Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

If you can't accept that I take these things axiomatically then there's no point talking to you further. This is equivalent to disputing my definition of "metaphysics".

Did I not say that?

As I said, despite accepting that, I am still not clear that any useful discussion will commence. There are other issues like your failure to provide evidence or explanation for anything you claim.

I've no interest in joining in a closed, one-sided discussion and history tells me that is a distinct possibility. I don't want to hear someone tell me they've provided these things billions of times in response to a request for them. I want to see that evidence and those explanations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you can't accept that I take these things axiomatically then there's no point talking to you further. What I am attempting to do is show that science should accept these axiomatically so all experiment makes sense instead of what each observer picks and chooses. This is equivalent to disputing my definition of "metaphysics".

And no novel terms that have meaning only to you. In a science discussion, the widely used and recognized terminology is required and sufficient.

 

[cladking]

It is, may I say, apparently very hard to correct someone.

That's the understatement of 4000 years since homo omnisciencis arose. People are locked into their beliefs and what they see 6" behind the brow.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's the understatement of 4000 years since homo omnisciencis arose. People are locked into their beliefs and what they see 6" behind the brow.

I agree too. I have tried to no avail.

For instance, this contrived taxonomic description of an otherwise unknown species of Homo with no described or recognized existence or history is something that is regularly corrected to no successful end. It is one of those manufactured terms that only has meaning to you and tells others nothing.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you can't accept that I take these things axiomatically then there's no point talking to you further. What I am attempting to do is show that science should accept these axiomatically so all experiment makes sense instead of what each observer picks and chooses. This is equivalent to disputing my definition of "metaphysics".

I hate to say this, and maybe I shouldn't but unfortunately I am guilty of saying things that maybe I should not have -- however -- when I read about Einstein and others in that category I just don't have a real good feeling about it. Mainly because it seems like a game to such thinkers. I just did a little research and see he was not used in the development of the atom bomb but warned President Roosevelt about the possibility that the Germans were developing such a weapon. His space-time, etc. theory is beyond me but I guess he spent a lot of time thinking about it. Little did I know, however, about his aid in developing paper towels and lasers among a few other things.

4 Everyday Items Einstein Helped Create

In addition to his work on relativity, the physicist laid the scientific foundations for paper towels, lasers, and more common products.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[gnostic]

If you can't accept that I take these things axiomatically then there's no point talking to you further. What I am attempting to do is show that science should accept these axiomatically so all experiment makes sense instead of what each observer picks and chooses. This is equivalent to disputing my definition of "metaphysics".

Metaphysics is a philosophy, not science...and Metaphysics don't require philosophers (metaphysicians) to do experiments.

Thought experiments don't really count as empirical evidence...because there are no observational data, like quantities, measurements, etc.

Thought experiments are worthless if you cannot apply to real-world experiments.

 

[blü 2]

Not getting into a discussion of pyramids yet but seems clear to me that humans moved the pyramids even though we (humans) can't figure how yet. Same with Stonehenge, still a mystery. But (to me) clearly although astounding, it was done by human hands. I believe someday we will find out. The oldest manuscripts of Genesis say that there was Earth, water, then plants, followed by fish and other animals.

Not wishing to be too fussy, but in Genesis the order is ─

[1] The heavens (not including the sun moon or stars) and the earth
And water was present
[3] Light
─ day and night (which thus exist independently of the sun)
[6] The firmament, called Heaven, a hard sky you can walk on (and to which the stars will be affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth)
[9] The separation of the water from the now-dry land
Vegetation, plants with seeds, fruit trees
[14] The sun (to rule the day),
[16] And the moon (to rule the night) and the stars (set in the hard dome, the firmament).
[20] Living creatures to swarm in the waters, and birds to fly above the earth across the firmament.
[21] And sea monsters and all other sea creatures
[24] Cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth
[27] Man

It's perhaps worth noting too that while it appears that the universe is some 14 bn years old, and the sun earth and the rest of our solar system some 4.5 bn years old, and life occurs on earth not later than 3.5 bn years ago, and H sap apears very roughly 200,000 years ago, and civilization not earlier than 12,000 years ago ─ Sumer and Egypt had their gods in, and probably earlier than, the fifth millennium BCE, and no trace is found of Yahweh until c. 1500 BCE (apparently with a consort, Asherah, as was usual for members of the Canaanite pantheon). And that in the Tanakh God doesn't become the only God until around Isaiah, which is to say, roughly the end of the Babylonian captivity ─ [he]'s just a henotheistic divinity till then.

If you'd like a rough outline of our understanding of the evolution of life on earth, I posted one here >Darwin's Illusion<.

 

[shunyadragon]

They do not believe it based on WHAT? On the idiotic assumption that if it were true, they would somehow know it??? Because that's the absurd argument I see them posing all the time.

In terms of religious beliefs and non-beliefs no body "knows," they believe.

I can see by their comments WHY they think and believe as they do, and their reasoning is absurdly stupid, and childishly egocentric. And they remain so because when this is pointed out to them, they refuse to learn, and instead just want to fight. Exactly as you are doing, now.

Pejorative caustic name calling is not an appropriate way to describe those that believe differently than you simply do not believe in Gods

 

[shunyadragon]

They do not believe it based on WHAT? On the idiotic assumption that if it were true, they would somehow know it??? Because that's the absurd argument I see them posing all the time.

In terms of religious beliefs and non-beliefs no body "knows," they believe.

I can see by their comments WHY they think and believe as they do, and their reasoning is absurdly stupid, and childishly egocentric. And they remain so because when this is pointed out to them, they refuse to learn, and instead just want to fight. Exactly as you are doing, now.

Pejorative caustic name calling is not an appropriate way to describe those that believe differently than you simply do not believe in Gods, Yhis reflects your vindictive agenda against atheists, It is unhealthy for you and theists could care less, It is like "hating math,"

 

[ratiocinator]

I just did. There are three options. 1. and 2. are logically and observably incoherent.

As I already pointed out, your options are stuck in 19th century assumptions. Your premiss is are therefore plain wrong, and hence your conclusion is unsound.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Metaphysics is a philosophy, not science...and Metaphysics don't require philosophers (metaphysicians) to do experiments.

Thought experiments don't really count as empirical evidence...because there are no observational data, like quantities, measurements, etc.

Thought experiments are worthless if you cannot apply to real-world experiments.

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.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I already pointed out, your options are stuck in 19th century assumptions. Your premiss is are therefore plain wrong, and hence your conclusion is unsound.

I have never come across any in effect objective as independent of the mind claims about the universe, which are true.

So instead of evidence, please explain what true is to you.
I suspect that you are in effect doing a double standard in that you demand true claims about the universe by others, but you can't do it yourself.
Now I really don't care if you don't like this kind of skepticism, because it is not about that. It is about what we demand of each other as for in effect how we ought to behave.

 

[ratiocinator]

A made up supernatural being IS a rational speculation. In fact, it's far more rational than the meaningless "poof" theory or the "non-eternal eternity" theory. But since you have no theory whatever, who are you to be critiquing anyone else's? And based on what? The theory that you don't have?

Of course, it isn't rational, it's, at best, a blind guess. One that people kill each other over. It's simply superstition, a 'here be dragons' level of 'rationality. And you need to drop your silly 'poof' idea that nobody believes. And while an eternal past is not impossible (there are actually multiple hypothetical ways it might work), it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the modern view of (space-)time to reduce your self to those ideas. In the context of general relativity, even if the past is finite, it doesn't mean, that it did any 'poofing' from nothing. Looking at the point in the extreme end of the past direction in space-time makes about as much sense as looking for why the Earth exists at the North Pole. Do you think the Earth mysteriously 'poofs' into existence at the Pole?

I have no idea why stuff exists in general (the classic 'why is there something, rather than nothing?' question) but making up something about it is irrational and can't really help, because whatever it is, we can ask why things are that way too. Sticking labels like 'supernatural' and 'metaphysical' on it doesn't make the logic go away, that we can still as why things are the way they are.

It's a mystery that we will very likely never solve. Yet many people have posed and believed in many different scenarios. Because even though it is a mystery, we humans don't want to let it stand unresolved. We want to fill it in, in some way that makes sense to us. It's a fundamental drive in the human psyche.

An irrational one. Humans will likely never be fully rational, but we can, and should, aspire to do better and to ditch nonsense like this "we must have an answer for everything" nonsense. What's so terrifying about just admitting we don't know? I genuinely don't get it myself.

Humans have determined for eons that there logically must be some metaphysical, supernatural source from which everything springs, and is being controlled.

Logic doesn't seem to have much to do with it. Humans have invented 'supernatural' beings to explain things they didn't understand. Most of them are now redundant, as we now do understand them. The approach hasn't got a good track record....

 

[ratiocinator]

To help clarify, metaphysics refers to the axiomatic philosophical concepts that we are using to 'understand physics'. These might include the axiom that time only flows one way. That the universe is a finite entity And so on.

If those are conclusions of metaphysics, it's garbage. Real physics has overtaken both. It's quite possible, and there are reasons to think it's probable, that the universe is infinite, and that the direction of time is not at all fundamental.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

An irrational one. Humans will likely never be fully rational, but we can, and should, aspire to do better and to ditch nonsense like this "we must have an answer for everything" nonsense. What's so terrifying about just admitting we don't know? I genuinely don't get it myself.

...

Yeah, there is so far no answer for what objective reality is in itself.
Rather knowledge seems to work as a relation between the 3 parts in "I know something" and thus it is in a sense neither subjective or objective, but rather a rational understanding of the limit of knowledge.

 

[leroy]

.

I don't dispute any of that. Too bad you didn't specify as much originally. All you wrote was mechanism, and I answered accordingly. You didn't like those answers. They weren't what you were looking for, and you redefined what you were looking for after accusing me of playing games. Genetic variation wasn't specific enough for you. You wanted the mechanisms for that discussed. Who knew? Your language was too imprecise for you to expect anybody else to know that that's what you were asking for,

Well that is the magic of civilized conversations..... You misunderstood my claim....I clarify and now we both agree.

 

[leroy]

This is a consequence of using imprecise language. You should be clear about what you mean, and if you can't be, you should expect miscommunication to occur.

It's that aspect of your use of language that makes these discussions long, tedious, and unproductive. Also, ignoring points made to you. You and I have discussed this before, and I offered you some solutions, but you never commented on them or adopted any of them.

Do you remember this: "I showed you how my wife and her girlfriend write to one another. Each values acknowledging the other's comments, and that is how they make sure to not overlook one in a reply. It was offered to you as a suggested way to not overlook significant comments and questions in posts written to you. " (source).

Probably not. 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.

I don't have a problem with any of that except that we do understand the mechanism in the main.

Why do you not do the same for me and my arguments/claims?

Why would he grant that? He disagrees with you. So do I.

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).

Either could have always existed

It is not special pleading because Reasons where given for why the universe/multiverse is probably not eternal..... For example the fact entropy increases as time passes suggests that the universe has not always existed. (As described by the second law of thermodynamics)

Unlike the universe, God or any cause of the universe is not (or at least might not) follow the second law of thermodynamics, therefore that argument wouldn't apply to God.


Therefore it is not special pleading because I am arguing that the universe has properties (like following the laws of thermodynamics) that God wouldn't have .... (Or at least we don't know if god would have those properties)

If my justification happens to be wrong (say my interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics is wrong) then the issue would be that the justification is wrong..... But it would still not be special pleading.


As an analogy
If you sale alcohol to John but not to Joe, because you think there is evidence that unlike Joe, John is an adult..... Nobody would accuse you for special pleading....., Even if you made a mistake and John happens to be a 17yo old who presented a fake ID. It would still not be special pleading

You could be accused for being , stupid, naive, delusional, ignorant etc for not noticing the fake ID.... but it would not be special pleading



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

 

[leroy]

I have an uncanny ability to understand just about everybody. There's no "trick" to it, I simply assume they make perfect sense and I try to figure out what they must believe to say what they do. I once designed an operating system for a large automated bakery. It wasn't especially complex because there were only several main processes but there were many many pieces of equipment being controlled by it. I designed this to eliminate numerous flaws in the existing system and to give operators warning of failures and more control over every process. My programming abilities weren't up to the task so I turned it over to the software department. Upon completion my boss had software write up a memo for the operators of the changes that had been made and it was sent to me. It was two solid pages of gobbletygook. I understood none of it at all but there were numerous key words that suggested it was a synopsis of the new system. I read it over and over again until about the 12th time I recognized it as a laymen's description of the programming. Obviously it was of no use so was discarded.

This is the state of industry. The left hand never knows what the right hand is doing.

So long as you assume @leroy, me, or anyone else doesn't make sense you will pick out key words from the gobbledtygook and respond to that instead of discerning his point.

I suppose with great effort I might be able to translate what I'm saying into legalese, medical jargon, or Fortran; just about anything. But each individual here has his own knowledge base and individual perspective. Me? I'm a nexialist. I use English goodly and other than using some big words and odd turns of phrase anyone should be able to understand if they don't assume I'm stupid and confused. We all are but I hardly stand out from any crowd. I intentionally use some hard to parse sentences just to alert people that they might have already quit paying attention.

I've laid all my premises bare many times. People don't understand because A.,= they don't want to understand and B.,= what I'm saying flies in the face of the beliefs they learned when they learned language. The day they learned two popsicles are better than one they came to believe that popsicles exist and each are the same. I never learned that. If I had two popsicles I always ate the better one second because I only knew that practice makes perfect.

Agree.... In this forum ...There doest seem to be an effort to understand the argument made by the opponent .

 

[leroy]

So you don't understand an 'in principle' argument. No wonder you're struggling with the other concept. The last statement is an unargued assertion. You realise that calculus is based on continua?

Yes I understand and grant that in principle you can have an infinite thing......like your example of typing all the numbers between 1 and 2 ,(which is an infinite amount of numbers)

But in the real world ...it is an impossible task....in the real world I would eventually get tired and failed to write every single number.........the point being that while in principle you can have something infinite.....in the real world you can't really have such a thing.

No.

Well explain.....how can someone be born after an infinite number of causally prior events?

I explained why it was necessary. If you think you can reproduce general relativity, or even special relativity, using presentism, feel free to do so

Lammal

I made mistake, I honestly thought that reconciling GR with presentism was not a problem .... But at least based on 2 or 3 days of research I changed my mind

You seem to get correct you can't have both presentsm and GR .... You have to pick one and reject (or at least modify) the other .

For the sake of this conversation we will assume that presentism is false and that eternalism is true

It can have a reason, as I've said repeatedly, but your temporal arguments and options no longer apply, and we can ask for the reason for your God.

Then I don't see your issue.....if you don't deny that the universe has a reason (and reason means cause in tenseless language) ..... Then you are not rejecting the conclusion of the KCA.


Your only issue seems to be "semantis" ... The only "mistake " seems to be the KCA is using tensed language..... When the correct thing would have been to use tenseless language ...


Not a big of a deal in my opinion. We all use "tens" language in our daily life ..... We say things like the Cambrian happened BEFORE the Denovian period and nobody makes a big of a deal

Just change "begin to exist " for a tensless word in the KCA ... I am not sure if such a word exist in the English language... But it is not a big issue or at least I do see why is this an issue for the KCA

You really do struggle, don't you? Time exists as a direction though the block universe, so events can still be separated by time, just as they can be separated by space. For the same reason, simultaneity still has meaning, although it's relative to an observer/frame of reference in relativity, which is a BIG problem for presentism.

@TagliatelliMonster has an issue with that..... This has nothing to do with our conversation. But with the conversation that he and I are having.



He believes that the causes always occure before the effect.....(that there is time between the cause and the effect)

You claim that there is no such thing as "before" .... And that any time between the cause and the effect is subjective and dependent on the observer. (Other observer might view this events as simultaneous,)


Si obviously one of you is wrong

 

[PureX]

As I already pointed out, your options are stuck in 19th century assumptions. Your premiss is are therefore plain wrong, and hence your conclusion is unsound.

And as usual, you offer no other logical options. You just insult and complain about the ones I offer.