Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[GoodAttention]

Who's claiming God doesn't exist? This strawman keeps coming up in these theism-atheism discussions, despite repeated clarification from the atheist side. It seems firmly ensconced deep the theist mind; popping up when their apologetics guard is down.

You attack the question as a means to deflect, so let’s keep it very very simple.

Answer this question - Does God exist?

 

[GoodAttention]

Why assume there were actual interactions with any gods? Occam's Razor says it's more likely that these are just claims made by fallible mortals.

Has Occam’s Razor been tested using scientific method?

That would mean rejecting the claim is dumb since the claim is true based on your standard. Creationists reject evolution even though it is a realizable claim. And they are incorrect and irrational.

I concur.

Why can't a critical thinker reject claims that aren't realizable? They are the most reasonable to reject.

Claims based solely within reality should be rejected if they aren’t realisable.

Then you aen't accepting a personal experience or observation of God, so must be accepting what another person is claiming about God. Why are you accepting what they say when you can't verify it for yourself?

You presume all discussions are of a metaphysical nature. Most claims are based within creation and reality. I accept claims that are historical because certain claims correlate with my understanding of geology, or nature, or climate events independently to me hearing the claim. When these “coincidences” start adding up it becomes my realisation.

Just not about your specific version of God existing, which you can't verify by your own admission.

It can involve questions, but not necessary.

Your problem is you hold a position as black and white. I define my God purposefully that way because it should be, in my opinion, the default position. I can layer another definition for God on top, knowing that my initial definition remains true. The more I “know” of God and the more I “realize” is a good experience for me, and that’s why I do it.

I’ve accepted a version of your truth, but also accept there are more truths I can hold.

 

[F1fan]

Has Occam’s Razor been tested using scientific method?

You must not understand what it is. It's commonly used in debate and you should learn what it means.

I concur.

Then why did you say that the only claim that can be rejected are those that can be realized? Agreeing with me means you admit to being wrong.

Claims based solely within reality should be rejected if they aren’t realisable.

Which is why the claims of any gods existing are rejected.

You presume all discussions are of a metaphysical nature.

I never claimed any such thing.

Most claims are based within creation and reality.

Only religious claims fall into the category since they assume a creation. Otherwise, no.

I accept claims that are historical because certain claims correlate with my understanding of geology, or nature, or climate events independently to me hearing the claim. When these “coincidences” start adding up it becomes my realisation.

Sounds like setting the stage for confirmation bias. Why not just defer to the rules of logic and use reason?

Your problem is you hold a position as black and white.

I suspect your issue here is the inconvenience of binary truths, like up/down, true/false, right/left, etc. Those arguing for ideological beliefs try to blur clarity like true versus false. Those who seek truth are careful to not blur what we can know.

I define my God purposefully that way because it should be, in my opinion, the default position.

So you are the authority that can create a God, but only for yourself. Why?

I can layer another definition for God on top, knowing that my initial definition remains true. The more I “know” of God and the more I “realize” is a good experience for me, and that’s why I do it.

And here's the confirmation bias. You create the God, and then create the experience with it in your mind. Masturbation works in a similar way.

I’ve accepted a version of your truth, but also accept there are more truths I can hold.

Why are you framing truth as if it is subjective? Truth means being consistent with what is true.

 

[ppp]

Your problem is you hold a position as black and white. I define my God purposefully that way because it should be, in my opinion, the default position. I can layer another definition for God on top, knowing that my initial definition remains true. The more I “know” of God and the more I “realize” is a good experience for me, and that’s why I do it.

I’ve accepted a version of your truth, but also accept there are more truths I can hold.

What you can define and what you can to accept is not in question. Anyone can define a thing and then accept it. People do everyday. People accept and define BS everyday. No one questions whether or not you can do that. The question is can you do anything more than that?

 

[GoodAttention]

You must not understand what it is. It's commonly used in debate and you should learn what it means.

And you stand by its use as appropriate within the context of a single, not multiple, outcomes?

Then why did you say that the only claim that can be rejected are those that can be realized?

Should read can’t be realised

Agreeing with me means you admit to being wrong.

Wrong about what?

Which is why the claims of any gods existing are rejected.

I never claimed any such thing.

Only religious claims fall into the category since they assume a creation. Otherwise, no.

Sounds like setting the stage for confirmation bias. Why not just defer to the rules of logic and use reason?

I suspect your issue here is the inconvenience of binary truths, like up/down, true/false, right/left, etc. Those arguing for ideological beliefs try to blur clarity like true versus false. Those who seek truth are careful to not blur what we can know.

You are projecting how you approach reality.

So you are the authority that can create a God, but only for yourself. Why?

If you were a theist you would do the same.

And here's the confirmation bias. You create the God, and then create the experience with it in your mind. Masturbation works in a similar way.

You would understand it in such a way because you also understand the reason why you engage in a religious forum, which is for a dopamine hit seeing your words on a screen as a form of accomplishment.

It’s not. But you will be back for the same circular mindless belligerent conversation.

Why are you framing truth as if it is subjective? Truth means being consistent with what is true.

It’s my truth. It’s not for you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes I think I got confused also.

You defined God, so this is a knowable God, but you accept this God cannot be realized. This is an agnostic theist view.

No, not according to my opinion about how knowledge works. To me I defined that version of God, so that God is in effect unknowable.
To define the meaning of a word is not the same as knowing the referent of the word.

 

[GoodAttention]

No, not according to my opinion about how knowledge works. To me I defined that version of God, so that God is in effect unknowable.
To define the meaning of a word is not the same as knowing the referent of the word.

Interesting. I had to look up the meaning of referent.
In your opinion is there a difference between defining a version of God, and a description of God?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't see not accepting as the same as rejecting. In many cases the two may have the same practical outcome, but they're not equivalent.

I neither accept your God-claim nor reject it, inasmuch as my belief is evidence based. My only claim is that you have not yet met your burden. This is not equivalent to your ontological claim.

What is your evidence that your experiences correspond to something objectively real?
If you have that, then you are the first human in history to have such evidence and you should really write to all the big scientific and philosophical journals as it is the greatest discovery so far in human history.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Interesting. I had to look up the meaning of referent.
In your opinion is there a difference between defining a version of God, and a description of God?

No, there is a difference between the meaning of a word and what the word is about.
Take the word unicorn. That we have such a word with that meaning is not the same as seeing an actual unicorn.

 

[ratiocinator]

According to your rules .....Would detecting a Dyson sphere count as evidence for aliens ?

They're not my rules, I just tried to give you a summary of how evidence is generally used. If you could show that you had definitely found technology (doesn't really matter what) of non-human origin, that is good evidence for the hypothesis of intelligent alien life. Of course, there are practical difficulties of being sure over large distances, because all you'll have is indirect observations that might be misinterpreted and might have a natural explanation. The discovery of pulsars is a case in point, the first signal being referred to as LGM-1 (Little Green Men 1).

 

[GoodAttention]

What you can define and what you can to accept is not in question. Anyone can define a thing and then accept it. People do everyday. People accept and define BS everyday. No one questions whether or not you can do that.

You can't do this solo, you need to test your definition amongst a group of peers or informed individuals. Otherwise you're just listening to the sound of your own voice. If you are in luck people will question you instead of berate you.

The question is can you do anything more than that?

Aim for consensus.

 

[blü 2]

Answer this question - Does God exist?

God never appears, never says, never does.

The only manner in which God is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain, very often as a result of acculturation.

There is not even a description of God appropriate to a real entity. Instead God is described in imaginary terms such as omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, infinite, eternal &c &c.

Nor is there any meaningful definition of "godness", the real quality a real God would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead &c would lack.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God never appears, never says, never does.

The only manner in which God is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain, very often as a result of acculturation.

There is not even a description of God appropriate to a real entity. Instead God is described in imaginary terms such as omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, infinite, eternal &c &c.

Nor is there any meaningful definition of "godness", the real quality a real God would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead &c would lack.

The only manner in which real is known to exist is as a concept, notion, property imagined in an individual brain, very often as a result of acculturation.

 

[vijeno]

The only manner in which real is known to exist is as a concept, notion, property imagined in an individual brain, very often as a result of acculturation.

We need two separate forums, one for solipsists and one for the rest of us. ;-)

For real, if you take it seriously, there is no communicating between the two. It can be fun, à la zen or nondualism, but over time it can get quite tiresome and boring, repeating the same objection over and over and over to oneself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We need two separate forums, one for solipsists and one for the rest of us. ;-)

For real, if you take it seriously, there is no communicating between the two. It can be fun, à la zen or nondualism, but over time it can get quite tiresome and boring, repeating the same objection over and over and over to oneself.

I am not a solipsist or nihilist. I am a cogntive relativist.
I accept that you have those feelings, but I do consider your objection to be a subjective one without evidence.

As for real, from that doesn't follow that the universe is natural. Only that the universe in effect doesn't "cheat" and that you can trust your experiences.

 

[blü 2]

The only manner in which real is known to exist is as a concept, notion, property imagined in an individual brain, very often as a result of acculturation.

Let's test this with an experiment.

Select a large solid brick.

Stand on a hard floor. Smooth concrete, for example.

Take off your shoes.

From chest height, drop the brick (unimpeded) onto your foot.

Is the brick real or imaginary, will you conclude?

 

[Valjean]

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

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

Are you setting up for an ontological argument?

Your wording presupposes its existence with your usage of "an entity". You're speaking it into existence. Logically, though, if an extant entity is unknowable and irrational, acceptance of it as objectively real and independent of the imagination of the imaginer would itself be irrational.

 

[GoodAttention]

Are you setting up for an ontological argument?

Thanks. Not my intention no.

Your wording presupposes its existence with your usage of "an entity". You're speaking it into existence. Logically, though, if an extant entity is unknowable and irrational, acceptance of it as objectively real and independent of the imagination of the imaginer would itself be irrational.

I accept an unknowable God that cannot be realized. Thoughts?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let's test this with an experiment.

Select a large solid brick.

Stand on a hard floor. Smooth concrete, for example.

Take off your shoes.

From chest height, drop the brick (unimpeded) onto your foot.

Is the brick real or imaginary, will you conclude?

Well, it is unknown if my experiences correspond with the objectively real or not.

That is why I hold as one of my non-true and without evidence beliefs/axiomatic assumptions that objective reality is real. But I have no evidence that objective reality is real.

Hence to me knowledge is an in effect cogntive belief system for which it apparently ends in how it makes sense to a given individual. I.e. cognitive relativism.

 

[PureX]

So now we agree that there IS an external world, that we DO perceive it, and the only question is how well we perceive it.

"World" is an imaginary concept. "Inside" and "outside" is an imaginary concept. "Perception" is an imaginary concept. We agree that existence is SOMETHING. But what that something is, is up to our imaginations.

To which I reply that science actively seeks better and better ways of perceiving it, and better and better ways of understanding it, and better and better ways of benefiting from it.

I don't think we're on course to agree about "true knowledge" as anything special. "Accurate knowledge" would cover the situation as I see it, and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality ie with our understanding of reality at the time.

Yes, we experience subjectively, but science, utterly unlike religion, goes to great lengths to maximize objectivity, and so, although perfection isn't possible, 'very good by existing standards' is possible, and is revised steadily on an ongoing basis.

Science is just as imaginary as anything else we humans conceptualize.