Atheists - A Question...

[HonestJoe]

Well, we disagree. How we would describe a God, if such a being was found, would depend on who does the description.

How we describe anything can and does vary depending on who is doing the describing, often significantly. That doesn't necessarily make any of those descriptions accurate or correct though. How the thing actually is remains the same regardless of who is describing it (accurately or not).

In all sorts of contexts, plenty of things are defined and described in one way, based on one set of knowledge, understanding and perception, only for the reality to turn out to be entirely different. Again, that is why I said we wouldn't be able to attribute the events in the OP scenario to any proposed cause without (much) more evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm getting an answer I should have expected.
Nothing would convince an atheist of what they don't want to believe.

The scenario is in English. It's not in Japanese.
Here you all are, can't even answer a simple scenario as it is given, but have to change it up to fit your worldview.

All 30 people and yourself.
So you would think you were dreaming, basically, because the people did not come in at different times.
All thirty are sitting in the waiting room, when the man enters the room.

Can you answer according to the scenario, or am I right - Nothing would convince you. You're already closed-minded?

Well, it could be from a different God than your version. It could be a demon. It could be an space alien. It could be a test done to us as inside a computer simulation. And of course there is the natural one.
So my answer is that based on your example, I can't know.

nPeace, you have learn to check if there are more that one possible explanation and then state the obvious - it is unknown.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How we describe anything can and does vary depending on who is doing the describing, often significantly. That doesn't necessarily make any of those descriptions accurate or correct though. How the thing actually is remains the same regardless of who is describing it (accurately or not).

In all sorts of contexts, plenty of things are defined and described in one way, based on one set of knowledge, understanding and perception, only for the reality to turn out to be entirely different. Again, that is why I said we wouldn't be able to attribute the events in the OP scenario to any proposed cause without (much) more evidence.

You are aware that correct and accurate are ideas in human minds. They are cognitive abstracts and there are several versions and not just yours.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm getting an answer I should have expected.
Nothing would convince an atheist of what they don't want to believe.

Nobody has said that though. The scenario as you describe it wouldn't be sufficient to convince anyone that something "spiritual" or "supernatural" definitely does exist, and you've presented nothing to support the idea that it should. Some other scenarios or evidence could well be sufficient to convince people, but you only asked about this specific scenario.

As others have pointed out, there is nothing like enough information available to the person in that scenario to reach any kind of conclusion on what caused the strange sequence of events and literally countless possibilities if we're completely open to speculation. What exactly makes you say that that scenario should convince anyone experiencing it that something "spiritual" or "supernatural" was the definitive cause, rather than, say, something "extra-terrestrial", "technological" or "psychological"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because "supernatural" is a bull**** category, as I explained in my first post in this thread.

Now answer my question, please.

@nPeace - any response?

 

[Lekatt]

Psychosis is an experience.
And you said that you find it strange to think that those who did not have the experience, would know more about it then those that did / do.

why would you need to have the flu in order to treat it as a doctor? You just may be trying to compare apples with bananas.
This is why I said that you should think it through. Clearly, your sweeping statement has problems.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because "supernatural" is a bull**** category, as I explained in my first post in this thread.

Now answer my question, please.

Well, I can't observe that it is bull****. I can understand it as different cognition and feelings in the end, but that is a part of how individuality works in the everyday world.

 

[Lekatt]

You mean: there are multiple anecdotes where such is claimed to happen.

No I meant there is real evidence that the experiencer is truthful about his experience.

In one case the surgeon went on national TV and told of the experience he had and his belief in it. It is OK if you don't believe, but most of the participates at least start learning about the phenomenon.

 

[HonestJoe]

You are aware that correct and accurate are ideas in human minds. They are cognitive abstracts and there are several versions and not just yours.

They are indeed abstract but they're not exclusive to or reliant on human minds. For example, it is a fact that the planet we call Neptune exists, in distant orbit around the Sun. That is a fact now, it was a fact before any humans were aware of it's existence and it was a fact before the first human even existed.

What we think is true and what is actually true remain two distinct things, even if what we think is true is indeed correct. We can't truly know anything, we can only make educated guesses based on the available evidence and knowledge. In day-to-day practice, we behave as if we truly know many things because we wouldn't be able to do anything otherwise.

With less immediate and consequential matters, we're free to admit that we don't know, even if we're fairly confident of the right answer. The core problem is that our instinctive need to assume definitive knowledge from the day-to-day practicalities makes it difficult for a lot of people to make that shift to admitting that there are things we're not sure about. "Supernatural" and "religious" beliefs are one of the major consequences of this, hence the OP question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No I meant there is real evidence that the experiencer is truthful about his experience.

Is there? All I ever see are anecdotes.
"real evidence" would require an actual experimental setup, preferably with a control group.
This would then also result in a formal paper, published in an appropriate journal, documenting the experiment and the results.

I've never seen such.

Also, you say here that there is evidence of the experiencer being "truthful". I already said that I don't doubt people's sincerity. Alien abductees are also truthful about their experience.
But that doesn't mean their conclusion / interpretation of the experience is accurate.

People can be honest and wrong, you know...

In one case the surgeon went on national TV and told of the experience he had and his belief in it

Yes. That's a good example of just another anecdote

 

[nPeace]

By observation and testing? Good, that is doing science.

Glad we agree on that, at least.

Justify those assumptions.

There are not assumptions.
Justify your assumption that these are assumptions.

The Bible has proven to be true in various ways already mentioned numerous times on these forums.
Why, for the millionth time do you ask that. Just say you don't accept them, rather than ask people a zillion times, the same thing?

Do you hear me asking you a million times to support your claims on evolution theory?
I do not accept those claims. So regardless of how many times you claim it's true, that's your belief.

...and no, the statement "the Bible is true" is not just an assertion, anymore than the assertion "evolution theory is true".
It's backed up by evidence, and there is a consensus.

So please, stop playing the truth determiner.

Also, tell me how you know that something is designed as opposed to naturally occurring.

What?
I know a designed object from the fact that in designed objects, there are always either features or components working together based on specific instructions toward a particular goal.

For example, the airplane is designed after the design in living birds.
BIOMIMICRY IN FLIGHT AND WING DESIGN

The features, or components are put together in a specific way following a set of instruction toward an intended goal... and without the intelligent people behind it, it would not accomplish those goals

The wing of the bird is designed for the purpose of flight. We see that.
You and your white coat colleagues are in the lab for a rason. You don't just take all the materials in the lab, leave and close the door, and hope than on return, your goal is reached.

I'm giving you one example. I know it's not worth my time to give you anything more. Not after our previous conversation on evidence and seeing the worst evasive measures in history, imo... especially this. No thanks.

If you cannot tell design, I'm sorry for you.
There are scientists who can tell the most basic designed objects, and they are not in the category of those with connecting parts - more intricate.
There are features though. The most basic designed objects

Maybe there are people who don't think their car seat was designed... much less the entire vehicle.
Then again, if they can't tell design, they have my sympathy.

So the problem is NOT science, but that reasoning from the evidence does not support your beliefs?

I don't know how you arrived at that. Maybe you have an explanation.

 

[nPeace]

Ultimately, because the whole concept of a supernatural is self-contradictory.

A good place to start is to figure out what it means to be natural. Then we can discuss whether it is even possible to be supernatural. And whether a supernatural can hope to give an explanation.

Okay. I'll get back to you on that.

 

[nPeace]

What I know about you is that you ignore my questions about why your God created cancers that affect children. If you believe your God exists, and that it is the creator of all things, then it is also responsible for creating cancers and genetic defects, and anything else that exist in this world that is deadly to human beings.

you were asking atheist why they don’t believe in a God, and if they would believe if there was a certain scenario that suggests it, maybe there is a supernatural at work in our world. We don’t believe because the concepts that Christians believe, or any other theorist, isn’t consistent with what we observe in the universe. the universe operates and functions as if no gods exist. It is a curiosity why any Christian, or Muslim would believe that God exists, and his loving, and cares about human beings, but then just stance by and lets children suffer, mothers of children suffer, creates horrible bacterias that kill people, yet you still worship this God. Explain.

Why do you believe I didn't answer your question? Is it because I didn't agree with you in my answer.
I was wondering if atheists think an answer is an answer only when we agree with them, because another atheist said the same thing, even though I answered their questions.

 

[nPeace]

I doubt that any person created SARS. It came from a mutation of a different corona virus. Pretty standard stuff.

...and where did the original corona virus come from?

 

[nPeace]

Scientists can rely on established knowledge, not simply based on them "knowing" it. but because it has been proven to be true. Claiming to know of God is a completely different thing because it is not established knowledge as it hasn't been proven to be true. So you using this "knowledge" to draw a conclusion about God is objectively wrong. Whereas science is based on what is currently our best explanation. Can they be wrong? Sure absolutely, but I almost guarantee that there is probably not a single scientist out there that wouldn't love to prove Einstein wrong. Because it would make them world famous and it would also improve our understanding of the Universe.

Name something scientists have proven to be true. Just one thing.
God has been proven to be true.
You see, what you believe to be true may be proven from the data that's determine as true.
Not everyone agrees with that determination, but you don't let that stop you from accepting those facts.
Neither do I.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm getting an answer I should have expected. Nothing would convince an atheist of what they don't want to believe.

Your comment is correct if applied to the fideist (faith-based thinker). Nothing can convince him of what he doesn't want to be true even when he is wrong, because he doesn't do evidence.

Unlike the fideist, critical thinkers don't have things they do or don't want to believe other than correct ideas. That's the faith-based thinker, who begins with a belief and believes it right or wrong. The critical thinker ends with a belief after reviewing the relevant evidence. Why? He doesn't want to believe wrong ideas. That's his bias, and the principles of evaluating evidence properly are his only defense against holding false beliefs. He simply has different standards for belief than the fideist, who appears to have no standard for belief beyond the will to believe. If you want to convince a critical thinker, you need to meet HIS standards for belief, not your own.

Nothing would convince you. You're already closed-minded?

You don't know what open-mindedness (and closed-mindedness) mean. They're terms from critical thinking and refer to the willingness and ability (or unwillingness or inablitiy) to dispassionately evaluate an argument for soundness. Let these two help us see an example of each:

The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Which man here is it correct to say that no evidence could convince him? That's the one with the closed mind. You are correct that nothing Ham says would convince an empiricist, because all he has are unevidenced claims often contradicted by evidence that his closed mind won't consider, as he explained.

Good evidence would be what... getting a test done on all 30 people in the waiting room, just before the stranger entered, and after he left?

Evidence that something was supernatural, by which I assume you mean not natural or according to the rules of nature, requires demonstration that nature could not have accomplished what was witnessed.

Here you all are, can't even answer a simple scenario as it is given, but have to change it up to fit your worldview.

You asked if your scenario would convince a critical thinker that the supernatural exists. Whose worldview did you think he was going to use to give you an answer? Did anybody change the observable facts of your hypothetical story, or just explain them from a naturalist's perspective? I don't recall reading that and know I didn't. I just explained to you why the concept of the supernatural is incoherent, and why all that exists is natural, that is, part of nature. I answered your question, you didn't disagree, so, the conclusion stands unrebutted.

Do you know what kinds of statements can't be successfully rebutted? Correct ones. If I were wrong, you could show where and how. If I am correct, you cannot. You did not.

God has been proven to be true.

Not by the standards of empiricism and critical analysis.

 

[nPeace]

I wouldn't attribute it to anything at that point since I wouldn't have anything like enough information to reach a conclusion. I certainly don't see any reason to assume anything "spiritual" specifically.

Me neither.

It's also worth noting that "miracle" describes something that literally can't happen, so if something we thought to be miraculous actually did happen, it would prove it wasn't actually miraculous. Similarly, if something perceived as "supernatural" turned out to be real, it would actually be "natural" (something that has happened with all sorts of things in the past).

This isn't accurate though.
A miracle is not something that can't happen.
Remember, there are things that people think is impossible, but once they understand how it happens, they see it in a different light.

A miracle is something which surpasses all known human or natural powers.
That doesn't mean it isn't a reality. It just means man's knowledge is limited... which is a fact - a reality.

The entire "natural" vs "supernatural" argument is really just empty semantics. The only relevant questions are; What was the cause of a phenomena or event? And; Whether we currently understand what that cause is or not?

Sounds, in part, reasonable.
The only thing is words are used to distinguish things. Without them, dialog can be complicated.

Since miracles surpasses all known human or natural powers, it is not considered "natural", but supernatural.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are not assumptions.
Justify your assumption that these are assumptions.

What?
I know a designed object from the fact that in designed objects, there are always either features or components working together based on specific instructions toward a particular goal.

That's not how one recognizes artificial design.

For example, the airplane is designed after the design in living birds.
BIOMIMICRY IN FLIGHT AND WING DESIGN
View attachment 68110

It's funny, because I know for a fact that genetic algorithms are used to optimize the aerodynamics of airplane wings. They are thus not actually designed by a designer, but by a blind optimization process that mimics biological evolution.

The end result was a wing design which performed much better then any of the designs done by actual designers.

The features, or components are put together in a specific way following a set of instruction toward an intended goal... and without the intelligent people behind it, it would not accomplish those goals

Nope.
Airplane wings designed by a blind genetic algorithm are actually BETTER then those designed by intelligent agents.

You don't just take all the materials in the lab, leave and close the door, and hope than on return, your goal is reached.

Funny because that's exactly what happened....
The blind GA, which mimics biological evolution, was set lose on the crude inefficient human design and left running. Upon returning, the goal was reached.

I'm giving you one example

An example that just blew up in your face.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I was wondering if atheists think an answer is an answer only when we agree with them

For you to say that line after this thread of yours, really is the epitome of irony.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Remember, there are things that people think is impossible, but once they understand how it happens, they see it in a different light.

So like creationists and evolution.

A miracle is something which surpasses all known human or natural powers.

So like an argument from ignorance / god-of-the-gaps