and seek to understand because we could just as likely be investigating God . . . as far as we know.

That's just silly. No scientist is going to study lightning and then attribute it to Zeus. Nor should they.
Science simply explains what is. It's not religion, it's purpose is not to peddle god (of any flavor) to the masses.
Scientist may feel they are exploring gods works but that is as far as it goes... They understand, and with good reason, that the line between personal faith and published science is a clear and needed one.
Science tangled with religion stagnates and runs blind alleys... free inquiry can not exist under the duress of dogma.

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

Hardly.

You can keep telling yourself that, but it's not going to make it true.

Mathematics itself is not real . . . it is an artificial rubric created in our minds to mimic and model the "measurable" aspects of reality for predictive purposes. It is very useful . . . but nothing about it is real.

What's your definition of "real"?

True . . . but they should . . .

No, they shouldn't. God could be responsible for the entire universe, but that doesn't change how it works. Whether or not God exists, I could be typing this.

because without SOME universal field establishing the metrics they use to model real processes it wouldn't work.

Interesting hypothesis. I don't suppose you have anything other than your opinion to back it up.

That is why Einstein said "the biggest mystery of the universe is that we can understand it at all."

That's not why Einstein said that. He said that because it's amazing that the human brain has developped to the point of being able to grasp these concepts.

 

[MysticPhD]

I thought you said God was everyting and identical with the natural. I thought you just said that everything is either natural or God, not both. I'm confused.

Poor writing . . . I probably should have used parentheses) to indicate different names for the SAME phenomenon.

If we're ignorant of it, it may as well not exist for us. Not only do we happen to be ignorant, but it is defined as something as which we can only be ignorant--that is, it's unknowable.

I reject the word supernatural and I reject the pessimistic view of those natural things we currently do not fully understand, like God.

That's the functional equivalent of non-existent. Nor should we assume it does exist. After all, how would we know?

You have just illustrated the problem . . you wouldn't even consider making that statement about "Nature" . . . your God.

So you're an agnostic then?

No . . . I want science to be.

 

[Magic Man]

No . . . I want science to be.

Good. Then, we're done. Science is agnostic.

 

[MysticPhD]

We understand that mutations are copying errors.

Riiiight . . . random errors we use probabilities to predict the frequencey of, etc. etc. . . . meaning we don't UNDERSTAND a damn thing! Random explains NOTHING . . . neither does probability.

 

[MysticPhD]

The probability of what? And what don't we understand according to you?

Anything. Probability is our fall back position for our ignorance.

 

[painted wolf]

Riiiight . . . random errors we use probabilities to predict the frequencey of, etc. etc. . . . meaning we don't UNDERSTAND a damn thing! Random explains NOTHING . . . neither does probability.

Stop with this random bull... mutations are the result of the observable process of DNA replication errors. This isn't based on any "ebil maths" this is stuff we can see happen.

I'm sorry if you don't understand genetics but that is hardly an excuse for you talk nonsense about it.

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

Riiiight . . . random errors we use probabilities to predict the frequencey of, etc. etc. . . . meaning we don't UNDERSTAND a damn thing! Random explains NOTHING . . . neither does probability.

Anything. Probability is our fall back position for our ignorance.

Well, at the beginning I thought there was a chance of a rational discussion, but you've now made it very clear that you're not interested in that. You're basically like the OP. You don't actually understand science, nor do you care to, and yet you feel qualified to insult it and spread lies about it. Have fun with your head in the sand.

 

[MysticPhD]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "non-explanations", but you seem to be very confused.

Randomness and probability are not supposed to be explanations by themselves. They are descriptions.

You just answered your own question.Those are the "explanations" used for mutations . . . instead of "guided."

No, we know causes and effects. You think we don't know the ultimate cause and that that means we don't understand them. You're wrong. Again, we understand how animals reproduce. Whether or not God made that possible is irrelevant, and doesn't add to our understanding of the process.

I have no problem with science's explanations that ARE explanations. I chafe at the use of non-explanations to default to an indifferent and purposeless universe instead of a guided and purposeful one.

 

[themadhair]

I mean a non-explanation that just makes predictions does not constitute an alternative to God.

I find this comment hilarious. Not content with simply parading your ignorance regarding science and scientific discovery, but you actually decided to share with us your delusion that god is somehow an explanatory mechanism?? And doing this while simultaneously berating science for being a non-explanation???

This is the sort of scientific illiteracy and misunderstanding of the role of mathematics in empirical science that causes the mistaken impression I have been trying to combat.

Given the above this comment manages to be both hilariously ironic and a stunning clear-cut example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Probabilistic prediction is done from IGNORANCE . . . if we understood it we wouldn't need to speculate about the probability.

I do not believe, for a single moment based on your comments, that you know what a probabilistic prediction even is. You could prove me wrong by citing a few examples and why they are non-explanations, but I won’t be holding my breath.

They imply it by using non-explanations as explanations . . . as you do here . . and assume that using God is some ADDITIONAL explanation.

Well…if you have an explanation that works, makes predictions and accurately describes the phenomena in question that introducing god IS an additional explanation (one that adds absolutely nothing btw).

There is no UNDERSTANDING . . . only prediction using the concepts of probabilities and randomness . . . which are useful mathematical fictions created in our minds to aid us in predicting "measured" aspects of reality.

Amazing how you managed to post this comment. You know, with your computer being based upon ‘mathematical fictions’ and all.

So you're an agnostic then?

No . . . I want science to be.

You want science to have a belief that the question of god’s existence is unknowable? Makes as much sense as your previous postings I suppose. Not as if the simpler reality that science, by being an explicitly evidence-based (and thus naturalistic) methodology, can TAKE NO POSITION ON THE NON-EXISTENCE/EXISTENCE OF THE SUPERNATURAL (which includes god(s)).

The funniest thing is that using god for an explanatory mechanism has NEVER once in history furthered the knowledge or technology of mankind. It is also depressing.

I chafe at the use of non-explanations to default to an indifferent and purposeless universe instead of a guided and purposeful one.

Find me one single peer-reviewed paper that argues for a purposeless/purposeful universe. Find me just one. Have a search and you might learn that *gasp* science doesn’t take a position one way or the other (and you are talking bullcrap).