Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Valjean]

That's your response? Energy is a word? We know what energy is because we made up a word for it? And we applied numbers to it's effect?

We know what God is because we made up a word for it. And we applied lots of stories to it's effect. Is this your reasoning?

We know what a mystery is because we made up the word "mystery", and because we could tell that there must be something more to know, but we couldn't see what that something is.

What about the idea of a mystery can't you understand? What we do know tells us that there is more to be known, but we can't access it. Logic tells us that there must be some kind of transcendent source behind the advent of existence, but we don't have any way of accessing it, to know.

Why are you fighting this rather simple and obvious line of reasoning? What about it do you find unreasonable? Is it because it opens the door to the possibility of God? And you just won't acknowledge that possibility?

What opens the door to the possibility of God? Mystery? I don't follow.

 

[firedragon]

Mass 'bends' space.

How does that prove it's unintended?

 

[Valjean]

Okay, I'll grant that an absolute first cause exists, and is completely incomprehensible. Let's call this being god.

Yippee. God exists.

Now what?

Why must there be a first cause?
What caused God?

God, as normally construed, is a conscious, willful, personage, not just a force of nature.

 

[Valjean]

How does that prove it's unintended?

We're talking about intention?
Now it's you making the claim.

 

[Valjean]

So are you doing a double standard?

I don't follow...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't follow...

You ask of others that they should in effect know and not just believe, but you admitted you don't know and yet you believe that the universe is natural. If I recall right? Otherwise just disregard this post.

 

[Pogo]

How does that prove it's unintended?

Prove a negative, shouldn't you be giving evidence for the intentionality of the observed phenomenon?

 

[leroy]

Well, that is in effect just speculation. How about it is unknown? Can't you hold the thought that you don't know?

Of course we don’t know…….. all I am saying is that God is a better explanation than the other alternatives for say “the origin of the universe”. I am not saying that I am 100% sure, just that it is the best explanation we have to date

 

[leroy]

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.

Well this is very easy to solve……………just ask your counterpart for a definition of God and use that definition for the purpose of that debate.

 

[leroy]

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.

Well if you are inventing an invisible type of “matter” (dark matter) to explain things like stable galaxies………….why is inventing an invisible person so problematic?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course we don’t know…….. all I am saying is that God is a better explanation than the other alternatives for say “the origin of the universe”. I am not saying that I am 100% sure, just that it is the best explanation we have to date

It is the better one to you. That is not so for me. There is no we there.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, but you still can't aviod subjective evaluation for what is and what matters.
So in effect other people can believe differently than you and that is where it ends.

I am not particularly interested it what anyone believes. I'm more interested in why. Or to be more precise, how honest and thorough their thought process is as they determine their belief. Because in the end, it's all we have.

You are right that we will all value our conclusions subjectively. But when we act on them, as we do, we are acting objectively. And there are going to be objective consequences. So we owe it to ourselves and each other to use the tools that we have to try and be as clear and honest as we can be in our thinking.

But, oh my, the wailing and crying when anyone dares to critique OUR thought process! Everyone else's is fair game, but never ours! And yet this IS what the debate threads are for, aren't they.

 

[PureX]

Okay, I'll grant that an absolute first cause exists, and is completely incomprehensible. Let's call this being god.

Yippee. God exists.

Now what?

That's entirely up to you. But keep in mind that HOWEVER you choose to respond to this realization, it's going to define who you are. So the power of self-creation is in your own hands.

 

[leroy]

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).

the same is true dark matter isent it?...........and you dotn seem to be making a big of a deal

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.

Again, my claim is that God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe………………..if you disagree then provide your alternative, develope your argument and explain why that alternative is better than God.


If I reject the claim that Dark Matte is the best explanation for why stars don’t fly apart from the galaxy……….or if I reject the claim that we share DNA with chimps because we share common ancestor………… you would expect me to :

1 provide an alternative explanation

2 accept my burden

3 support this alternative

So why can I expect the same form you?

 

[PureX]

It is the better one to you. That is not so for me. There is no we there.

Which one do you prefer, and why?
Is your reasoning based of honesty and logic, or on emotional needs and preferences?
Does it serve you and yours, or does it serve everyone? Or no one?
Does it imply a purpose, or is it random and purposeless?
Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[leroy]

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

Is it your argument that Superman created the universe?

No

I affirm that God is a better explanation than superman

The creator of the universe/multiverse (all the physical world, which includes all matter) by definition has to be immaterial

Superman is made out of matter…therefore it is not immaterial ……therefore it could have not been the creator of mater (superman can´t exist without matter)

See I provided a reason for why God is better than superman……………………..do you have a better explanation than God?...........can you justify it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which one do you prefer, and why?
Is your reasoning based of honesty and logic, or on emotional needs and preferences?
Does it serve you and yours, or does it serve everyone? Or no one?
Does it imply a purpose, or is it random and purposeless?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, to me God is a part of the problem of what objective reality is in itself as in itself. To me that is unknown and thus in pratice I can't claim any positive claims about what it is.

As I said earlier in this thread, we do logic differently.

 

[PureX]

What opens the door to the possibility of God? Mystery? I don't follow.

Logic opens our mind to the necessity for that transcendent mystery source that most people call "God". But logic is not proof, nor is it direct experience (knowledge). So all logic is doing for us is opening the door of our minds to the possibility of this "God".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Logic opens our mind to the necessity for that transcendent mystery source that most people call "God". But logic is not proof, nor is it direct experience (knowledge). So all logic is doing for us is opening the door of our minds to the possibility of this "God".

Well, I agree with the idea of that transcendent mystery source. But in effect I do it with belief and the psychology of what matters to me.

 

[leroy]

Just on principle... I don't see how that makes sense.
Say you have an infinite series of events. Let's just assume for a second such exists.
Each of those events, is in fact an event, yes?
Why couldn't one of those events be your birth?

Strawman ….The claim is that I could have not been born as a consequence of an infinite chain previous events…(where the events are causally connected to each other)

You are talking about the one specific event of your birth, you could say the same thing about any specific event in the infinite series of events.
IF you have an infinite series of events, then every one of those events are events that occurred. Why couldn't one of those events be your, or anyone else's, birth?

But even that would be impossible and absurd.

If there is an infinite number of events, what is the probability of me experiencing the specific event of my birth? the possibility is 1/infinity= 0

But given that I experience that event, the probability necessarily has to be greater than zero………..otherwise you would have to affirm that events with zero probability occur

Why would that be beyond the scope?
Sounds like special pleading.

I mean, that it would be a different question

For example the claim “humans evolve from ancient apes” it likely true and well supported.

But that leads to an other question

If humans evolved from apes, where did apes come from………….? Your ability or inability to answer that question is “beyond the scope” of the original claim (in red)……………..it doesn’t matter if you don’t have an answer, the claim in red is still true

In other words we can agree on that the universe has a “reason” (which according ratiocinator means cause in tensless language)

And leave the question on whether if God has a reason or not, for a future discussion…………….my ability or inability to support that god doesn’t have a “reason” has no bearing in the previous claim (in red)