Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[idea]

We can respond any way we choose. But interestingly, whatever way we choose, it will become us. We will be in effect 'creating ourselves' by the choices we make. This is how it matters. And this is a universal truth.

I agree. It has been observed, who we are is who we are with others. Only interactions can be measured, perhaps interactions are all that exist. We describe characteristics such as temperature, strength, phase transformations, color - all interactions. A single particle in a void has no temperature, has no gas/liquid/solid phase, has no color. All descriptions are interactions, nothing exists except interactions - who and what everything and everyone is - interactions.

 

[ratiocinator]

But to learn they have to listen.

Perhaps you should try it yourself...?

 

[idea]

Most atheists pretend they have no ideas or beliefs regarding the source of existence ...

Nor is anything gained by running the difficulty farther back.... Our going back, ever so far, brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. — William Paley (1)
How did life begin in the first place? It's a natural question. Yet science is nowhere near the answer to this question. In fact, the question may be flawed. Maybe there was no beginning. This possibility cannot be logically ruled out.

Helmholtz​

This possible consequence of cosmic ancestry is not new. In 1873, the great German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz said, "if failure attends all of our efforts to obtain a generation of organisms from lifeless matter, it seems to me a thoroughly correct scientific procedure to inquire whether there has ever been an origination of life, or whether it is not as old as matter..." (2). Contemporaneously with Helmholtz, Louis Pasteur wrote (3):

I have been looking for spontaneous generation during twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible.... You place matter before life, and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists... to consider that life has existed during eternity and not matter?

The Beginning. by Brig Klyce

panspermia.org

 

[ratiocinator]

How did life begin in the first place? It's a natural question. Yet science is nowhere near the answer to this question.

It's a lot nearer than it used to be. But this, presumably, is just a case of the Incredible Shrinking God of the Gaps...?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In other words if you think that A has a relevant difference from B , then you can treat A differently and it wouldn't be special pleading..... Even if you are wrong in your thinking. In this case I think that the universe has a relevant difference from God .... Therefore not special pleading..... This doesn't mean that i am correct but it would not be special pleading

This discussion is over. You still haven't addressed my counterargument. You just keep repeating your claim unchanged.

You ignored this:

"Ironically, you never commented on it, and that is a big reason these discussions are just spinning wheels. So much passes you by because you aren't trying to be efficient. Expect your future to resemble your past if you don't change something there."

How prescient of me! You changed nothing and are repeating the same errors.

And you ignored this:

"That's special pleading right there. Why do those properties matter in this context? You never say. The only difference between a god and a multiverse is that the former is considered a conscious, volitional agent. That changes nothing in this discussion. Either can serve as a source for our universe. Either could have always existed, been caused by something prior (oh look! causality connected to temporality), or come into being uncaused (please forgive me, ratiocinator; I understand your objection; maybe the third is incoherent)."

So there is nothing left to discuss.

There doest seem to be an effort to understand the argument made by the opponent .

Exactly. You haven't even addressed most of mine - maybe none now that I come to think about it. I'm confident that you neither know my counterargument nor can paraphrase it even though it's in words above these. I'll bet that you didn't see them again and don't know what I'm referring to now.

If that's correct - and it almost certainly is - then don't your words speak to your own posting etiquette more than that of those who you accuse of making no effort to understand you? You've made no effort to understand me.

I won't be addressing any reply to this post from you if it doesn't address my counterargument. Why? Because there's nothing in it for me, and because you don't give me the courtesy of reading what I write to you and addressing it, I've lost interest in what you want here. Quid pro quo, Leroy. If you give nothing, you have no reason to expect more in return: "If you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind."

 

[leroy]

This discussion is over. You still haven't addressed my counterargument. You just keep repeating your claim unchanged.

You ignored this:

"Ironically, you never commented on it, and that is a big reason these discussions are just spinning wheels. So much passes you by because you aren't trying to be efficient. Expect your future to resemble your past if you don't change something there."

How prescient of me! You changed nothing and are repeating the same errors.

And you ignored this:

"That's special pleading right there. Why do those properties matter in this context? You never say. The only difference between a god and a multiverse is that the former is considered a conscious, volitional agent. That changes nothing in this discussion. Either can serve as a source for our universe. Either could have always existed, been caused by something prior (oh look! causality connected to temporality), or come into being uncaused (please forgive me, ratiocinator; I understand your objection; maybe the third is incoherent)."

So there is nothing left to discuss.

Exactly. You haven't even addressed most of mine - maybe none now that I come to think about it. I'm confident that you neither know my counterargument nor can paraphrase it even though it's in words above these. I'll bet that you didn't see them again and don't know what I'm referring to now.

If that's correct - and it almost certainly is - then don't your words speak to your own posting etiquette more than that of those who you accuse of making no effort to understand you? You've made no effort to understand me.

I won't be addressing any reply to this post from you if it doesn't address my counterargument. Why? Because there's nothing in it for me, and because you don't give me the courtesy of reading what I write to you and addressing it, I've lost interest in what you want here. Quid pro quo, Leroy. If you give nothing, you have no reason to expect more in return.

Your counterargument has been addresses multiple times...you are asking for a relevant difference between god and the universe that would make god inmune to the law of cause and effect.........as I said before the relevant difference is that unlike the universe, god didn't begin to exist (or at least this is what I claim)


Therefore no special pleading

 

[Revoltingest]

Most atheists pretend they have no ideas or beliefs regarding the source of existence because they know they cannot defend the ideas and beliefs that they clearly do have, even as they demand everyone else that has some thoughts or beliefs on the subject must present them to be judged in the atheist's 'kangaroo court'. So although they have nothing to contribute to the discussion, they want to be able to attack anything anyone else contributes to it.

It sounds like you feel greatly wronged & injured by
arguments with atheists. This can result from holding
onto deeply held but indefensible beliefs. Were I you,
I'd re-consider clinging to those.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your counterargument has been addresses multiple times...you are asking for a relevant difference between god and the universe that would make god inmune to the law of cause and effect.

Nope. You still don't understand why what you are doing is special pleading.

Don't let it bother you. It doesn't matter that you don't understand - not to you and not to me. It doesn't matter to me that you're uninterested in self-improvement and don't ask questions or try to engage. You're here to preach, not exchange ideas. You're not interested in mine.

So .... it's time to move along:

There ain't no bread in the bread box
'Cause we ain't got no dough
And it's seems like we ain't got enough time
To go foolin' around no more
I've been working so hard for oh so long
What've you got to show?

Open up your eyes little darling
Let's pack up your things and go
Open up your eyes little darling
Don't want to live here no more
Open up your eyes little darling
Been here for far too long
Open up your eyes little darling
It's time to move along

(more lyrics)

 

[Valjean]

All I am saying is that we don't know if

1 the eye evolved just by random mutations and natural selection
Or
2 if other mechanisms ( other than random mutations) also played an important role .... Some of the other mechanisms that have been proposed in the literature are epigenetics, Natural genetic engineering transposons etc.

These "other mechanisms" are just more, natural mutation and selection. You are agreeing with me. There is no hand-of-God

The only one who claims with certainty that option 1 is the correct is you ( and @Valjean )....... But us normal people (and scientist ) have no access to secret alien knowledge don't know yet what the correct answer is.

??? -- What are you on about? Scientists and myself agree with proposals 1 and 2.

 

[Valjean]

A transcendent source is logically necessary because there are no logically coherent alternatives.

Horsefeathers! We've been pointing out well evidenced, observable alternatives for years. Apparently you choose to ignore the mechanisms science sees so clearly.

And because existence DOES exist, we humans are designed to want to understand how and why this is so.

Huh? How does this follow?
Is my cat designed to want to understand how and why?

What is it that you are not understanding, here. What is it that you are objecting to, exactly?

Your ignorance of alternatives, factual misrepresentation, and non sequiturs.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evidence that there is a real-world with the observable property of being real. If you can't actual give evidence as an observation of real, you are doing in effect metaphysics.
And evidence of how you know worthless as per observation and not just your cognitive rule of if... If you can't do that you are not doing science, you are doing a normative claim, which is in effect philosophy as for how we ought to behave.

Look, there's scary-type music and inspirational type music, for example. Why am I mentioning this? Because if a person wants to say that the world is not 'real' then the scary music might start playing. But, since the world is in such disarray (imo, of course), I guess maybe not so horrifying music would be played if it were in a movie. But not real happy music either.

 

[YoursTrue]

These "other mechanisms" are just more, natural mutation and selection. You are agreeing with me. There is no hand-of-God

??? -- What are you on about? Scientists and myself agree with proposals 1 and 2.

As I have been reading, according to scientists, some species take longer to develop than others from previous species. Do you agree?

 

[blü 2]

How did life begin in the first place? It's a natural question. Yet science is nowhere near the answer to this question. In fact, the question may be flawed. Maybe there was no beginning. This possibility cannot be logically ruled out.

A very armchair statement. Do you keep abreast of abiogenesis research on any of the science news sites on the net?

If not, I suggest the benefit to you would be a grasp of not only the problems but the hints and possibilities we have towards a solution.

But if you prefer to stay in your armchair, opining and blowing smoke rings, well, that's a matter for you.

 

[blü 2]

When people post stupid things, I point out the stupidity for these posts. And of course they don't like it.

Perhaps it isn't that you disagree, but the incoherence of your grounds for disagreeing.

 

[Valjean]

As I have been reading, according to scientists, some species take longer to develop than others from previous species. Do you agree?

Of course. In the absence of evolutionary influences populations tend to achieve a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, where a selective advantage is not generated by variation. Stable environment = Stable species.
Change the environment to generate challenges or new opportunities, and the rate of change will increase.

Your point?

 

[PureX]

Nor is anything gained by running the difficulty farther back.... Our going back, ever so far, brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. — William Paley (1)
How did life begin in the first place? It's a natural question. Yet science is nowhere near the answer to this question. In fact, the question may be flawed. Maybe there was no beginning. This possibility cannot be logically ruled out.

Of course it can. Everything that exists has begun existing and will cease existing.Therefor, logically, existence is not eternal.

​

Helmholtz​

This possible consequence of cosmic ancestry is not new. In 1873, the great German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz said, "if failure attends all of our efforts to obtain a generation of organisms from lifeless matter, it seems to me a thoroughly correct scientific procedure to inquire whether there has ever been an origination of life, or whether it is not as old as matter..." (2). Contemporaneously with Helmholtz, Louis Pasteur wrote (3):

The Beginning. by Brig Klyce

panspermia.org

 

[PureX]

Perhaps it isn't that you disagree, but the incoherence of your grounds for disagreeing.

So far, all I’m getting is whining. No logical rebuttals. Do you have a logical rebuttal, or are you just going to whine like the rest of them? I don’t care who agrees with who. I don’t care who doesn’t like what I post or how I post it.. This is a debate thread. So post your position, and your reasoning supporting it. If you don’t agree with my position, then post a LOGICALLY REASONED rebuttal. And stop whining.

There are three proposals in regards to the advent of existence. That it is eternal, that it just poofed into being from nothingness, or that it is the deliberate result of an unknown source that transcends the limitations that create and define it.

Only the third proposal does not logically negate itself. The first and the second, do. The first because nothing that exists is eternal. And the second because something cannot come from nothing.

 

[leroy]

??? -- What are you on about? Scientists and myself agree with proposals 1 and 2.

Good to know,...... A few days ago you explicitly disagreed with 2...... What happened?

1 Did you change your mind ?

2 you pretended to disagree with 2 just because your atheist friend @Pogo was cornered needed backup maybe sometimes loyalty is more important than honesty)

3 it was just an honest mistake, maybe just a typo ?

 

[John53]

Whining about whining is logically whining.

 

[PureX]

Horsefeathers! We've been pointing out well evidenced, observable alternatives for years. Apparently you choose to ignore the mechanisms science sees so clearly.

Science cannot point out any alternatives because science cannot take place until AFTER the advent and manifestation of existence occurred. Science is like history. It can only investigate what has already happened. It cannot address the origin f the happening.

Huh? How does this follow?
Is my cat designed to want to understand how and why?

Is your cat a human?