Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[leroy]

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.

So far I have 3 problems with your concept of evidence, please let me know about your opinion

1 for example the hypothesis “there is life in other planets” is not falsifiable, si…………..but you can still have evidence for that hypothesis……………..so your “rule” that it has to be falsifiable seems wrong to me

something that wasn't observed before

2 seems arbitrary to me, why is observing something “before” be relevant? ….”John´s” fingerprints might be evidence for a crime, but it seems to me that it doesn’t matter if the fingerprints where observed before or after John was considered a suspect

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.

3 Well pretend you have a bowl full of red and green balls (50% of each color)

Then pretend that I picked 10 balls and they were all red………………wouldn’t that be evidence that I picked the red balls intentionally rather than randomly? The answer is obviously yes that would be evidence for “intent”………………………………but by your rules it wouldn’t be evidence because I could have intended to pick green balls or 50% of each ball or any other combination

that god could have done anything

I could have done anything with the balls too (pick 100% green balls, pick 100% red balls pick 50%red/50%green, pick 90%green 10%red , pick 60%red 40%green etc.)

But that doesn’t changes the fact that me picking 100% red balls would be evidence for intend and evidence against “random selection”……………so there is something obviously wrong with your “rule”……….what is your opinion on that?

 

[Pogo]

I am certain of nothing. I just write with authority.

Hmmm.

 

[PureX]

The "source of existence" logically would not be part of "existence".

Not necessarily.

I have made many sculptures in my life. I am therefor the 'source' of those artworks. They are representations of my mind and spirit at the time I created them. I am a "part of them" and they are a "part of me" precisely because I was their source. This is a common observation.

Do you see how this makes no sense?

Do you see how it does? Or are you still fighting it.

 

[leroy]

I'm not.



False equivalence. Common ancestry is an actual explanation (a genetic fact, actually). Not the name of a yet to be solved problem.



It's not. The problem is that you refuse to understand what physicists refer to when they talk about dark matter, even though plenty of people here have tried to explain it to you. As usual, you just stick to your falsehoods and ignore any and all corrections of your mistakes.

This is a you-problem.


I'm skipping the rest of your post, because all it does is continue to build on the same falsehood.

But you are still refusing to address my actual point……why?

All I am saying is that if I claim that there is a better alternative explanation that yours I have a burden proof and I am expected to provide explain support this alternative....................so ether agree or refute this statement

 

[leroy]

It's upto the one making the assertion to describe it in such a way that an objective metric is even possible, and if it is possible, what it looks like.
That's your job, not ours.

Your refusal to define evidence and provide an objective metric is telling……………..why are you afraid?............

What you really want is to keep the concept of evidence ambiguous so that you can repeat “it´s not evidence” over and over again

 

[PureX]

Yeah, that is not what I get when I google it. Or how I learned it in a book about logic.

There are 2 criteria at play and not just one. And even that is as per

No criteria was specified by your question. And none was needed. My response was correct regardless of any specific criteria. Now you want to discuss criteria. And that's fine. But it was not part of the question you asked, so it's unfair, now, to pretend that it I should have assumed it was.

"A valid argument need not have true premises or a true conclusion. On the other hand, a sound argument DOES need to have true premises and a true conclusion."

This is just semantic quibbling.

You can google other explanation, but it doesn't seem you understand valid and sound.

No need.

 

[ratiocinator]

And I explained why they were logically flawed.

No, you did not. You just asserted your own view again.

Irrelevant. You posted them as something you thought were viable alternatives. They weren't.

Why not? Is it a secret?

We are discussing the source of existence. No one has any idea what is "correct". All we can do is imagine the possibilities and debate them logically. The eternal existence and the self-enabled existence propositions are not logical.

You have yet to provide anything remotely logical to dismiss an eternal existence and your list is limited by your refusal to accept that there are multiple other options about time, and time is what you are clearly trying to use.

Time is an increment of change. No change. No time.

Why is it that every pseudo-intellectual theist, mystic, or whatever, uses this tired old drivel? It seems to be something that people who know nothing of the vast history of logical, philosophical, and scientific thought (including by theists) that has been brought to bear on the question, but want to sound as if they've had some significant insight, and actually thought about it.

Seriously, I've heard this so many times, but only from people who have no real knowledge of the subject.

You are trying to propose an eternity of change.

If you read what I said, you'd actually realise that I'm not. I have no idea, it doesn't matter to my point, and your objections to it as a possibility are simplistic and absurd.

You declared it eternal.

Obviously you can't even be bothered to even read what I'm saying. No, I did not.

Therefor it has to be an endlessly repeating cycle of change that isn't changing.

Cycles are not changeless. They couldn't actually cycle it they were.

See? The function changes value along the x-axis.

An eternity is infinite. Your numbers are irrelevant.

If there was an actual reduction in change now, as time extends, then you might have a point, but the length of time beyond our awareness is actually totally irrelevant.

The increments of "time" are irrelevant because they are measuring an eternity. It's simply illogical to measure an eternity of time.

You cannot assert something into being illogical.

Yet again, you are basically trying to tell everybody that the vast intellect of @PureX is way beyond all the scientists, philosophers, and logicians, who have ever lived, at that you alone have had this amazing insight that has eluded everybody else.

It's just silly.

I am certain of nothing.

You seem to be extremely certain that infinite time is impossible, and that only your view of time is valid.

In contrast, I'm listing multiple possibilities and not trying to promote any particular view (except to the limited extent we have evidence).

I just write with authority simplistic overconfidence.

FIFY.

 

[ratiocinator]

1 for example the hypothesis “there is life in other planets” is not falsifiable, si…………..but you can still have evidence for that hypothesis……………..so your “rule” that it has to be falsifiable seems wrong to me

We don't have any evidence for life on other planets. What we have is a hypothesis based on what we know and some (apparently) reasonable assumptions. It isn't falsifiable in general, but our hypothesis is (in principle, anyway). If we could examine a big enough sample of planets, then our assumptions that form its basis could be undermined.

2 seems arbitrary to me, why is observing something “before” be relevant? ….”John´s” fingerprints might be evidence for a crime, but it seems to me that it doesn’t matter if the fingerprints where observed before or after John was considered a suspect

Selective quoting. You missed out the 'or' that came after. Fingerprints are either a conformation of a hypothesis or a new piece of information that requires a new hypothesis to explain.

Then pretend that I picked 10 balls and they were all red………………wouldn’t that be evidence that I picked the red balls intentionally rather than randomly? The answer is obviously yes that would be evidence for “intent”………………………………but by your rules it wouldn’t be evidence because I could have intended to pick green balls or 50% of each ball or any other combination

Relevance? There is no evidence of an intentional god that corresponds to this, and it's also the case that if you did it randomly, enough times, then you'd inevitably pick any and all combinations.

You can't read intentionality into the universe without the context that we don't have.

 

[leroy]

We don't have any evidence for life on other planets. What we have is a hypothesis based on what we know and some (apparently) reasonable assumptions. It isn't falsifiable in general, but our hypothesis is (in principle, anyway). If we could examine a big enough sample of planets, then our assumptions that form its basis could be undermined.


Selective quoting. You missed out the 'or' that came after. Fingerprints are either a conformation of a hypothesis or a new piece of information that requires a new hypothesis to explain.

good enough, thanks for clarify

Relevance? There is no evidence of an intentional god that corresponds to this, and it's also the case that if you did it randomly, enough times, then you'd inevitably pick any and all combinations.

You can't read intentionality into the universe without the context that we don't have.

I need a direct answer……yes or no? would me picking 100% red balls be evidence for intent?

Relevance?

You said that the main problem for god hypothesis is that god can do everything…………it doesn’t matter if we observe X, Y or Z or anything else ……. God could have done any of them and therefore none would count as evidence for god……………..is this a correct description of the problem that you described?

My example with the red and green balls is intended to illustrate that your reasoning is wrong

1 I could intentionally pick any combinations of balls (100% red balls, 100% green balls, 50% / 50% , 10% / 90% or any other combination…………..this is analogous to a god that can do anything ……..agree?

2 but me picking 100% red balls would obviously be evidence for intent agree?................(despite the fact that I could pick any other combination of balls)

If you agree with 1 and 2 then you have to reject your reasoning ………….the fact that God could have done X, Y OR Z or anything else, doesn’t refute the claim that observing “X” is evidence for god.

do you see why your "main objection" to god hypotheis is not really big of a deal?

There is no evidence of an intentional god that corresponds to this,

Irrelevant, my goal with the red and Green balls was to show that your main objection is based on a flawed reasoning …………

 

[leroy]

Massive non sequitur.

As I said before, there is nothing wrong with not having an alternative, and still pointing out that you have made no coherent logical or evidence based case for your 'option', so we reject it.

Do you really live in a world in which everybody is forced to have some preferred explanation for everything, no matter how scant the evidence?

If we found no evidence at all about, for example, who murdered somebody, would you then accept that some random bloke found in the vague vicinity of it must be guilty because there's no alternative being offered...? Perhaps you'd accept it was the fairies because nobody was found near the scene of the crime?

This is madness.

Granted, but straw man.

My claim is that *if* someone claims (or implies) to have a better alternative he has to provide that alternative, develop the argument and support it

So please ether grant or refute my actual claim

 

[leroy]

So subjectivity and a false dichotomy.

Yes, if you are asking about my personal believes and my personal reasons, chances say that it would be something subjective.

Wow. There's this big bridge in London I'm selling at a bargain price, you interested in buying it?

I understand the reference, but I dont see your point

 

[leroy]

If somebody claims that they have an explanation, then they have the burden

yes that is what I keep saying.............. I wonder why your atheist freinds have so many truble in understanding

There is nothing wrong with rejecting all proposed explanations, and saying that there is no good reason to accept any of them. It then remains unknown.

ETA: Why is it that some theists seem to think people can't possibly just live with "I don't know"....?

Agree, that is what I keep saying over and over again.

1 if you don’t claim that any particular alternative is better, then you can say “I don’t know” and avoid a burden

2 if you claim that some alternavie is better than other………..then you have a burden

This is what I keep saying over and over again

 

[leroy]

The claim is that it doesn't even mean enough to be an alternative. It's vacuous, content-free fantasy that even theists can't agree amongst themselves about.

Then all you have to do is ask for a definition applicable in that specific conversation…………………I don’t see where the problem is.

 

[leroy]

The claim is that it doesn't even mean enough to be an alternative. It's vacuous, content-free fantasy that even theists can't agree amongst themselves about.

Then all you have to do is ask for a definition applicable in that specific conversation…………………I don’t see where the problem is.

 

[leroy]

The claim is that it doesn't even mean enough to be an alternative. It's vacuous, content-free fantasy that even theists can't agree amongst themselves about.

Then all you have to do is ask for a definition applicable in that specific conversation…………………I don’t see where the problem is.

 

[ratiocinator]

You said that the main problem for god hypothesis is that god can do everything…………it doesn’t matter if we observe X, Y or Z or anything else ……. God could have done any of them and therefore none would count as evidence for god……………..is this a correct description of the problem that you described?

My example with the red and green balls is intended to illustrate that your reasoning is wrong

1 I could intentionally pick any combinations of balls (100% red balls, 100% green balls, 50% / 50% , 10% / 90% or any other combination…………..this is analogous to a god that can do anything ……..agree?

2 but me picking 100% red balls would obviously be evidence for intent agree?................(despite the fact that I could pick any other combination of balls)

If you agree with 1 and 2 then you have to reject your reasoning ………….the fact that God could have done X, Y OR Z or anything else, doesn’t refute the claim that observing “X” is evidence for god.

do you see why your "main objection" to god hypotheis is not really big of a deal?

The problem is that your analogy breaks down at point 2.

If all we have is the result, a pile of red balls, with no knowledge of a bowl with some combination of balls, or a human with their eyes open, picking them out on just one occasion, then you can't reason back to them from the red balls we see.

It comes back to the unknown context when we talk about the universe. Guessing about it can only make it less probable, not more (conjunction fallacy).

 

[ratiocinator]

My claim is that *if* someone claims (or implies) to have a better alternative he has to provide that alternative, develop the argument and support it

Okay, but the problem is that you're reading that back into the mere dismissal of the God claim: "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."

 

[ratiocinator]

1 if you don’t claim that any particular alternative is better, then you can say “I don’t know” and avoid a burden

2 if you claim that some alternavie is better than other………..then you have a burden

But the argument isn't about an alternative, at least not about the reason (if there is one) for existence (temporal cause is another matter), it's just that you haven't made your case in the least bit credible.

If we have some unsolved problem, and I just say, for example, "it was the fairies", you don't need to provide some alternative hypothesis to see that it's a bizarre and baseless assumption.

 

[leroy]

The problem is that your analogy breaks down at point 2.

If all we have is the result, a pile of red balls, with no knowledge of a bowl with some combination of balls, or a human with their eyes open, picking them out on just one occasion, then you can't reason back to them from the red balls we see.

It comes back to the unknown context when we talk about the universe. Guessing about it can only make it less probable, not more (conjunction fallacy).

Nobody is guessing, in this hypothetical example there are hundreds of balls in the bowl and 50% of them are red and 50% are green………..and you are observing a person grabbing the balls with his eyes open.

And there are 2 hypotheses (intent and random chance)

My point is that if all the 10 balls that where picked where red, that would be evidence for intent………………despite the fact that any other combination could have also be the result of intent



This is the third time I ask………. Is getting 100% red balls evidence for intent? I need an direct yes or no answer

 

[Pogo]

I need a direct answer……yes or no? would me picking 100% red balls be evidence for intent?

No, not with out evidence for your creator and its ability to choose, otherwise the selection of any string is possible. This is just the argument from ignorance all over again, you don't know how it could have happened therefore god. Maybe not HS probability, but 1st course in junior college at worst.
Reality is not always intuitive (common sense).