Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

Radio waves are "seen"....or more accurately "detected"
using devices. This is how many things are known, eg,
viruses, black holes, gravity waves, DNA, magnetism.
BTW, radio waves are a natural phenomenon that
happens independently of humans.

If I understand correctly they're "seen" perhaps by electronic devices. I've seen pictures or graphs of radio waves -- but that's about it. Have there been photographs electronically of radio waves?

 

[YoursTrue]

@Revoltingest OK, while this conversation is interesting, I can't stay on the board now, but! I will leave you with one question -- if there were no devices to connect with radio waves would you think that means they don't exist?

 

[Revoltingest]

If I understand correctly they're "seen" perhaps by electronic devices. I've seen pictures or graphs of radio waves -- but that's about it. Have there been photographs electronically of radio waves?

Is the technology of photography the only
technology acceptable to detect a phenomenon
in the material world?
This would be a problem because some of them
don't reflect light, eg, gravity. But gravity is
easily detected, even without technology.

 

[ratiocinator]

I am not responsible for your inability to accept a logical premise.

I'm not responsible for your total lack of understanding of what is logic and what is science. As I think you said before, if you don't listen, you won't learn.

You've made a basic mistake in confusing logic with science, apparently because you don't know enough about the latter.

The problem is that we have no idea what energy actually IS.

Speak for yourself.

But no atheist is ever going to accept that possibility, so they have to insist that it's something scientific and materialistic.

It's nothing to do with atheism. You really seem very confused between science and logic, and science and atheism, let alone scientism. Energy is a scientific term. If you want to use it in some other way, you need to make that clear, so we can all understand each other.

It's not really difficult, instead of just foot-stamping all the time and telling everybody else how wrong and ignorant they are, and how much they don't understand, you could just explain yourself properly, and address what's actually being said.

Just calm down....

 

[Revoltingest]

@Revoltingest OK, while this conversation is interesting, I can't stay on the board now, but! I will leave you with one question -- if there were no devices to connect with radio waves would you think that means they don't exist?

If there were no way to detect radio waves,
this would lead me to not believe in them.
But it wouldn't mean they don't exist.
BTW, radio waves were only "believed in"
because evidence of their existence was
discovered (using technology).

A question for you....
If something is imagined & possible, but
lacking evidence, should it be believed?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

If you want to use logic, you need to understand it. Specifically, that you'll never construct a sound argument unless your premises are accepted. Your premises here relate to scientific questions. Can you really not see that?

...

Okay, sound in logic is valid for deduction and true for the premises, so that the conclussion is true and not just valid.
The problem I have with that, is true in science is in effect observation directly or indirectly through instruments, but the problem is that we don't have that for the begining of the universe, thus no sound conclusion is possible.
In other words all claims about the begining of the universe aren't true as per science and thus no sound argument is possible.

In effect this is philosophy, if you accept that to say something is true in science, you need observation directly or indirectly through instruments.

 

[ratiocinator]

The problem I have with that, is true in science is in effect observation directly or indirectly through instruments, but the problem is that we don't have that for the begining of the universe, thus no sound conclusion is possible.

You should be addressing this to @PureX, I'm not the one trying to make a sound logical argument. I am pointing out that he has made scientific assumptions that cannot be supported.

Additionally, the basic nature of space-time is something we can and do investigate today with instruments, and that alone invalidates the proposed options.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You should be addressing this to @PureX, I'm not the one trying to make a sound logical argument. I am pointing out that he has made scientific assumptions that cannot be supported.

Additionally, the basic nature of space-time is something we can and do investigate today with instruments, and that alone invalidates the proposed options.

No, it is an unsupported assumption that spacetime is the same for the actual observations with instruments, that we have made and for the begining of the universe, where there are no observations or instrument measurements.
Thus science doesn't refute the logic as unsound. That there is no observation of the begining of the universe refutes it as sound.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, it is an unsupported assumption that spacetime is the same for the actual observations with instruments, that we have made and for the begining of the universe, where there are no observations or instrument measurements.

This is true but irrelevant. In fact, it's very likely that space-time becomes significantly different right at 'start' (if there was one), but it doesn't matter.

Thus science doesn't refute the logic as unsound. That there is no observation of the begining of the universe refutes it as sound.

This is just wrong. The premises of @PureX's 'argument', effectively claim knowledge about the beginning, which, as you have pointed out, we don't have. The whole basis of the 'argument' is that this list:

1. Infinite past,
2. 'poofing' from nothing, for no reason, or
3. magic,

is exhaustive. Given the uncertainty that you are pointing out, and the nature of space-time we observe today, there are many more options.

And the nature of space-time today is relevant because in implies eternalism, rather than presentism, which is also implicit in the list.

 

[PureX]

You should be addressing this to @PureX, I'm not the one trying to make a sound logical argument. I am pointing out that he has made scientific assumptions that cannot be supported.

I have stated many times now that science is not relevant to the question being discussed.

Additionally, the basic nature of space-time is something we can and do investigate today with instruments, and that alone invalidates the proposed options.

Space and time are expressions of physical existence. They are not the source, as they cannot be their own source. This is simply not logical.

 

[Pogo]

If I understand correctly they're "seen" perhaps by electronic devices. I've seen pictures or graphs of radio waves -- but that's about it. Have there been photographs electronically of radio waves?

Radio waves are like wind, we don't actually see it but detect its effect on other matter such as trees.

The red is the electrical potential (voltage) at a given time and the blue at right angles is the magnetic field value.
This is extremely slowed down as for example an AM radio 870 is 870 thousand peaks per second and if it were an AM radio station the peak values would vary in amplitude at audio frequencies (what we hear) This with its effect on an electronic circuit is how we get AM (amplitude modulation) radio.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is true but irrelevant. In fact, it's very likely that space-time becomes significantly different right at 'start' (if there was one), but it doesn't matter.


This is just wrong. The premises of @PureX's 'argument', effectively claim knowledge about the beginning, which, as you have pointed out, we don't have. The whole basis of the 'argument' is that this list:

1. Infinite past,
2. 'poofing' from nothing, for no reason, or
3. magic,

is exhaustive. Given the uncertainty that you are pointing out, and the nature of space-time we observe today, there are many more options.

And the nature of space-time today is relevant because in implies eternalism, rather than presentism, which is also implicit in the list.

I would like evidence as per sicence that it is irrelevant. And evidence for the second bold that it doesn't matter.

In effect you are saying that what science can do in a posive sense, is the same as what science can't do in positive sense.

 

[PureX]

This is true but irrelevant. In fact, it's very likely that space-time becomes significantly different right at 'start' (if there was one), but it doesn't matter.


This is just wrong. The premises of @PureX's 'argument', effectively claim knowledge about the beginning, which, as you have pointed out, we don't have. The whole basis of the 'argument' is that this list:

1. Infinite past,
2. 'poofing' from nothing, for no reason, or
3. magic,

is exhaustive. Given the uncertainty that you are pointing out, and the nature of space-time we observe today, there are many more options.

And the nature of space-time today is relevant because in implies eternalism, rather than presentism, which is also implicit in the list.

The propositions are actually that existence is eternal, or that it is somehow it's own source, or that it is the result of some unknown transcendent source. Of the three propositions, only the third remains logical.

The first is illogical because it purports an eternity of change. And this is logically incoherent.

The second is illogical because it purports an act of self-creation, which is also logically incoherent.

The third simply purports a transcendent mystery source, which is not logically incoherent because such an external source would not be subject to the constraints of the result.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The propositions are actually that existence is eternal, or that it is it's own source, or that it is the result of some unknown transcendent source. Of the three propositions, only the third remains logical.

The first is illogical because it purports an eternity of change. And this is logically incoherent.

The second is illogical because it purports an act of self-creation, which is also logically incoherent.

The third simply purports a transcendent mystery source, which is not logically incoherent because the source would not be subject to the constraints of the result.

The problem is that for Agrippa's Trilemma for justification the 3rd one in effect becomes a circular argument.
The source for existence needs to transcend existence, therefore it does so.

P1: There is existence.'
P2: There has to be a source for existence.
C: Therefore there is a source for existence.

 

[ratiocinator]

I have stated many times now that science is not relevant to the question being discussed.

Yes, you have, but stating it doesn't make it so. Your three proposed options are still based on a scientific misunderstanding. They are not purely logical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, you have, but stating it doesn't make it so. Your three proposed options are still based on a scientific misunderstanding. They are not purely logical.

It is not true that spacetime applies to all of the universe including the begining. If the arguement is that science show that spacetime is so for all of the universe, then it must be true for all of the universe.

 

[firedragon]

and that the universe we see is the natural and unguided unfolding of these.

Can you prove this? What evidence or proof do you have to make this positive claim?

 

[ratiocinator]

I would like evidence as per sicence that it is irrelevant. And evidence for the second bold that it doesn't matter.

It's not about evidence, it's about logic. It's the 'argument' that is being put forward that is claiming certainty about what is and is not possible with regard to space-time, not me. I'm just pointing out a vast area of uncertainty, along with the fact that what we know today implies eternalism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you prove this? What evidence or proof do you have to make this positive claim?

Yeah, I like that too.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

How do you know that? Can you show metaphysical naturalism to be a fact?