Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[YoursTrue]

They discovered them and then they found applications for them.

Yes, there are things that have been discovered that are not visible in our range of vision and there could exist other things. But there is a big difference between could and did or maybe and is.

I don't think I can contest that. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that there are things we as human beings simply cannot see and are not necessarily aware of. Anyway, the name Edison comes up about electricity in my mind, of course that is what many of us learned in school, and if I have time I will certainly read more about the discovery and harnessing of the powers of electricity.

 

[YoursTrue]

like the wind, it is not some sort of revelation to anybody except maybe you.

It could be like the wind, but it doesn't have to be.

 

[gnostic]

The point I am bringing out is not whether scientists knew these things of did not know these things about the existence of radio waves before radios were invented, but rather that the unseen existed.

Essentially, all EM waves can be seen as radio waves, as they all have wave lengths, frequencies and energy, which are associated with each different type of EM waves - plus each of these EM waves can transmit & receive audio & visual signals…

Yes, I know that when people talking of radio waves, we are usually referring to AM, FM, VHF, UHF and other modulation waves, that can be used for radio & tv, but this is the 21st century, microwave and laser (light) can also transmit audio & video signals as well as data.

Light as in visible light, including the spectral colours in light are radio waves that are visible and seen. Whereas other EM waves have wavelengths that are outside the range of human perception. Laser are essentially light, and laser can be used to transmit audiovisual signals through medium, such as fibre optic cables. Whereas microwave can be used to transmit audiovisual signals from tower to tower, to allow audiovisual communication between two or more people on their mobile phones or tablets.

Yes, there are natural radio waves or EM waves, and much of them from our Sun - visible waves and invisible waves.

 

[Pogo]

I don't think I can contest that. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that there are things we as human beings simply cannot see and are not necessarily aware of. Anyway, the name Edison comes up about electricity in my mind, of course that is what many of us learned in school, and if I have time I will certainly read more about the discovery and harnessing of the powers of electricity.

Discovery was ~ 600 BC by a Greek named Thales or thereabouts. Edison invented a lightbulb but his ideas on power transmission were unworkable and George Westinghouse was responsible for the EM wave system we use at 60 peaks per second. Actually like radio waves but much much slower.

 

[YoursTrue]

Essentially, all EM waves can be seen as radio waves, as they all have wave lengths, frequencies and energy, which are associated with each different type of EM waves - plus each of these EM waves can transmit & receive audio & visual signals…

Yes, I know that when people talking of radio waves, we are usually referring to AM, FM, VHF, UHF and other modulation waves, that can be used for radio & tv, but this is the 21st century, microwave and laser (light) can also transmit audio & video signals as well as data.

Light as in visible light, including the spectral colours in light are radio waves that are visible and seen. Whereas other EM waves have wavelengths that are outside the range of human perception. Laser are essentially light, and laser can be used to transmit audiovisual signals through medium, such as fibre optic cables. Whereas microwave can be used to transmit audiovisual signals from tower to tower, to allow audiovisual communication between two or more people on their mobile phones or tablets.

Yes, there are natural radio waves or EM waves, and much of them from our Sun - visible waves and invisible waves.

Fascinating. Now if I were younger I'd certainly consider taking up science in school. But not trying to figure the origin of the universe. Thanks!

 

[gnostic]

Fascinating. Now if I were younger I'd certainly consider taking up science in school. But not trying to figure the origin of the universe. Thanks!

YoursTrue. I am almost 60, and sciences are fascinating to me, whether it be the size of quark or photon, or the size of galaxy or the universe.

back in high school and universities, none of the things that I studied don’t involve astronomy or astrophysics, and certainly nothing about cosmology. These are the things I learned about during my free time, in the last 10 or so years.

you are never too old to learn new things.

 

[blü 2]

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?
[/QUOTE]
Adam and Eve used to see God, secateurs in hand, bags of fertilizer in [his] sack, pottering around the Garden, you'll recall.

And we might wonder whether [his] subsequent coyness was because [he] lost [his] wrestling match with Jacob (though there have been ugly rumors that wasn't [him] but a ring-in).

And it seems likely that Mark's Jesus (unlike John's) saw God at the moment he was adopted as God's son ─ certainly he heard [him].

But yes, in the larger view no one has had any trouble not seeing God ─ not even a photo, let alone a TV interview.

 

[vijeno]

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

Sure. Ironically, an incomprehensible god is no challenge to my atheism, nor is it very helpful to Abrahamists. You can't build any holy book on that, but it's great for some fun alcoholophilosophically smoky thinking sessions, great for meditation, and gives me nice fluffy belly feels. Mystics of all religions, unite!

I agree. And that's why to me it's logical that there is a God that transcends the universe. And beginnings. Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Haha, that's why it's logical to me that we cannot ultimately know whether there is a god or not... We are trapped in our puny little minds!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You can state it till you are blue in the face.
Doesn't change the fact that your premises are firmly rooted within the scope of science.

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.

But they can tell us things about their source.

 

[Valjean]

Provide one.

Mass 'bends' space.

 

[Valjean]

Since there is no warning to people they may be shocked or electrocuted it makes sense that there are obviously things that exist but cannot see. Of course you would not believe the Bible as evidence of certain things (miraculous, such as Jesus encountering Paul in a blinding flash), but the discussion about things seen and unseen, as well as electricity and radio waves is very interesting as far as I am concerned. I cannot account for everything the Bible says except I think and believe it is God's message to men, nevertheless the unseen being there has been a very interesting discussion to me.

Isn't it reasonable to doubt or defer belief in things not evidenced?

 

[Valjean]

Why? Do you think the universe is "naturally" made?

I believe it's natural. I don't know that it's made.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Isn't it reasonable to doubt or defer belief in things not evidenced?

What is your evidence that it is reasonable? How do you see reasonable?

The problem is that whether it is reasonable or not is not a fact with evidence as per science, but a subjective norm you believe in or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe it's natural. I don't know that it's made.

Isn't it reasonable to doubt or defer belief in things not evidenced?

So are you doing a double standard?

 

[Madsaac]

What is your evidence that it is reasonable? How do you see reasonable?

The problem is that whether it is reasonable or not is not a fact with evidence as per science, but a subjective norm you believe in or not.

When coming to a opinion about something.

Is it more reasonable to believe what an expert says about evidence provided on a subject, even when the expert is only expressing their subjective thoughts?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What about this?

Is it more reasonable to believe what an expert says about evidence provided on a subject?

That was not the question at hand.

But how do you know what is reasonable?

 

[Madsaac]

But how do you know what is reasonable?

Because an expert says it

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because an expert says it

Yeah, that is not an observation, but a subjective norm.

 

[Madsaac]

Yeah, that is not an observation, but a subjective norm.

What about when they have statistics to support their beliefs and then believe them because its more reasonable

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What about when they have statistics to support their beliefs and then believe them

Do you understand that not everything you do, is observation or inference from observation?

There is a part of human behavior, which is not empirical.

E.g. I have a pet cat. I can observe that cat and so on. I can't observe reasonable.