Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[PureX]

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.

That's a patently idiotic response.
There was no "tantrum".
There was no mention of any gods.
I couldn't care less what you "believe" about God/gods.
And verification was never a reasonable expectation.
Nor was it any request of mine.

You came on the thread to whine about my personality.
Or rather what you imagined me to be.
No one asked for your opinion of me. No one cares.
Yet for some reason you felt compelled to post it, anyway.
Then, when I explained that I don't care and didn't ask, you claim that I was throwing a "tantrum".
This is all just weird crap that's going on in your own head. Yet for some reason you feel compelled to tell me about it.

Please stop. I don't care what weird crap is going on in your head about me. You're wasting your time, and mine.

 

[Valjean]

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.

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.

So far, you have offered no logical alternative.

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

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

OK, then, but isn't your God hypothesis alternative just a special pleading; an appeal to magic? It's entirely without evidence, and explains nothing. It's certainly not a "logical alternative."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK, then, but isn't your God hypothesis alternative just a special pleading; an appeal to magic? It's entirely without evidence, and explains nothing. It's certainly not a "logical alternative."

You are aware that the methodology of evidence is itself without evidence?

 

[Revoltingest]

That's a patently idiotic response.

There was no "tantrum".

 

[PureX]

There is no end, just as there is no beginning.

But there is a beginning. And there is an end, For EVERYTHING that actually exists. Infinity and eternity are just abstract ideas in our heads. We have never and will never actually witness or experience either of them, because they do not actually exist, except as imaged states of being.

Changing forms, different combinations, eternally mixing, emerging, evolving.

That's just a fantasy. Physical existence is an event taking place in time and space. Every aspect of it is finite. Every aspect of it is occurring on balance between what is possible and what is not. And so far as any human has ever been able to cognate it, the whole of it is also finite. And also exists on balance. We can fantasize about infinity and eternity, but none of us has any reason besides our own desire to presume that these are anything but an abstract fantasy.

 

[Pogo]

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.

So empirical evidence is true according to the axioms of methodological naturalism though not necessarily true according to whatever is considered a metaphysical axiom.
Are @PureX's statements truth because they are his axioms then true? What is axiom and what is truth?

 

[PureX]

OK, then, but isn't your God hypothesis alternative just a special pleading; an appeal to magic?

No, because it's not an appeal to "magic". It's simply the recognition that for existence to occur, it must become possible for it to occur. And that requires a source that is transcendent of the limitations of the abject impossibility of nothingness (non-existence). To us, living within the existential event, this is incomprehensible (so you call it "magic"). But nevertheless, it remains a logical necessity.

 

[Pogo]

That's a patently idiotic response.
There was no "tantrum".
There was no mention of any gods.
I couldn't care less what you "believe" about God/gods.
And verification was never a reasonable expectation.
Nor was it any request of mine.

You came on the thread to whine about my personality.
Or rather what you imagined me to be.
No one asked for your opinion of me. No one cares.
Yet for some reason you felt compelled to post it, anyway.
Then, when I explained that I don't care and didn't ask, you claim that I was throwing a "tantrum".
This is all just weird crap that's going on in your own head. Yet for some reason you feel compelled to tell me about it.

Please stop. I don't care what weird crap is going on in your head about me. You're wasting your time, and mine.

I'm sorry sir the cheese plate is delayed.

 

[PureX]

Then your premises are even less credible.

Or, the fundamental question is still going way over your head.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So empirical evidence is true according to the axioms of methodological naturalism though not necessarily true according to whatever is considered a metaphysical axiom.
Are @PureX's statements truth because they are his axioms then true? What is axiom and what is truth?

An axiom is in effect a belief used in reasoning as a part of how you claim truth. An axiom is not true itself, but a part of how you cogntively do truth as a process.

Now there is a limit to this and you can in effect test it. You have very limited control over what you can do based on how you think/feel. That is the trick of science, assume axiomatically that objective reality is real, fair, orderly and knowable and you can do science. But it is not true that objective reality is real, fair, orderly and knowable.

 

[Valjean]

No, because it's not an appeal to "magic". It's simply the recognition that for existence to occur, it must become possible for it to occur. And that requires a source that is transcendent of the limitations of the abject impossibility of nothingness (non-existence). To us, living within the existential event, this is incomprehensible (so you call it "magic"). But nevertheless, it remains a logical necessity.

Why must there be a "source," and what are the "limitations of the abject impossibility of nothingness (non-existence)?"

Even given a "logical necessity," why would this source be conscious or intentional? Why posit a personage?

 

[Pogo]

But there is a beginning. And there is an end, For EVERYTHING that actually exists. Infinity and eternity are just abstract ideas in our heads. We have never and will never actually witness or experience either of them, because they do not actually exist, except as imaged states of being.

That's just a fantasy. Physical existence is an event taking place in time and space. Every aspect of it is finite. Every aspect of it is occurring on balance between what is possible and what is not. And so far as any human has ever been able to cognate it, the whole of it is also finite. And also exists on balance. We can fantasize about infinity and eternity, but none of us has any reason besides our own desire to presume that these are anything but an abstract fantasy.

So while claiming that everything that exists, exists finitely in time and space, to explain this you posit the existence of something outside of time and space with properties greater than anything that exists.

I would like to see your logical proofs with reasoning for the premises?

 

[Pogo]

No, because it's not an appeal to "magic". It's simply the recognition that for existence to occur, it must become possible for it to occur. And that requires a source that is transcendent of the limitations of the abject impossibility of nothingness (non-existence). To us, living within the existential event, this is incomprehensible (so you call it "magic"). But nevertheless, it remains a logical necessity.

And thus you have defined the first turtle.
What are the properties of the necessary source, I.e. the turtle your turtle is standing on?

 

[ratiocinator]

Or, the fundamental question is still going way over your head.

Yes, it's always everybody else, isn't it? I've admitted all along that the basic question of existence is a mystery. When you put it like this:

This includes all possible universes, and their various expressions. The question here is how/why does ANYTHING exist?

I agree. It's just it makes your previous options absurd, because they were based on time. Time is clearly a part of what exists.

I don't know the answer, I'm perfectly content to live with that, and I don't see anything from you that is any more profound than "it must be magic, innit?"

 

[Pogo]

An axiom is in effect a belief used in reasoning as a part of how you claim truth. An axiom is not true itself, but a part of how you cogntively do truth as a process.

Now there is a limit to this and you can in effect test it. You have very limited control over what you can do based on how you think/feel. That is the trick of science, assume axiomatically that objective reality is real, fair, orderly and knowable and you can do science. But it is not true that objective reality is real, fair, orderly and knowable.

I know, methodological naturalism is what you get when you use reality is knowable as an axiom that has yet to be disproven, Modern science is what you get, but @PureX seems to want everyone to accept his personal axiom of reality without any knowledge body to recomend it. As conjecture it is fine, but to insist on it's correctness is his failing.

 

[ratiocinator]

But there is a beginning. And there is an end, For EVERYTHING that actually exists. Infinity and eternity are just abstract ideas in our heads.

Make up your mind! Now you're back with time and we're getting mister omniscience again.

How do you know this claim is true?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know, methodological naturalism is what you get when you use reality is knowable as an axiom that has yet to be disproven, Modern science is what you get, but @PureX seems to want everyone to accept his personal axiom of reality without any knowledge body to recomend it. As conjecture it is fine, but to insist on it's correctness is his failing.

Well, in a sense the axiom is not proven. So it is as such that as yet to be disproven.

 

[leroy]

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?

God Is an appeal to the best explanation for the origin of the universe.......in the same way dark matter is the best explanation for the "extra gravity" in the galaxies


You don't need to see any of them in order to consider it as the best explanation

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God Is an appeal to the best explanation for the origin of the universe.......in the same way dark matter is the best explanation for the "extra gravity" in the galaxies


You don't need to see any of them in order to consider it as the best explanation

Well, that is in effect just speculation. How about it is unknown? Can't you hold the thought that you don't know?

 

[ratiocinator]

God Is an appeal to the best explanation for the origin of the universe.......in the same way dark matter is the best explanation for the "extra gravity" in the galaxies


You don't need to see any of them in order to consider it as the best explanation

Comedy. There is actual evidence for dark matter and exactly none for any of the countless, mutually contradictory, versions of God.

Neither have you provided any sound reasoning for any God, so we have zero evidence and zero reasoning. It's no more than a fantasy/wild, blind guess. Not the 'best explanation' for anything.