Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[idea]

What’s a “void”?

can you show that void exist?

Haha, yes, even the void cannot exist except through some kind of boundary - void is descriptive of an interaction too. All is synergy, all properties are emergent.

Emergence - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Only interactions - all just interactions.

 

[idea]

I take it you mean you haven't looked at the science or informed yourself where research into abiogenesis is at.

It suggests you speak from ignorance, indeed voluntary ignorance. But that of course is a matter for you.

Abiogenesis doesn't start with nothing.
Can always ask "but where did that come from?", always something before every other something.

 

[leroy]

Sure, you win. The price is that you have won nothing in effect, other than the ability to believe that you have won. Good for you.

What do you want me to claim I in effect know better however I do that? I can't do that, since I am a global skeptic. So I practice I have my personal beliefs.

If you reject the claim that God is the best alternative………….then tacitly you are claiming that there is at least one better alternative. (which means that you have a burden proof)

If you don’t reject that claim……….then ok the conversation is over….there is nothing to add

 

[ChristineM]

Aaaaah! Okay, I'll bite. I only know the 32 paths on the Tree of Life... So what are those 32 hypotheses?

Several multiverse hypothesis
Several string theory hypothesis
Several quantum hypothesis
Several M theory hypothesis
Two universe from nothing hypothesis
A vacuum fluctuations
And a bubble hypothesis

More details on Arxiv.com or any other print/preprint/eprint service that serves cosmology astrophysics and astronomy papers.

 

[leroy]

I started with numbers, what is physical is space-time, which may well be continua.

so what? how does that affect any of the premises.

What makes you think you have to traverse an infinite distance through a timelike direction, to get 'here', but not a spacelike one? You still don't seem to get time as a dimension.

Becasue if I was born after an infinite number of seconds/moments/events/ then by definition I would have to traverse an infinite path

Being born after an infinite number of seconds/moments/events is analogous to getting here after an infinite number of steps………………none can happen

WLC made the mistake of using presentism and temporal causation. I believe he even attempted to reformulate relativity to get around the fact, because he at least understood that he had a problem with the relativistic view of space-time. Needless to say, his efforts did not impress anybody.

WLC claims that presentism is true For reasons independent to the KCA,.........But if eternalism happens to be true, all you need to do is change the wording of the argument, not a big of a deal in my opinion.

regardless if you what to deny presentism or not it is still true that

1 Things can´t come from nothing (premise 1)

2 I was not born after an infinite number of causally connected seconds/events/moments (premise 2)

And if any of the premises is false , it would be false under presentism too


In other words, I don’t see why is this more than just a semantic issue? Languages where created under the assumption that presentism is true, perhaps there are not enough tens less words to describe the KCA argument.. but that is not an issue, or at least I don’t see why is this an issue

Once we switch to atemporal 'reasons', the God has the same problem as the universe, so we get nowhere.

.

Ok but if the universe (all natural world) is the effect of something else (what you call reason), then this reason by definition has to be supernatural…….that sounds like you are making a big step towards theism.

Whether if God has the same problem or not, is another issue that has no bearing on the claim that the universe had a “reason “ that by definition has to be supernatural

The flow of time appears to be subjective, not time itself. So if you track alone time, then things 'begin to exist' in the same way that if you track though space, things 'begin to exist' as you encounter their spacial boundary. If I walk to a park, the park 'begins to exist' as I reach its boundary.

This is only true from your own subjective point of view, it seems to me……………But the point that I made is that under eternalism... today and tomorrow are simultaneous and equally real....do you agree?

 

[Valjean]

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.

No -- the universe conforms to the definition of "natural," so it's natural. It's origins and full working details are what's in question.

 

[Valjean]

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

"God" explains nothing! It's a mere assertion of agency; an unevidenced and unnecessary special pleading.

We can't even agree on a definition of "God," much less agree on His qualities, actions and intent.

 

[Valjean]

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?

There is physical evidence of dark matter, and it explains certain observations. "Goddidit! explains nothing, and the alleged agent is unevidenced.

 

[Pogo]

You see no value in living for the benificial possibility?

Pascal's wager? Seriously?

 

[Pogo]

If you reject the claim that God is the best alternative………….then tacitly you are claiming that there is at least one better alternative. (which means that you have a burden proof)

If you don’t reject that claim……….then ok the conversation is over….there is nothing to add

101, not accepting a claim does not equal rejecting a claim.
The conversation should be over till you are at least familiar with the basic concepts.

 

[Valjean]

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

No. Dark matter was not imagined or hypothesized, till effects were observed that could only be explained by an unknown force. We just named it dark matter out of convenience. It produced an effect like matter, but was unknown and invisible -- dark. We don't claim to understand it, but something that doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation is producing a gravitational effect.

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.

Again. God is not a theory. Theories explain. Theories are testable and falsifiable. God explains nothing.

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?

Science looks for evidence. It analyses it and produces explanations. It works to fulfill its burden. Most of what we know about the universe is explained scientifically, by observed and tested facts.

Theism is not an explanation, and it's not derived from observed and tested facts. It's a special pleading by people who had no idea how the world worked or originated. It's popular folklore; mythology.

 

[Valjean]

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?

You're just attributing imagined qualities to your favorite superhero. Anyone can attribute any superpowers they want to their favorite imagined character.

 

[Valjean]

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".

I don't think your using the term correctly. I suspect you don't know what logic is.

 

[blü 2]

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

Dark matter is the name of a problem, not a solution or thing at this stage.

And as far as I know, nobody worships dark matter or attributes intention to it, in particularly daily intention for just one little planet out of all the septillions or more of planets in the universe.

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.

I already did.

God is an entirely human construct, as imaginary as any character in fiction. You may as well attribute the making of the universe to Jor-El and Lara.

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 :

Expect you to make a reasoned and evidence-based case for your claim, of course. That would require you to understand why the hypotheses of Dark Matter investigation arose in the first place. But again, I wouldn't bother if I were you, since as I keep saying to you, "Dark Matter" is the name of a problem, not of a claimed solution at this time.

And if and when a solution is found, I suspect it won't involve imaginary beings for whose existence and magical powers there is no explanation or even demonstration.

Let me put it this way ─ what is the difference between the manner in which God exists and the manner in which Mickey Mouse exists? (Not, what is the difference between God and Mickey Mouse, but what is the difference in the manner they can be shown to exist?)

 

[Valjean]

Well given that you haven’t provide an alternative……………….i win by default

Huh? Please explain.
This smells like some kind of false dichotomy...

 

[leroy]

There is physical evidence of dark matter,

like what?Can you provide any evidence that couldn’t be dismissed as “dark matter of the gaps argument?”

and it explains certain observations.

the same is true with God

 

[Valjean]

You see no value in living for the benificial possibility? What is the value in being a skeptic? What is the value of pessimism?

One of the things I never understood about atheism is the rejection of a positive and beneficial possibility based not on nothing: no logic, no evidence, and no experience. And even weirder still, many want to deny these to others, as well.

Not everyone is seeking benefit. Some of us are simply seeking truth, regardless of utility.

 

[Valjean]

Youngster..!

Be nice -- let's not hold his youth and inexperience against him.

 

[leroy]

101, not accepting a claim does not equal rejecting a claim.
The conversation should be over till you are at least familiar with the basic concepts.

sounds like a dishonest word game.

 

[Valjean]

Abiogenesis doesn't start with nothing.
Can always ask "but where did that come from?", always something before every other something.

Exactly. Chemicals, chemistry, and environmental conditions preceeded abiogenesis -- and enabled it.