Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[blü 2]

That is a very interesting question.... But irrelevant and it seems like an attempt change the topic

On the contrary, my whole point is that God exists only in the same manner that Mickey Mouse exists, as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain, with no real counterpart (real meaning existing in the world external to the self).

All supernatural entities are of that kind, as their name says ─ not found in nature, the world external to the self.

And therefore not capable of creating the universe, since the universe existed for more than 13 billion years before the concept of gods and invisible agents in reality arose among our ancestors.

 

[Valjean]

3 if you disagree on that God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe..... Why shouldn't you be expected to provide an alternative?
Why making an arbitrary exception with god hypothesis? This is special pleading

No. The burden is yours. You're the one making the God-claim. Not believing it is not an alternative claim.

This false dichotomy between science and theism is nonsense.

The claim is that science (and logic) supports the conclusion the universe was caused by a timeless spaceless inmaterial , personal , inteligent etc... agent that we happen to call God........ If you disagree and claim that science supports a different conclusion then please share your argument

No. Noöne's claiming that science and logic supports this claim. We're claiming that you haven't met your burden in support of your God claim, ergo, the claim's set aside till you do. We're not proposing this alternate claim you're attributing to us.

Note that you are not being asked to expose all the flaws in my hypothesis, you are being asked to provide an alternative and to support it....... If you are not interested in having this conversation/debate then you are free not to participate in this line of comments

You're shifting the burden.

 

[PureX]

Is religion an ontological claim, or a psychotherapeutic modality?

Religion is a practice based on hope.

 

[PureX]

Is anyone claiming Belief in God can't have benefits? I thought we were discussing its truth, not its utility.

Utility is truth for we humans.

 

[Valjean]

You think your fate is to remain a dumb animal? Just doing whatever satisfies the animal's desires? Could it be that in seeking what we cannot attain that we might gain something even greater?

Fate? A Grand Design? A Master Plan? That's the premise you're basing this argument on?
Defend your premise.

 

[PureX]

I don't want you to be wrong, but I do get frustrated when you so assiduously choose to be after so many corrective and explanatory posts.

You clamp your mind shut and then complain that you can’t see. What do you expect me to do with that?

 

[Valjean]

Religion is a practice based on hope.

In my experience it's also a claim of truth. The whole 'practice' is based on its mythology being true.

 

[PureX]

A teleological claim? Any evidence to support it?

It is it’s own evidence.

 

[PureX]

In my experience it's also a claim of truth. The whole 'practice' is based on its mythology being true.

The truth is that faith works. That is the claim that religions make. For some odd reason, though, you really resent this.

 

[Valjean]

Stats have it that the world has never been as hot as it is now. If you ask me which I know you're not, I would say it's a losing game for anyone, including scientists, to play and try to solve the problems of the earth warming up to the degree it will and does kill people and essential things. I guess it's easier to play trying to figure how did life start.

Huh?
Can't science concern itself with more than one thing at a time?

 

[Valjean]

Utility is truth for we humans.

Hogwash!

 

[Valjean]

You clamp your mind shut and then complain that you can’t see. What do you expect me to do with that?

I'm not clamping my mind shut. I'm assessing claims using facts and reason. Refusing to accept 2+2=5 isn't being closed minded.

 

[Valjean]

It is it’s own evidence.

Horsefeathers! You have no evidence of purpose or intent. Claiming they're self-evident isn't evidence.

 

[Valjean]

The truth is that faith works. That is the claim that religions make. For some odd reason, though, you really resent this.

Faith works? At what? I wasn't aware that it was a tool.
Faith is unevidenced, unsound, unfounded belief. How is that useful? More importantly, how is it epistemically useful -- how is it evidence for a claim?

 

[YoursTrue]

Huh?
Can't science concern itself with more than one thing at a time?

You don't seem to get the point. The world isn't run by scientists, is it? It's run by greed and selfishness and instinct. For instance, methane gas emitted by cows are a prime ingredient causing global warmup, so say scientists, right? Methane emissions from livestock and climate change.
People aren't going to stop eating steaks, the cattle industry isn't going to say ok, we'll stop breeding cows...
Methane gas emissions by cattle is a big factor in worldwide warming, killing much in its unregulated way. And some people are threatened with death if they voice their opinions -- that includes politicians and others, isn't that true? Yes, it is.

 

[YoursTrue]

Faith works? At what? I wasn't aware that it was a tool.
Faith is unevidenced, unsound, unfounded belief. How is that useful? More importantly, how is it teleological useful -- how is it evidence for a claim?

Science sure isn't working to stop crime--undo global warmup--

 

[YoursTrue]

Horsefeathers! You have no evidence of purpose or intent. Claiming they're self-evident isn't evidence.

Some things are not self-evident for everybody. But for some, they are self-evident. If a tree falls in the forest but nobody is there to hear or watch it fall, it is nevertheless realistic to recognize that a reasonable, normal thinking person realizes it makes a noise when it falls even if they're not there. But that's not for everybody.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Not necessary, but most of the things we've learned about the world aren't "necessary." We spent 99% of our existence as hominins knowing almost nothing but how to knap flint. after all.

However, we're a curious species, and our curiosity about things that seemed silly or trivial at the time has driven a massive technology boom and expansion of understanding. Who knows what knowledge will come out of a study of origins?

The clock of the Atomic Scientists is pretty close to blast off time. Playing games by some scientists isn't going to stop bombs from falling while they scratch their heads trying to figure if the universe came from something or nothing.

 

[Pogo]

Non Impediti Ratione Cogitationis

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, most of us enjoy playing games. Nevertheless, things are getting pretty hot here...on this earth...killing vegetation, ruining the waters, killing people -- air conditioning invented by scientists just isn't doing enough to cool the earth now, is it? No need for a rock to fall to begin life as a possibility offered by some scientists -- nothing from outer space that causes or prevents mankind from killing itself. Unless, of course, a miracle happens...