Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[vulcanlogician]

It seems contradictory, but if you see it from this perspective you will understand:

A believer considers miracles to be the result of a display of knowledge and power on the part of a conscious person.
An atheist believes that things that exist came out of nothing in a miraculous way, obeying some natural laws that emerged out of nowhere, by themselves.

So who is the one who believes in miracles?

Y'know, poets have both theists and atheists BOTH beat as far as belief in miracles goes:

"To me, every hour of the day and night is an unspeakably perfect miracle."

--Walt Whitman

 

[Nakosis]

Well, that's semantics. But at the present time, we do not label animals and humans the same way because we do not consider them to be the same class of entities. Biologically, we are very similar, but cognitively we are VERY different. And the big difference is META-cognition. Not just conscious awareness, but the ability to be aware of that awareness. We humans possess this capability and the other animals do not. And like it or not, it is an extraordinary cognitive leap that it deserves to be employed and explored.

I don't see that we know enough about consciousness or cognition to make that claim. Only your hope/faith that this is true perhaps based on a need to be something greater. What we are, we are still discovering. What you prefer to believe doesn't change the reality of what we humans are. We will be that regardless of the millions of faith claims made of which you choose to have faith in a small percentage of.

We are about to destroy ourselves because we keep using our amazing cognitive gift to serve the dumb animal desires within us.

A narrative which I suppose feeds your need. I analyze my desires and understand which benefit my goals and which do not. I can do this without a need to believe in a greater reality. Accepting reality as it presents itself does nothing to diminish what we are capable of nor our ability for self improvement. There is nothing to fear in letting go of false narratives.

Reality IS a fantasy. Once we recognize this we can imagine a better reality, and make it happen. But "better" according to what? The transcending human within, or the dumb animal within?

If you don't accept this reality and it makes you feel better you are certainly free to believe that. However, we still have this reality before us to deal with regardless of the reality we'd prefer. What you'd like to believe won't change that. Recognition of this I find is the first step to mental well-being.

And you are 180 degrees wrong. Everything good that we humans have achieved so far we have achieved because we imagined a better world, acted accordingly, and thereby made it so.

We have made improvements by gaining better understanding of this reality that we find ourselves in and building on that understanding to improve our quality of life. Not fantasying about reality being something it is not. This is what science and technology do, not religion and faith. Our reality is revealed through the scientific method which increases our understand of the universe that does exist which we can reliably build on. There really is no need for anything else other than the physical reality of the universe in which we find ourselves.

 

[ratiocinator]

Supplemental to #3,972.

This theory is fatally flawed because it overlooks the very basic realization that time is an increment of change. Just as space, and motion, and heat, and light, and even matter are all just increments of change. Like the increments on a thermometer recording the increase in energy in a substantial field. Time is the increment recording movement through space (i.e., change). Claiming that time is somehow magically some static "block" is just completely ignoring the fact that the "block" is a block of change. In fact, the whole universe is basically one big 'block of change'.

Quite apart from dismissing the whole history of the philosophy of time, this is partly inept science (you are making claims about how the world works) and, in part, outlines something you keep on denying about the idea of a block universe.

Apparently, it's not only posters here that you think are being stupid but also most philosophers throughout history (including theists), as well as scientists (who we already knew you dismiss).

Yes, the 'block universe' is, in a way, a 'block of change' but it's change along one of the directions through the block. That's kind of the point. Change happens over space as well as time. Things vary from place to place as well as from time to time. Why can't the changes be similar, as philosophers who have postulated this version of time have postulated for a long time (and modern science has provided solid evidence of)?

So, in one way the 'block universe' is static, but it also contains change, over both time and space.

Which is completely antithetical to it being "eternal" (perpetually unchanged).

I am genuinely puzzled by how you reached this conclusion. Nothing you've said seems to be more than an assertion. An infinite amount of time, logically speaking, would endlessly repeat all possible changes, it must have the maximum variety possible. It can only be static in the sense of a 'block of change' (over both space and time). Why would extending it to infinity, somehow eradicate all change?

To be clear, this is intellectual curiosity, because I don't need time to be either finite or infinite to make the basic point that change and time only happen within the block (finite or infinite). So there would be no 'poofing' either way. As I said in the previous post, some theists have taken the same view.

Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Augustine of Hippo wrote that God is outside of time—that time exists only within the created universe. Thomas Aquinas took the same view, and many theologians agree. On this view, God would perceive something like a block universe, while time might appear differently to the finite beings contained within it.​

 

[Nakosis]

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...

More likely, science and technology will solve the problems we all face as this is what they were developed for. Much more likely than waiting for some omniscient being to swoop in and save us from ourselves. Either we do it our we don't.

Better to accept that it is all on us to keep humanity going and not some imaginary benevolent super being. Even if one exists, no guarantee that they give a rat's behind about the faith of humanity.

 

[Nakosis]

If I understood correctly, you were trying to use some conception of time to justify an existential eternity. But time is not relevant within an eternity. There is no 'before' or 'after' within an eternity. All time is the same time.

AND, this is clearly not the way that THIS existence is manifesting. THIS existence clearly does express a before and after, in ALL manner of things.

No, it doesn't. In fact, regardless of anyone's philosophy of anything, time is still passing for all. It still takes time for anything and anyone to move from "here" to "there". And moving back to "here" from "there" does not reverse that passage of time. Time is an increment of change, and in this existence, change is inescapable. Which is precisely why this existence is not eternal. The eternal does not change. Why would it? It's not going anywhere. It's not achieving anything. In fact the perfect example of eternity would be NON-existence.

Because 'eternity' means there is no time. Any time is all time. Time is therefor indistinguishable. Meaningless. And since time is really only an increment of change, then change is likewise an irrelevant concept within an absolute state of being. Logically, time and change become incoherent concepts when applied to an eternity.

I assume this refers to a universe that "banged" into being, but then fizzles out forever. If so, the original question remains unanswered: the source of the "bang". For existence to happen, it had to be possible. But how was it possible? What originated that possibility? This very logical question is what then logically requires some outside, transcendent source.

This theory is fatally flawed because it overlooks the very basic realization that time is an increment of change. Just as space, and motion, and heat, and light, and even matter are all just increments of change. Like the increments on a thermometer recording the increase in energy in a substantial field. Time is the increment recording movement through space (i.e., change). Claiming that time is somehow magically some static "block" is just completely ignoring the fact that the "block" is a block of change. In fact, the whole universe is basically one big 'block of change'. Which is completely antithetical to it being "eternal" (perpetually unchanged).

These theorists are trying to re-label change to make it eternal. But it just doesn't make any sense. The perfect eternal state (and one can clearly argue that eternity is, by definition, a perfect or absolute state) would be absolutely timeless, spaceless, completely undetermined and UN-changing.

I'll agree with you in this but we are going to be in the minority as science has found it useful to conceptualize time as something else. Spacetime, a necessary block to accept in order to cover the gaps in our understanding.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, you really like your emotional responces. That is good. It makes you a human.

It becomes even funnier every time you post such a reply.
If you want to know why, go back to the original post you tried to derail into your pet peeve rabbit hole and then compare that original post to how it ended (with you telling me I should go and read science books to find out about mental wellbeing, LOL)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, please give all relevant explanations for how subjective and objective work.
Or ask me.

Subjective is a matter of opinion (like finding peanuts tasty)
Objective is a matter of how reality works (like how peanuts will make an allergic person go into anaphylactic shock)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is wrong; there are many alternatives to dark matter, and if any of these alternatives happens to be true, the DM hypothesis would be falsified

The observation:

gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be seen.

Some alternatives are:

1 General Relativity is wrong

2 Scientists are not measuring the amount of matter correctly

3 Laws of gravity are different in other galaxies,

4 regular matter is producing the effect, dust, asteroids, black holes etc. (we just can´t detect it)

5 we live in a simulation, the observations are just glitches of this simulation

6 scientists are just lying and making up stuff in a big crazy conspiracy

7 Dark matter, there is a substance that has no light, nor energy, but it does has gravity that is causing this effect

We both agree on that 7 is the best alternative , My point is that anyone who disagrees and claims that 7 is not the best alternative, is expected to suggest an other alternative and sow that this alternative is better. Agree? (YES)

The same is true with any other hypothesis/theory/theorem/ecuation/ etc, anyone who claims that common ancestry is not the best explanation for genetic similarities, or that the heliocentric model is not the best, etc. is expected to provide an alternative agree? YES

So why are you making an arbitrary exception with the origin of the universe and God?

Do you even read the posts people address to you?
It sounds like you don't, since you write as if you are extremely unaware of them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Subjective is a matter of opinion (like finding peanuts tasty)
Objective is a matter of how reality works (like how peanuts will make an allergic person go into anaphylactic shock)

And that you think/feel something is funny, is not objective.
And in the broad sense of how you think/feel what is good for you, how you cope, what values you hold and so on, are subjective as per some of these defnitions:

Definition of SUBJECTIVE

of, relating to, or constituting a subject: such as; of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness; being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Now I am not a solipsist. I am in effect a cogntive relativst. I don't deny that in practice as part of what we call the universe is objective, but there is no strong objective evidence for what the universe is.
And for what matters to humans, that is subjective.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The truth is that faith works.

In what sense?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It becomes even funnier every time you post such a reply.
If you want to know why, go back to the original post you tried to derail into your pet peeve rabbit hole and then compare that original post to how it ended (with you telling me I should go and read science books to find out about mental wellbeing, LOL)

Okay, I back tracked:

And many have come to the conclusion that critical, logical, and evidence based thinking is the best way to navigate the world. It reduces one's susceptibility to being controlled by charlatans, snake oil salesmen, and would be dictators.

And yet, there is no evidence for what makes something the best as far as I can tell, as best has no objective referent with evidence.
And no, it is not solipsism and all that. It is in effect for meta-ethics the hurrah/boo theory.

The line back with answers ends with the post of @ratiocinator about the best way.

As for the world I stand by cogntive relativism and not solipsism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And that you think/feel something is funny, is not objective.

I didn't claim it was.
You really need to stop inventing what people say and start responding to what they actually say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, I back tracked:





The line back with answers ends with the post of @ratiocinator about the best way.

As for the world I stand by cogntive relativism and not solipsism.

You really don't see it, do you?

He was talking about science. How science is the best way.
Then you started your nonsense rant again, only to then end with telling me to go read science books to find out about well-being.
Implying you agree science is the best way to find out about that. If you thought there was another best way to find out about mental health, you would have advised me to take that route, but you didn't. You pointed to science.

Do you see how this is hilarious?

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot and dismantling your own nonsense.........................

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You really need to stop inventing what people say and start responding to what they actually say.

Yeah and a goal, i.e. that you want something to happen, is subjective for you wanting to happen, where as how to get it to happen can be objective, as you pointed out.

We are debating the world and not all of it is objective in practice.
And you don't subjectively get to declare that only the objective matters.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah and a goal, i.e. that you want something to happen, is subjective for you wanting to happen, where as how to get it to happen can be objective, as you pointed out.

We are debating the world and not all of it is objective in practice.
And you don't subjectively get to declare that only the objective matters.

I can only repeat myself.

I'm starting to think you suffer from OCD

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You really don't see it, do you?

He was talking about science. How science is the best way.
Then you started your nonsense rant again, only to then end with telling me to go read science books to find out about well-being.
Implying you agree science is the best way to find out about that. If you thought there was another best way to find out about mental health, you would have advised me to take that route, but you didn't. You pointed to science.

Do you see how this is hilarious?

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot and dismantling your own nonsense.........................

Yeah, I see no evidence for the word best as per external sensory experince as per observation as per see as per using my ability to see.
Best is a subjective state in a brain as per it not having an objective referent and seems to be a case of:
modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background; peculiar to a particular individual; personal.

You are aware that you use see as not actually seeing but understanding.
E.e. you can't actually see 2+2=4.

 

[vijeno]

Yes. How we choose to respond to the realization of the possibility is what defines us.

In essence, this is an appeal to consequences.

My point still stands: An incomprehensible god has no bearing on reality.

Also, this discussion is not about the beliefs and their supposed effects - it is about whether an incomprehensible god would affect reality if it existed. So far, you haven't shown that it would have any effect at all.

It means you will become your response.

How does one "become one's response"?

It depends on who you become in response to the realization that God is a possibility. If you choose to deny that possibility you will become an "atheist". If you choose to embrace that possibility you will become a theist. And there are all kinds and degrees of atheists and theists. But whichever you choose, you will live in the world as an expression of that choice. And you will effect the world as that expression.

What if I neither choose to deny anything, nor affirm the reality of the possibility, but simply think that it's irrelevant?

No, you are also disparaging those who trust in their God, because you are belittling the idea of trusting in God by implying it's just about feeling good. It's about a great deal more then that for most people. But you don't understand this because you didn't choose this path as your response to the God possibility.

I'm not disparaging anybody. If know it can be hard to face one's attachment to a fragile belief system, but open and honest debate matters much, much more than that.

I am not offended.

I don't believe you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I'm not disparaging anybody. If know it can be hard to face one's attachment to a fragile belief system, but open and honest debate matters much, much more than that.

...

Well, I also believe in that open and honest debate matters and even without evidence for that, I don't consider that a fragile belief system. Rather it works for me to believe in that.

 

[GoodAttention]

In essence, this is an appeal to consequences.

My point still stands: An incomprehensible god has no bearing on reality.

Would you agree that you believe in an unknowable God that cannot be realized?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Would you agree that you believe in an unknowable God that cannot be realized?

Well, if you accept the problem of the thing in itself, then it is not just about an unknowable God.
If you further then add Agrippa's Trilemma and the evil demon of Descartes' then unknowable is not just about God, but apparently a general problem for what objective reality is.