• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
YoursTrue said:
Neither of you have done anything but accuse. SZ offers to discuss but then goes off on a tangent of insults. And because SZ continues to refuse his denial of what's true in a basic concept of lava flow & sediment and you just keep making fun along with your cohorts who know who they are -- thanks again. I doubt you'll stop. I say this with a a smile. Have a good evening if it's evening where you're at. I realize you believe in the theory of evolution as if it's true and that the concept as determined by scientists is a fact. I no longer do. Call me names, ignorant, as others make fun even those who go to church and/or other houses of worship perhaps -- thank you thank you. P.S. I cannot explain everything. Others may try to explain but there is nothing beyond presumption and conjecture to back up their claims.
Click to expand...
More breaking of the Ninth Commandment. Are you sure that you are a Christian?
 
joelr

joelr

Well-Known Member
Eli G said:
But saying that life, the laws of the universe, the physical-mathematical constants, etc. arose without a "reasonable scientific" cause from an explosion, THAT is believing in miracles.

PS: The automated response manual is falling short... You should stop hiring automated handlers on this forum and start putting some real humanity into the debates. It's something like "adding value to the forum"... because you are losing a lot of value with these types of answers that are more than boring and repeated ad nauseum.
Click to expand...
Who says that? Science doesn't say that. Apologists using strawmen to make arguments do often use that.

Science does not say the big bang was an explosion. At all. Its' a change of state, nothing exploded.
Science says we do not know why the universe was compact and the fundamental laws may have been unified.
Symmetry breaking, phase state changes, many things happen in nature by themself. We don't know if there are infinite big bangs or infinite different combinations of states of space-time or many other things we do not even have the ability to think about. We do not know if the constants could be any other way.

It's just nature. Before people knew about stars and weather and illness they said, this is all proof of a god. Now we understand those and people look to areas science cannot yet understand and say "wow look it must be god again".


We already know nature, space-time, probabilities, exist and play out. That is enough. We don't know that gods are real things. These are apologetic strawmen reasons to claim natural process could only be a "miracle" from the specific deity you believe in. Suspiciously these miracle deities are really bad at writing books, they always make them look man-made and to be using trending concepts from each era.

All one had to do is say, "everything is made of atoms". Instead it said the same thing all the deities said at whatever time it was in the development.

Bottom line, all this is is "My God is real because stuff exists".
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ChristineM said:
A universe from nothing is only one of several (i know of 32) hypothesis for how the bb happened. As far as i know only 2 suggest a universe from nothing.

Of course they are scientific hypothesis, not atheistic hypothesis so once again you are deliberately misrepresenting atheism.

Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Nothing more, nothing less, anything else you add to that simply shows your ignorance of atheism. And i feel sorry that a misunderstanding of fact can generate so much hatred.

I really do wonder how deliberate misrepresentations stack up with the teachings of your bible?
Click to expand...
I have known of scientists that do not advocate for a "Universe from nothing" but they will also point out how that hypothesis does not violate any laws of physics. For example Lawrence Krauss is one of those that has done so. He does not think that the singularity came from nothing but he can explain how that does not violate conservation of energy. Using two independent means the total energy of the universe has been measured. And within a margin of error the total energy of the universe is zero. That is the meaning of a "flat universe".
 
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
I have known of scientists that do not advocate for a "Universe from nothing" but they will also point out how that hypothesis does not violate any laws of physics. For example Lawrence Krauss is one of those that has done so. He does not think that the singularity came from nothing but he can explain how that does not violate conservation of energy. Using two independent means the total energy of the universe has been measured. And within a margin of error the total energy of the universe is zero. That is the meaning of a "flat universe".
Click to expand...

Yes, everyone has their favourite. To be accepted as a valid hypothesis it must not involve woo.

I'm no scientist but for what it's worth i favour the multiverse hypothesis by of Dr Laura Mersini-Haughton. It's based on current observations of the universe and extrapolated.

[0809.3623] Birth of the Universe from the Multiverse
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Eli G said:
A specific example: in the Bible it is said that the waters were divided and a path was dried up for the passage of the Israelites on more than one occasion, for example in the Red Sea at the exit from Egypt, and in the Jordan River when they were to enter the land of Canaan for the first time to conquer it.

When we read these passages in the past we considered them inexplicable from a natural point of view. But a few years ago scientists experimented a new application to the discovery of water dipolarity. They discovered that by applying a strong magnetic field to a volume of water, it was possible to divide that volume into two parts, leaving a completely dry space in the center.

So it turned out that what seemed like a miracle with no possible physical explanation a few years ago, the division of the waters, turned out to be a display of superior power, sufficient energy that was used to separate water based on knowledge that at that time no human possessed.

When you hear an atheist say that this was a miracle, tell him to update his physical knowledge of water dipolarity. How many more things do atheists call "miracles" because of their lack of knowledge?

But saying that life, the laws of the universe, the physical-mathematical constants, etc. arose without a "reasonable scientific" cause from an explosion, THAT is believing in miracles.

PS: The automated response manual is falling short... You should stop hiring automated handlers on this forum and start putting some real humanity into the debates. It's something like "adding value to the forum"... because you are losing a lot of value with these types of answers that are more than boring and repeated ad nauseum.
Click to expand...
Please do not distort science with misinformation based on intentional ignorance and a religious agenda. Science doesnot propose any of the above.

Failure to understand proper English definitions and terminology cripples your ability to communicate in English.

en.wikipedia.org

Miracle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

A miracle is an event that is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws[2] and accordingly gets attributed to some supernatural or praeternatural cause. Various religions often attribute a phenomenon characterized as miraculous to the actions of a supernatural being, (especially) a deity, a miracle worker, a saint, or a religious leader.

Theword following "miracle" in the dictionary is "mirage."

Please let's communicate in standard accepted English language at the minimum high school level.
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Eli G said:
It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:

A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.

So who is the one who believes in miracles? ;)
Click to expand...

+result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person, if the person also claims it, others cannot claim it on his behalf, right, please?

Regards
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Eli G said:
It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:

A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.

So who is the one who believes in miracles? ;)
Click to expand...
Not atheists nor other scientists. This accusation is old and moldy and reflects an intentional ignorance of physics and cosmology. This false claim has been addressed many times

Scientists and atheists do not believe anything comes from nothing.
 
E

Eli G

Well-Known Member
There are certain posts here that sound so stupid, that if that's what science is, I'd rather not know anything about that "science". :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top