Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

The more I think about it (radio waves & such), the more the Bible's words make sense to me. Like about seeing God. And why Paul was blinded for a while after Jesus appeared to him in a miraculous vision. He recovered for the most part, but I know a man who was paralyzed when he was struck by lightning. I don't know how many children die from sticking their fingers in sockets, but maybe when I have time I'll look it up.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Yup. You know more about than I do, I just posted something similar. You're prompting me to see if there are statistics about how many get hurt by sticking their fingers in sockets.

 

[YoursTrue]

Be back maybe later.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, we do logic differently.

What other alternatives are there?

"So how is existence possible?​

​

1. It is eternally possible.​

2. It somehow made itself possible.​

3. Something apart from and beyond it made it possible."​

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yup. You know more about than I do, I just posted something similar. You're prompting me to see if there are statistics about how many get hurt by sticking their fingers in sockets.

I can tell you - it is truly shocking!

 

[Pogo]

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

Just as trees falling in a forest made a sound (wave) before there were humans there to ask the question.
Radio waves is just what we call electromagnetic waves of a particular frequency since we discovered their natural existence and harnessed this portion for communication due to their property of radiation. More recently we discovered the ability of these waves to be useful in vibrating certain molecular bonds with the higher frequency version of radio waves after discovering their use for RADAR, and the Radar range was born, known to most of the younger generation as the microwave.

These are nothing but natural functions that we have harnessed for our convenience just as we have harnessed fire.

 

[Valjean]

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

We experience the workings of physics, chemistry and mathematics everywhere, every day. The mechanisms are known and predictable.
Did you have some alternative in mind?

 

[Pogo]

What other alternatives are there?

"So how is existence possible?​

​

1. It is eternally possible.​

2. It somehow made itself possible.​

3. Something apart from and beyond it made it possible."​

Philosophically even outside of naturalism which you deny, lots of them, this is your problem, you don't even recognize their possibility and insist on your personal limited philosophy. You insist on a "transcendent source / creator" whatever that even means which raises its own philosophical questions. Philosophy can be interesting if approached as an intellectual exercise into what/where/why but when it devolves to dogma all that ceases.
This is why you can't even find reliable support from @mikkel_the_dane who is otherwise the surest proponent for reasoned alternatives to naturalism.

 

[Valjean]

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

Metaphysical naturalism? Please explain.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Agreed. And that's a good description of what I meant by comfort coming from religious belief and why it is so appealing to take that leap of faith and embrace gods as real, especially the god of Abraham, who allegedly offers an afterlife and paradise, and who answers prayer and protects us.

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

His claim doesn't need evidence. It wasn't an existential claim. Another poster wrote, "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."

He presented a fourth logical possibility. "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."

If you want to argue that this is included in one of the three proposed, you can do that, but it won't be an evidenced argument, just pure reason.

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?

Many have answered you already before I saw your question, so I don't think you need to read another form of a yes answer. What intrigues me is why you asked this question. You must know the answer before you asked. Much of reality is invisible to the unaided senses. You've (likely) never seen a virus without a microscope, and you know that you haven't, so why ask that question? Or maybe you don't believe viruses exist because you can't see one with the unaided eye.

No scientist has ever seen the beginning of the universe.

Correct.

Generally, when a creationist makes a comment like that, it's to make an argument of the form, "If there are no pictures, it didn't happen." Is that your reason for posting that? Hopefully, you had a reason, know what it was, and can articulate it.

it's logical that there is a God that transcends the universe

It is not logical to believe that. It is logical to consider it a possibility.

Incidentally, "a God" is kind of an awkward phrase. Capital-G "God" often refers to a specific god, which is most commonly the god of Abraham given the dominance of Christianity and Islam in the world. When referring to gods in the generic sense, small-g "gods" is the right way to spell that.

If I understand correctly they're "seen" perhaps by electronic devices.

Yes, which in turn generate signals that are evident to the senses - maybe an image through a telescope or microscope, or sound on a Geiger counter, or a cloud chamber graphic.

This is just empty gibberish that says nothing.

You hold yourself up as qualified to make such judgments, but your own writing is replete with gibberish.

Or like trying to comprehend 'God' (the transcendence of both something and nothing).

There was some now

I don't play the kangaroo court game.

Critical thinkers call it critical analysis. Judging is what minds do, and the better they do it, the better their lives.

For all we know energy is 'God's will'. But no atheist is ever going to accept that possibility.

If you could articulate unambiguously what that means, then we could hold "kangaroo court" and give you a judgment. Maybe that's some expression of pantheism or panentheism. If so, sure, that's a logical possibility.

Oh look - I just falsified your claim! Imagine that - you making false claims about atheists.

All we can do is speculate, and assess those speculations logically ... It's not about knowing. It's about embracing the possibilities.

Yes, but how long does that take? We can come to the end of any analysis, which may include a list of logical possibilities none of which can be ruled in or out, but perhaps they can be ordered according to the parsimony principle. At that point, further dwelling on the matter is fruitless.

It's not about being comfortable. It's about being curious. Being human.

Disagree. Many curious human beings don't need a god belief or a religion, and it's obviously because unlike those who do gravitate toward such "answers," they do nothing for him. They meet no need and answer no questions.

When I left Christianity, it was quite uncomfortable for a year. I found myself praying to a god that I no longer believed in, or rather, was in the process of weaning myself from. Initially, I would pray, "Jesus, if you're there, if I'm wrong, give me a sign." If that angst had never resolved itself, I'd have gone back to the religion for comfort, to relieve the anxiety caused by uncertainty. Fortunately, that "addiction" waned, just as it did when quitting cigarettes - a remarkably similar and equally difficult process.

Your foolish worship of science is stopping you from even understanding the question at hand. You can keep throwing your science turds around if you want, but so far you haven't even entered the conversation. Because it's a philosophical discussion/debate. Not science.

This is you representing again as seeing further, your chief conceit. Others just can't keep up with you, right? They're mired in scientism, whereas you've been liberated from that human failing and have discovered secret other ways of knowing, right? But you never seem to notice that your "insights" can't be articulated, and that your special way of thinking causes you to dwell on the irrelevant.

His thinking is disciplined. Yours is not, and somehow, that gets you into a pique. That's when you revert to this angry "scientism" mode. Somebody has offended you just by being cool and rational. There is no rational reason for you to have an emotional reaction. Maybe you've noticed that the people that you argue with rarely do that, or if they do, it's for an obvious reason, measured, and brief. You fly off the handle ("foolish," "idiotic," "turd") at zero provocation and for no apparent reason.

 

[ratiocinator]

What other alternatives are there?

"So how is existence possible?​

​

1. It is eternally possible.​

2. It somehow made itself possible.​

3. Something apart from and beyond it made it possible."​

You're still mixing temporal reasons with the real why question. Even ignoring the science, we could have an eternalist 'block' universe with a finite past. Eternalism, as opposed to presentism, was debated in philosophy long before relativity came along and pretty much confirmed eternalism.

@mikkel_the_dane also pointed out the fundamental trilemma in asking this sort of why question.

Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[gnostic]

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

of course waves have existed long before humans existed.

And yes, radio waves existed long before the invention of radio. Yes, science have allow people to harness them through various technology.

You are stating the obvious, but you really you don’t understand, that scientists already know this, and you would know too if you bother to learn physics.

What do you think electromagnetism are?

They are electromagnetic waves. They are radiations. EM waves include radio waves, microwaves, X-ray, gamma ray, ultraviolet, infrared, visible light. How they differ from each other, are known by the respective ranges of their wavelengths.

Radiation is emission or transmission of waves (or the radiation can be emission of particles, eg photons, radioactive decay, etc), which are propagated through space or through medium.

Yes, they can be harnessed, so the source of transmission of these waves, can be man-made, but there are natural sources of emissions, such as from radioactive elements, eg uranium, or many of waves come from the sun itself. The sun not only radiated heat, light, and ultraviolet, but also gamma rays, radio waves.

 

[PureX]

Philosophically even outside of naturalism which you deny, lots of them, this is your problem, you don't even recognize their possibility and insist on your personal limited philosophy. You insist on a "transcendent source / creator" whatever that even means which raises its own philosophical questions. Philosophy can be interesting if approached as an intellectual exercise into what/where/why but when it devolves to dogma all that ceases.
This is why you can't even find reliable support from @mikkel_the_dane who is otherwise the surest proponent for reasoned alternatives to naturalism.

I get it. You don't like philosophy because it doesn't provide you with your much beloved 'kangaroo court', and the idea that you can KNOW that you're right. And you worship your fantasy of science because you truly believe it gives you that.

So why are you here? I mean, if you so truly believe that science is the mighty oracle of truth then why are you here desperately trying to discredit any possible alternative? Why does it need so much defending from you?

And why, every time you accuse me of ... whatever ... can you NEVER clarify (or demonstrate) how I'm wrong. Never. All I see is accusations and whining, but never any sort of actual exposition.

 

[ratiocinator]

And why, every time you accuse me of ... whatever ... can you NEVER clarify (or demonstrate) how I'm wrong. Never. All I see is accusations and whining, but never any sort of actual exposition.

You're even ignoring the purely philosophical and logical arguments against your simplistic and logically confused list of options.

Almost like you're not even reading the posts any more, and are just repeating the same anti-science rant to anybody who disagrees with you, regardless of what they said.

 

[PureX]

You're still mixing temporal reasons with the real why question.

I'm not asking why (yet). I'm asking how it's possible.

Even ignoring the science, we could have an eternalist 'block' universe with a finite past.

Eternity cannot have a finite past. Eternity is infinite. There is no past or future because it's all always the present. This is why the idea of an eternal existence is incoherent. Because nothing within existence is eternal. Everything within existence is finite because everything is always changing. Why would an eternal existence manifest itself as ever-changing? That makes no sense.

NON-existence is truly eternal. And perfect. Precisely because it does not change. It requires nothing. Does nothing. Is nothing.

So why is there SOMETHING? This is the question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What other alternatives are there?

"So how is existence possible?​

​

1. It is eternally possible.​

2. It somehow made itself possible.​

3. Something apart from and beyond it made it possible."​

Well, as a skeptic I answer that I don't know and that I don't personally care.

The problem is this in effect. You think that 3 makes sense, but you thinking that doesn't cause it so be so. In effect the limit of logic as thinking is what thinking can cause to happen and can't.

Thus it doesn't tell us that there is something apart from and beyond it. It just tell us that it makes sense to think that.

 

[firedragon]

We experience the workings of physics, chemistry and mathematics everywhere, every day. The mechanisms are known and predictable.
Did you have some alternative in mind?

You have to prove your positive claim. If not, you practice no responsibility. Which means you are just believing your positive claim out of faith.

By the way, trying to turn the tables is a burden of proof fallacy.

So do you have evidence or proof for your positive claim? Of course you don't. You have blind faith with no evidence or proof. Blind faith.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Metaphysical naturalism? Please explain.

Yes. You claim you know that the universe is natural. That is in effect metaphysical naturalism.
Just as some theists don't understand science, so people don't know when they are doing philosophy and not science. Learn what the difference between methodological and metaphysical naturalism is.

 

[firedragon]

His claim doesn't need evidence.

Of course you don't believe "he" needs evidence. Because you have no clue of underlying responsibilities or philosophical underpinnings. You have blind faith, and you have tribalistic adherence to anyone who believes in the same blind faith as yours.

 

[Pogo]

I get it. You don't like philosophy because it doesn't provide you with your much beloved 'kangaroo court', and the idea that you can KNOW that you're right. And you worship your fantasy of science because you truly believe it gives you that.

First fail, I don't dislike philosophy, it can even be entertaining. I am also of the philosophy that I cannot KNOW that I am right but I have yet to see any reason to operate under any philosophy other than methodological naturalism if you wish to call it a philosophy. I accept that there are numerous other possibilities out there but no-one including and especially you has offered any significant reason to modify my behaviour.

So why are you here? I mean, if you so truly believe that science is the mighty oracle of truth then why are you here desperately trying to discredit any possible alternative? Why does it need so much defending from you?

Fail two, I do not believe science to be the mighty oracle of truth, I am open to alternative explanations for alternative explanations of perceptions, but I do ask that they be consistent. I also reserve judgement on any that I find no utility for in my life.

And why, every time you accuse me of ... whatever ... can you NEVER clarify (or demonstrate) how I'm wrong. Never. All I see is accusations and whining, but never any sort of actual exposition.

It has become evident that you are the one with a fifth grade understanding of physics, logic epistemology etc. that we cannot converse with on any higher level in that you don't have the maturity and understanding of many of the arguments beyond using the vocabulary. Your approach is not that of a philosopher seeking knowledge but of a dogmatic.
Ultimately your complaints about others generally amount to projection of your own limitations on others.