Unproven for lack of evidence. Atheism/Theism

[S.A.M.]

Evolution, through simple rules

What rules?

 

[spidergoat]

Heredity with variation, variable survival and reproduction rates. Actually, I was referring to Stephan Wolfram's experiments with simple rules producing complex behavior in replicating algorithms, but it applies to evolution too. Science has proven that complexity doesn't need complexity to arise.

 

[(Q)]

Come on sweetie, tell me, I'm really interested. I'm training two undergrads right now and I would love some input.

Here ya go! Enjoy!

:shake:

 

[S.A.M.]

Here ya go! Enjoy!

:shake:

Thanks, its all very clear now.

 

[S.A.M.]

Heredity with variation, variable survival and reproduction rates. Actually, I was referring to Stephan Wolfram's experiments with simple rules producing complex behavior in replicating algorithms, but it applies to evolution too. Science has proven that complexity doesn't need complexity to arise.

Science does not prove anything. Thats your inference of the observations. You realise you are taking these rules for granted?

 

[(Q)]

Science does not prove anything.

What does religion prove?

 

[S.A.M.]

That faith can move mountains.

 

[greenberg]

Which other threads? In this thread I was attracted by Ham's hypothesis and I am clearing out my cobwebs by airing them.

You were attracted to this -

I propose that atheism and theism are sides of an unprovable coin. There will foreseeable future be the *possibility* that Deities exist. There will for the foreseeable future be the *possibility* that deities do not exist.

My belief is christian. I understand that there exists a possibility that God is not. I choose to have faith in christianity, and from this viewpoint can look at science and see further evidence to support my faith.

I suggest that the Atheist can understand this possibility of Deity. I further suggest that an Atheist chooses not to believe in a Deity. An Atheist can, from this viewpoint, look at science and find further evidence to back up their not belief.

-?

In what way were you attracted to it? What do you think is Hamtastic's hypothesis here?

 

[(Q)]

That faith can move mountains.

What mountains has faith moved?

 

[S.A.M.]

You were attracted to this -

-?

In what way were you attracted to it? What do you think is Hamtastic's hypothesis here?

The opposite of mine. He considers theism and atheism to be a choice. I consider it to be a frame of mind. There are as many irrational athiests as there are rational thiests.

 

[greenberg]

The opposite of mine. He considers theism and atheism to be a choice.

In order for something to be considered truly rational, it would have to be a result of a choice, don't you think? Otherwise, it is simply a result of indoctrination/conditioning/habit.

I consider it to be a frame of mind.

Please expand. How do you consider atheism/theism to be frames of mind?
I'm not sure how your perspective is opposite to Hamtastic's.

 

[spidergoat]

Science does not prove anything. Thats your inference of the observations. You realise you are taking these rules for granted?

It does prove the concept, if not the specific case. The rules can be arbitrary, but they are simple.