Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

By Jove, I think he's starting to get it!

Yes, the proposition is that God TRANSCENDS the limitations of existence (space, time, matter, etc.). Which would be quite logical if God were being proposed as the SOURCE of existence. Which it is. In fact, this makes more logical sense than proposing that the existence that we experience in every way as finite, and evolving, is actually eternal (infinite and perpetual), or that existence somehow managed to enable itself into being.

Just sayin'.

And we are right back to special pleading for this Transcendent thing that you posit without evidence to solve your dilemma.

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you calling yourself an atheist and then pretending that you're undecided? If so, which one of these are you lying about? Being an atheist or being undecided? If not, then my post was not about you. There are atheists that are honest about the fact that they adhere to the idea that no gods exist. And they do not pretend to be undecided about it. There are also a lot of people that are undecided, and therefor do not presume that any gods exist, or that they don't exist. But those people don't label themselves atheists because, ... well ... why would they? They aren't.

I'm gonna repeat what @ratiocinator just posted:

"It's a rejection of the case put forward by theists as to why we should take the idea of 'God' at all seriously. Hence, we don't take it seriously. That doesn't rule out future evidence or reasoning that might make the idea make more sense. Nor does it rule out the possibility of some 'God' that is simply inaccessible via either reasoning or evidence - but that would mean, by definition, there would be no reason to take the idea seriously and the rational response would still be to not believe it.

This is basically exactly how every reasonable person approaches non-theist claims too."

 

[PureX]

And we are right back to special pleading for this Transcendent thing that you posit without evidence to solve your dilemma.

I don't care that this poses a "dilemma" for you. It is not an illogical proposition. It's simply an unverifiable one. Whereas the finite-yet-eternal existence proposal is not logical (self-contradictory), and neither is the self-enabling existence proposal (logically impossible). Which leaves the transcendent source proposal the last one standing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And you didn't actually read a word I posted. So we're even, I guess.

LOL I read every single word.
Funny that you think you can see inside my mind though.

This is obviously just defensive projection, on your part.

 

[leroy]

What you're describing is a non-existent thing. Something that doesn't exist in space, doesn't exist in time, and is not material, is a description of something that doesn't exist.

that is quite a strong and positive claim of knowledge,.............. can you show that Speceless timeless inmaterial things cant´excist?................or is it true just because you say so?


Or let me guess, for some strange reason, you don’t have to support your assertion

 

[ratiocinator]

It is not an illogical proposition.

It's an all but meaningless one that actually explains exactly nothing.

Whereas the finite-yet-eternal existence proposal is not logical (self-contradictory), and neither is the self-enabling existence proposal (logically impossible). Which leaves the transcendent source proposal the last one standing.

This is still illogical nonsense, for reasons I've explained at great length and you haven't responded to - most recently in #4,003 and #3,972. You are basically claiming to have superior reasoning abilities, not only to scientists using actual evidence, but to most philosophers throughout history, including theists.

I guess if you really are that arrogant, then there's probably nothing that will get through to you.

 

[Pogo]

I don't care that this poses a "dilemma" for you. It is not an illogical proposition. It's simply an unverifiable one. Whereas the finite-yet-eternal existence proposal is not logical (self-contradictory), and neither is the self-enabling existence proposal (logically impossible). Which leaves the transcendent source proposal the last one standing.

Just NO, your position is a faith position as the necessity of a Transcendence demonstrates it is not a rational or logical position.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What you're describing is a non-existent thing. Something that doesn't exist in space, doesn't exist in time, and is not material, is a description of something that doesn't exist.

So you've posited something that doesn't exist, as the cause of the universe.

No, if we can only know things in time, space and as material, then something not that is unknowable, not non-existent.

Unknown is not non-existence.

 

[F1fan]

Well that is quite convinient………

It’s a problem for theists that facts don’t support their beliefs. You claim a God is the best alternative without any factual basis. Your gripe is with nature, not those of us seeking truth.

My suggestion for the origin of the universe (all physical reality including space and time) is that the universe had a cause, a speceless, timeless, immaterial, personal and intelligent cause, that I happen to call God, but you can call it however you whant…………..

Yeah, it’s an idea you adopted and adapted from learning these religious traditions from your cultural experience. Many believers make this assumption because they want their beliefs to be relevant and supported. There just aren’t any facts.

why is this alternative not a serious suggestioni ?.............

The lack of facts that suggest any supernatural exists. You can’t just assert one exists. You need evidence. And excellent evidence at that since a supernatural is a category that is contrary to what we experience. Notice how science never refers to a supernatural as existing.

or is it another case of “it´s true because I say so)

That is what you theists are doing, that a God is the best alternative because you say so. Because many cultural traditions say so. Where’s the damn evidence?

 

[SkepticThinker]

that is quite a strong and positive claim of knowledge,.............. can you show that Speceless timeless inmaterial things cant´excist?................or is it true just because you say so?

No, it's the logical conclusion drawn from your assertions about the lack of qualities this thing supposedly doesn't possess.

It's the reason you can't demonstrate the existence of the god you're claiming. You're not describing it's qualities. Rather, you're describing it's lack of qualities. Which isn't a description of the thing at all. It's just a list of things it doesn't have. And what you've described is something that we have no knowledge or evidence that would demonstrate it could even exist at all. Existence, as far as all existing evidence indicates, is temporal.

Or let me guess, for some strange reason, you don’t have to support your assertion

This is a response to YOUR assertion.

 

[F1fan]

Okay, lets recentre this and start again, keeping it simple.

If an entity is unknowable and can not be rationalized, does it exist?

You’re asking about the properties if some arbitrary entity, and in doing so you imply it exists. It’s a poorly worded question. There are many things that exist that aren’t known, and in no way does that impact whether it exists or not.

If you think a God exists then was your judgment deliberate via sound and convincing evidence? Or is it an idea you adopted from your social experience and never subjected it to scrutiny?

The reason the search for truth requires evidence is because our knowledge is dependent on it. Guesses and speculation means nothing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, it's the logical conclusion drawn from your assertions about the lack of qualities this thing supposedly doesn't possess.

It's the reason you can't demonstrate the existence of the god you're claiming. You're not describing it's qualities. Rather, you're describing it's lack of qualities. Which isn't a description of the thing at all. It's just a list of things it doesn't have. And what you've described is something that we have no knowledge or evidence that would demonstrate it could even exist at all. Existence, as far as all existing evidence indicates, is temporal.



This is a response to YOUR assertion.

All knowledge for humans require time, space and experience of something so far. If something lacks that, it is unknown if it exists or not.
We humans don't decide based on how we understand what exists or not. Rather our understanding limits our ability to say what exists according to the condintions for which we can say so.

 

[GoodAttention]

yes it is an exercise in language ie, logic and philosophy, I used x because that is generally what is used for the undefined.

This proposal you have now is different in that is a positive belief in a negative. it is equivalent to believe it does not exist which is different than lack of belief regarding existence.

The problem seems to be that theists seem to want atheists to make statements about this undefined. (I would say entity, but even that is too strong) without anything to go on.
We can't answer @leroy's better or worse, or @PureX 's whatever argument. Does what exist?

Hopefully this makes sense.

It does somewhat. I can say a Flying Spaghetti Monster, an entity that can be defined, and therefore knowable, cannot be realized. I can also say it doesn’t exist since I have defined it.

An entity without definition doesn’t exist. How then does an atheist put the theist in atheist?

An atheist can attack the concept itself and say God is unknowable, meaning without definition or undefinable, and can not be realized, meaning evidence for its existence can not be obtained observed.

 

[GoodAttention]

You’re asking about the properties if some arbitrary entity, and in doing so you imply it exists. It’s a poorly worded question.

Ok

There are many things that exist that aren’t known, and in no way does that impact whether it exists or not.

Do you have an example? And can any of these things you mention be realized?

If you think a God exists then was your judgment deliberate via sound and convincing evidence? Or is it an idea you adopted from your social experience and never subjected it to scrutiny?

I accept God is unknowable and cannot be realized, but I also attempt to know God and realize Him. I hold the first statement as true and attempt to prove it wrong.

The reason the search for truth requires evidence is because our knowledge is dependent on it. Guesses and speculation means nothing.

I agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It does somewhat. I can say a Flying Spaghetti Monster, an entity that can be defined, and therefore knowable, cannot be realized. I can also say it doesn’t exist since I have defined it.

An entity without definition doesn’t exist. How then does an atheist put the theist in atheist?

An atheist can attack the concept itself and say God is unknowable, meaning without definition or undefinable, and can not be realized, meaning evidence for its existence can not be obtained observed.

I think I have a different understanding of knowledge.
I could define God as an unmoved first mover outside the universe. Thus God is defined, yet unknowable.
As unknowable it can't be know if God exists or not.

 

[GoodAttention]

Why would it be? Or, perhaps more to the point, why do you seem to so desperately want it to be?

If I appear desperate it is because my question keeps getting met by another question.

 

[GoodAttention]

I think I have a different understanding of knowledge.
I could define God as an unmoved first mover outside the universe. Thus God is defined, yet unknowable.
As unknowable it can't be know if God exists or not.

The moment you define God you “know” God, or some aspect of God.

What you describe as unknowable I say cannot be realized.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The moment you define God you “know” God, or some aspect of God.

What you describe as unknowable I say cannot be realized.

No, I don't know God if God is outside the universe. I have a defintion I attach to the word "God", but that is not God.

The definition of a word is not the referent of a word.

 

[leroy]

It’s a problem for theists that facts don’t support their beliefs. You claim a God is the best alternative without any factual basis. Your gripe is with nature, not those of us seeking truth.

Yeah, it’s an idea you adopted and adapted from learning these religious traditions from your cultural experience. Many believers make this assumption because they want their beliefs to be relevant and supported. There just aren’t any facts.


The lack of facts that suggest any supernatural exists. You can’t just assert one exists. You need evidence. And excellent evidence at that since a supernatural is a category that is contrary to what we experience. Notice how science never refers to a supernatural as existing.


That is what you theists are doing, that a God is the best alternative because you say so. Because many cultural traditions say so. Where’s the damn evidence?

Ok,. So if there is no evidence for God, then you shouldn’t have any problem in proposing and supporting an alternative for the origin of the universe.

You need evidence. A

That is just a meme that you keep repeating

If you want evidence for God then explain exactly what you mean by evidence and provide an objective metric that would allow us to test if something qualifies as evidence or not………….it is very easy to simply repeat “there is no evidence”

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok,. So if there is no evidence for God, then you shouldn’t have any problem in proposing and supporting an alternative for the origin of the universe.


That is just a meme that you keep repeating

If you want evidence for God then explain exactly what you mean by evidence and provide an objective metric that would allow us to test if something qualifies as evidence or not………….it is very easy to simply repeat “there is no evidence”

You're the one claiming there is evidence, right?
So present the evidence you claim you have.