It's both. Science is made manifest by mind.Science is something you do, not something you know
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's both. Science is made manifest by mind.Science is something you do, not something you know
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.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.
But to assert there's "zero evidence" means you already believe there's no evidence, that's a belief.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.
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.Those asserting positive claims need to back them up or go fish. Your bill for the latter is long overdue.
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?I doubt that very much, since science requires experimentation and there is no experimental test for a creator.
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?No, your belief is exactly that - a belief. An article of faith.
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.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.
Science is the study of what is, or is not.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.
Scientists believe that scientific explanations exist, can be found, even if not found yet; else why would they bother looking for explanations?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.
No, I an an agnostic. I am not an atheist.
There is a huge difference.
You keep dropping the ball, in more ways than one.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.
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.Scientists believe that scientific explanations exist, can be found, even if not found yet; else why would they bother looking for explanations?
The shepherd also has to become familiar to his sheep so they will follow his prodding and respond
Stick to the point, would any sane person seek something that they did not believe existed?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.
Ha, question is obviously too troubling for you to answer, what a numpty, why oh why can't people just be honest, so sad.Cut the crap.
Actually: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
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