Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[ratiocinator]

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.

There are also models that don't require a contraction phase but are nevertheless cyclic, either as a series of similar 'eons' (Conformal Cyclic Cosmology) or as an actual loop (Periodic Time Cosmology).

Conformal cyclic cosmology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Does history repeat itself? Periodic Time Cosmology

 

[blü 2]

There are also models that don't require a contraction phase but are nevertheless cyclic, either as a series of similar 'eons' (Conformal Cyclic Cosmology) or as an actual loop (Periodic Time Cosmology).

Conformal cyclic cosmology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Does history repeat itself? Periodic Time Cosmology

Thanks for that.

 

[ratiocinator]

Thanks for that.

You're very welcome. If you have the time and inclination, there is a whole series (as the titles suggest of YouTube videos, covering different hypotheses. A playlist of all 11 parts is here (although, rather strangely, out of order):

Before the Big Bang

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

www.youtube.com

They're actually very good for pop-science and have interviews with the actual scientists involved (including Penrose).

 

[Godobeyer]

It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:

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

So who is the one who believes in miracles?

Yes probably believe in everything except God

 

[blü 2]

You're very welcome. If you have the time and inclination, there is a whole series (as the titles suggest of YouTube videos, covering different hypotheses. A playlist of all 11 parts is here (although, rather strangely, out of order):

Before the Big Bang

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

www.youtube.com

They're actually very good for pop-science and have interviews with the actual scientists involved (including Penrose).

Again thanks. (Much as Penrose is admirable, he's also a mathematical Platonist, which I don't hold with.)

 

[ratiocinator]

Again thanks. (Much as Penrose is admirable, he's also a mathematical Platonist, which I don't hold with.)

I'm totally agnostic about mathematical Platonism, but you won't find he relies on that for his cosmological ideas (unlike Max Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe, which I think is kind of a neat idea but way 'out there' as speculation). Tegmark isn't covered in the series.

 

[gnostic]

Only interactions can be measured, perhaps interactions are all that exist. We describe characteristics such as temperature, strength, phase transformations, color - all interactions. A single particle in a void has no temperature, has no gas/liquid/solid phase, has no color. All descriptions are interactions, nothing exists except interactions - who and what everything and everyone is - interactions.

What’s a “void”?

can you show that void exist?

 

[firedragon]

It is not "greatness". It is not "intelligence". There is no such thing as intelligence IMO, remember?

I was just unlucky enough to start with all the right assumptions and reasoned in a circle to my assumptions because that is what we do. I assumed that reality exists, cause precedes effect, and everyone makes sense. Many in the past would have discovered this and Sir Isaac Newton himself translated a critical document that I had at my disposal but he lacked google. Nobody has the depth and breadth of knowledge to understand ancient science so it required tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of searches. Even a telephone wouldn't have been fast enough to do these searches. It required a working search engine which existed between about 2002 and 2012.

Just so you understand I don't believe I understand ancient science. I believe I understand its metaphysics but the science itself I don't understand much better than a four year old would have understood. This does give me two metaphysics and suggests that the inventors of agriculture didn't believe in "Evolution" and instead used the theory of change in species.

People today believe science operates on genius which truly is a belief in miracles. Only Newton supports such a miracle since he was so far ahead of his time. Mebbe the apple doesn't get enough credit though. Certainly the shoulders on which he stood don't get enough credit. The calculus was coming with or without him and when this is factored out he wasn't quite so far ahead of his time.

By the way, what is "science fan fiction"? Am I a science fan?

Mate. Newton is one of the most influential people in the world. And there is a measurement named after him. N. There is no point in discounting him or any other scientist who made something great out of themselves. Every scientist builds himself standing on greats. That's how science works. Don't discount them. There is absolutely no point.

 

[gnostic]

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.

All three of your proposals are just speculations.

You cannot verify any one of the 3, including the 3rd one.

This ”Only the third proposal does not logically negate itself”?

How do you, it doesn’t?

How do you that there is even “unknown source”, let alone that whoever or whatever it is, can “transcends the limitations“? How would you even know that such source “create and define it”? What “it”? The Universe? Life?

You are being deliberately vague on this 3rd proposal of yours? You sounds like a snake oil peddler?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

In a way, you're right. But the concept or perception of everlasting life has not yet been achieved. (Niote: I should say the REALITY of everlasting life has not been accomplished for humans yet.) I believe it will. That is my hope and faith and as the saying goes, I'm sticking with it.

 

[Valjean]

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, I guess if you can't follow the reason or fathom the arguments you'll just retain your delusional beliefs.

 

[Valjean]

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.

A fourth: That there are fixed laws and constants, of unknown origin, and that the universe we see is the natural and unguided unfolding of these.

 

[PureX]

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.

I am not talking about the universe. I am talking about the advent of existence. This includes all possible universes, and their various expressions. The question here is how/why does ANYTHING exist? What made existence possible? Not how does the universe exist.

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.

Time is an expression OF existence. It is not an impetus for existence. So time is not a relevant issue. Again, you are trying to place the source within the result. This is not logical.

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.

So far, you have offered no logical alternative.

It's all speculation, since at this stage of our reasoned inquiries into reality we don't have any clear answer.

We are not inquiring INTO reality. We are speculating about how reality even happened. You don't seem to be understanding the difference.

But at least some of us are looking.

There is no "looking". There is only pondering. Contemplating. And only logic to apply to the endless imagined possibilities, to winnow them down.

 

[ratiocinator]

I am not talking about the universe. I am talking about the advent of existence. This includes a;; possible universes, and their various expressions. The question here is how/why does ANYTHING exist? What made existence possible? Not how does the universe exist.

Then your premises are even less credible.

 

[ratiocinator]

Time is an expression OF existence. It is not an impetus for existence. So time is not a relevant issue. Again, you are trying to place the source within the result. This is not logical.

You made time the whole basis of your options. You remember: eternal past, poofed out of nothing (temporal concept), or magic.

 

[Valjean]

Emperical evidence is not true. It is based on the beliefs as axiomatic assumptions in methodological naturalism.

btw axioms are cognitive, not emperical.

Empirical evidence is based on testing.

In effect that the universe is natural is a belief without evidence.

It is the definition of natural. It is what we observe and manipulate. I know of no observable, testable alternatives.

 

[PureX]

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.

It's all we humans are ever going to get. Perception is conception. "Reality" is a fantasy ... always and forever, for we humans. Because cognition transcends the matter that generates it. There is no "metaphysical naturalism". Metaphysics is the cognitive overlord of the physical realm.

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.

None of this has anything to do with the question at hand: ... why does ANYTHING exist? What made existing a possibility?

 

[ratiocinator]

Perception is conception. "Reality" is a fantasy ... always and forever, for we humans.

If reality is a fantasy, decide that gravity doesn't apply to you and fly round like superman, then I'll take you seriously.

 

[Valjean]

PureX said:
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.

Doesn't science also investigate ongoing phenomena, and make predictions about future results and events?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Empirical evidence is based on testing.

It is the definition of natural. It is what we observe and manipulate. I know of no observable, testable alternatives.

Yeah, but a defintion is not a fact. This is one defintion of god, but you wouldn't accept it as a fact:
The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

As for whether what you experince is real or not as per the problem of Descartes' evil demon and what objective reality is in itself, those have never been solved.
You are not that good at epistemology when it comes to how it is, science is based on methodlogical naturalism and not philosophical naturalism.