Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[PureX]

Yeah, we are all deluded and irrational. Now what we believe varies but the core delution is the same. That the universe must make sense, because otherwise it is meanigless and we don't like that. In other words the universe has to take care about our feelings and make sense.

The universe has to make sense so that we can learn how to control it.

In the end we humans are all about control. We want to be able to control our own fates. And to do that we must control everything around us. Some think they can do that by coopting "God", and some think they can do that by coopting "science" (scientism). And we want that control so badly that we will fight any truth that gets in the way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The universe has to make sense so that we can learn how to control it.

In the end we humans are all about control. We want to be able to control our own fates. And to do that we must control everything around us. Some think they can do that by coopting "God", and some think they can do that by coopting "science" (scientism). And we want that control so badly that we will fight any truth that gets in the way.

Well, then the core belief is that the universe is real, fair, orderly and knowable. But natural or supernatural is not needed.

 

[leroy]

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).

Ok but what objective metric do you propose to determine in A is evidence for B ?

From your previous post
1 B has to be falsifiable
2 A has to be an objective fact

Would you add add something else ? (Hopefully yes)

 

[ratiocinator]

I regret that you will never be able to grasp the obvious about human perception/conception being irrevocably subjective.

Except when you want it to be objective. Like your view of time is obviously absolutely right, despite millennia of philosophical thought that has come up with other options and the evidence from science that you are simply wrong. And the meaning of the word 'atheist', of course.

Opps, corrected "meaning of the word 'theist'" to 'atheist'.

 

[PureX]

Well, then the core belief is that the universe is real, fair, orderly and knowable. But natural or supernatural is not needed.

Belief is basically just a dishonest pretense of knowledge that we don't actually possess. Yes, we want the universe to be orderly so we can gain control of it. But it's not working. The more control we get, the more out of control we become. We want to be the gods of our own existence, but we simply are NOT. And the harder we try to make it so, the more it eludes us. So some of us turn to some "supernatural" solutions. And if done correctly, this can help them out. It does not make them gods of their own existence, of course, but it can certainly help them to live with the fact that they are not.

Others turn to science and elevate it to having near supernatural powers so they can tell themselves that learning to control the universe is still possible for them, even though the harder we humans try the more out of control we become.

So you are very wrong to assert that the supernatural is not needed. Because we humans are obsessed with gaining control that we will and should never have. And it makes us all crazy, and self destructive. And desperate for some supernatural solution. Right or wrong we clearly do think we NEED it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Belief is basically just a dishonest pretense of knowledge that we don't actually possess. Yes, we want the universe to be orderly so we can gain control of it. But it's not working. The more control we get, the more out of control we become. We want to be the gods of our own existence, but we simply are NOT. And the harder we try to make it so, the more it eludes us. So some of us turn to some "supernatural" solutions. And if done correctly, this can help them out. It does not make them gods of their own existence, of course, but it can certainly help them to live with the fact that they are not.

Others turn to science and elevate it to having near supernatural powers so they can tell themselves that learning to control the universe is still possible for them, even though the harder we humans try the more out of control we become.

So you are very wrong to assert that the supernatural is not needed. Because we humans are obsessed with gaining control that we will and should never have. And it makes us all crazy, and self destructive. And desperate for some supernatural solution. Right or wrong we clearly do think we NEED it.

Can you please stop talking in the name of a we, that is not there.
I cope neither through the supernatural, not through science.

I accept that other people cope differently and in the end I am a cogntive, moral and cultural relativist even for how to cope.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok but what objective metric do you propose to determine in A is evidence for B ?

From your previous post
1 B has to be falsifiable
2 A has to be an objective fact

Would you add add something else ? (Hopefully yes)

To be clear, evidence is never going to give you 100% certainty. Confidence comes when we have multiple opportunities for B to be falsified but isn't.

For A to be evidence, it should be something that wasn't observed before but is predicted by B, or had no explanation before, but is exactly and specifically explained by B. An example of the latter is that there was no reason in Newtonian physics why the 'mass' in the second law (resistance to acceleration) was the same as the 'mass' in the law of gravitation (gravitational 'charge' that determines the force produced between two masses). It just seemed like a strange coincidence. General relativity explained exactly why it is the case.

The main problem you run into with evidence for God is that god could have done anything and could do anything in the future (pretty much by definition), so specific prediction or retrodiction is impossible.

 

[PureX]

Can you please stop talking in the name of a we, that is not there.

The "we" is who we is. Sorry if you don't want to see it.

I cope neither through the supernatural, not through science.

Thinking (believing) that the universe is orderly and that you can gain a measure of control over it is embracing (and chasing) a "supernatural" ideal.

I accept that other people cope differently and in the end I am a cogntive, moral and cultural relativist even for how to cope.

We all are, more or less. But we're still all nuts. We still all want to be the gods of our own existence, and we will never be. So we will continue to drive ourselves to destruction trying to make it so.

Interestingly, this is the very first lesson being taught in the Bible.

 

[GoodAttention]

Well, then the core belief is that the universe is real, fair, orderly and knowable. But natural or supernatural is not needed.

Real and knowable I can understand. Fair and orderly suggest a "moral" characteristic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The "we" is who we is. Sorry if you don't want to see it.

Thinking (believing) that the universe is orderly and that you can gain a measure of control over it is embracing (and chasing) a "supernatural" ideal.

We all are, more or less. But we're still all nuts. We still all want to be the gods of our own existence, and we will never be. So we will continue to drive ourselves to destruction trying to make it so.

Interestingly, this is the very first lesson being taught in the Bible.

Yeah, if you mean that problem of how the universe seems to have give rise to humans, who use a cogntion that can't be reduced to being physical, then yes, I in part believe in the "supernatural".
But that is not the same as God or even "God".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Real and knowable I can understand. Fair and orderly suggest a "moral" characteristic.

Fair in the universe is in effect not a Boltzmann Brain universe and orderly in that we can trust the past, present and furture to make models of how the universe works.

 

[Valjean]

Well that is quite convinient………

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…………..why is this alternative not a serious suggestioni ?.............or is it another case of “it´s true because I say so)

Thanks. Not my intention no.



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

Just the usual: Why?

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, we are all deluded and irrational. Now what we believe varies but the core delution is the same. That the universe must make sense, because otherwise it is meanigless and we don't like that. In other words the universe has to take care about our feelings and make sense.

Have a lovely day.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Have a lovely day.

Thanks. And to you too.

 

[blü 2]

I regret that you will never be able to grasp the obvious about human perception/conception being irrevocably subjective.

Of course it's subjective, but as you know there are degrees of subjectivity, ways of working to increase objectivity. Subjectivity is not the total bogeyman that you long for it to be.

But each to their own, I guess.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course it's subjective, but as you know there are degrees of subjectivity, ways of working to increase objectivity. Subjectivity is not the total bogeyman that you long for it to be.

But each to their own, I guess.

Well, yes. Some beliefs appear to match the idea that objective reality is real better than others.

 

[GoodAttention]

Just the usual: Why?

Attempt to answer the question can I believe in something that doesn't exist.

 

[PureX]

Yeah, if you mean that problem of how the universe seems to have give rise to humans, who use a cogntion that can't be reduced to being physical, then yes, I in part believe in the "supernatural".
But that is not the same as God or even "God".

"Not the same as" is a relative presumption, though, isn't it.

It would not be illogical to presume that since the universe manifests cognition (through us), that the mystery source of the universe (God) would also manifest cognition. Or may in fact BE cognition: the sum total of a "hive mind" spread across the vastness of the universe,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Not the same as" is a relative presumption, though, isn't it.

It would not be illogical to presume that since the universe manifests cognition (through us), that the mystery source of the universe (God) would also manifest cognition. Or may in fact BE cognition: the sum total of a "hive mind" spread across the vastness of the universe,

Yeah, that makes sense to you. I don't need that.

 

[PureX]

Of course it's subjective, but as you know there are degrees of subjectivity, ways of working to increase objectivity. Subjectivity is not the total bogeyman that you long for it to be.

It's not a bogeyman at all. But it is all we have. There are no degrees of objectivity. There are only degrees of functionality relative to our totally subjective idea of "objective reality". But functionality is all it is. 'Useful is not necessarily truthful', as they say.

But each to their own, I guess.