Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Correct, it has nothing to do with science.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Actually, this post is a tantrum.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, this post is a tantrum.

Are you talking about yours or mine?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Well, that the universe is real, fair, orderly and knowable is not verifiable, but I still believe in that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, that the universe is real, fair, orderly and knowable is not verifiable, but I still believe in that.

Many things are verifiable....
Gravity.
Energy in sunlight.
Their functions (& many other things) are quite orderly.
While somethings appear less so, eg, 3-body orbits,
quantum mechanics, treating the universe as orderly
is useful.

Do you disagree?

 

[PureX]

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.

That's just a word game.

Existence exists.

Therefor, existence is possible.

So how is it possible?

1. It is eternally possible.
2. It made itself possible.
3. Something apart from and beyond it made it possible.

 

[ratiocinator]

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

Now you've gone vague.

Are you using 'eternal' to mean infinite in time, or timeless? Science suggests the space-time is, as a whole, timeless because it contains time as a direction through it. Even if you regard the actual science as not relevant, eternalism is a logically valid and self-consistent possibility.

Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What do you mean by 'source'?

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

Only if you mean infinite in time, rather than timeless, which brings us crashing back into the science of space-time or, if you prefer, the philosophy of time and eternalism.

Regardless of that, why is an eternity of change logically incoherent?

 

[firedragon]

Are you talking about yours or mine?

Yours.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yours.

Bless your heart.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Many things are verifiable....
Gravity.
Energy in sunlight.
Their functions (& many other things) are quite orderly.
While somethings appear less so, eg, 3-body orbits,
quantum mechanics, treating the universe as orderly
is useful.

Do you disagree?

Well, the following problems regarding logic and/or epistemolgoy have to be solved for your claim of verifiaction holds up:

The problem of the evil demon by Descartes (modern version Boltzmann Brain universe)
Agrippa's trilemma
How to know what the thing in itself is as in itself

In effect you have to prove metaphysical naturalism. Nobody have been able to do so in recorded human history.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, the following problems regarding logic and/or epistemolgoy have to be solved for your claim of verifiaction holds up:

The problem of the evil demon by Descartes (modern version Boltzmann Brain universe)
Agrippa's trilemma
How to know what the thing in itself is as in itself

In effect you have to prove metaphysical naturalism. Nobody have been able to do so in recorded human history.

Such naval gazings are not useful.
A rather orderly universe works for me.
Gravity keeps my truck on the road.
Sunlight makes my vegetables grow.
Nothing that Descartes says interferes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now you've gone vague.

Are you using 'eternal' to mean infinite in time, or timeless? Science suggests the space-time is, as a whole, timeless because it contains time as a direction through it. Even if you regard the actual science as not relevant, eternalism is a logically valid and self-consistent possibility.

Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What do you mean by 'source'?


Only if you mean infinite in time, rather than timeless, which brings us crashing back into the science of space-time or, if you prefer, the philosophy of time and eternalism.

Regardless of that, why is an eternity of change logically incoherent?

So you claim science from an article named philosophy of time.
Just forget science and do the philosophy and logic.

I get that you like science, but for once stop using it, when it is not relevant. I like sceince too, I just get some of its limits.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Such naval gazings are useful.
A rather orderly universe works for me.
Gravity keeps my truck on the road.
Sunlight makes my vegetables grow.
Nothing that Descartes says interferes.

You can't objectively verify useful or useless. That is not science but always naval gazing including when you do it.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can't objectively verify useful or useless.

Sure I can.
I'm testing gravity at this very moment.
And it's behaving in an orderly fashion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's just a word game.

Existence exists.

Therefor, existence is possible.

So how is it possible?

1. It is eternally possible.
2. It made itself possible.
3. Something apart from and beyond it made it possible.

Yeah, we do logic differently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure I can.
I'm testing gravity at this very moment.
And it's behaving in an orderly fashion.

No, you are confusing your experinces with what you believe they correspond to.

 

[ratiocinator]

So you claim science from an article named philosophy of time.

No, I just pointed out that the current evidence leads us towards one of the philosophical approaches to time.

In fact, the science is much more rich and complicated than the philosophical idea of eternalism. Oddly (not), philosophers don't seem to have thought of anything like the space-time in that time might actually not be just a single direction through the eternalist, block universe, view, before the science came along, that is.

My personal guess is that the truth is probably even stranger, perhaps, as somebody has said, "not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine".

That's why I'm always suspicious of arguments based on supposedly exhaustive lists of possibilities. There's always the possibility of something we haven't thought of.

Another example: Is light a wave or a particle? Before QM, who would have thought the answer was 'yes'?

Just forget science and do the philosophy and logic.

I guess you have a point in the context of the argument and who I'm talking to. With hindsight, I could have easily pointed to eternalism with a finite past, as just a logical possibility, or at least started with that.

 

[YoursTrue]

So? No scientist has ever seen a radio wave, either.

Nevertheless, certain types of waves were there before the inventors of the radio harnessed them.

 

[YoursTrue]

But while most of us have seen scientists, none of us have seen a real God, one who exists, not just in the mind, but in the world external to the self, where photographs, interviews, personal appearances are possible.

Interesting that the Bible says no man can see God and live. Analogies are used in terms of 'seeing' Him, but remember it is written that he told Moses he cannot see his face and live. Exodus 33:20. We might not even KNOW if (so-called) radio waves existed before technicians harnessed them for a distinct purpose, that doesn't mean they did not exist, does it?

 

[gnostic]

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?

Electricity.

You don't normally see electricity, but you definitely feel it, like static electricity or electrocution...you definitely don't want to experience the latter.

Many of devices, machines, appliances, motors, etc don’t work without electricity, which would require some sorts of electrical sources (eg batteries, power outlets, power generator, etc).

Plus if you have multimeter, you can detect electricity as well as measure the electric current, voltage, power, etc.