Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[cladking]

Now this is a good example of metaphysics per the Oxford languages dictionary.
abstract theory with no basis in reality.

I put you on ignore for this but have relented because you read some Burtt like you're actually trying .

King Teti's pyramid as seen looking north . The casing stones are gone and the mud brick core has eroded to a pile of rubble. At the horizon left: the pyramids of Giza.

Yes! Exactly! It is a tiny little pile of rubble. Its original shape can not be determined by the photograph. It would take thousands of times more work to build a great pyramid than what this required back when it was brand new and actually looked like a tiny little pyramid.

It doesn't even look like a tiny little pyramid any longer. It was never a great pyramid. Calling it a "pyramid" is a semantical argument used to extrapolate what's actually known about the numerous piles of rubble and then apply this to the actual pyramids. Just as "pyramid" is a word game (a semantical argument) "survival of the fittest" is another word game. Anyone who doesn't accept that some individuals probably survive because they are stronger or smarter is obviously a kook so you've won the argument on the basis of a word.

I would advise you to not only figure out what the first definition of "metaphysics" is but to also work on the determination of the metaphysical foundation of modern science. I would suggest that 18th century assumptions are not a sound foundation for anything at all.

I'm sorry if this goes down hard but reality is infinitely more complex than science will ever be. "Homo omnisciencis" is just a word and we don't really know much of anything at all. I use it as a pejorative; "we are "Homo omnisciencis" hear us boast".

 

[YoursTrue]

The "logic of miracles"? And it is creationists that cause the Bible to be put down by abusing it. It can be properly used as a source for lessons on how to treat your fellow human beings. The value of faith, and other areas having to do with a belief in God. But it fails if one takes it too literally. Creationists are the ones that make it just a book of myths.

Here's my point, and this is what I believe -- and the only one that can prove this or disprove this is the God that you do not believe in -- religions in general have many different beliefs. I agree with you there. Yet I believe there is only one true God, as Jesus taught. I also believe what he said, the road is narrow and few would be finding it.
If a person appeals to this "one true God," that Jesus spoke about, I also believe God will answer him. My belief about this rests on (1) my experience, and (2) I always like the apostle Paul's experience, how he 'met' Jesus in a manner of speaking. I'm sure you remember that from the Bible. That also could be considered a miracle. Paul was hounded from that time on, yet spoke to others about his experience and they who would sometimes denigrated him. Sometimes they listened and believed him about the Christ.
(Note: I cannot answer all questions about the Bible, by the way...I just know what I believe and what I don't believe. I won't go any further now because to talk about evolution is another subject, but I may get back to it.)

 

[cladking]

Haven't we posted a hundred times that science doesn't claim that something came from nothing?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then in the next breath you'll say that the entire universe poofed into existence from a dimension we don't even recognize as a dimension because it is so small that nothing can exist there except an abstraction. But it's OK that the universe poofed into existence from nothing because we can't extrapolate all the way back to the origin which occurred a few nanoseconds earlier. "Poofing" is OK so long as it's done by science and has cute names like "abiogenesis" or "big bang" and it happened accidently or without intent.

Science as practiced by billions today is layers of miracles of many sorts and types. It's even a miracle that everything in the Bible is wrong and for the first time ever everything believed by science is right. We live in an age of miracles and the net is proof positive even though most of those who say this don't have a clue how even one computer works.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is you who need to "prove definitively and demonstrably" that it happened in a different than the logic way.

What logic way?

 

[shunyadragon]

Simple logic:

Heb. 3:4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

I do not need to philosophize about the existence of a Creator; it is obvious He exists. The earth is like a house in the entire Universe, and it takes a lot of stubbornness and blindness not to realize that it must have had a Creator.

Scripture is not logic by definition.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually the bible is a book of myths. It's myths are the truths to its followers in creating relationship to the divine. When you use these myths as absolute facts directly applied to our world then you have completely misunderstood the myths indicating you do not know the meaning that the words represent. It represents a lack of understanding of the myths. This is true of pagan myths which represent truth of relationship and not as literal description. That is why most pagans agree with the theory of evolution and know the importance of it.

At this point in life, it's perfectly "logical" to me that there are miracles. That, of course, from a higher source causing these miracles. Now the question is: which ones do you believe? And, since the quest for figuring things out by scientists and physicists is still in the wide theoretical range, I leave the possibilities of how it all came about sans miracles to them. Because they still haven't figured out, despite all their trying, how the universe came about. Just to clarify, though -- do I believe or think all such miracles people speak about came from the one true God Jesus spoke about? No. You got it, the answer is no, I do not believe all miracles and visions, etc., claimed by some come from the one TRUE God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Scripture is not logic by definition.

To me and some others, it is logical. Obviously not all believe it. Can I answer all questions about it? Guess. But I'll tell you -- the answer is No, I cannot answer all questions about the Bible. (Have a good day.)

 

[shunyadragon]

Logic doesn't always give the right conclusion. Because some things are unanswered in the process of logic. The conclusion therefore can be wrong.

This does not respond to the question of the 'burden of proof.'

Well ah . . . is most often not a matter of right or wrong. Itis a structured argument based on assumptions to arrive a conclusion. If one agrees withe premises and assumptions are agreed to the conclusions follow.

Logical reasoning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Logical reasoning is a mental activity that aims to arrive at a conclusion in a rigorous way. It happens in the form of inferences or arguments by starting from a set of premises and reasoning to a conclusion supported by these premises. The premises and the conclusion are propositions, i.e. true or false claims about what is the case. Together, they form an argument. Logical reasoning is norm-governed in the sense that it aims to formulate correct arguments that any rational person would find convincing. The main discipline studying logical reasoning is logic.

Distinct types of logical reasoning differ from each other concerning the norms they employ and the certainty of the conclusion they arrive at. Deductive reasoning offers the strongest support: the premises ensure the conclusion, meaning that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if all the premises are true. Such an argument is called a valid argument, for example: all men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal. For valid arguments, it is not important whether the premises are actually true but only that, if they were true, the conclusion could not be false. Valid arguments follow a rule of inference, such as modus ponens or modus tollens. Deductive reasoning plays a central role in formal logic and mathematics.

 

[cladking]

This is what passes for "science" today; semantics, assumptions, and scholarship. This is exactly the same methodology used by the Spanish Inquisition.

Darwin proved by a mere word game that some people just aren't worth the trouble of surviving and millions have perished.

My understanding is very very few people were actually killed in the Inquisition because most people renounced the devil. How does a poor person in the wrong country renounce his lack of fitness? Being impoverished, malnourished, and downtrodden it's very difficult for the poor anywhere to make a very good case that they are fit enough to survive. This goes double if they're the "wrong" race, sex, or creed so the death just goes on in war and in peace.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's my point, and this is what I believe -- and the only one that can prove this or disprove this is the God that you do not believe in -- religions in general have many different beliefs. I agree with you there. Yet I believe there is only one true God, as Jesus taught. I also believe what he said, the road is narrow and few would be finding it.
If a person appeals to this "one true God," that Jesus spoke about, I also believe God will answer him. My belief about this rests on (1) my experience, and (2) I always like the apostle Paul's experience, how he 'met' Jesus in a manner of speaking. I'm sure you remember that from the Bible. That also could be considered a miracle. Paul was hounded from that time on, yet spoke to others about his experience and they who would sometimes denigrated him. Sometimes they listened and believed him about the Christ.
(Note: I cannot answer all questions about the Bible, by the way...I just know what I believe and what I don't believe. I won't go any further now because to talk about evolution is another subject, but I may get back to it.)

How would you even know that Jesus was who he supposedly claimed to be? In fact it is hard to say for sure what Jesus even believed.

In fact how would you show that any of the claims of the Bible are valid?

 

[shunyadragon]

To me and some others, it is logical. Obviously not all believe it. Can I answer all questions about it? Guess. But I'll tell you -- the answer is No, I cannot answer all questions about the Bible. (Have a good day.)

You may consider it logical, but it is not logic, and a logical argument requires premises and if one does not accept our premises there is no agreement See post #2417.

You are not alone here everyone believes their belief is logical despite the many conflicting contradictory beliefs.. That's human nature.

 

[Bear Wild]

At this point in life, it's perfectly "logical" to me that there are miracles. That, of course, from a higher source causing these miracles. Now the question is: which ones do you believe? And, since the quest for figuring things out by scientists and physicists is still in the wide theoretical range, I leave the possibilities of how it all came about sans miracles to them. Because they still haven't figured out, despite all their trying, how the universe came about. Just to clarify, though -- do I believe or think all such miracles people speak about came from the one true God Jesus spoke about? No. You got it, the answer is no, I do not believe all miracles and visions, etc., claimed by some come from the one TRUE God.

There are many things in this world that cannot be (at least at this time) explained by science. You may call them miracles if that brings some peace to yourself. My comment was about recognizing the true value of myths and not forcing them into factual explanations. Jesus walking on water is a myth, and to those that follow that path it has meaning but stating that Jesus actually walked on water is a misunderstanding of the value of the myth when making a claim it actually happened in that specific physical way. It is the same for changing water to wine or casting demons into pigs. These are myths that have meaning to followers and not actual physical events.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually the bible is a book of myths. It's myths are the truths to its followers in creating relationship to the divine. When you use these myths as absolute facts directly applied to our world then you have completely misunderstood the myths indicating you do not know the meaning that the words represent. It represents a lack of understanding of the myths. This is true of pagan myths which represent truth of relationship and not as literal description. That is why most pagans agree with the theory of evolution and know the importance of it.

Lucretius was among th first to accept a version of evolution and our universe.

 

[leroy]

Just like Homer's Odyssey is evidence of Greek gods because it mentions parts of Greek history. Right?

1 Both the Odesy and the books in the new testament (and any other historical document) has to be judged according to the standards commonly used by scholars

2 each document stands or falls by its own merits

3 the reason for I/we would accept the NT (say the gosples) and not the Odesy is because we think that the NT meets the standards and the odesy doesn’t

4 more specifically I think there are good reasons to think that the gospels where written by well-informed people that where honestly trying to report what actually happened………….and we cannot say the same thinks about the odesy…………………if you disagree and would affirm the opposite, then build your case

Is this really that hard to understand?.................................which of the 4 points do you have problems with?

 

[leroy]

BTW
Here is my cliam:

You will not support your assertion within the next 24 hours you will ether ignore the request, avoid the challenge or find a stupid excuse for not answering………………I have no problem is accepting the burden proof.

see @Pogo

This is how the burden proof works…………….I made a claim, and then I showed that the claim is true.............why can´t you do the same?

 

[Pogo]

see @Pogo

This is how the burden proof works…………….I made a claim, and then I showed that the claim is true.............why can´t you do the same?

No, your and @B-psychedelic's claim is that the Bible is proof of God, you have not demonstrated it to be true. I only asked if Homer's Odessy was not then evidence for the existence of Zeus etc. I said nothing about scholarly or otherwise evaluation.
In fairness, nobody else has proved the claim either in the last 2000+ years so don't feel too bad.
In response to your shifting the burden I will let chatGPT answer.

What is the burden of proof fallacy?

The "burden of proof fallacy" refers to a mistake in reasoning where someone asserts a claim and then shifts the burden to others to disprove it, rather than providing evidence to support their own assertion. This fallacy occurs when someone argues that their claim is true because it hasn't been proven false, or vice versa.
Here’s how it typically works:

1. Shifting the Burden: Instead of providing evidence or support for their claim, the person asserts it and expects others to disprove it.
2. Misunderstanding Burden of Proof: In debates or discussions, the burden of proof rests on the person making a claim. It's their responsibility to provide evidence or reasoning to support their assertion.
3. Logical Flaw: If someone says "X is true unless you can prove it's false," they are committing the burden of proof fallacy. It incorrectly assumes that a claim is true until proven otherwise, which is not logically sound.

Example:

• Person A: "Aliens definitely exist because you can't prove that they don't."
• Person B: "But you haven't provided any evidence that aliens exist."
• Person A: "It's up to you to prove they don't!"

In this example, Person A is committing the burden of proof fallacy by asserting that aliens exist and then shifting the burden onto Person B to disprove it. Instead, Person A should provide evidence or reasons to support their claim that aliens exist.
Understanding this fallacy is important in critical thinking and debates because it helps to correctly assign the responsibility of proof and avoid logical errors in arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

3 the reason for I/we would accept the NT (say the gosples) and not the Odesy is because we think that the NT meets the standards and the odesy doesn’t

Your opinion does not matter. You have an extremely biased viewpoint. Historians tend to ignore holy books when they mention gods and their activities, whether it is the Odyssey or the New Testament.


By the way, does the Odyssey have any self contradicting stories in it? I know that the New Testament does. In fact it has quite a few.

 

[Pogo]

see @Pogo

This is how the burden proof works…………….I made a claim, and then I showed that the claim is true.............why can´t you do the same?

A freebie to help you understand that I do not object to your belief in a god, but consider them to be as they are, a faith position, not a rational position.
For your edification I will again let chatGPT speak to the matter.

What is a faith position vs a rational position?

A "faith position" and a "rational position" represent two different approaches or attitudes towards beliefs or claims:

1. Faith Position:
   • Definition: A faith position is one where belief is based primarily on faith, which typically involves trusting in something without requiring empirical evidence or logical proof.
   • Basis: Belief in a faith position often stems from religious or spiritual convictions, personal experiences, or trust in authority figures or traditions.
   • Nature: Faith positions often involve accepting certain propositions as true because of their perceived importance, spiritual significance, or cultural upbringing rather than through evidence-based reasoning.
   • Example: Believing in the existence of a deity or in the moral teachings of a religious scripture based on faith rather than empirical evidence.
2. Rational Position:
   • Definition: A rational position is one that is supported by evidence, reason, logic, or empirical observation.
   • Basis: Belief in a rational position is grounded in verifiable data, logical arguments, scientific findings, or critical thinking.
   • Nature: Rational positions are subject to scrutiny, open to revision based on new evidence or arguments, and typically strive for coherence and consistency with established knowledge and principles.
   • Example: Accepting the theory of evolution due to the overwhelming evidence from fields such as genetics, paleontology, and biology.

Comparison:

• Evidence and Reasoning: A rational position relies on evidence and reasoning to support its claims, whereas a faith position may rely on personal belief, tradition, or revelation.
• Openness to Revision: Rational positions are generally open to change based on new evidence or arguments, whereas faith positions are often resistant to revision because they are grounded in unchanging beliefs.
• Scope: Rational positions are more broadly applicable and can encompass scientific, philosophical, ethical, and other domains, whereas faith positions are typically centered around religious or spiritual beliefs.

In summary, the distinction between a faith position and a rational position lies primarily in the basis of belief—faith versus evidence and reason. Understanding these distinctions can help in navigating discussions about beliefs and worldviews in a respectful and informed manner.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, your and @B-psychedelic's claim is that the Bible is proof of God, you have not demonstrated it to be true. I only asked if Homer's Odessy was not then evidence for the existence of Zeus etc. I said nothing about scholarly or otherwise evaluation.
In fairness, nobody else has proved the claim either in the last 2000+ years so don't feel too bad.
In response to your shifting the burden I will let chatGPT answer.

What is the burden of proof fallacy?

The "burden of proof fallacy" refers to a mistake in reasoning where someone asserts a claim and then shifts the burden to others to disprove it, rather than providing evidence to support their own assertion. This fallacy occurs when someone argues that their claim is true because it hasn't been proven false, or vice versa.
Here’s how it typically works:

1. Shifting the Burden: Instead of providing evidence or support for their claim, the person asserts it and expects others to disprove it.
2. Misunderstanding Burden of Proof: In debates or discussions, the burden of proof rests on the person making a claim. It's their responsibility to provide evidence or reasoning to support their assertion.
3. Logical Flaw: If someone says "X is true unless you can prove it's false," they are committing the burden of proof fallacy. It incorrectly assumes that a claim is true until proven otherwise, which is not logically sound.

Example:

• Person A: "Aliens definitely exist because you can't prove that they don't."
• Person B: "But you haven't provided any evidence that aliens exist."
• Person A: "It's up to you to prove they don't!"

In this example, Person A is committing the burden of proof fallacy by asserting that aliens exist and then shifting the burden onto Person B to disprove it. Instead, Person A should provide evidence or reasons to support their claim that aliens exist.
Understanding this fallacy is important in critical thinking and debates because it helps to correctly assign the responsibility of proof and avoid logical errors in arguments.

Refutation by meme:

 

[Revoltingest]

No, your and @B-psychedelic's claim is that the Bible is proof of God, you have not demonstrated it to be true. I only asked if Homer's Odessy was not then evidence for the existence of Zeus etc. I said nothing about scholarly or otherwise evaluation.
In fairness, nobody else has proved the claim either in the last 2000+ years so don't feel too bad.
In response to your shifting the burden I will let chatGPT answer.

What is the burden of proof fallacy?

The "burden of proof fallacy" refers to a mistake in reasoning where someone asserts a claim and then shifts the burden to others to disprove it, rather than providing evidence to support their own assertion. This fallacy occurs when someone argues that their claim is true because it hasn't been proven false, or vice versa.
Here’s how it typically works:

1. Shifting the Burden: Instead of providing evidence or support for their claim, the person asserts it and expects others to disprove it.
2. Misunderstanding Burden of Proof: In debates or discussions, the burden of proof rests on the person making a claim. It's their responsibility to provide evidence or reasoning to support their assertion.
3. Logical Flaw: If someone says "X is true unless you can prove it's false," they are committing the burden of proof fallacy. It incorrectly assumes that a claim is true until proven otherwise, which is not logically sound.

Example:

• Person A: "Aliens definitely exist because you can't prove that they don't."
• Person B: "But you haven't provided any evidence that aliens exist."
• Person A: "It's up to you to prove they don't!"

In this example, Person A is committing the burden of proof fallacy by asserting that aliens exist and then shifting the burden onto Person B to disprove it. Instead, Person A should provide evidence or reasons to support their claim that aliens exist.
Understanding this fallacy is important in critical thinking and debates because it helps to correctly assign the responsibility of proof and avoid logical errors in arguments.

I see it regularly.
Me: Support for the claim?
Them: Do your own research!