Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[PureX]

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.

So, you don't know anything except that everyone else is wrong for wanting to speculate? If you're an atheist, you're speculating, too.

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.

It is not irrational to surmise that some metaphysical, supernatural source is required for existence to have occurred as it has. In fact, it's the only logical possibility. And no matter how many times you repeat that you don't accept this, it will remain true.

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....

How humans choose to characterize this necessary mystery source, for themselves, is up to them. And this clearly annoys you for some reason. But that's your problem to get over. It's not an endictment of humanity. Nor of theists.

 

[PureX]

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.

Metaphysics isn't about conclusions. The term simply refers to the thought structures we use to understand our physical experiences.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

Do you really not understand. The point is that there is noting about the numbers that's going to stop you counting them. You can go on for an to arbitrarily large number. There is nothing in the reality of a continuum that limits you. Practical limitations are totally irrelevant.

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

So you still haven't got time as a dimension, rather than a sequence you have to move along. If space is infinite, then there is nothing stopping you from being here, just because you'd be an infinite distance from somewhere else.

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

Well, yes, sort of. The problem is that your distinction between God and the universe (about starting to exist) doesn't work any more as neither started to exist. So you're left with an infinite regress of reasons or special pleading - take your pick....

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

Yes, there is time between cause and effect.

You claim that there is no such thing as "before" ....

No, I didn't. It's a timelike distance within the space-time.

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,)

This only applies to spacelike intervals (distances through space-time). Timelike and spacelike intervals are divided by the speed of light (the interval along a light path is zero), which is why nothing (material, informational, or causal) can travel faster than light.

Give two events (points in space-time) you can always tell if the interval between them is timelike or spacelike.

In special relativity it's relatively easy mathematically but difficult to put into English, in general relativity, it's much more complicated even mathematically. That's why all pop-science descriptions (and my attempts here) are only analogies, and all of them have shortcomings.

 

[ratiocinator]

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

I've already given one reason why your options are wrong:

As for your simplistic 19th century thinking, I've posted a great deal about why your options are nowhere near comprehensive and, in fact, both be wrong. I really can't be bothered to post them all again. Suffice to say that general relativity undermines your options in making space-time a single four-dimensional object that is not, as a whole, subject to time.

If you want to look back at my conversation with @leroy on this thread, there is much more detail, and I'll try to answer any specific questions you have.

 

[PureX]

I've already given one reason why your options are wrong:


If you want to look back at my conversation with @leroy on this thread, there is much more detail, and I'll try to answer any specific questions you have.

This is all just the "poof" theory dressed up in a pseudo-science fantasy, though, isn't it. You're looking for some way to justify it fantastically because you can't justify it logically. The problem for you, though, is that no matter what kind of fantasy science you pose as a possibility, you still cannot account for it BEING POSSIBLE. What, where, when, why, and how did your fantastic scientific hypothesis become a possibility at all?

You're just hiding the original question behind a facade of fantastic science hoping no one will notice that you still have no answers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you really not understand. The point is that there is noting about the numbers that's going to stop you counting them. You can go on for an to arbitrarily large number. There is nothing in the reality of a continuum that limits you. Practical limitations are totally irrelevant.


So you still haven't got time as a dimension, rather than a sequence you have to move along. If space is infinite, then there is nothing stopping you from being here, just because you'd be an infinite distance from somewhere else.


Well, yes, sort of. The problem is that your distinction between God and the universe (about starting to exist) doesn't work any more as neither started to exist. So you're left with an infinite regress of reasons or special pleading - take your pick....


Yes, there is time between cause and effect.


No, I didn't. It's a timelike distance within the space-time.


This only applies to spacelike intervals (distances through space-time). Timelike and spacelike intervals are divided by the speed of light (the interval along a light path is zero), which is why nothing (material, informational, or causal) can travel faster than light.

Give two events (points in space-time) you can always tell if the interval between them is timelike or spacelike.

In special relativity it's relatively easy mathematically but difficult to put into English, in general relativity, it's much more complicated even mathematically. That's why all pop-science descriptions (and my attempts here) are only analogies, and all of them have shortcomings.

Okay, how much of what you claim can be actually observed directly or measured by instruments that measure physical properties.

The problem I have is that it seems that you treat the math as physically real. So how is a term like infinite real in physical terms and not just rational in the minds of some people?

 

[ratiocinator]

So, you don't know anything except that everyone else is wrong for wanting to speculate?

Straw man. Speculate as much as you want, but telling people that your conclusion is the only logical option is absurd.

If you're an atheist, you're speculating, too.

I'm just rejecting the blind guesses of theists when they are presented as if there were no alternatives.

It is not irrational to surmise that some metaphysical, supernatural source is required for existence to have occurred as it has. In fact, it's the only logical possibility. And no matter how many times you repeat that you don't accept this, it will remain true.

As far as I can see, "metaphysical, supernatural" is all but meaningless, and even if you make it make sense, then we can still ask why is it like that, and not different?

I've literally never seen an 'explanation' of why there is something rather than nothing that makes any sense at all. Although there have been many speculations. For example, maybe 'nothing' is actually an incoherent concept and everything that can logically exist, does, and we happen to be in this bit of something that is logically possible. That's a blind guess, too, but it makes slightly more sense (to me) than some sort of god.

From this paper (I linked earlier): Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing (pdf):

Perhaps at bottom its existence and specific features include brute facts that are in some sense completely arbitrary; or perhaps there is a deeper principle that explains why it is precisely this universe, and the only brute fact is the validity of that principle. We are always welcome to look for deeper meanings and explanations. What we can’t do is demand of the universe that there be something we humans would recognize as a satisfactory reason for its existence.​

Metaphysics isn't about conclusions. The term simply refers to the thought structures we use to understand our physical experiences.

And, according to your examples, it's not doing very well.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

From this paper (I linked earlier): Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing (pdf):

Perhaps at bottom its existence and specific features include brute facts that are in some sense completely arbitrary; or perhaps there is a deeper principle that explains why it is precisely this universe, and the only brute fact is the validity of that principle. We are always welcome to look for deeper meanings and explanations. What we can’t do is demand of the universe that there be something we humans would recognize as a satisfactory reason for its existence.​

And, according to your examples, it's not doing very well.

"What we can’t do is demand of the universe that there be something we humans would recognize as a satisfactory reason for its existence."

Well, a similar version is for as skeptic that don't claim a we, is this: What I can’t do is demand of the universe that there be something I would recognize as a rational undestanding of the universe.

 

[ratiocinator]

This is all just the "poof" theory dressed up in a pseudo-science fantasy, though, isn't it.

No. It's hard, well tested, science.

You're looking for some way to justify it fantastically because you can't justify it logically.

I didn't make this up. I'm telling you how science has dealt with space-time since Einstein. And it makes your silly poofing idea absurd.

The problem for you, though, is that no matter what kind of fantasy science you pose as a possibility, you still cannot account for it BEING POSSIBLE. What, where, when, why, and how did your fantastic scientific hypothesis become a possibility at all?

You're just hiding the original question behind a facade of fantastic science hoping no one will notice that you still have no answers.

This is nonsense. It's not fantasy science, it's one of the best tested theories we have. In fact, it's used in technology. Every time you use GPS, you are relying on the GR theory of space time.

And I am not hiding the mystery of existence, I've been talking openly about it here in most of my posts. It's just that your argument (and @leroy's) about it, is outdated and absurd.

It's not about the past, and any 'poofing' it's a simple why question. I think the reason theists seem to hate it being like that is that they then have to resort to special pleading or accept the question "why your God?" as being just as valid as "why the universe?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. It's hard, well tested, science.


I didn't make this up. I'm telling you how science has dealt with space-time since Einstein. And it makes your silly poofing idea absurd.


This is nonsense. It's not fantasy science, it's one of the best tested theories we have. In fact, it's used in technology. Every time you use GPS, you are relying on the GR theory of space time.

And I am not hiding the mystery of existence, I've been talking openly about it here in most of my posts. It's just that your argument (and @leroy's) about it, is outdated and absurd.

It's not about the past, and any 'poofing' it's a simple why question. I think the reason theists seem to hate it being like that is that they then have to resort to special pleading or accept the question "why your God?" as being just as valid as "why the universe?"

So we have observed infinite space-time or have measure it as an actual physical property?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

NO! For the third time, People making sense is axiomatic

You consider it an axiom. The evidence indicates otherwise.

and life being conscious is theoretical.

Hypothetical. You haven't presented a theory and I don't expect you to.

If you simply close your mind to other perspectives you are stuck where you are.

I see this as a self-incriminating statement. Rejecting nonsense and empty claims is not a sign of a closed mind.

So you believe that people will willing work against their best interests.

The evidence is there that people will seemingly follow their own incorrect views that are often against their own interests.

You believe they will believe one thing and then do or say something entirely opposite.

I have seen them believe things that are or drive them against their own interests. Drug use, crime, believing in fictionalized versions of science.

Everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or confused.

What about the ignorant and confused coming up with wild ideas that they cannot support, demonstrate or present coherently? You seem to be suggesting that these should be given equal consideration to recognized facts and understanding that has a sound, logical and substantial basis. Wouldn't you consider doing that to be ignorant and confused?

With the basis you are suggesting, I cannot see how anyone could find their way.

Everyone who disagrees with you or you perceive as disagreeing with you is spouting nonsense.

People that spout nonsense are often at odds with those that do not accept nonsense.

Indeed, just not sharing all of your premises makes someone not only wrong but nonsensical.

You regularly do not share what you claim you share incessantly, constantly, all the time, suddenly, unceasingly, perpetually, constantly, always, yet looking through your work, I find no evidence to support this claim of sharing.

I use reality being as everyone perceives because otherwise you must consider everyone having a separate reality.

I see this statement as nonsensical and grandiose. How can you perceive what others believe? Are you claiming some special, extrasensory ability for yourself?

This would make any paradigm too complex and limited in its applicability.

Is it better to have a scientific paradigm based on believed views about something called ancient science, contrived taxonomies and words with secret, personal definitions? You see that as uncomplicating things?

But you still don't need to accept my premises, just to know them so I can show that all experiment fits within this paradigm.

Creating a model and attempting to force everything into that model isn't a sound paradigm.

Seriously though isn't it obvious that people share reality and make sense in terms of what they believe?

I would be surprised that the people that believe they are Napoleon don't think they share reality and their view makes sense to them.

Just because Darwin believed some pretty nutty premises

As you always claim but refuse to reveal.

doesn't mean he didn't make sense.

He made sense, because the theory explains what we observe.

He simply made sense only in terms of his nutty 19th century prejudices.

So you claim, but never reveal. And aren't you basing your beliefs on 40,000 year old prejudices not known to exist outside of your own thoughts. I'm sure it all makes some sort of sense to you. But there is no basis for others to consider it has any validity and isn't just your own personal, rather radical theology.

 

[ratiocinator]

So we have observed infinite space-time or have measure it as an actual physical property?

I was talking about the GR view of space-time and how it undermines the silly 'poofing' argument.

The observed overall geometry of space-time ('flat') suggests that the simplest associated topology would be infinite. We can't rule it out, but neither can we be sure. My comments about infinities is that the assertion that they can't physically exist has no actual basis. It appears to be philosophical dogma for some people.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was talking about the GR view of space-time and how it undermines the silly 'poofing' argument.

The observed overall geometry of space-time ('flat') suggests that the simplest associated topology would be infinite. We can't rule it out, but neither can we be sure. My comments about infinities is that the assertion that they can't physically exist has no actual basis. It appears to be philosophical dogma for some people.

Yes, they are physically unknown.

 

[PureX]

Straw man. Speculate as much as you want, but telling people that your conclusion is the only logical option is absurd.

And yet you cannot seem to offer any logical reason why it is. Nor can you offer a logical alternative. Science is not going to provide any answers because it cannot. It depends on interpreting forces and circumstances that must already exist. And that cannot address the question of how existence came to exist in the first place. What made existence POSSIBLE at all?

I'm just rejecting the blind guesses of theists when they are presented as if there were no alternatives.

Why? You have nothing to offer and no reason to care. And it's what we humans do. We don't understand. We want to understand. So we speculate. And we test our speculation if possible. To try and understand. Why does this bother you so much? You do it, too. We all do.

As far as I can see, "metaphysical, supernatural" is all but meaningless,

What about those words don't you understand? "metaphysical"; the conceptual source of physicality. "Supernatural"; transcendent of the limitations of nature.

and even if you make it make sense, then we can still ask why is it like that, and not different?

We can, and we do, because we are humans. When we encounter such mysteries, we want to resolve them.

I've literally never seen an 'explanation' of why there is something rather than nothing that makes any sense at all.

And yet there IS something. And we humans being human, we want to understand how, and why. And we start with our imagination and some logical reasoning. Which for some reason you find highly offensive. Even though you engage in this sort of speculation the same as anyone else. This strikes me as being very inconsistent. Incoherent, even.

Although there have been many speculations. For example, maybe 'nothing' is actually an incoherent concept and everything that can logically exist, does, and we happen to be in this bit of something that is logically possible. That's a blind guess, too, but it makes slightly more sense (to me) than some sort of god.

It still does not address the core question. That is the question of possibility. How and why is THIS expression of existence possible, and all other expressions of existence NOT possible? What is the source of this set of possibilities and limitations? Why this 'something' and not that 'something'?

From this paper (I linked earlier): Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing (pdf):

Perhaps at bottom its existence and specific features include brute facts that are in some sense completely arbitrary;​

But the facts very clearly are NOT arbitrary. As this expression of existence is very elaborate and complex, and very specific. Allowing for no others to occur within it.

or perhaps there is a deeper principle that explains why it is precisely this universe, and the only brute fact is the validity of that principle. ​

So it would appear.

We are always welcome to look for deeper meanings and explanations. What we can’t do is demand of the universe that there be something we humans would recognize as a satisfactory reason for its existence.​

To demand it would be foolish. To seek it would be human.

And, according to your examples, it's not doing very well.

According to what criteria? Billions of humans are engaged in this quest for understanding. How are you presuming to stand in judgment of their progress?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The ironies of science belief and trust in 19th century ideas is simply staggering.

More staggering than a belief in an unevidenced 40,000 year old science, or language? More staggering than claiming to know as fact ancient human brain morphology without ever having seen one ancient human brain? More staggering than defiantly denying that change takes place over time and not universally sudden? More staggering than claiming a set of assumptions are false without any apparent knowledge of those assumptions? More staggering than claiming that Homo sapiens went extinct 1000's of years ago, yet here today, Homo sapiens are talking on the internet.

Could it be that your belief system is at odds with the knowledge and the tools for further learning acquired with science and you are upset by that fact? Labeling anyone that disagrees with your truths as a worshipper of scientism. It seems very much that way to me.

Rather than change theory they accept anomalies as routine.

The theory of evolution has changed. Perhaps you are the one stuck in the 19th Century and are unaware of the Modern Synthesis or more recent understanding.

"Metaphysics" is the definitions, axioms, and experiment that underlie all theory.

But not your definitions, axioms and if you have carried out experiments, there is no evidence for that. You seem to have jumped all of that and gone straight to your own personal conclusion in the form of a syncretic belief system.

Theory has no meaning except within this metaphysics so this means theory must be applied properly. Just as a computation of the gallons of gas your car will require to go from San Francisco to Honolulu is meaningless the "Theory of Evolution" is meaningless when applied to families or the Man on the Moon.

Comparing the theory to families is your mistake. It is not a theory to be applied to families. Mom, Dad, Dick and Jane do not evolve into new species and the theory doesn't suggest that they do. You just don't understand the theory.

Expecting a theory to address mythological human inventions like the man on the moon should be considered nonsense in my opinion. No amount of gas can get it anywhere.

People who believe in scientism are improperly applying scientific theory and knowledge to all of reality.

People that claim they are against scientism on this thread seem to be making up theory and knowledge, claiming all those that recognize this are scientismists.

The definition of scientism is not those that do not agree with my views. But on here, that seems to be the definition in play.

They color in all the unknowns and the unknowables with misapplied science.

As opposed to coloring it in with unseen 40,000 year old science, non-existent brain scans of 5,000 year old brains, secret definitions, and unsupported sudden change.

Your revealed truths mean something to you, but there is nothing to persuade others that it means something to them or to the wider world.

And then they reject all other means of knowing or reason.

I don't agree. I am an example against this type you claim is universal to science support. But I do agree that many people see and reject nonsense that claims to be knowing with reason.

Their rejection of ancient knowledge and wisdom is a knee jerk reaction.

Not against actual ancient knowledge and wisdom. Just seeming made up claims of ancient knowledge and wisdom.

I think, because you cannot find the gas to get your car full of empty claims anywhere, you have jumped on the bandwagon of scientism as another excuse why that car full of empty claims is a wreck and not sound transportation to understanding.

Their rejection of those who don't share their beliefs is automatic.

I disagree. Your claims and the lack of any support for them in the form of coherence, specificity, logic, reason or evidence is what drives the rejection.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And yet you cannot seem to offer any logical reason why it is. Nor can you offer a logical alternative. Science is not going to provide any answers because it cannot. It depends on interpreting forces and circumstances that must already exist. And that cannot address the question of how existence came to exist in the first place. What made existence POSSIBLE at all?

....

Well, logically as you use it, there is a creator. But that is all the creator is, a creator. Nothing else follows from that.

 

[PureX]

Well, logically as you use it, there is a creator. But that is all the creator is, a creator. Nothing else follows from that.

What follows is our response to this realization.

 

[Pogo]

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

Yes we are making an effort to understand "doest" best guess seems to be does or doesn't? could you please clarify.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What follows is our response to this realization.

There is no universal our as for one response.

In effect I can as an atheist believe in that creator without in a pratical sense being religious or claiming objective morality for how we all ought to do it.

 

[Pogo]

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

The logical option is the posited one that there is no demonstrable reason for a god requirement, so non-belief is the logical alternative.
If you can come up with something better than "you are stupid" you might be able to engender a real conversation.
Otherwise, sorry but I gave up dealing with street preachers 50 years ago.