God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[ding]

Science is something you do, not something you know

It's both. Science is made manifest by mind.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

There are plenty of definitions for atheism, but lacking belief in supernatural explanations due to there being no compelling, supportive, empirical evidence covers the lot including agnosticism.

Actually there is only one definition used in the historic academic literature, the Flewsian definition was made up in the 1970s and appeals to some atheists because it allows them to call themselves atheists when in actuality they are simply agnostics. I know of no other definitions, so please feel free to source some if you think I'm wrong.

Clearly different from saying "one knows" or "I do not believe." No need to argue. You've already made the point several times. With zero evidence to show one might as well just be gesticulating wildly while emitting loud fart noises.

But to assert there's "zero evidence" means you already believe there's no evidence, that's a belief.

Those asserting positive claims need to back them up or go fish. Your bill for the latter is long overdue.

I agree any claim about the world being created by a mind, must be supported by rational argument and many theists do that. The atheist already believes that northing is evidence for God, they have no idea what evidence would look like and their own claim there is none is vacuous, to say there are no example of X yet be unable to say what an example of X would look like, is vacuous.

By the way the assertion "there's zero evidence for God" is itself a belief.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I doubt that very much, since science requires experimentation and there is no experimental test for a creator.

Science is actually rooted in the belief that everything that happens has a physical reason, we call that "causality". Until a universe does exist what physical processes could cause it to exist?

No, your belief is exactly that - a belief. An article of faith.

You believe the universe is rationally intelligible, science rests upon that belief. To what do you attribute rational intelligibility? how did it come to be?

Fundamentally science is all about change, how existing systems change over time, if we can predict the future state of some system we say that we "understand" that system, that's what it means to understand, be able to predict future state. Science therefore has nothing to say about the origin of the system itself, it just "is" it exists and we study it and gain an understanding of it, but as to how it came to exist, science has nothing to contribute.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes, and no. Science and the practice of it, is never ending. We know very little.

Something that is theorized about today will, when better instruments are devised, be found to be completely the opposite of what was envisioned.

That's the difference between scientists and non scientists. Non scientists simply don't have the deductive reasoning ability to recognize that fact.

The ability to think about processes, and how they occur in the real world is foreign to most people.

It simply never crosses their mind that there is a question about how something actually works.

This is largely true, a scientist has a deeply held belief that observed things do have an explanation, the progress of science is good reason to trust that belief but it is still a belief, unprovable. Scientists seek and pursue explanations and to do that one has to believe there is an explanation, so those (and there are many of them) who like to imply science has nothing to do with belief do not understand what science is.

 

[westwall]

This is largely true, a scientist has a deeply held belief that observed things do have an explanation, the progress of science is good reason to trust that belief but it is still a belief, unprovable. Scientists seek and pursue explanations and to do that one has to believe there is an explanation, so those (and there are many of them) who like to imply science has nothing to do with belief do not understand what science is.

Science is the study of what is, or is not.

Belief is not a characteristic of science.

If your subject requires belief, it is religion, not science.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Science is the study of what is, or is not.

Belief is not a characteristic of science.

If your subject requires belief, it is religion, not science.

Scientists believe that scientific explanations exist, can be found, even if not found yet; else why would they bother looking for explanations?

Take some time to look at the history of science and its relation to philosophy - physics was at one time even called natural philosophy and there's a reason for that.

 

[ChemEngineer]

No, I an an agnostic. I am not an atheist.

There is a huge difference.

Sorry, that is not true. Agnostics and atheists are both non-believers.
You'll end up together.

___________________________________

 

[ChemEngineer]

Science is the study of what is, or is not.

Belief is not a characteristic of science.

If your subject requires belief, it is religion, not science.

You keep dropping the ball, in more ways than one.
"Science" held the belief in luminiferous aether for over 2,000 years. It was first proposed by Aristotle around 380 B.C. It held sway even beyond the Michelson-Morely Experiment of 1887. Only when Einstein proposed his Relativity Theory in 1905 was the luminiferous aether "science" eliminated.
As to "belief" or faith:

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's assumed by the naive who embrace scientism, that a belief in God, Christianity etc., is anathema to "real science". Yet history clearly reveals that all of the seminal minds who drove the scientific revolution, were theists, no atheists as is often assumed.

Scientists embracing atheism is a very recent trend, the vast bulk of our foundational science was performed by theists, the belief that the universe is orderly and structured was never at odds with the belief that a mind of immense power was active in the universe, these people had no problem with their theistic beliefs and their pursuit of science, it actually drove them to explore nature which they viewed as a created masterpiece.

List of Christians in science and technology​

Take a peek at the list, there are some very famous and important people in this list like Maxwell, Faraday, Mendel, Leibniz, Euler, Lavoisier, Dalton, Ampere, Babbage and so on.

Clearly a belief in God was no obstacle to science as is commonly argued by the naive.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Scientists believe that scientific explanations exist, can be found, even if not found yet; else why would they bother looking for explanations?

Unsure? That's because no one actually gets to speak for others (such as "Scientists") without reference or qualification. Gee, perhaps it's just human nature, ya know? Like shepherds regularly get to know a portion of their flock.

The shepherd also has to become familiar to his sheep so they will follow his prodding and respond

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Unsure? That's because no one actually gets to speak for others (such as "Scientists") without reference or qualification. Gee, perhaps it's just human nature, ya know? Like shepherds regularly get to know a portion of their flock.

Stick to the point, would any sane person seek something that they did not believe existed?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Cut the crap.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Cut the crap.

Ha, question is obviously too troubling for you to answer, what a numpty, why oh why can't people just be honest, so sad.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Scientists believe that scientific explanations exist, can be found, even if not found yet; else why would they bother looking for explanations?

Actually:

Why Become a Scientist? - Brooklyn College

www.brooklyn.edu

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Actually:

Why Become a Scientist? - Brooklyn College

www.brooklyn.edu

I never asked about why one might become a scientist but what must you believe in order to want to become a scientist.

If you read that article you'll see that it says what I told you, look at these statements, every one of them appears in that article you posted:

curious about the world
process of discovery
want to find cures
want to develop new products
trying to stop the spread of malaria
develop new theories
curiosity about how our world functions

Each of these reflects a belief, a belief that the world can be understood, solutions do exist, explanations can be found, cures can be found and so on. If you did not believe that these goals were attainable you'd never become a scientist.

 

[westwall]

Scientists believe that scientific explanations exist, can be found, even if not found yet; else why would they bother looking for explanations?

Take some time to look at the history of science and its relation to philosophy - physics was at one time even called natural philosophy and there's a reason for that.

No, we do not believe they exist. We KNOW that they exist. We merely need to find them.

Thus, if a theory lacks evidence for support, you formulate new methods to find that evidence, whether it be by observations, or experiments.

Many times the tools to measure don't exist, so they must be invented.

That is the essential nature of science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Take 2 million random lines of computer code, mix them randomly

How many years until you get an operating system?

The amount of time would be finite, given the finite amount of information.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Frank.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The amount of time would be finite, given the finite amount of information.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Frank.

Do you not know how factorial computation works?

If there were just 52 lines of code…

It’s a number with 57 zeros!

https://youtu.be/0DSclqnnC2s?si=-VJhZ0K7GBxFmjjQ

 

[Grumblenuts]

I never asked about why one might become a scientist

Thus why you fail, though fine admission.

It's assumed by the naive who embrace scientism, that a belief in God, Christianity etc., is anathema to "real science". Yet history clearly reveals that all of the seminal minds who drove the scientific revolution, were theists, no atheists as is often assumed.

"History clearly reveals that" you're a stodgy bastard with some big axes to grind. Why do you hate atheists and scientists so much? What, did some pick on you in school? Pull your ears? Make fun of your clothes?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The odds of just 52 proteins randomly assembling into a functional cell are approximately

85,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1

You’d had to have just those 52 proteins locked in a hermetically sealed container and jumbled together 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times EVERY SECOND since the formation of Earth just to have the odds

The average cell has 2,000 proteins