Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[leroy]

I, and others, have addressed your point (ie; mistake) head-on.
You continue to falsely claim that Dark Matter is an actual explanation, while in reality it is merely the name of a yet-to-be-solved problem

And you have been corrected

Dark matter is something specific, with specific properties and characteristics (it doesn't emit light, it doesn't absorbe light, it has a gravitational force etc..)

If the problem is solve with something with different properties then it wouldn't be called DM.

.

Repeating this mistake is not going to change anything.


So you are just arguing a strawman?

Pointing out problems is what-you-call an explanation, does not imply there is a "better" explanation.
Furthermore, for there to be a "better" explanation, your assertion must first be recognized as even being an explanation.
It is not. Bare assertions based on falsehoods are not explanations.




And as has been explained so many times.... regardless of your proposition being an explanation or not, one does not require any "alternatives" to point out absurdities or problems in a proposed explanation.

When I reject the "explanation" that undetectable cookie monsters stole the cookies from the kitchen to account for the missing cookies, I by no means am required to come up with an alternative to validate that rejection.

I can just say "I don't know" while rejecting the unevidenced claim.

I agree, as I have made it very clear multiple times .... One only has a burden proof if one claims to have better alternatives ....


If that is not you (if you don't claim to have better alternatives to God) then you have no burden proof.

 

[leroy]

It's not about being "afraid". It's about there being nothing there.
It's also about that being the job of the one making the claim to explain how it can be tested.

It's about that being YOUR job.
So why are YOU afraid?


If believing that makes you feel better, go for it.

Off course all this is just a rather silly attempt to insist on having other people do your homework.

According to my definition and metrics there is evidence for God....... Since you (,or someone else I don't remember) rejected my definition and my metrics..........I am inviting you to provide your own...... Why is this a problem?

making the claim to explain how it can be tested.

You are making a claim "there is no evidence for God"

So how can I test it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Statements like that are so mind-boggling to me. How does one do that? How does one pray to something one doesn't believe to exist in the first place?

Sometimes I say that I did try prayers like that, and then there's usually some christian who replies that I wasn't sincere in my prayer. Which is true, of course, but then again, how could I? I simply see no way to sincerely talk to a nonexistent entity.

I did not know if He was non-existent. So I took the opportunity to ask HIM if HE was there. Yes, and He answered me. I believe. We all have different walks in life, that's obvious to me anyway.

 

[danieldemol]

I did not know if He was non-existent. So I took the opportunity to ask HIM if HE was there. Yes, and He answered me. I believe. We all have different walks in life, that's obvious to me anyway.

Some people such as myself have asked and gotten no response, so either your response was created by your mind or God is playing favourites in my view.

 

[Valjean]

Really? Think twice


If an archer hits the center of a bull's eye , would you infer "intent"? Would you infer that his intent was to hit that spot

Only inasmuch as the sport is an artificial design, including intent and conscious attempts to hit the bullseye.
You assume the order resulting from a natural chain of events is generated in the same artificial manner as human creations. True, there can be a similarity, but there's no indication of anything but a natural mechanism driving it.

 

[Valjean]

You know that the arrow was intentionally made to kill. You know that the head shot was the ideal placement for that arrow to attain that end. And you know that the likelihood of an arrow piercing a man in the head "by accident" would be very, very low. So logically it would be valid to assume that the result before you was intentional.

Not being certain that it was intentional does not negate the logic supporting the presumption.

How is the presumption supported by logic? the scene might be very suspicious, and merit investigation, but the math is unsound.

Q: How did you conclude the arrow was made to kill? Noöne said it was a broadhead. Target heads are the most common type.

Was any spear, arrow, etc. ever made by anyone for any other reason?

Most arrows are for target shooting.

 

[Valjean]

Before I came to an understanding that there IS a God who cares (or any god at all) -- I asked a preacher about God, because I guess I wanted to believe but could not FIND God. And he said something I will never forget. He said, "Faith is a gift. Only God can give you this gift." And I said, But how can I have faith if I don't believe in God? And he said, "Only God can give you this gift." So the conversation ended. But I finally prayed asking God, if He was there, to give me this gift of faith. And He did. It took time and is still moving along.

So unevidenced beliefs are gifts from God?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

According to my definition and metrics there is evidence for God.......

But somehow you can't provide this to others.

Since you (,or someone else I don't remember) rejected my definition and my metrics..........I am inviting you to provide your own...... Why is this a problem?

Because we are not claiming some god must exist. It's not upto us to define a god we don't even believe in.
That's your job. And if you do a poor job, we can just point it out.
Try doing a better job.

You are making a claim "there is no evidence for God"

So how can I test it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And you have been corrected

Dark matter is something specific, with specific properties and characteristics (it doesn't emit light, it doesn't absorbe light, it has a gravitational force etc..)

We don't know what DM is.
I don't know how many times more it must be repeated before it will sink in.

If the problem is solve with something with different properties then it wouldn't be called DM.

It's just a label for something that is unknown as of yet.
The word "matter" is chosen because of the measured gravity and thus it seems to act like regular matter.
The word "dark" is chosen because we can't see it like regular matter.

We don't know what it is.
We might as well call it "the thing, whatever it is, that accounts for the excess gravity"

I agree, as I have made it very clear multiple times .... One only has a burden proof if one claims to have better alternatives ....

So stop asking for these alternatives then.

If that is not you (if you don't claim to have better alternatives to God) then you have no burden proof.

I don't need alternatives to reject tales of magical fairies.

 

[vijeno]

We might as well call it "the thing, whatever it is, that accounts for the excess gravity"

I think we should call it "suspiciously heavy Nessie", "UFO (Unknown Forceful Object)" or "die Überschweren". Or just "The Force".

 

[ppp]

I think we should call it "suspiciously heavy Nessie", "UFO (Unknown Forceful Object)" or "die Überschweren". Or just "The Force".

I love "suspiciously heavy Nessie".

 

[leroy]

Only inasmuch as the sport is an artificial design, including intent and conscious attempts to hit the bullseye.
You assume the order resulting from a natural chain of events is generated in the same artificial manner as human creations. True, there can be a similarity, but there's no indication of anything but a natural mechanism driving it.

Straw man, that is not what I am saying, I am not trying to compare the archer with the universe nor god,.....I not am trying to make any design argument

Consider this hypothetical observation: the archer threw an arrow and he hit the center of a bulls eye

and

Consider this hypothesis “the archer intentionally hit the center of a bull’s eye]”

(an alternative hypothesis could be that the archer was simply trowing arrows randomly and by chance alone, he hitted the center of the bulls eye)

I am simply correcting @ratiocinator

According to him, given that an archer with intent could have done anything (ether intentionally hit the target or intentionally miss the target) the hypothesis (in red above) is not even worth of consideration.

My reply is that it is simply nonsense…………….the fact that the archer could have done anything (ether miss or hit the target) ………… doesn’t refutes the hypothesis is the best explanation for the observation.

Do you have the intellectual honesty of joining me by telling "ratiocinator" that he is wrong ?.........Or are you willing to lie, just to defend your atheist peer?

All I am sayings that the argument “the archer with intent could have done anything” is not a good argument against intent ……….you can still conclude “intent” even if he “could have done anything”…………………as you can see I am not making any rare nor controversial statement……….I am simply saying something that is obviously true

The fact that “A” could have done anything, doesn’t invalidate the claim that “A” is the best explanation for a particular observation. ……………………… you could have 100 valid objections against “A” but the particular objection of “A could have done anything is not valid”

There is no trick, there is not a hidden meaning in my words……………..all I am saying is that @ratiocinator made a mistake and that his objection (just this particular objection) is not a goo objection……please prove to me that you are an honest person and admit that your atheist peer is wrong

 

[leroy]

But somehow you can't provide this to others.



Because we are not claiming some god must exist. It's not upto us to define a god we don't even believe in.
That's your job. And if you do a poor job, we can just point it out.
Try doing a better job.

Ok, my job is to define “god”

But you job is to define evidence and to provide an objective metric.

If you are making a positive claim “there is no evidence for God” you have a burden which includes defining evidence and providing a metric that would allow us to test objectively if something counts as evidence or not


If you don’t want a burden proof, then you should change your radical claims such as “there is no evidence for god” for more moderate claims such as “I don’t know if there is evidence for god, because I don’t know what evidence or god means”

 

[leroy]

We don't know what DM is.
I don't know how many times more it must be repeated before it will sink in.



It's just a label for something that is unknown as of yet.
The word "matter" is chosen because of the measured gravity and thus it seems to act like regular matter.
The word "dark" is chosen because we can't see it like regular matter.

We don't know what it is.
We might as well call it "the thing, whatever it is, that accounts for the excess gravity"

If you are claiming that DM is the label for *any* solution to the problem, then you would be wrong

If you are not making that claim, then I have no idea on what your point of disagreement with me is

so please clafify

So stop asking for these alternatives then.


I don't need alternatives to reject tales of magical fairies.

Then if we agree on this point, why are you responding to my comments as if you were in disagreement?

1 if one claims to have a better alternative he has a burden

2 if one doesn’t claim to have a better alternative, then he has no burden

You seem to agree with both pints, so why didn’t you agree with me since your very firs comment?..............
Why this attitude of disagreeing with me, just for the sake of disagreeing?.................you are like a 8yo child who just wants to fight and disagree with his 7yo brother

Or perhaps it was honest mistake and you thought that I was making some other claim , perhaps you misunderstood my words………….if this is the case you could apologize and the apology will be accepted

 

[leroy]

I think we should call it "suspiciously heavy Nessie", "UFO (Unknown Forceful Object)" or "die Überschweren". Or just "The Force".

I'd have called them "chazzwazzers"​

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you are asking: personally what convinced me... My answer would be personal experience+pascal's wager


If you are asking, what convinced me that the evidence is on my side....my answer would be that I find The arguments typically provided by apologetics convincing and good enough to justify believing in God.

The only thing here that would count as evidence, would be your personal experience. And that's useless to anyone other than yourself.
Pascal's Wager isn't evidence of anything but poor thinking and reasoning.
Apologetics is the same. No evidence. Just tying yourself up with mental gymnastics in some attempt to make the Bible make some kind of sense.

None of this seems to tie in with your list of qualities that the god you believe in is lacking. I've been given a list of things your god isn't, but no list of things your god actually is.

Spaceless inmaterial personal inteligent timeless creator of the universe, who came to earth as a human and resurrected .

These aren't qualities. What you've listed here are a lack of qualities. You've told me what your god is not. I want to know what he/she/it is.
How can a "being" be, outside of time? How can a thing exist, but also be immaterial? How can something that's supposedly immaterial, materialize itself and become a human being on earth that is killed and resurrected? Is it really "resurrected" if it's not a material being to begin with and doesn't actually exist in time and space? None of this makes sense.

Now you're piling on a ton of more claims on top of what you originally said.
Do you not realize how many assumptions have to be made to get to this?

Any other question? Is there anything that you found unclear ?


My questions are
What do you mean by evidence, what objective metric do you use to determine if something is evidence, why god fails under that metric,?

I mean something measurable, verifiable, quantifiable, demonstrable, repeatable, etc. Something that demonstrates the thing you believe in is actually there. Outside of just claiming it's there.

Will you ever answer?

Yep.

 

[PureX]

We don't know what DM is.
I don't know how many times more it must be repeated before it will sink in.

We could call it "Bob", then.

It's just a label for something that is unknown as of yet.

Much as God is a label for something that is unknown as of yet: i.e., the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of existence.

I admit that a better label might be "higher power", but I'm not in control of handing out the labels.

The word "matter" is chosen because of the measured gravity and thus it seems to act like regular matter.

Well, to be more honest about it, not the "measured gravity" but rather the estimated gravitational mass necessary to account for that which is as yet presumed, but unaccounted for.

The word "dark" is chosen because we can't see it like regular matter.

The word "dark" was chosen because we have absolutely no idea what it is or what it does apart from correcting our estimated universal gravitational mass.

We don't know what it is.
We might as well call it "the thing, whatever it is, that accounts for the excess gravity"

There is no "excess gravity". There is an estimation on our part of the gravity necessary to account for our current understanding of the size and behavior of the universe. But there is not enough mass (matter) in the universe to generate it. So we invented the material difference and called it "dark matter". This does not mean that it actually even exists. But it's the only viable explanation we can come up with at the moment.

Very similar to the "God of the gap" being the only viable explanation we have at the moment for the fact that existence exists at all, and does so in a very complex and specific manner.

 

[leroy]

The only thing here that would count as evidence, would be your personal experience. And that's useless to anyone other than yourself.
Pascal's Wager isn't evidence of anything but poor thinking and reasoning.
Apologetics is the same. No evidence. Just tying yourself up with mental gymnastics in some attempt to make the Bible make some kind of sense.

None of this seems to tie in with your list of qualities that the god you believe in is lacking. I've been given a list of things your god isn't, but no list of things your god actually is.

These aren't qualities. What you've listed here are a lack of qualities. You've told me what your god is not. I want to know what he/she/it is.
How can a "being" be, outside of time? How can a thing exist, but also be immaterial? How can something that's supposedly immaterial, materialize itself and become a human being on earth that is killed and resurrected? Is it really "resurrected" if it's not a material being to begin with and doesn't actually exist in time and space? None of this makes sense.

Now you're piling on a ton of more claims on top of what you originally said.
Do you not realize how many assumptions have to be made to get to this?

Do you not realize how many assumptions have to be made to get to this?

yes, but Work and publications have been done to justify those assumptions......................feel free to pick your favorite assumtion and I explain to you how that assumtion is justified

These aren't qualities. What you've listed here are a lack of qualities

Positive qualities where also given in the list like “personal” “intelligent” “who came to earth and resurrected” ……………..besides Being speechless is a positive quality too,

I mean something measurable, verifiable, quantifiable, demonstrable, repeatable, etc.

you mean all that? or just some of these atributes?

Something that demonstrates the thing you believe in

That is circular reasoning, …………….my question is, how do you determine objectively if something demonstrates the thing?

How can we test if something is evidence without depending on your own personal opinion?

 

[PureX]

The only thing here that would count as evidence, would be your personal experience. And that's useless to anyone other than yourself.

Well, actually, those ARE evidence in much the same way as any human witness is evidence. It may not be strong enough evidence to convince the rest of us, by itself, but it is nevertheless valid evidence. And that remains true even if we can provide an alternative explanation for how the witness arrived at their perceptions.

Your own bias for materialism does not determine what is and is not evidence for everyone else.

Pascal's Wager isn't evidence of anything but poor thinking and reasoning.

Pascal's Wager isn't evidence. I agree. It's a proposition.

Apologetics is the same. No evidence.

That's an absurdly vague and biased statement.

Just tying yourself up with mental gymnastics in some attempt to make the Bible make some kind of sense.

The Bible is in a collective way a human 'witness' and can stand as evidence in that regard. But what credibility it gains as a mass witness it loses in self-contradictory detail. So few would consider it significant evidence. Like asking a crowd with only very limited access to an event what exactly happened.

 

[SkepticThinker]

yes, but Work and publications have been done to justify those assumptions......................feel free to pick your favorite assumtion and I explain to you how that assumtion is justified

So what? Doesn't make them true. Pascal's Wager doesn't work because there are more than 2 gods to choose from.

You've assumed that this immaterial, spaceless, timeless intelligent being you worship came to earth and resurrected and died again. But like I just pointed out, none of this makes any sense. You glossed over most of my response.

Positive qualities where also given in the list like “personal” “intelligent” “

Okay, I guess that's one. How do you know the god you worship is intelligent?

who came to earth and resurrected”

You added this after. These aren't qualities. They are claims.

……………..besides Being speechless is a positive quality too,

"Personal" doesn't mean anything to me. What is it supposed to mean?

you mean all that? or just some of these atributes?

Anything. Is there anything about your claims that are measurable, quantifiable, verifiable, demonstrable, repeatable ... ?

That is circular reasoning, ……………

No, it's not. It's a demonstration that the thing you claim exists, actually exists.

.my question is, how do you determine objectively if something demonstrates the thing?

How can we test if something is evidence without depending on your own personal opinion?

See above. Things that are demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, measurable, etc. are the same for everyone, everywhere.
Something that other people can use to verify the veracity of your claims.