Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Atheists say the same, but apparently better understand that logical absolutes, whether positively or negatively asserted, simply don't apply to nature. Both still lack belief in gods regardless of how one attempts to twist the question. It makes sense to lack belief in anything completely unsupported by evidence. Believing in things unsupported by evidence is irrational.By definition agnosticism is not the disbelief in gods or even religion.
What it says is that one cannot make an absolute statement about whether gods exist or not because it is unknowable.
Personally I don't think it matters if a god exists or not.
Atheists deny the existence of gods they don't say that gods might exist the say gods do not exist.Atheists say the same, but apparently better understand that logical absolutes, whether positively or negatively asserted, simply don't apply to nature. Both still lack belief in gods regardless of how one attempts to twist the question. It makes sense to lack belief in anything completely unsupported by evidence. Believing in things unsupported by evidence is irrational.
I agree. However your reference is about why people became scientists. I was talking about the way the scientists feel about a different specialty. Personally when I read about, for example, the discovery of the Higgs boson, I did not have faith that it was valid, but I did trust that the research was well done.I still say it's neither.
Other than in "Pew Charitable Trust" neither "trust" nor "faith" are mentioned.
As the need for highly trained scientists grows, a look at why people choose these careers
What leads people to a career in science? From a lifelong interest in science to the influence of mentors, working scientists explain why they pursued science.www.pewresearch.org
That's not totally true. Many believed that Fermat's Last Theorem was true when it was unsupported. That is why there was such an effort to prove it. Of course now it is supported. The same with the Higgs Boson.It makes sense to lack belief in anything completely unsupported by evidence. Believing in things unsupported by evidence is irrational.
Such theories generally spring from prior experience (knowledge) (evidence). Neither Fermat nor Higgs sprang from a vacuum (puns always intended). Gods evidently spring from nothing but lack of knowledge. Thus faith. Also,That's not totally true. Many believed that Fermat's Last Theorem was true when it was unsupported. That is why there was such an effort to prove it. Of course now it is supported. The same with the Higgs Boson.
Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.
Google's definition of atheist:Atheists deny the existence of gods they don't say that gods might exist the say gods do not exist.
I prefer Freethought myself.a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
I think we are in the quibbling zone. The concept of Fermat's last theorem was always conjecture until it wasn't.Such theories generally spring from prior experience (knowledge) (evidence). Neither Fermat nor Higgs sprang from a vacuum (puns always intended). Gods evidently spring from nothing but lack of knowledge. Thus faith. Also,
Wrong again. You've just been refusing to take Fermat's word for it.The concept of Fermat's last theorem was always conjecture until it wasn't.
The proposition was first stated as a theorem by Pierre de Fermat around 1637 in the margin of a copy of Arithmetica; Fermat added that he had a proof that was too large to fit in the margin.
Try keeping in mind that "Laws" (as opposed to proofs) are made to be broken. Certainly physics involves using lots of math (mathematical logic) which utilizes proofs. Still, physics remains a scientific discipline. So ya gotta keep 'em separated! (logically speaking or you're just kidding yourself -- don't kid yourself!)As far as your second point physics is actually replete with proofs.
.There is no spiritual realm.
What we call spirit or soul or whatever is nothing but a function of the mind. The mind is of the brain and the brain is of the body.
And agnosticism doesn't deny the existence of gods it merely acknowledges that there is not enough evidence to believe gods exist or don't exist.
But like I said even if proof of a god's existence was provided I wouldn't change the way I live.
.What we call spirit or soul or whatever is nothing but a function of the mind. The mind is of the brain and the brain is of the body.
You're ascribing to me positions I've never stated, based on the stereotypes of Christians you bitterly cling to.There is no faith required to accept the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution.
I have to note that evolution is always, always attacked by christian religious people in various threads for obvious reasons: changes in populations of species over vast time spans is in direct contradiction to christian theology. Evolution is at variance with so much of the Christian religion. It invalidates the idea of ''Original Sin'', completely undermines the idea that we are all totally depraved sinners thus, eliminates the need for Jesus and Salvation. Another objection actually described by christians for rejecting evolution is because they think it would make them less ''special''. "Special'' creation of supernatural gods is a core component of christianity. Aren't you holding contradictory positions? As a christian you are totally depraved and carry original sin , but hey, you're so special!
Some people do have faith in science. No real scientist would answer evolution to the question of the origin of life, but I'm not talking about scientists.I still think "trust" is more appropriate than "faith". No real scientist would shout "EVOLUTION" to explain the origin of life. Abiogenesis refers to the origin. Evolution follows that origin. Many creationists make that mistake.
Also evolution is not a political agenda. Many that oppose evolution try to make it political. It's not. It's science.
.
It's a thought experiment. It's a way of getting people to consider how much we don't know about the origin of the universe, and how we can never really know what happened.You couldn't. Instead, far simpler to just argue against the likelihood and plausibility of something happening that way in the first place and not be part of intelligent design, because, it couldn't happen that way without some superconsciousness seeing it that way!
Which is the thing-- -- -- it wouldn't. Because if it could do all that, why not just create the universe naturally from the beginning and let it really transpire out that way? What could be the point in him "faking it" to prove what to who?
Nobody did. Many call it Fermat's conjecture. The math at his time wasn't mature enough for the long proof made a few years ago. Did he have a shorter more elegant proof? It will remain conjecture until somebody proves it using the math that Fermat was familiar with or could have soon knownWrong again. You've just been refusing to take Fermat's word for it.
Yes, that's obvious to every one who knows anything about physics. Keeping it separated is called experimental vs. theoretical physics.Try keeping in mind that "Laws" (as opposed to proofs) are made to be broken. Certainly physics involves using lots of math (mathematical logic) which utilizes proofs. Still, physics remains a scientific discipline. So ya gotta keep 'em separated! (logically speaking or you're just kidding yourself -- don't kid yourself!)
Believing evolution or not -- there is a lot of misunderstanding. What else is new.Some people do have faith in science. No real scientist would answer evolution to the question of the origin of life, but I'm not talking about scientists.
I've asked the question before of atheists. And yes, I was given evolution as an answer.
Further, science as a whole is used by some to advance a political agenda. This is really undeniable.
OMG, just look at that cicada nymph molt into its adult form!
Must be magic or something!
Ruh roh, looks like that dumb snake's gotten itself stuck in its own shed skin!
.OMG, just look at that cicada nymph molt into its adult form!
You're certainly entitled to your own beliefs. But you know, at least I quoted other sources for backup. Just saying..Nobody did. Many call it Fermat's conjecture. The math at his time wasn't mature enough for the long proof made a few years ago. Did he have a shorter more elegant proof? It will remain conjecture until somebody proves it using the math that Fermat was familiar with or could have soon known
Decades ago I took a course in number theory and have since been fascinated with prime numbers, Gödel's Theorem, Fermat's conjecture, etc. My post was from memory. I also remember that it was not Fermat's final theorem chronologically. Fermat's had a number of theorems in notes that were rather terse, and some proofs omitted. It was named "last" because it was the last of his theorems to be proven by later mathematicians. The proof a few years ago was over 100 pages long (i think) and involved different areas of mathematics that were unexpectedly found to be isomorphic (sort of equivalent).Dream on there, Breezy.. and here I thought you might be grateful for that new, improved image
You're certainly entitled to your own beliefs. But you know, at least I quoted other sources for backup. Just saying..
Seems to me that if Fermat's peers could prove it, some likely would have thought it up themselves and proven it. He may have just been way ahead of his time. Being officially called "Fermat's Last Theorem" indicates that he probably just died before he could formally publish both his theorem and the proof.
