Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

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

Except that we have definitions for what dark matter does and doesn't do. Gods on the other hand are not limited in any way so are not useful as explanations. Not seeing them is the least of their problems.

 

[Valjean]

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

So why personalize this "explanation?" Why imbue it with consciousness, intention, planning, or judgement?

Unknown natural forces or processes I can live with, but when you invent an invisible, supernatural personage out of whole cloth -- which is what a God is -- and begin piling on attributes, interests, and intentions, I have to demur.

 

[PureX]

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?

Good questions.

Query: Why does something (anything) exist?

For something (anything) to exist requires effort (energy), and it requires organization (forces/laws that create and maintain equilibrium). So it would appear that, logically, nothingness (non-existence) should be the ideal "default" mode, or state of being, as it requires nothing to maintain nothing. And not only would it be the default state, but it would be an absolutely unchangeable, insurmountable default state. As there would be nothing within it that could ever overwhelm it.

And yet something DOES exist. A whole lot of something. Energy is being expended, and impositions have been imposed on that expressed energy that create and maintain many kinds of equilibrium. And here we all are.

So, ... what made this possible from within a realm what would have been the absolutely impossible? This is the question. And the answer is ... something ... but we have no way of knowing what. The question itself creates the logical necessity for a source beyond abject nothingness. We can surmise, however, that whatever 'it' is, it is more "powerful" then the abject nothingness that logically should have been the insurmountable default.

"Why do people posit a personage?"

If one were to assert that this source is conscious and intentional, they would be justified in doing so based on several factors. Factor #1 being the result. WE are part of that result, and WE are conscious and intentional. Factor #2, WE came to posses these traits via the very same imposed possibilities and limitations that everything that exists, obeys. Thus indicating that our cognitive abilities are integral to and of the whole of existence, itself. We are not an existential anomaly. We are a natural expression of the advent of existence. And factor #3, given that existence is incredibly complex, sophisticated, and intentioned, as are we, it would stand as reasonable to presume that whatever the mystery source of existence is, that it, too is conscious and intentioned.

I, myself, tend to stop short of asserting that this mystery source of all that is, is "conscious and intentional". Or that it has any sort of "personality" , mostly because that is so far beyond my ability to recon with that I dare not go there.

But many do, and they are not totally unjustified.

 

[Valjean]

Good questions.

Query: Why does something (anything) exist?

For something (anything) to exist requires effort (energy), and it requires organization (forces/laws that create and maintain equilibrium). So it would appear that, logically, nothingness (non-existence) should be the "default" state. And not only would it be the default state, but it would be an absolutely unchangeable, insurmountable default state. As there would be nothing within it that could overwhelm it.

This is pure speculation. It's an extrapolation from everyday experience. Reality is better described by theoretical physics.

And yet something DOES exist. A whole lot of something. Energy is being expended, and impositions have been instilled in that expressed energy that create and maintain many kinds of equilibrium. And here it all is? Here we are.

So, ... what made this possible from within what would have been the absolutely impossible? This is the question. And the answer is ... something ... but we have no way of knowing what. The question itself creates the logical necessity for a source. We can surmise, however, that whatever 'it' is, it is more "powerful" then the abject nothingness that logically should have been the insurmountable default.

There is no reason to consider it anything more than the natural product of the laws and constants of physics and mathematics.
How these originated is unknown. I'm comfortable with that. I have no need to invent magical, intentional creators.

"Why posit a personage?"

If one were to assert that this source is conscious and intentional, they would be justified in doing so based on several factors. Factor #1 being the result. WE are part of that result, and WE are conscious and intentional. Factor #2, WE came to posses these traits via the very same imposed possibilities and limitations that everything that exists, obeys. Thus indicating that our cognitive abilities are integral to and of the whole of existence, itself. We are not an existential anomaly. We are a natural expression of the advent of existence. And factor #3, given that existence is incredibly complex, sophisticated, and intentioned, as are we, it would stand as reasonable to presume that whatever the mystery source of existence is, that it, too is conscious and intentioned.

I, myself, tend to stop short of asserting that this mystery source of all that is, is "conscious and intentional". Or that it has any sort of "personality" , mostly because that is so far beyond my ability to recon with that I dare not go there.

But many do, and they are not totally unjustified.

Nonsense. You're trying to fit Reality into your own experience of the world.

 

[PureX]

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

That's a very good analogy, I think.

I think it's important, though, for us to always keep in mind that it IS just a supposition on our part. That we are only able to contemplate, and surmise; that we cannot 'know' it to be so.

 

[PureX]

This is pure speculation.

If course it is. We have no tools beyond reasoned speculation to apply to this question. Certainly not science.

It's an extrapolation from everyday experience. Reality is better described by theoretical physics.

But we are not describing reality. We are contemplating the advent of existence.

There is no reason to consider it anything more than the natural product of the laws and constants of physics and mathematics.
How these originated is unknown.

That is exactly the reason we are considering the question. It's what we humans evolved to do.

I'm comfortable with that. I have no need to invent magical, intentional creators.

Then why are you fighting with and disparaging those who seek a deeper, fuller understanding of the existential mystery?

Nonsense. You're trying to fit Reality into your own experience of the world.

"Reality" is just part of how we conceptualize our experience of being.

Perception is conception. That's our reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

....requires a source that is transcendent of the limitations of the abject impossibility of nothingness (non-existence).

Gobbledygook.

 

[Pogo]

Good questions.

Query: Why does something (anything) exist?

For something (anything) to exist requires effort (energy), and it requires organization (forces/laws that create and maintain equilibrium). So it would appear that, logically, nothingness (non-existence) should be the ideal "default" mode, or state of being, as it requires nothing to maintain nothing. And not only would it be the default state, but it would be an absolutely unchangeable, insurmountable default state. As there would be nothing within it that could ever overwhelm it.

Here is the first assumption on your part that is not generally accepted. besides energy and effort not being synonymous since at least Newton, The best understanding of our universe as it exists in current physics is that the total energy of the universe is zero.
Then there is the assumption that organization requires an organizer. It might be true or it might just be a function of some larger reality, assuming an active cause is unevidenced and not a priori logical just because it fits with your experience.

And yet something DOES exist. A whole lot of something. Energy is being expended, and impositions have been imposed on that expressed energy that create and maintain many kinds of equilibrium. And here we all are.

You obviously are extremely unfamiliar with phyics and claims you make on that basis are as a result usually just irrelevant verbiage.

So, ... what made this possible from within a realm what would have been the absolutely impossible? This is the question. And the answer is ... something ... but we have no way of knowing what. The question itself creates the logical necessity for a source beyond abject nothingness. We can surmise, however, that whatever 'it' is, it is more "powerful" then the abject nothingness that logically should have been the insurmountable default.

We can surmise, yes, but without reason and failure of the premises so far, surmising the opposite of your claims is just as rational. Also your logic is not logic, (apparently something else you are not actually familiar with) but just a series of assertions.

Logic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Why do people posit a personage?"

If one were to assert that this source is conscious and intentional, they would be justified in doing so based on several factors. Factor #1 being the result. WE are part of that result, and WE are conscious and intentional. Factor #2, WE came to posses these traits via the very same imposed possibilities and limitations that everything that exists, obeys. Thus indicating that our cognitive abilities are integral to and of the whole of existence, itself. We are not an existential anomaly. We are a natural expression of the advent of existence. And factor #3, given that existence is incredibly complex, sophisticated, and intentioned, as are we, it would stand as reasonable to presume that whatever the mystery source of existence is, that it, too is conscious and intentioned.

There is no evidence that we are an anomaly, rather we are a result of the processes of evolution on this earth.
There are those who believe through faith that there is or may be a source, but that has nothing to do with whether we are a reasonable result of evolution.

I, myself, tend to stop short of asserting that this mystery source of all that is, is "conscious and intentional". Or that it has any sort of "personality" , mostly because that is so far beyond my ability to recon with that I dare not go there.

But many do, and they are not totally unjustified.

You can assert anything you want, but in regards to the universe the only honest statement is "We Don't Know"
Thus calling others stupid etc. for not agreeing with your position reflects only on you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So why personalize this "explanation?" Why imbue it with consciousness, intention, planning, or judgement?

Rhetorical question, right? Some people have no choice. They can only think in terms of gods. They're uncomfortable without a god belief. If they weren't, they'd be atheists. The idea of gods and religion offer nothing of value to those who are comfortable without them but does consume resources and can have an ill effect on believers. We see people damaged by their religious beliefs here on RF routinely.

God Is an appeal to the best explanation for the origin of the universe.

Disagree. Gods go at the bottom of any list of putative sources for our universe. They are the least parsimonious of the logical possibilities.

This is an example of what I just referred to to Valjean. As you have seen on this thread, some people are comfortable with the fact that we have no answers and are comfortable with agnosticism for gods, while other people gravitate toward a god belief. They are uncomfortable with uncertainty, and so guess and then believe their guess. It doesn't give them answers, just comfort.

I think it's important, though, for us to always keep in mind that it IS just a supposition on our part. That we are only able to contemplate, and surmise; that we cannot 'know' it to be so.

You just described something I would consider not worth thinking about again. How liberating to be comfortable with not knowing.

That is exactly the reason we are considering the question. It's what we humans evolved to do.

Yeah, but for your whole life? I assure you that you will know no more about the subject in ten years than you do now, which is no more than you knew ten years ago.

 

[blü 2]

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.

I'd say the universe exists because mass-energy exists.

No, I don't know why or how mass-energy came to exist. But the cyclical propositions already mentioned, and the possibility of more or mutable dimensions, may rule time out as a problem. Or not, of course, but since we're talking about possibilities, well, we can each take our pick.

So far, you have offered no logical alternative.

I'm not aware of a demonstrably correct answer and I don't think such a thing presently exists.

But speculative answers are still possible ─ indeed all we have at this stage ─ and there are more of them than one.

 

[blü 2]

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

But you haven't addressed my question.

As far as I can tell the only manner in which God is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in individual brains, and in that respect indistinguishable from a character in fiction (albeit one with super-powers).

If you disagree, point out God in reality to me, demonstrate that your proposal for the origin of the universe is not simply a skein of imaginings. Or at least describe this real God so that if we find a real suspect we'll be able to determine whether it's God or not.

Otherwise, God will still only exist as a concept in individual brains.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Just as a matter of interest, would you believe there are things existing that we can't see? I'm not talking about birds I have never seen, or places I personally have never been to, but things that we, as humans, cannot see with our physical eyes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good questions.

Query: Why does something (anything) exist?

For something (anything) to exist requires effort (energy), and it requires organization (forces/laws that create and maintain equilibrium). So it would appear that, logically, nothingness (non-existence) should be the ideal "default" mode, or state of being, as it requires nothing to maintain nothing. And not only would it be the default state, but it would be an absolutely unchangeable, insurmountable default state. As there would be nothing within it that could ever overwhelm it.

And yet something DOES exist. A whole lot of something. Energy is being expended, and impositions have been imposed on that expressed energy that create and maintain many kinds of equilibrium. And here we all are.

So, ... what made this possible from within a realm what would have been the absolutely impossible? This is the question. And the answer is ... something ... but we have no way of knowing what. The question itself creates the logical necessity for a source beyond abject nothingness. We can surmise, however, that whatever 'it' is, it is more "powerful" then the abject nothingness that logically should have been the insurmountable default.

"Why do people posit a personage?"

If one were to assert that this source is conscious and intentional, they would be justified in doing so based on several factors. Factor #1 being the result. WE are part of that result, and WE are conscious and intentional. Factor #2, WE came to posses these traits via the very same imposed possibilities and limitations that everything that exists, obeys. Thus indicating that our cognitive abilities are integral to and of the whole of existence, itself. We are not an existential anomaly. We are a natural expression of the advent of existence. And factor #3, given that existence is incredibly complex, sophisticated, and intentioned, as are we, it would stand as reasonable to presume that whatever the mystery source of existence is, that it, too is conscious and intentioned.

I, myself, tend to stop short of asserting that this mystery source of all that is, is "conscious and intentional". Or that it has any sort of "personality" , mostly because that is so far beyond my ability to recon with that I dare not go there.

But many do, and they are not totally unjustified.

After looking over some comments here, I would like to ask if you believe or think there are some things (whatever they are) that we cannot see, but which exist?

 

[YoursTrue]

Rhetorical question, right? Some people have no choice. They can only think in terms of gods. They're uncomfortable without a god belief. If they weren't, they'd be atheists. The idea of gods and religion offer nothing of value to those who are comfortable without them but does consume resources and can have an ill effect on believers. We see people damaged by their religious beliefs here on RF routinely.

Really not to argue, but I do wonder if you believe/think it is possible there are things we cannot see but exist and we may never see them with our physical/natural eyes, yet they exist?

 

[gnostic]

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.

Facts require evidence. Evidence that are testable and measurable observations.

What evidence are there for any god to be fact?

There are none. No such evidence exist, where any God can be observed. There are no facts on any creator or supreme being…just faith-based beliefs, and that‘s no better than superstition.


There are no evidence for any god than there are for spirits, angels, demons, jinns, fairies, unicorns, and so many other supernatural entities.

You are not that good at epistemology when it comes to how it is, science is based on methodlogical naturalism and not philosophical naturalism.

That much is true.

Philosophical Naturalism or Metaphysical Naturalism only will accept natural phenomena and their (natural) mechanisms, and reject all forms of supernatural phenomena and supernatural entities.

Methodological Naturalism also accept evidence from nature, however it does not outright reject any supernatural phenomena (nor favour them)…Methodological Naturalism is simply neutral on all matters of the supernatural, as the supernatural won’t even be investigated, as any supernatural element won’t be “falsifiable”, which I would say more, below.

Methodological Naturalism is the general framework for how any Natural Sciences & Physical Sciences may proceed, and these “proposed” scientific theories require to pass both Falsifiability & Scientific Method.

People often misunderstand and misrepresent the FALSIFIABILITY.

Falsifiability is any model, concept or idea that are testable or refutable…meaning you can eventually test the models, when you have a working hypothesis. So if the models, concepts or ideas are unfalsifiable, then that would mean they are untestable, which would disqualify the models from being a “hypothesis”, and you could not proceed to the next requirement of science - the Scientific Method.

Failing even the first one - a concept, idea or model MUST BE FALSIFIABLE, then such models, concepts or ideas are just pseudoscience claims.

What you call god, or Creator, Designer, Supreme Being, and so on of whatever names or titles that you want to give this imaginary being of yours, have never pass the first step - that of being FALSIFIABLE, then it would not even be possible to proceed to the next stage - the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

My points. While Methodological Naturalism don’t require any scientist to outright reject the “supernatural” as Philosophical or Metaphysical Naturalism do, but the Falsifiability & Scientific Method are in place with Methodological Naturalism, that the “supernatural” elements are ignored.

As supernatural is unfalsifiable, then the very concept of supernatural have explanatory & predictive powers, which are essential for the development of a hypothesis in Scientific Method.

your “supreme being” isn’t falsifiable, therefore you cannot test your creator.

 

[Pogo]

Really not to argue, but I do wonder if you believe/think it is possible there are things we cannot see but exist and we may never see them with our physical/natural eyes, yet they exist?

Sure, lots of things that exist that we don't see, like wind, but they have effects that are definable and consistent.

 

[blü 2]

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

Until you answer my question, God is no more real than Superman or Mickey Mouse.

Is it your argument that Superman created the universe?

 

[YoursTrue]

No scientist has ever seen the beginning of the universe.

 

[Valjean]

Rhetorical question, right? Some people have no choice. They can only think in terms of gods. They're uncomfortable without a god belief. If they weren't, they'd be atheists. The idea of gods and religion offer nothing of value to those who are comfortable without them but does consume resources and can have an ill effect on believers. We see people damaged by their religious beliefs here on RF routinely.

Disagree. Gods go at the bottom of any list of putative sources for our universe. They are the least parsimonious of the logical possibilities.

This is an example of what I just referred to to Valjean. As you have seen on this thread, some people are comfortable with the fact that we have no answers and are comfortable with agnosticism for gods, while other people gravitate toward a god belief. They are uncomfortable with uncertainty, and so guess and then believe their guess. It doesn't give them answers, just comfort.

You just described something I would consider not worth thinking about again. How liberating to be comfortable with not knowing.

Yeah, but for your whole life? I assure you that you will know no more about the subject in ten years than you do now, which is no more than you knew ten years ago.

Uncertainty and the vicissitudes of life can infantalize. Some people retreat for comfort to a time when they relied on a Strong Father to protect and care for them, to explain things, to dictate wrong and right, and prescribe proper behavior.

Children are relieved of the burden of thought and reflection. Some adults seek the same solace from religious mythology or Charismatic leaders.

 

[YoursTrue]

Uncertainty and the vicissitudes of life can infantalize. Some people retreat for comfort to a time when they relied on a Strong Father to protect and care for them, to explain things, to dictate wrong and right, and prescribe proper behavior.

Children are relieved of the burden of thought and reflection. Some adults seek the same solace from religious mythology or Charismatic leaders.

I would think anyway that a good parent would teach a child right from wrong. I know that many parents teach or discipline their children when the parent doesn't like something the child does, but morals (in essence, the difference between right and wrong) are often not taught. As an example, I know of one father a while back who was teaching his son to shoplift. I was not a religious person at the time, in fact I had no religious beliefs at all, nevertheless it shocked me to learn that this man would teach his son to shoplift.