Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Hasn't Abiogenesis been disproven already?

Theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation was finally disapproved by

Theory of abiogenesis or spontaneous generation was finally disapproved by

byjus.com

I see that somebody beat me to the punch: What Pasteur proved was that rats don't develop from straw or maggots from rotting meat in a few days or weeks, not that first life could not have organized spontaneously over geological time. This is a common creation apologist deception - conflating these two.

In my personal view, God would not have planted fake evidence or allowed it to be planted, so I kept my belief and altered my interpretations of Genesis.

When I got to a similar place, I made the other choice. I altered my belief and kept my understanding of Genesis as an ancient best effort of people who didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night to account for how the world that they saw around them works and how it got there under the assumption that a tri-omni deity exists.

Just as the flood story doesn't fit the evidence, perhaps the real way to understand it is see the deeper lessons and not worry about forcing it into reality.

Again, I took a different path. Why would people write so unflattering a story about their god, who is described as imperfect (made and regretted an error), unfair (why kill most of mankind rather than repair him? why kill the beasts?), cruel (drowned everything rather than fixing or poofing away), intolerant (can't be with sinners), and incompetent (used the same flawed breeding stock to repopulate earth)?

The deeper truth I concluded is that they were accounting for seashells and marine fossils on the highest mountaintops. Explain that with no understanding of seafloor uplifting and under the assumption that a tri-omni god exists. Clearly, the earth had been flooded, and since only God could do that, God DID do it.

But why would a good, just, and fair god do that? For the same reason that man doesn't live in paradise and why there are so many unintelligible languages. They're all punishments. For what? Disobedience. Reaching too far. It's a common theme in the myths. Because God is good and all-powerful (assumed), therefore man must be wicked and deserving of these hardships. That's the Hebrews. Christianity took it a step further and added redemption and salvation, and the concept of sin, which is more than just disobedience. But it all centers around submission and obedience. Do it and be saved, or don't and be lost - just like Adam and Eve.

On top of that, one doesn't turn the Bible into an idol following my way to interpret.

That's to your credit and why I call believers like you theistic humanists. You reject everything the atheistic humanist rejects (the bigotries, the antiscientism, scripture as history or science) and value the things he values (Golden rule, education, freedom, democracy, secular justice).

It's also why I say that the more of this doctrine one imbibes, the worse it is for him and his neighbors. Just a little bit - church attendance for the community, praying and saying grace, affirming theism and the god of Abraham, rituals like baptism and communion, Christmas trees, etc.. - seems to do no harm to a person, but let yourself go, and it does intellectual and moral harm to one and in turn to others around him through him.

Monkeys don't make taco soup.

And even if they did, they'd still be monkeys.

It [taco soup] looked good, smelled good and tasted better.

Here in Mexico it's called Azteca soup, has more crispy tortilla strips, no cheese topping or just unmelted cheese sprinkles, and is lighter and less viscous. Maybe it's not the same soup, but I'd say it is. You called it taco soup, but the other name for Azteca soup is tortilla soup [sopa de tortilla]:

Spoiler: Azteca soup

but now I see...as one of my favorite songs go. Amazing grace.

I love that song as well, especially the bagpipes version, as at a military funeral.

Here's a version from an enthusiastic singer who just didn't know the words but wanted to lead a congregation in song anyway:

Spoiler: Omazing Grace (sic)

Assigning temporality to the word cause is just your own personal decision

It's standard usage. You're the one with an idiosyncratic, personal opinion.

Unlike the universe god didn't begin to exist therefore it requires no "reason" .... It is not special pleading because God and the universe are disanalogous

As I recently explained to you on this thread, we don't know that the substance of the universe had a beginning. It might have been latent in a multiverse infinitely back in time.

You're disregarding that possible multiverse explanation. The multiverse plays the same role as a god - source of the universe - but not conscious. Your special pleading is to take only one of those two seriously and reject the other out of hand without justification. Special pleading is unjustified double standard. Sometimes, a double standards appropriate, as when comparing adults and children. We have one set of rules for one and another for the other (drinking, driving, consuming porno, voting, gun ownership, etc.), and that is rational and justified. But sometimes, double standards are unjustified and thus constitute special pleading.

 

[leroy]

@ratiocinator just explained to you why you can't walk from NYC to LA because there are an infinite number of places in between and we don't know every one of them.

That makes about as much sense as your arguments.

It is not an argument it is a fact. It is a fact that we don’t know how eyes evolve……………..but we know they did

 

[leroy]

Rabbit hole.

See that is my evidence………………your unwillingness to explain why it seems to you that I don’t accept mistakes…………………….is evidence supporting my claim that you are just making things up.

 

[leroy]

LOL! You scurry straight back to temporal thinking of causes. As I've explained at length, most recently and compressively in #2,834, the space-time did not begin to exist. You could also try looking at the various philosophical 'theories' of time:

Basically, relativity forces us into eternalism, not least because of the relativity of simultaneity. It's a simple calculation to see that if two people stroll past each other, with a relative speed of 4mph, then the difference in what is happening 'now' relative to each, at the distance of the Andromeda Galaxy is about 5½ days. That is just due to special relativity and the relative speed, ignoring the further complications in GR.

The relative speed is tiny, and the Andromeda Galaxy is very close is cosmological terms. The gradient of the hyperplane of simultaneity is v/c², where v is the relative speed and c is the speed of light.

We live in a space-time in which all points in time exist together and time does not flow.

Ok, but it is still a fact that I am not committing the “special pleading fallacy”



Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading#:~:text=Special%20pleading%20is%20an%20informal,application%20of%20a%20double%20standard.


I am providing a justification for why God is different form the universe, therefore I am not guilty of committing that fallacy.



If you think that my justification is “bad” then you should start your reply with

“yes Leroy I made a mistake, you didn’t do a SP fallacy, but your justification is bad because…………bla bla bla

 

[YoursTrue]

I see that somebody beat me to the punch: What Pasteur proved was that rats don't develop from straw or maggots from rotting meat in a few days or weeks, not that first life could not have organized spontaneously over geological time. This is a common creation apologist deception - conflating these two.

When I got to a similar place, I made the other choice. I altered my belief and kept my understanding of Genesis as an ancient best effort of people who didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night to account for how the world that they saw around them works and how it got there under the assumption that a tri-omni deity exists.

Again, I took a different path. Why would people write so unflattering a story about their god, who is described as imperfect (made and regretted an error), unfair (why kill most of mankind rather than repair him? why kill the beasts?), cruel (drowned everything rather than fixing or poofing away), intolerant (can't be with sinners), and incompetent (used the same flawed breeding stock to repopulate earth)?

The deeper truth I concluded is that they were accounting for seashells and marine fossils on the highest mountaintops. Explain that with no understanding of seafloor uplifting and under the assumption that a tri-omni god exists. Clearly, the earth had been flooded, and since only God could do that, God DID do it.

But why would a good, just, and fair god do that? For the same reason that man doesn't live in paradise and why there are so many unintelligible languages. They're all punishments. For what? Disobedience. Reaching too far. It's a common theme in the myths. Because God is good and all-powerful (assumed), therefore man must be wicked and deserving of these hardships. That's the Hebrews. Christianity took it a step further and added redemption and salvation, and the concept of sin, which is more than just disobedience. But it all centers around submission and obedience. Do it and be saved, or don't and be lost - just like Adam and Eve.

That's to your credit and why I call believers like you theistic humanists. You reject everything the atheistic humanist rejects (the bigotries, the antiscientism, scripture as history or science) and value the things he values (Golden rule, education, freedom, democracy, secular justice).

It's also why I say that the more of this doctrine one imbibes, the worse it is for him and his neighbors. Just a little bit - church attendance for the community, praying and saying grace, affirming theism and the god of Abraham, rituals like baptism and communion, Christmas trees, etc.. - seems to do no harm to a person, but let yourself go, and it does intellectual and moral harm to one and in turn to others around him through him.

And even if they did, they'd still be monkeys.

Here in Mexico it's called Azteca soup, has more crispy tortilla strips, no cheese topping or just unmelted cheese sprinkles, and is lighter and less viscous. Maybe it's not the same soup, but I'd say it is. You called it taco soup, but the other name for Azteca soup is tortilla soup [sopa de tortilla]:

Spoiler: Azteca soup

View attachment 94287

I love that song as well, especially the bagpipes version, as at a military funeral.

Here's a version from an enthusiastic singer who just didn't know the words but wanted to lead a congregation in song anyway:

Spoiler: Omazing Grace (sic)

It's standard usage. You're the one with an idiosyncratic, personal opinion.

As I recently explained to you on this thread, we don't know that the substance of the universe had a beginning. It might have been latent in a multiverse infinitely back in time.

You're disregarding that possible multiverse explanation. The multiverse plays the same role as a god - source of the universe - but not conscious. Your special pleading is to take only one of those two seriously and reject the other out of hand without justification. Special pleading is unjustified double standard. Sometimes, a double standards appropriate, as when comparing adults and children. We have one set of rules for one and another for the other (drinking, driving, consuming porno, voting, gun ownership, etc.), and that is rational and justified. But sometimes, double standards are unjustified and thus constitute special pleading.

To me, when I see a video of bagpipes playing at a funeral (military), I cry inside, sometimes letting the tears fall.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do believe it is a fact that we (including all of the human race) distinctly and by distinctly I mean absolutely without doubt on a physical level do not know how the first cell that supposedly began to burgeon out came to be.

 

[YoursTrue]

I see that somebody beat me to the punch: What Pasteur proved was that rats don't develop from straw or maggots from rotting meat in a few days or weeks, not that first life could not have organized spontaneously over geological time. This is a common creation apologist deception - conflating these two.

When I got to a similar place, I made the other choice. I altered my belief and kept my understanding of Genesis as an ancient best effort of people who didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night to account for how the world that they saw around them works and how it got there under the assumption that a tri-omni deity exists.

Again, I took a different path. Why would people write so unflattering a story about their god, who is described as imperfect (made and regretted an error), unfair (why kill most of mankind rather than repair him? why kill the beasts?), cruel (drowned everything rather than fixing or poofing away), intolerant (can't be with sinners), and incompetent (used the same flawed breeding stock to repopulate earth)?

The deeper truth I concluded is that they were accounting for seashells and marine fossils on the highest mountaintops. Explain that with no understanding of seafloor uplifting and under the assumption that a tri-omni god exists. Clearly, the earth had been flooded, and since only God could do that, God DID do it.

But why would a good, just, and fair god do that? For the same reason that man doesn't live in paradise and why there are so many unintelligible languages. They're all punishments. For what? Disobedience. Reaching too far. It's a common theme in the myths. Because God is good and all-powerful (assumed), therefore man must be wicked and deserving of these hardships. That's the Hebrews. Christianity took it a step further and added redemption and salvation, and the concept of sin, which is more than just disobedience. But it all centers around submission and obedience. Do it and be saved, or don't and be lost - just like Adam and Eve.

That's to your credit and why I call believers like you theistic humanists. You reject everything the atheistic humanist rejects (the bigotries, the antiscientism, scripture as history or science) and value the things he values (Golden rule, education, freedom, democracy, secular justice).

It's also why I say that the more of this doctrine one imbibes, the worse it is for him and his neighbors. Just a little bit - church attendance for the community, praying and saying grace, affirming theism and the god of Abraham, rituals like baptism and communion, Christmas trees, etc.. - seems to do no harm to a person, but let yourself go, and it does intellectual and moral harm to one and in turn to others around him through him.

And even if they did, they'd still be monkeys.

Here in Mexico it's called Azteca soup, has more crispy tortilla strips, no cheese topping or just unmelted cheese sprinkles, and is lighter and less viscous. Maybe it's not the same soup, but I'd say it is. You called it taco soup, but the other name for Azteca soup is tortilla soup [sopa de tortilla]:

Spoiler: Azteca soup

View attachment 94287

I love that song as well, especially the bagpipes version, as at a military funeral.

Here's a version from an enthusiastic singer who just didn't know the words but wanted to lead a congregation in song anyway:

Spoiler: Omazing Grace (sic)

It's standard usage. You're the one with an idiosyncratic, personal opinion.

As I recently explained to you on this thread, we don't know that the substance of the universe had a beginning. It might have been latent in a multiverse infinitely back in time.

You're disregarding that possible multiverse explanation. The multiverse plays the same role as a god - source of the universe - but not conscious. Your special pleading is to take only one of those two seriously and reject the other out of hand without justification. Special pleading is unjustified double standard. Sometimes, a double standards appropriate, as when comparing adults and children. We have one set of rules for one and another for the other (drinking, driving, consuming porno, voting, gun ownership, etc.), and that is rational and justified. But sometimes, double standards are unjustified and thus constitute special pleading.

That tortilla aztec type soup sounds good, if I ever go to a Spanish or Mexican restaurant here I will certainly try it. OK, getting back to materialism vs. creation, humans put the ingredients together...cook the soup...etc. WE did not make the seeds that grow the crops. I think I'd prefer a bowl of the soup over arguing about soup vs. atheism. lol. But it's been interesting and one day yes, I will try a bowl of soup like that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, Egyptians did it…….we just don’t know how

So we do know how they got there. They were built by human beings. That's how they got there. The smaller details are still being fleshed out but they were obviously built by people.

You're acting as though it's some giant mystery and maybe aliens or god did it or something.

 

[cladking]

So we do know how they got there. They were built by human beings. That's how they got there. The smaller details are still being fleshed out but they were obviously built by people.

You're acting as though it's some giant mystery and maybe aliens or god did it or something.

The people who were actually there said "the gods built them".

Of course we know better. We know there are no gods and that the builders were highly ignorant and superstitious so it's case closed.

 

[YoursTrue]

I see that somebody beat me to the punch: What Pasteur proved was that rats don't develop from straw or maggots from rotting meat in a few days or weeks, not that first life could not have organized spontaneously over geological time. This is a common creation apologist deception - conflating these two.

When I got to a similar place, I made the other choice. I altered my belief and kept my understanding of Genesis as an ancient best effort of people who didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night to account for how the world that they saw around them works and how it got there under the assumption that a tri-omni deity exists.

Again, I took a different path. Why would people write so unflattering a story about their god, who is described as imperfect (made and regretted an error), unfair (why kill most of mankind rather than repair him? why kill the beasts?), cruel (drowned everything rather than fixing or poofing away), intolerant (can't be with sinners), and incompetent (used the same flawed breeding stock to repopulate earth)?

The deeper truth I concluded is that they were accounting for seashells and marine fossils on the highest mountaintops. Explain that with no understanding of seafloor uplifting and under the assumption that a tri-omni god exists. Clearly, the earth had been flooded, and since only God could do that, God DID do it.

But why would a good, just, and fair god do that? For the same reason that man doesn't live in paradise and why there are so many unintelligible languages. They're all punishments. For what? Disobedience. Reaching too far. It's a common theme in the myths. Because God is good and all-powerful (assumed), therefore man must be wicked and deserving of these hardships. That's the Hebrews. Christianity took it a step further and added redemption and salvation, and the concept of sin, which is more than just disobedience. But it all centers around submission and obedience. Do it and be saved, or don't and be lost - just like Adam and Eve.

That's to your credit and why I call believers like you theistic humanists. You reject everything the atheistic humanist rejects (the bigotries, the antiscientism, scripture as history or science) and value the things he values (Golden rule, education, freedom, democracy, secular justice).

It's also why I say that the more of this doctrine one imbibes, the worse it is for him and his neighbors. Just a little bit - church attendance for the community, praying and saying grace, affirming theism and the god of Abraham, rituals like baptism and communion, Christmas trees, etc.. - seems to do no harm to a person, but let yourself go, and it does intellectual and moral harm to one and in turn to others around him through him.

And even if they did, they'd still be monkeys.

Here in Mexico it's called Azteca soup, has more crispy tortilla strips, no cheese topping or just unmelted cheese sprinkles, and is lighter and less viscous. Maybe it's not the same soup, but I'd say it is. You called it taco soup, but the other name for Azteca soup is tortilla soup [sopa de tortilla]:

Spoiler: Azteca soup

View attachment 94287

I love that song as well, especially the bagpipes version, as at a military funeral.

Here's a version from an enthusiastic singer who just didn't know the words but wanted to lead a congregation in song anyway:

Spoiler: Omazing Grace (sic)

It's standard usage. You're the one with an idiosyncratic, personal opinion.

As I recently explained to you on this thread, we don't know that the substance of the universe had a beginning. It might have been latent in a multiverse infinitely back in time.

You're disregarding that possible multiverse explanation. The multiverse plays the same role as a god - source of the universe - but not conscious. Your special pleading is to take only one of those two seriously and reject the other out of hand without justification. Special pleading is unjustified double standard. Sometimes, a double standards appropriate, as when comparing adults and children. We have one set of rules for one and another for the other (drinking, driving, consuming porno, voting, gun ownership, etc.), and that is rational and justified. But sometimes, double standards are unjustified and thus constitute special pleading.

Haha very funny about the person singing Amazing Grace. Funny for several reasons. Nevertheless , I like Judy Collins rendition of it and will listen to her singing it upon occasion. Anyway it's a beautiful song but I am pretty sure he and I would not agree on biblical interpretation to a rather large degree. But ty. We still breathe air.

 

[leroy]

Because you say so or what? What makes your demand true?

Well in a normal and honest conversation, if someone claims that a premise is wrong, he has a burden proof and the minimal requirement is that he most show that the premise is more likely to be wrong than true…………

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well in a normal and honest conversation, if someone claims that a premise is wrong, he has a burden proof and the minimal requirement is that he most show that the premise is more likely to be wrong than true…………

Okay. Thank you for your answer.

 

[Pogo]

It is not an argument it is a fact. It is a fact that we don’t know how eyes evolve……………..but we know they did

It all depends on your idiosyncratic and occasionally dependent definition of "know". Here is the beginning or the definition from Oxford languages.

"know
/nō/
verb
1.
be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
"most people know that CFCs can damage the ozone layer""

This is hopefully true of you and I probably comprehend a whole lot more of the chemistry details though not to the level of quantum chemistry and their are still details of chemical reactions to be studied.

The point being whether you even know what a CFC is or not, or whether I or even any person knows every detail, we know how the process works and if you have these materials and inputs, the reaction or development will proceed.

Absolute detail is not a prerequisite of knowledge though evidence is. We do not need to personally know even more than the broad understanding but understand how to research others knowledge to fill in blanks. The contrary can also be demonstrated "that we don't know" something by someone providing an example that we consider reasonable knowledge that disagrees. At that point we will know more and maybe not know what we originally knew.


This is ultimately the source of rabbit holes you keep digging( as @Dan From Smithville accurately describes them) because you want others to be able to provide absolute detail.

You appear to have a knowledge base that is premised on your beliefs about how the universe, world, whatever should work without specific evidence but with desires. The two intersect in trivial cases. You don't claim aliens for the pyramids but do claim our lack of knowledge because we lack absolute detail even though we could create a new pyramid using temporally appropriate materials and methods.

This attitude appears to apply to @YoursTrue in that nothing short of absolute detail is accepted in spite of no alternate explanation other than goddunit without any methodology.

That we don't and never will know everything should be a given, but humanity survives on the back of our observed behaviour of increasing our knowledge.

As to your questions of going beyond this version of knowledge to is there something more, my position is that I don't care, and no-one has ever given me any reason to.

 

[Pogo]

I am providing a justification for why God is different form the universe

And that justification is that god is not like the other things that brought to the point of its introduction.
That is Special Pleading.

 

[leroy]

It all depends on your idiosyncratic and occasionally dependent definition of "know". Here is the beginning or the definition from Oxford languages.

"know
/nō/
verb
1.
be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
"most people know that CFCs can damage the ozone layer""

This is hopefully true of you and I probably comprehend a whole lot more of the chemistry details though not to the level of quantum chemistry and their are still details of chemical reactions to be studied.

The point being whether you even know what a CFC is or not, or whether I or even any person knows every detail, we know how the process works and if you have these materials and inputs, the reaction or development will proceed.

Absolute detail is not a prerequisite of knowledge though evidence is. We do not need to personally know even more than the broad understanding but understand how to research others knowledge to fill in blanks. The contrary can also be demonstrated "that we don't know" something by someone providing an example that we consider reasonable knowledge that disagrees. At that point we will know more and maybe not know what we originally knew.


This is ultimately the source of rabbit holes you keep digging( as @Dan From Smithville accurately describes them) because you want others to be able to provide absolute detail.

You appear to have a knowledge base that is premised on your beliefs about how the universe, world, whatever should work without specific evidence but with desires. The two intersect in trivial cases. You don't claim aliens for the pyramids but do claim our lack of knowledge because we lack absolute detail even though we could create a new pyramid using temporally appropriate materials and methods.

This attitude appears to apply to @YoursTrue in that nothing short of absolute detail is accepted in spite of no alternate explanation other than goddunit without any methodology.

That we don't and never will know everything should be a given, but humanity survives on the back of our observed behaviour of increasing our knowledge.

As to your questions of going beyond this version of knowledge to is there something more, my position is that I don't care, and no-one has ever given me any reason to.

No we don’t know the mechanisms, we have some candidate mechanisms but we don’t know which (if any) would work……this is true both for the eye and the pyramids………….refute me with a paper, not with your endless semantic tricks

And Nobody is talking about absolute detail

 

[leroy]

And that justification is that god is not like the other things that brought to the point of its introduction.
That is Special Pleading.

No, special pleading is when no justification is provided

 

[Pogo]

So we do know how they got there. They were built by human beings. That's how they got there. The smaller details are still being fleshed out but they were obviously built by people.

You're acting as though it's some giant mystery and maybe aliens or god did it or something.

It depends on whether you know the definition of know.

Communication is possible when sender and receiver agree on the symbol set but we rely on a kludged pile of organic stuff splattering electrical signals about. Only an incompetent designer would ever think this was a good idea. (might have been the snarky kid in the back of the class!)

 

[SkepticThinker]

The people who were actually there said "the gods built them".

Of course we know better. We know there are no gods and that the builders were highly ignorant and superstitious so it's case closed.

According to ancient astronaut theorists .... ?

 

[Pogo]

Well in a normal and honest conversation, if someone claims that a premise is wrong, he has a burden proof and the minimal requirement is that he most show that the premise is more likely to be wrong than true…………

Yes we know that is what you think. Premises in logic are not subject to probabilities.
Note, for example there is not a more or less to be argued over the above statement. zum beispiel

 

[Pogo]

No we don’t know the mechanisms, we have some candidate mechanisms but we don’t know which (if any) would work……this is true both for the eye and the pyramids………….refute me with a paper, not with your endless semantic tricks

And Nobody is talking about absolute detail

QED