Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[GoodAttention]

Well, if you accept the problem of the thing in itself, then it is not just about an unknowable God.

What is the problem to accept?

The question is about necessity first and foremost. What makes reality necessary? There is either no answer, or the answer XYZ, which is either knowable or unknowable. Theists define XYZ as God and attempt to show God is knowable and "realizable", whilst an atheist will take the opposing view and say God/XYZ is unknowable and unrealizable.

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.

This is because of dichotomy. Whilst the atheist has no burden of belief, the difficulty for the theist is to reconcile that the atheist belief can also be true, and is in fact also a dimension of what God would be.

Saying God doesn't exist and saying God is unknowable and unrealizable are not the same. Proof becomes irrelevant with the latter, but not the former.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is the problem to accept?

The question is about necessity first and foremost. What makes reality necessary? There is either no answer, or the answer XYZ, which is either knowable or unknowable. Theists define XYZ as God and attempt to show God is knowable and "realizable", whilst an atheist will take the opposing view and say God/XYZ is unknowable and unrealizable.





This is because of dichotomy. Whilst the atheist has no burden of belief, the difficulty for the theist is to reconcile that the atheist belief can also be true, and is in fact also a dimension of what God would be.

Saying God doesn't exist and saying God is unknowable and unrealizable are not the same. Proof becomes irrelevant with the latter, but not the former.

Well, as an atheist I have found that I don't just live life as an atheist.
So for the rest of what I do, I do have burden of proof for claims about how the world or an aspect of the world works.

 

[GoodAttention]

Well, as an atheist I have found that I don't just live life as an atheist.

And most theists aren't jumping off cliffs believing Jesus will save them. Most of our lives are sleeping, eating, surviving, and enjoying our personal reality as best as we can regardless if we are atheists or theists.

So for the rest of what I do, I do have burden of proof for claims about how the world or an aspect of the world works.

The scientific method is based in reality and therefore any proof to a claim will comprehensible.
The theist Isaac Newton made claims about gravity that were only "proved" when man went to the moon.

Unless you are making a claim never made or proved before, you have no burden.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And most theists aren't jumping off cliffs believing Jesus will save them. Most of our lives are sleeping, eating, surviving, and enjoying our personal reality as best as we can regardless if we are atheists or theists.



The scientific method is based in reality and therefore any proof to a claim will comprehensible.
The theist Isaac Newton made claims about gravity that were only "proved" when man went to the moon.

Unless you are making a claim never made or proved before, you have no burden.

Yeah, how come we have methodological naturalism and not philosophical naturalism?

You seem to be unaware of the problems in epistemology.

 

[GoodAttention]

Yeah, how come we have methodological naturalism and not philosophical naturalism?

This goes back to the question I asked initially, which you did not answer.

You seem to be unaware of the problems in epistemology.

What is the proof of your conclusion?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This goes back to the question I asked initially, which you did not answer.


What is the proof of your conclusion?

So you don't accept that there can be a limit to positive proof and that sometimes the rational answer seems to be - I don't know.

I can explain if you accept an answer of I don't know.

 

[ratiocinator]

The question is about necessity first and foremost. What makes reality necessary?

How do you know it is necessary?

As @mikkel_the_dane keeps pointing out, there is a fundamental problem with 'why' questions, known as Agrippa's Trilemma or the Münchhausen trilemma.

Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've seen the argument from contingency many times and I've never seen anybody make any logical sense of the 'necessary entity' that is supposed to be its own reason for existing, couldn't have failed to exist, and couldn't have been different.

I guess this is the 'circular' option of the trilemma, but I can't even imagine something that would cause some contradiction if it didn't exist or was different, so it appears to be totally nonsensical.

 

[GoodAttention]

So you don't accept that there can be a limit to positive proof and that sometimes the rational answer seems to be - I don't know.

I did not use the word unknowable sarcastically.

I also never discussed proof, all my words thus far have been to provide definition and reference between atheists and theists.

I can explain if you accept an answer of I don't know.

Not knowing if you believe in an unknowable God that cannot be realized is more than acceptable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I did not use the word unknowable sarcastically.

I also never discussed proof, all my words thus far have been to provide definition and reference between atheists and theists.


Not knowing if you believe in an unknowable God that cannot be realized is more than acceptable.

I am an atheist. But I am more than just an atheist.

 

[GoodAttention]

How do you know it is necessary?

As @mikkel_the_dane keeps pointing out, there is a fundamental problem with 'why' questions, known as Agrippa's Trilemma or the Münchhausen trilemma.

Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've seen the argument from contingency many times and I've never seen anybody make any logical sense of the 'necessary entity' that is supposed to be its own reason for existing, couldn't have failed to exist, and couldn't have been different.

I guess this is the 'circular' option of the trilemma, but I can't even imagine something that would cause some contradiction if it didn't exist or was different, so it appears to be totally nonsensical.

Not at all. I said specifically that no answer is also an outcome, which in my opinion makes the question itself moot or irrelevant.

However, if reality is not necessary, then this should be the core of what an atheist believes. The question of God to such a person is irrelevant.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not at all. I said specifically that no answer is also an outcome, which in my opinion makes the question itself moot or irrelevant.

However, if reality is not necessary, then this should be the core of what an atheist believes. The question of God to such a person is irrelevant.

So it is okay for an atheist to believe in reality without proof? I am not sure I understand what you are saying?

 

[GoodAttention]

So it is okay for an atheist to believe in reality without proof? I am not sure I understand what you are saying?

As I keep saying, I am not talking about proof, or the burden of proof, I am merely attempting to get an understanding of definition and relatability between atheists and theists.

Going back, the first question to ask is, what makes reality necessary?

The absence of an answer makes the question moot, meaning reality is not necessary.
I propose there is an answer which is term XYZ.
Now we can have a belief that XYZ, the answer to what makes reality necessary, as knowable or unknowable, realizable or unrealizable.

In the context of theism, the answer XYZ is God. Therefore the two answers are God is knowable/realizable or God is unknowable/unrealizable.

I am attempting to get a direct answer or response to what I am proposing, but none can seem to give an answer.

 

[GoodAttention]

How do you know it is necessary?

I don't, I'm asking for your answer that ideally isn't a question.

A theist would say God makes reality necessary, but would an atheist reject the answer of God OR the question that reality is necessary.

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't, I'm asking for your answer that ideally isn't a question.

My answer to the fundamental question of why stuff exists is: I haven't a clue, but making up some God (or anything else) doesn't seem to get us anywhere, as it just leaves us with more 'stuff' to explain.

ETA: Long discussion in this paper (pdf): Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I keep saying, I am not talking about proof, or the burden of proof, I am merely attempting to get an understanding of definition and relatability between atheists and theists.

Going back, the first question to ask is, what makes reality necessary?

The absence of an answer makes the question moot, meaning reality is not necessary.
I propose there is an answer which is term XYZ.
Now we can have a belief that XYZ, the answer to what makes reality necessary, as knowable or unknowable, realizable or unrealizable.

In the context of theism, the answer XYZ is God. Therefore the two answers are God is knowable/realizable or God is unknowable/unrealizable.

I am attempting to get a direct answer or response to what I am proposing, but none can seem to give an answer.

Thanks for taking your time to explain it.
What do you actually mean with realizable/unrealizable?

 

[GoodAttention]

My answer to the fundamental question of why stuff exists is: I haven't a clue,

Ok! Now the next question is, do you believe we will find an answer based in science for what makes reality necessary?

but making up some God (or anything else) doesn't seem to get us anywhere, as it just leaves us with more 'stuff' to explain.

I agree when the question is what makes reality necessary.

 

[vijeno]

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

No. I guess this is a bit of a misunderstanding. I'm an atheist myself.

My whole point in this discussion is that an incomprehensible god simply does not matter.

So I might just as well have answered "yes" to your question.

An incomprehensible god might exist and not exist at the same time. It might be good and evil all at once. It might be "the All", "the Nothing", "beyond duality"....

All of this is fair and fun and beautiful, and I love to revel in such poetry. It's a nice feeling. But it has no consequences in real life.

 

[ratiocinator]

However, if reality is not necessary, then this should be the core of what an atheist believes.

Eh? Why?

Atheists just don't have belief in God or gods. There is no more that they should or shouldn't believe.....

 

[GoodAttention]

Thanks for taking your time to explain it.
What do you actually mean with realizable/unrealizable?

A comprehension of God that can be held without question

 

[GoodAttention]

Eh? Why?

Atheists just don't have belief in God or gods. There is no more that they should or shouldn't believe.....

I would argue that the question of God isn't reached if you don't believe reality is necessary.