Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[PureX]

It sounds like you feel greatly wronged & injured by
arguments with atheists. This can result from holding
onto deeply held but indefensible beliefs. Were I you,
I'd re-consider clinging to those.

So far, they have not been capable of offering any legitimate argument. All they can manage to do is whine and insult because the subject being discussed is over their heads and/or they just can’t turn off their ‘auto-defend’ mode.

You seem to foolishly imagine that your opinions of me are somehow relevant, or were being invited. Neither is correct.

 

[John53]

Irony anyone?

 

[Pogo]

Irony anyone?

 

[blü 2]

There are three proposals in regards to the advent of existence. That it is eternal, that it just poofed into being from nothingness, or that it is the deliberate result of an unknown source that transcends the limitations that create and define it.

More than three, I'd say. Another proposal is that it's cyclical, that the expansion of the universe reverses for some unspecified reason and everything shrinks back to single point followed by another Big Bang, hence that it exists in a multidimensional circular form not needing a beginning or end.

Another is that we only know of time flowing from past to present, every present being a step into the future relative to the previous one. However, time may reverse at some point so that the film is played backwards until another reversal.

Likewise there may be more dimensions of time than the one we have, so that if we could access them we might be able to move sideways in time to different outcomes relative to a given reference point in time, and also backwards and forwards in time, so that the notion of an origin is irrelevant.

And (I dare say) so on.

It's all speculation, since at this stage of our reasoned enquiries into reality we don't have any clear answer. But at least some of us are looking.

 

[gnostic]

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

What you and @cladking failed to understand, is that using Metaphysics, is often resorting to only abstract reasoning of reality.

And just about anything (except in Metaphysical Naturalism) in reality - reality that can be of natural source or supernatural source - can be reasoned, abstractly.

That's not good enough.

And that posed a problem for Natural Sciences, as it (any theory or hypothesis) required all explanatory and predictive modeling to be “Falsifiable”, and undergo rigorous testings as specified in “Scientific Method”. And something of supernatural will not provide conclusive explanation, nor tests that can justify supernatural claims.

 

[Revoltingest]

So far, they have not been capable of offering any legitimate argument. All they can manage to do is whine and insult because the subject being discussed is over their heads and/or they just can’t turn off their ‘auto-defend’ mode.

You seem to foolishly imagine that your opinions of me are somehow relevant, or were being invited. Neither is correct.

Well....that was quite a tantrum of a post.
And all because I don't believe in gods
whose existence isn't at all verifiable.

 

[blü 2]

Your counterargument has been addresses multiple times...you are asking for a relevant difference between god and the universe that would make god inmune to the law of cause and effect.........as I said before the relevant difference is that unlike the universe, god didn't begin to exist

The usual problem at once and up front: what real entity do you intend to denote when you say "God"?

God never appears, never says, never does. God has no description appropriate to a real entity, but only imaginary terms like omnipotent, perfect, eternal blah blah. The only way God ─ indeed the whole supernatural menagerie ─ is know to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain.

So what are you actually talking about when you propose that "God created the universe" is a credible alternative to seeking the answer by further investigating the physics of the cosmos?

 

[idea]

Of course it can. Everything that exists has begun existing and will cease existing.Therefor, logically, existence is not eternal.

There is no end, just as there is no beginning. Changing forms, different combinations, eternally mixing, emerging, evolving.

Conservation of energy, mass, information, intelligence.

 

[idea]

It's a lot nearer than it used to be. But this, presumably, is just a case of the Incredible Shrinking God of the Gaps...?

Flawed question, no gaps, no beginning, no end.

 

[idea]

A very armchair statement. Do you keep abreast of abiogenesis research on any of the science news sites on the net?

If not, I suggest the benefit to you would be a grasp of not only the problems but the hints and possibilities we have towards a solution.

But if you prefer to stay in your armchair, opining and blowing smoke rings, well, that's a matter for you.

Chicken or the egg.

 

[blü 2]

Chicken or the egg.

I take it you mean you haven't looked at the science or informed yourself where research into abiogenesis is at.

It suggests you speak from ignorance, indeed voluntary ignorance. But that of course is a matter for you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What you and @cladking failed to understand, is that using Metaphysics, is often resorting to only abstract reasoning of reality.

And just about anything (except in Metaphysical Naturalism) in reality - reality that can be of natural source or supernatural source - can be reasoned, abstractly.

That's not good enough.

And that posed a problem for Natural Sciences, as it (any theory or hypothesis) required all explanatory and predictive modeling to be “Falsifiable”, and undergo rigorous testings as specified in “Scientific Method”. And something of supernatural will not provide conclusive explanation, nor tests that can justify supernatural claims.

I have never seen any evidence for any postive metaphysical claims and that includes metaphysical naturalism. But if you have that, please provide it.

 

[Valjean]

Good to know,...... A few days ago you explicitly disagreed with 2...... What happened?

1 Did you change your mind ?

2 you pretended to disagree with 2 just because your atheist friend @Pogo was cornered needed backup maybe sometimes loyalty is more important than honesty)

3 it was just an honest mistake, maybe just a typo ?

Where did I change my mind? Can you cite a post?

 

[Valjean]

Science cannot point out any alternatives because science cannot take place until AFTER the advent and manifestation of existence occurred. Science is like history. It can only investigate what has already happened. It cannot address the origin f the happening.

Huh? Why not?

Is your cat a human?

How are humans different?

 

[Valjean]

Of course it can. Everything that exists has begun existing and will cease existing.Therefor, logically, existence is not eternal.

How did you arrive at that axiom? Not by empirical evidence, I'll wager.

 

[ratiocinator]

So far, all I’m getting is whining. No logical rebuttals. Do you have a logical rebuttal, or are you just going to whine like the rest of them? I don’t care who agrees with who. I don’t care who doesn’t like what I post or how I post it.. This is a debate thread. So post your position, and your reasoning supporting it. If you don’t agree with my position, then post a LOGICALLY REASONED rebuttal. And stop whining.

There are three proposals in regards to the advent of existence. That it is eternal, that it just poofed into being from nothingness, or that it is the deliberate result of an unknown source that transcends the limitations that create and define it.

Only the third proposal does not logically negate itself. The first and the second, do. The first because nothing that exists is eternal. And the second because something cannot come from nothing.

To say you haven't had rebuttals is simply untrue. The fact that you dismissed the tested theory of general relativity as 'fantasy science' just means that you lack understanding, don't want to listen, or both.

There are also many other hypotheses that provide logical alternatives. The fact that you think your list is exhaustive is a sign of serious ignorance of modern cosmology and science in general. And before you are tempted to dismiss science, make no mistake that you are trying to use science (the understanding of the physical world) to construct your options. The problem is that you're more than 100 years out of date, and even in those terms the argument fails,

You are also wrong to dismiss an infinite past on, apparently, nothing more than some simplistic philosophical extrapolation. Again, there are many hypotheses that would imply an infinite or perhaps the time direction extending infinity in the direction that we see has the past, which isn't quite the same thing, but also doesn't have any 'poofing'.

The closest hypothesis to 'poofing' isn't really from nothing, and is certainly for good reasons. The closest thing to noting allowed by our current understanding would not be a sable state, and a universe would instantly tunnel (quantum mechanical sense) out of it.

Obviously, at least most of these hypotheses must be wrong, but they all provide logically self-consistent alternatives to your simplistic set of options. Your argument is therefore unsound.

Finally, relativity isn't a hypothesis, it's an established and well tested theory - time does not behave in the simplistic Newtonian way that your 'argument' relies on.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Huh? Why not?

It follows from the methodology of science and how the claim was structured.

Science cannot point out any alternatives because science cannot take place until AFTER the advent and manifestation of existence occurred. Science is like history. It can only investigate what has already happened. It cannot address the origin f the happening.

There is nothing to observe, because the claim is in effect about something not in the universe and science is defined as make observations in the universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How did you arrive at that axiom? Not by empirical evidence, I'll wager.

Emperical evidence is not true. It is based on the beliefs as axiomatic assumptions in methodological naturalism.
In effect that the universe is natural is a belief without evidence.

btw axioms are cognitive, not emperical.

 

[ratiocinator]

Science cannot point out any alternatives because science cannot take place until AFTER the advent and manifestation of existence occurred.

Says the person who is trying to extrapolate pre-20th century science to get to his own options.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Says the person who is trying to extrapolate pre-20th century science to get to his own options.

Well, this debate about what the universe in effect is, is philosophy in the end based on different thinking.

We are playing "the thing in itself" as if we can know what it is other than in itself. It is the limit of rational in effect.