FOLYKAZE:


You are the one that said praying to something makes it a Deity.

People pray to the court.


You hate anthromorphical God, while the law is anthromorpise.

Deity is God. God can be influencial, admired and adored person; the judges falls here.

Therefore judges are deity.

de·i·ty
ˈdēədē,ˈdāədē/

noun
a god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion).
"a deity of ancient Greece"
synonyms: god, goddess, divine being, supreme being, divinity, immortal; More


divine status, quality, or nature.
"a ruler driven by delusions of deity"


the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity).
noun: Deity; noun: the Deity

Which one of these definitions applies to a human judge or to a courthouse?

Omo, this confusion pass me.

Weah96:


de·i·ty
ˈdēədē,ˈdāədē/

noun
a god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion).
"a deity of ancient Greece"
synonyms: god, goddess, divine being, supreme being, divinity, immortal; More


divine status, quality, or nature.
"a ruler driven by delusions of deity"


the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity).
noun: Deity; noun: the Deity

Which one of these definitions applies to a human judge or to a courthouse?

The bolded. . . God

3. an adored, admired, or influential person.

http://www.google.com/m?q=definition+god

Are the judges not human?

FOLYKAZE:


The bolded. . . God

3. an adored, admired, or influential person.

http://www.google.com/m?q=definition+god

Are the judges not human?

You said the bolded, only to completely ignore the phrase, "in a polytheistic religion."

That narrows it down to the Gods of religion, wouldn't you say?

PastorAIO:


This is not an Atheist. Rather it describes an Agnostic.

An atheist says: that there is no fruit in the box. Of course, he cannot prove that any more than the theist can prove the colour of the fruit in the box if the fruit existed.

A worthy opponent to disagree with it, at last. An atheist does not necessarily say there is no fruit in the box, it's more he says if there is indeed something in the box, it arose naturally.

A good and proper agnostic, imo, would be more open to whether these claims are possible. Put in another way, I would say an agnostic would claim that as we cannot, perhaps even by definition, determine that the supernatural exists then maybe, just maybe, there's the possibility....

The atheist, on the other hand? No. All there is is natural. Nothing more, nothing less.

That right there, I believe is the subtle difference between full blown atheists and agnostics (put in those pesky freethinkers, etc, amongst those ranks).




On another somewhat random note, as usual one ignoring and confusing as to which god. Confusionist-in-chief-plaetton-wannabe folly leading the charge, obfuscating and pulling all manner of silly tricks. Also, bafflingly, claiming he knows what's in the box, the concept being one that pisses all over natural laws, yet is an atheist.

Anyways, I can be fully atheist to certain claims, eg yahweh and talking yoruba dolls that can make me faster than Usain Bolt. However I can be 'agnostic', in the sense that I cannot tell you categorically that they do not exist, to those vaguest of the most vaguest concepts of god. The ones that were in rocks till science figured out rocks were just some sort of minerals. Then ran off to the sky, got caught there too. Then the Milky Way, and now apparently live beyond the scope of spacetime.

Well, I certainly don't live my life believing they exist. The simple fact that through history most of these concepts have been contorted and evolved, becoming more and more sophisticated with the advent of science whilst usually leaving one aspect untouched; humanity as the centre of the universe, should tell one something.

Again, I cannot, however, tell you categorically that they do NOT exist (as we cannot test the hypothesis, yet (and maybe even perhaps ever, depending on natural laws), and they are not yet shown to 'break' natural laws) . I can tell you there's no good reason to believe they do exist though, non at all I can think of. You can call that agnostic if you wish, but I simply won't just accept any souped mumbo jumbo as evidence (where is oga deepsight, lol). Most importantly I can tell you that if indeed such exists, they are bound to natural laws. That's what I believe makes me a good and proper atheist.

So, there might be something in the box, but it's natural.

I learned early that I am not intelligent. To make up for this flaw, I thought to learn from anything and everything. In life, I find that there are lessons from every source - if only, we are willing to learn them.

This is why I love Science.I find that with Science, nothing is absolute. Science is always seeking to improve itself and often professes that it's knowledge is still evolving.

This is the same reason I dread adamant systems like culture, religion, etc. I really dread them because I find that there are so repulsively over-confident in their claims, not minding that certain things could (and would) change.

For example, all my life, religions profess that worshiping GOD (or their idea of GOD) is bound to give you a life on earth full of 'HIS' blessings and afterwards, eternal reign with the KING (GOD). They profess that these blessings include, but not limited to, long life, great marriages, answered prayers, perfect health, wealth, et al.

Nevertheless, every year, I see GOD's Generals who die before 70 (what religion claims is the benchmark of a long life), you see those challenged with divorces, money laundering scandals, poverty, ill health, et cetera.

These show me that these religious people experience the same fate as non-religious people in different areas. Using deductive reasoning, we can scientifically assume that as humans we all are likely to live long or not, fall ill or not, pass that examination or not, get our prayers answered or not (irrespective of religious biases). For truth is, for every miraculous breakthrough a religious person has gotten, non-religious people have equally gotten same. For every cancer non-religious people have suffered, religious people have also suffered same!

Hence, this begs the question: if religious people can be so wrong about the present realm (THE SEEN); why then are we afraid to question their claims of the future realm (THE UNSEEN)?

MAYOWAAK:
This is why I love Science.I find that with Science, nothing is absolute. Science is always seeking to improve itself and often professes that it's knowledge is still evolving.

Absolute beliefs in science:

We live in an entirely mechanistic universe.

There exists an immutable set of laws governing the universe.

Consciousness and intelligence are emergent properties of complexity, rather than inherent to the universe.

Basic ancient human logic is correct.

There is no such thing as free choice.

..to name a few.

Most scientists know that science makes fundamental, unchanging assumptions.

It is their vocal lay followers who perpetuate the dogma that nothing is absolute in science.

Scientists mostly keep a pragmatic silence and let this misinformation propagate.

MAYOWAAK:
I learned early that I am not intelligent. To make up for this flaw, I thought to learn from anything and everything. In life, I find that there are lessons from every source - if only, we are willing to learn them.

This is why I love Science.I find that with Science, nothing is absolute. Science is always seeking to improve itself and often professes that it's knowledge is still evolving.

This is the same reason I dread adamant systems like culture, religion, etc. I really dread them because I find that there are so repulsively over-confident in their claims, not minding that certain things could (and would) change.

For example, all my life, religions profess that worshiping GOD (or their idea of GOD) is bound to give you a life on earth full of 'HIS' blessings and afterwards, eternal reign with the KING (GOD). They profess that these blessings include, but not limited to, long life, great marriages, answered prayers, perfect health, wealth, et al.

Nevertheless, every year, I see GOD's Generals who die before 70 (what religion claims is the benchmark of a long life), you see those challenged with divorces, money laundering scandals, poverty, ill health, et cetera.

These show me that these religious people experience the same fate as non-religious people in different areas. Using deductive reasoning, we can scientifically assume that as humans we all are likely to live long or not, fall ill or not, pass that examination or not, get our prayers answered or not (irrespective of religious biases). For truth is, for every miraculous breakthrough a religious person has gotten, non-religious people have equally gotten same. For every cancer non-religious people have suffered, religious people have also suffered same!

Hence, this begs the question: if religious people can be so wrong about the present realm (THE SEEN); why then are we afraid to question their claims of the future realm (THE UNSEEN)?

Epic!

plaetton:


Epic!

So, I note that you were not able to defend your dogmatic position that science makes no fundamental, absolute assumptions, even after I listed some for you.

sinequanon:


Absolute beliefs in science:

We live in an entirely mechanistic universe.

There exists an immutable set of laws governing the universe.

Consciousness and intelligence are emergent properties of complexity, rather than inherent to the universe.

Basic ancient human logic is correct.

There is no such thing as free choice.

..to name a few.

Most scientists know that science makes fundamental, unchanging assumptions.

It is their vocal lay followers who perpetuate the dogma that nothing is absolute in science.

Scientists mostly keep a pragmatic silence and let this misinformation propagate.

Again, complete BS.
Science is a question.
Science asks questions, and builds on answers little by little.

To say that science has unchangable assumptions is a blatant lie.

Science makes assumptions on what is unknown with what is already known, and endeavors to correct and amend as the knowledge database grows.

Nearly all the mechanistic assumptions science has made about the universe have been validated at one time or another.
For example, gravity, motion, speed of light and properties of light. The properties of matter.
With such knowledge, science makes predictable outcomes.

Examples are the weather.
Climate and weather patterns are clearly mechanistic, and not at the whims of whimsical deities, spirits or consciousness.

Also, the observed and validated mechanistic aspects of the universe has allowed us to navigate space and into other worlds.

Therefore, to say that science is based on Assumptions of a mechanistic universe is clearly disengenous.
Science is not a belief system.
Science relies on rational, open, unambiguous, methodical system to observe, test and catalogue facts and knowledge.

sinequanon:

Absolute beliefs in science:
We live in an entirely mechanistic universe.
There exists an immutable set of laws governing the universe.
Consciousness and intelligence are emergent properties of complexity, rather than inherent to the universe.
Basic ancient human logic is correct.
There is no such thing as free choice.
..to name a few.
Most scientists know that science makes fundamental, unchanging assumptions.
It is their vocal lay followers who perpetuate the dogma that nothing is absolute in science.
Scientists mostly keep a pragmatic silence and let this misinformation propagate.

Are you misinformed or just blatantly lying?

Weah96:


You said the bolded, only to completely ignore the phrase, "in a polytheistic religion."

That narrows it down to the Gods of religion, wouldn't you say?

In Yoruba religion system, human Judges are God.

Judges apart, In yoruba religion system, each individual is a God.

Are we not polytheistic? Lets see how you will bend this also.



And pls answer my question once and for all, do you disbelieve in the existence of God (defined judges and influencial person)?

^^^

Let me add that if there happens to be more to the universe than the laws of physics and mathematics have or could show us, science is also the only method to observe, test and validate whatever else is out there operating outside the known laws of mathematics and physics.

If there is a spiritual science, if there is a consciousness controlling the behaviour of matter and energy, agian, I would not rely on wishy washy religious revelations to know and learn about such.

Science, without a doubt, remains our most reliable arbiter of our reality.

sinequanon:


So, I note that you were not able to defend your dogmatic position that science makes no fundamental, absolute assumptions, even after I listed some for you.

I was in a car when I read.
I found it so false and disengenuous that I wanted to take my time to shred it.

I have rebutted it , though , on another post moments ago.

plaetton:
^^^

Let me add that if there happens to be more to the universe than the laws of physics and mathematics have or could show us, science is also the only method to observe, test and validate whatever else is out there operating outside the known laws of mathematics and physics.

If there is a spiritual science, if there is a consciousness controlling the behaviour of matter and energy, agian, I would not rely on wishy washy religious revelations to know and learn about such.

Science, without a doubt, remains our most reliable arbiter of our reality.

I will like to ask pls, is metaphysics also part of science?

plaetton:


Again, complete BS.

Calm down, and stop ranting.

plaetton:
Science makes assumptions on what is unknown with what is already known, and endeavors to correct and amend as the knowledge database grows.

If you calm down, you will give yourself a better chance of understanding the point.

You are confusing the discoveries of sciences for the processes science uses.

Science is not capable of accepting anything except mechanistic outcomes because it has already made a dogmatic assumption that only mechanistic results are valid.

So, of course, anything it validates will be mechanistic.

It is circular to refer to the validity of the assumptions by methods themselves based on the assumptions. If you don't know, it is a logical fallacy known as begging the question.

plaetton:
Science relies on rational, open, unambiguous, methodical system to observe, test and catalogue facts and knowledge.

Instead of making circular claims, try to address the question. If 5 is too many for you, take the first one.

Where is the proof that the universe is entirely mechanistic?

Try not to swear and rant. (It makes your argument look weak and like a knee-jerk reaction).

And try not to get confused with the question of whether some mechanistic processes exist.

FOLYKAZE:


I will like to ask pls, is metaphysics also part of science?

Anything that involves the search for knowledge, the search for a predictable pattern is science.
Now, mainstream academic science ignores areas where there are no predictable, measurable patterns, and calls them pseudo-science.

Mainstream academic science avoids those areas where for which there are strong dogmatic assumptions but for which there are very little universally accepted system to verify and predict.

Astrology , for example, is a science that tries to explain how the gravitation perturbations of large celestial objects impinges upon and subtly affects living biological systems, especially conscious minds.
Though it is relegated to the realms of pseudo-science, mainstream science itself does not dispute the underlying premise that the gravitational tug and pull of heavenly bodies, their modulation of different bands of energy, no doubt have measurable effects on biological systems.

I think future supercomputers or quantum computers could calculate all the astronomical variables would make astrology a mainstream science in the future.

sinequanon:



You are confusing the discoveries of sciences for the processes science uses.

Science uses an open system of observation , testing and analysis to make discoveries as well validate them.
A scientific discovery is a validation of the scientific process.

" The pre-eminence of any system is to be measured by the quality or superiority ( in this case the validation ) of it's product or method" .

sinequanon:



Science is not capable of accepting anything except mechanistic outcomes because it has already made a dogmatic assumption that only mechanistic results are valid.

This is very funny.
First, if we uses our senses to see, hear, touch, smell and taste, it common sense, first of all, to rely on those to understand our environment.
Second, it is irrational and folly to use something that we don't have to try to understand something else that might be out there that we don't know.

So, when you say only mechanistic outcomes, please tell us what other outcomes are possible in a mechanistic material universe?

Why would we ignore the laws of mathematics in our universe to speculate or even attempt to build a worldview on a speculative and imaginary one where our known laws of mathematics cannot penetrate?
What sense does that make.
Instead, for example, of finding out why it rains, we choose to use our imaginary six sense to imagine and live with the conclusion that a conscious deity is just watering his garden or is angry at his children.

Humanity has long moved past that stage.

I really don't understand people, who , just like me, live in this physical mechanistic universe, but who think that it is spiritual laws that control this universe.
It is really funny .
If there is a non-mechanistic or spiritual universe, them the spiritual laws would be applying over there, not here.
Right sir?

So science, has no choice but to work on the observations on our mechanistic physical universe, until we discover, through the scientific process, that there exists a non-mechanistic universe.

sinequanon:



Where is the proof that the universe is entirely mechanistic?

The self-evident mathematical laws of the universe is all the proof that the universe is mechanistic and mathematical.

Let me give you an example.

The earth exerts a gravitational pull on the moon. We know that, and we know through mathematical deduction, the exact strength of that pull.
Likewise, the moon also has it's own gravitation pull on the earth. The strenght of that pull we also know.

Now, using only mathematics and the assumption of a mechanistic universe, we are able to calculate and pinpoint , with mathematical precision, the exact point inbetween the earth and the moon where their two gravitational pulls meet.
Without this knowledge, we could not have landed crafts and men on the moon in the 1960s.

So, the fact the humans sent crafts and men to successfully land on moon and back is proof that the calculations were correct and the asumptions about a mechanistic universe that operates on rigid immutable mathematical laws were universally validated.

And there are many more examples.

I am sure you have heard of Planck's gravitational equation, from whence we get Planck's constant, a numerical number for which no space flights would be possible without working with.

Again, this equation is based on mechanistic universe with immutable mathematical laws.

^^^

Another example.

Landing an unmanned craft from the Earth to an exact point on mars in nothing but a miracle.

It is the equivalence of shooting an arrow from Northern Nigeria and have that arrow hit the bullseye in Australia.

But it is really not a miracle.
It relied on the precise mathematical calculations that are solely based on unrefuted assumptions of a mechanistic universe where the immutable laws of mathematics reign supreme.

No hail marys required.

FOLYKAZE:


In Yoruba religion system, human Judges are God.

Judges apart, In yoruba religion system, each individual is a God.

Are we not polytheistic? Lets see how you will bend this also.



And pls answer my question once and for all, do you disbelieve in the existence of God (defined judges and influencial person)?

I'm not familiar with the Yoruba religious system, so I may have to take your word on that one.

Ok, let's assume that everyone is a God. Who then am I? The devil? Because I can assure you that I'm not a God.
I would know, I think. Hahaha.

Listen if you want to call Nicky Minaj, God, then go ahead. I think that calling her an "influential person" suffices, but you're welcome to use the more controversial one.

A cigarette is called a fa(g) in Britain, I believe, but asking for a fa(g) around my neck of the woods is likely to get you punched in the face.

And yes, I believe that nicki minaj, the influential person or God, exists and is real.

We atheists aren't concerned with word games and silly semantics, though. We're talking about the same connotation of God that roughly 6 billion other people recognize.

plaetton:


Science uses an open system of observation , testing and analysis to make discoveries as well validate them.
A scientific discovery is a validation of the scientific process.

" The pre-eminence of any system is to be measured by the quality or superiority ( in this case the validation ) of it's product or method" .

I am not asking about pre-eminence. (However, the quote is interesting. Whose is it, and did you add the bit in brackets, which I believe to be incorrect?) Pre-eminence does factor, but it reflects in human needs, preferences and priorities, as distinct from a pure enterprise of natural discovery. It is a very important point, because the actual motivation of science has its fingerprints all over the direction it has taken.

As for validation, it is circular, as I explained.

plaetton:
This is very funny.
First, if we uses our senses to see, hear, touch, smell and taste, it common sense, first of all, to rely on those to understand our environment.
Second, it is irrational and folly to use something that we don't have to try to understand something else that might be out there that we don't know.

So, when you say only mechanistic outcomes, please tell us what other outcomes are possible in a mechanistic material universe?

Did you not understand my question?

I asked you what proof there is that the universe is entirely mechanistic? Your illogical answer is to beg the question and ask what else could there be in a mechanistic universe.

Not only have you answered a question with a question, you have taken you assumption as granted and proven.

Can you not see that you are not even aware when you are applying your dogmatic assumption?

plaetton:
Why would we ignore the laws of mathematics in our universe to speculate or even attempt to build a worldview on a speculative and imaginary one where our known laws of mathematics cannot penetrate?
What sense does that make.

I find your wording careless. It is corrupted with assumptions.

Looking beyond mathematics does not imply ignoring mathematics. And making use of mathematics does not mean regarding its precepts as laws. If you treat them as guidelines, your rocket will still reach its goal, your computer will still fire up and your car will still run.

The fallacy that you are perpetuating is that we have to treat science as natural LAW to progress. All that does is create an unnecessary limitation, when you can use extant fundamental scientific assumptions AND search beyond them.

plaetton:
Instead, for example, of finding out why it rains, we choose to use our imaginary six sense to imagine and live with the conclusion that a conscious deity is just watering his garden or is angry at his children.

Humanity has long moved past that stage.

This is a straw man argument. But let me alter it.

Let us take an extremely primitive eye, and call sight an "imaginary fifth sense". That is to say, that the function of the eye is so poor that it cannot pass muster as scientifically rigorous. However, to fully evolve, requires that the individual believe in it and use it, so that natural selection kicks in.

In your version of scientific endeavour, use of the primitive eye must be discouraged, leading to the eye not developing. That is the result of an inward-looking science.

plaetton:
I really don't understand people, who , just like me, live in this physical mechanistic universe, but who think that it is spiritual laws that control this universe.

Again, you repeat the dogma. You haven't explained it beyond presenting it as a dogmatic assumption that you think is "common sense".

plaetton:
It is really funny .
If there is a non-mechanistic or spiritual universe, them the spiritual laws would be applying over there, not here.
Right sir?

So science, has no choice but to work on the observations on our mechanistic physical universe, until we discover, through the scientific process, that there exists a non-mechanistic universe.

So, you did miss the point:

Science cannot discover the existence of a non-mechanistic because what you are calling the scientific process discards non-mechanistic results as not science (non-repeatable or non-reproducible or non-reliable etc. etc.)

As for "spiritual laws", that is not what I am arguing. Refer to my eye example. That is one of many considerations.

plaetton:
The self-evident mathematical laws of the universe is all the proof that the universe is mechanistic and mathematical.

You have to go beyond simply labeling things as self-evident. You complain when believers in god do this.

plaetton:
Let me give you an example.

The earth exerts a gravitational pull on the moon. We know that, and we know through mathematical deduction, the exact strength of that pull.
Likewise, the moon also has it's own gravitation pull on the earth. The strenght of that pull we also know.

Now, using only mathematics and the assumption of a mechanistic universe, we are able to calculate and pinpoint , with mathematical precision, the exact point inbetween the earth and the moon where their two gravitational pulls meet.
Without this knowledge, we could not have landed crafts and men on the moon in the 1960s.

I don't know if man has landed on the Moon, but it is irrelevant, anyway.

What we have is a MODEL which can be used to interact with the Moon.

plaetton:
So, the fact the humans sent crafts and men to successfully land on moon and back is proof that the calculations were correct and the asumptions about a mechanistic universe that operates on rigid immutable mathematical laws were universally validated.

That is a terrible logical fallacy. You are going from the particular to the general. No matter how many examples you give, they cannot prove universality.

In fact, no real scientist would use your language. They would instead say that the model is sufficient. Very early models of the Solar System having the Sun circling the Earth, made excellent predictions of many phenomena. It is not about veracity, but utility. The burden of utility increases with time, requiring further reaching models.

plaetton:
And there are many more examples.

I am sure you have heard of Planck's gravitational equation, from whence we get Planck's constant, a numerical number for which no space flights would be possible without working with.

Again, this equation is based on mechanistic universe with immutable mathematical laws.

When I was about 5, it one day struck me to wonder whether the electric torch light held by the little boy in the mirror was "real". My plan, which kept me excited all day, was to sneak into my parent bedroom when it was dark enough and shine a torch light at the "cupboard inside the mirror", and see it the torch "belonging to" little boy inside the mirror would shine out. I thought not.

Much to my surprise, there was the circle of light on the cupboard behind me. It worked! The torch inside the mirror was real!

I was later taught in physics class that light bounces of mirrors.

You cannot go from the general to the specific, just because a preferred selection of experiments work.

In fact, the "light inside the mirror is real" is quite difficult to disprove without maybe smashing the mirror or doing something fairly sophisticated. It holds up well.

plaetton:
^^^

Another example.

Landing an unmanned craft from the Earth to an exact point on mars in nothing but a miracle.

It is the equivalence of shooting an arrow from Northern Nigeria and have that arrow hit the bullseye in Australia.

But it is really not a miracle.
It relied on the precise mathematical calculations that are solely based on unrefuted assumptions of a mechanistic universe where the immutable laws of mathematics reign supreme.

No hail marys required.

Continuing sir,.
Even something as intangible as consciousness can be expressed as a value in a mathematical equation if we agree that consciousness is aggregation of quantas of interactive information.
If study this in greater details, we could extract, package and transmit consciousness in the future.

sinequanon:


I am not asking about pre-eminence. (However, the quote is interesting. Whose is it, and did you add the bit in brackets, which I believe to be incorrect?) Pre-eminence does factor, but it reflects in human needs, preferences and priorities, as distinct from a pure enterprise of natural discovery. It is a very important point, because the actual motivation of science has its fingerprints all over the direction it has taken.

As for validation, it is circular, as I explained.



Did you not understand my question?

I asked you what proof there is that the universe is entirely mechanistic? Your illogical answer is to beg the question and ask what else could there be in a mechanistic universe.i

Not only have you answered a question with a question, you have taken you assumption as granted and proven.

Can you not see that you are not even aware when you are applying your dogmatic assumption?



I find your wording careless. It is corrupted with assumptions.

Looking beyond mathematics does not imply ignoring mathematics. And making use of mathematics does not mean regarding its precepts as laws. If you treat them as guidelines, your rocket will still reach its goal, your computer will still fire up and your car will still run.

The fallacy that you are perpetuating is that we have to treat science as natural LAW to progress. All that does is create an unnecessary limitation, when you can use extant fundamental scientific assumptions AND search beyond them.



This is a straw man argument. But let me alter it.

Let us take an extremely primitive eye, and call sight an "imaginary fifth sense". That is to say, that the function of the eye is so poor that it cannot pass muster as scientifically rigorous. However, to fully evolve, requires that the individual believe in it and use it, so that natural selection kicks in.

In your version of scientific endeavour, use of the primitive eye must be discouraged, leading to the eye not developing. That is the result of an inward-looking science.



Again, you repeat the dogma. You haven't explained it beyond presenting it as a dogmatic assumption that you think is "common sense".



So, you did miss the point:

Science cannot discover the existence of a non-mechanistic because what you are calling the scientific process discards non-mechanistic results as not science (non-repeatable or non-reproducible or non-reliable etc. etc.)

As for "spiritual laws", that is not what I am arguing. Refer to my eye example. That is one of many considerations.



You have to go beyond simply labeling things as self-evident. You complain when believers in god do this.



I don't know if man has landed on the Moon, but it is irrelevant, anyway.

What we have is a MODEL which can be used to interact with the Moon.



That is a terrible logical fallacy. You are going from the particular to the general. No matter how many examples you give, they cannot prove universality.

In fact, no real scientist would use your language. They would instead say that the model is sufficient. Very early models of the Solar System having the Sun circling the Earth, made excellent predictions of many phenomena. It is not about veracity, but utility. The burden of utility increases with time, requiring further reaching models.



When I was about 5, it one day struck me to wonder whether the electric torch light held by the little boy in the mirror was "real". My plan, which kept me excited all day, was to sneak into my parent bedroom when it was dark enough and shine a torch light at the "cupboard inside the mirror", and see it the torch "belonging to" little boy inside the mirror would shine out. I thought not.

Much to my surprise, there was the circle of light on the cupboard behind me. It worked! The torch inside the mirror was real!

I was later taught in physics class that light bounces of mirrors.

You cannot go from the general to the specific, just because a preferred selection of experiments work.

In fact, the "light inside the mirror is real" is quite difficult to disprove without maybe smashing the mirror or doing something fairly sophisticated. It holds up well.

You keep shouting dogma.
At this point I have no idea what you are talking about or what nomenclature you desperately need.
Mathematics is proof that we live in a mechanistic universe.
It can't get any simpler than that.
Mathematics applies to everything with predictable results, even at the subatomic quantum physical level, we cannot see arbitrariness that ignores mathematics.

And yes, if we cannot see the footprints of a nonmechanist reality, we are safe dismiss it until such time that we discover it.
That is the way science works.

It is not my position to try to prove a negative proposition.
Now, since you have an opposite point of view, I am open to hear your proof of a nonmechanistic universe.

plaetton:
You keep shouting dogma.
At this point I have no idea what you are talking about or what nomenclature you desperately need.

I am only waiting for you to understand the meaning of the nomenclature you are using, so that you don't use circular argument.

plaetton:
Mathematics is proof that we live in a mechanistic universe.
It can't get any simpler than that.

It may not get any simpler, but no real scientist would ever make such a claim or present such a misunderstanding of mathematics.

Still you confuse the existence of mechanistic processes with "the universe is entirely mechanistic".

This is basic logic that you shouldn't be getting so wrong.

plaetton:
Mathematics applies to everything with predictable results, even at the subatomic quantum physical level, we cannot see arbitrariness that ignores mathematics.

Mathematics is the tool of choice. But there are plenty of things for which no mathematical model has been found.

So you are making claims that are point blank wrong.

And we choose to apply mathematics The idea of "arbitrariness ignoring mathematics" doesn't even make any sense.

I think what you are trying to say is that you have FAITH that mathematics will eventually be able to be "usefully" applied to all the things we encounter but currently have no mathematics for.

plaetton:
And yes, if we cannot see the footprints of a nonmechanist reality, we are safe dismiss it until such time that we discover it.
That is the way science works.

We have already discussed this. Science cannot discover non-mechanistic reality, because it explicitly rejects it.

You repeatedly ignore this fact, and reassert your dogmatic position.

Yet you claim that science is not dogmatic.

plaetton:
It is not my position to try to prove a negative proposition.
Now, since you have an opposite point of view, I am open to hear your proof of a nonmechanistic universe.

Claiming that the universe is entirely mechanistic is not a "negative position". It is a positive assertion, and an unproven one.

You have yet to even show how it can possibly be proven, let alone prove it.

Weah96:


I'm not familiar with the Yoruba religious system, so I may have to take your word on that one.

Ok, let's assume that everyone is a God. Who then am I? The devil? Because I can assure you that I'm not a God.
I would know, I think. Hahaha.

Listen if you want to call Nicky Minaj, God, then go ahead. I think that calling her an "influential person" suffices, but you're welcome to use the more controversial one.

A cigarette is called a fa(g) in Britain, I believe, but asking for a fa(g) around my neck of the woods is likely to get you punched in the face.

And yes, I believe that nicki minaj, the influential person or God, exists and is real.

We atheists aren't concerned with word games and silly semantics, though. We're talking about the same connotation of God that roughly 6 billion other people recognize.

There is nothing like devil in Yoruba religion system. You need to take that crap to somewhere else. Every person Is God to the Yoruba.

The bold knocks you down. It defies atheism (disbelieve in the existence of God).

So far, atheism makes no sense than noises made because of some unjustify religion believe.

According to you, atheism is disbelieve in the existence of theistic God but a/some believe in other form of God.

sinequanon:


I am only waiting for you to understand the meaning of the nomenclature you are using, so that you don't use circular argument.


It may not get any simpler, but no real scientist would ever make such a claim or present such a misunderstanding of mathematics.

Still you confuse the existence of mechanistic processes with "the universe is entirely mechanistic".

This is basic logic that you shouldn't be getting so wrong.

Mathematics is the tool of choice. But there are plenty of things for which no mathematical model has been found.

So you are making claims that are point blank wrong.

And we choose to apply mathematics The idea of "arbitrariness ignoring mathematics" doesn't even make any sense.

I think what you are trying to say is that you have FAITH that mathematics will eventually be able to be "usefully" applied to all the things we encounter but currently have no mathematics for.

We have already discussed this. Science cannot discover non-mechanistic reality, because it explicitly rejects it.

You repeatedly ignore this fact, and reassert your dogmatic position.

Yet you claim that science is not dogmatic.

Claiming that the universe is entirely mechanistic is not a "negative position". It is a positive assertion, and an unproven one.

You have yet to even show how it can possibly be proven, let alone prove it.

For me in this context mechanistic connotes the absence of arbitrariness.

And yes, mathematical models do not adequately explain things at quantum level, but not because mathematical laws do not apply, but because there might be yet to be discovered variables, mathematical variables, that are needed to plug into the current models.

plaetton:

For me in this context mechanistic connotes the absence of arbitrariness.

And you still have no way of proving that we live in an entirely predictable universe, because you believe in a methodology that explicitly forbids "arbitrariness" AS NO MORE THAN A BASIC ASSUMPTION.

So you believe in an inescapable ideology based on an assumption, which is itself arbitrary.

This assumption also leads you to believe you have no free will, that consciousness must merely be emergent complexity and that you have no creative energy (i.e you cannot be the origin of an event, merely a passive conductor).

plaetton:
And yes, mathematical models do not adequately explain things at quantum level, but not because mathematical laws do not apply, but because there might be yet to be discovered variables, mathematical variables, that are needed to plug into the current models.

You make that call based on FAITH.

But it goes beyond quantum mechanics.

For example, the set of numbers that mathematics can identify or refer to has an order (size) of a countable infinity.

But the set of numbers that it postulates and uses is vastly more populated. Its order is an UNcountable infinity.

Mathematics uses in many of its proofs, numbers that it cannot identify or refer to individually. There are infinitely more numbers like this than numbers which can be described or written down. It uses these "numbers" on the real line to model things like continuity, which have no exact or proven counterpart in nature. That is an example of why mathematics is an abstract expedient, not something that validates reality.

FOLYKAZE:



The bold knocks you down. It defies atheism (disbelieve in the existence of God).

LOL. You couldn't possibly be serious. Nicki Minaj is not a personal God.

Say someone decides to create their own religion now, and declare, just for the hell of it, that every pair of Nike shoes on the planet is a God. Who am I to argue with his choice of words? I would know that he's simply referring to sneakers and not the traditional connotation of the word "God."

FOLYKAZE:




According to you, atheism is disbelieve in the existence of theistic God but a/some believe in other form of God.

You seem to be confusing yourself. I don't believe in any God. We examined the dictionary definition of God and saw that it can mean an influential person. Nicki Minaj is an influential person, and therefore the word is appropriate, albeit controversial.

I don't believe IN Nicki Minaj. All I'm saying is that she is a GOD, a statement which is grammatically and linguistically correct. Using this definition of God, people don't exactly believe IN it, like the traditional meaning.

The word SPIRIT also means someone's true intentions or current mood.

When someone says that he doesn't believe in spirits, he's not saying that human beings don't have hidden intentions or different moods. Those other definitions have been acknowledged.

Weah96:


LOL. You couldn't possibly be serious. Nicki Minaj is not a personal God.

Say someone decides to create their own religion now, and declare, just for the hell of it, that every pair of Nike shoes on the planet is a God. Who am I to argue with his choice of words? I would know that he's simply referring to sneakers and not the traditional connotation of the word "God."

Nicki Minaj might not be a personal God. But she remains a God going by the definition of god as influencial and admired person.

What would you say about Beyonce? She is a personal God and exist. She is been worshipped like a goddess. A religion is formed for her called Beyism. Someone even sacrificed hersel to the goddess beyonce. The national church of bey is the centre of her worship as a deity.

Lets put Minaj at the corner, beyonce is a personal God/deity.

As an atheist, do you disbelieve in the existence of the goddess beyonce?

Weah96:


You seem to be confusing yourself. I don't believe in any God. We examined the dictionary definition of God and saw that it can mean an influential person. Nicki Minaj is an influential person, and therefore the word is appropriate, albeit controversial.

You admit Nicki is God. You admit atheism is disbelieve in the existence of God. And you ended saying I am confused?

M, do you disbelieve in the existence of God (defined as Nicki Minaj)?

To tell you more, you might not belief in any God (this is non-belief). Athiesm is the disbelieve in the existence of God. Nicki is God and she does exist. Do you disbelieve in her existence?

Weah96:

I don't believe IN Nicki Minaj. All I'm saying is that she is a GOD, a statement which is grammatically and linguistically correct. Using this definition of God, people don't exactly believe IN it, like the traditional meaning.

People might not believe in Nicki as there God. This doesnot disqualify her as God. When you dont belief in her, you are non-believer. Atheists reject the existence of God. Since Nicki is a God and you accept this, you cannot disbelieve in her existence because she does exist.

Weah96:

The word SPIRIT also means someone's true intentions or current mood.

When someone says that he doesn't believe in spirits, he's not saying that human beings don't have hidden intentions or different moods. Those other definitions have been acknowledged.

Note, the person has to define the kind of spirit he/she disbelieve in.

If the person just say spirit, he/she might be hold for his/her word.

Atheism has to do with God, not some specific kind of God.

wiegraf:

sinequanon post=27922675:


Absolute beliefs in science:

We live in an entirely mechanistic universe.

There exists an immutable set of laws governing the universe.

Consciousness and intelligence are emergent properties of complexity, rather than inherent to the universe.

Basic ancient human logic is correct.

There is no such thing as free choice.

..to name a few.

Most scientists know that science makes fundamental, unchanging assumptions.

It is their vocal lay followers who perpetuate the dogma that nothing is absolute in science.

Scientists mostly keep a pragmatic silence and let this misinformation propagate.

Are you misinformed or just blatantly lying?

Stop posturing.

You make yourself sound like one of these shrill laypeople who think that they can substitute ranting for argument.

What have you contributed here? Address the question, and stop dilly-dallying.