Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[ratiocinator]

NO!!! None of these words even approaches a meaning of "basis of science". You believe they do because you process evidence in terms of your beliefs and then call it "empiricism". You mistake evidence for reality. Your beliefs are irrelevant to reality; only theory based on experiment is relevant and when you say that is wrong it's because you don't understand metaphysics.

More childish foot-stamping about you being right and everybody else being wrong. No hint of reasoning or the tiniest scrap of evidence.

What's the point?

 

[cladking]

More childish foot-stamping about you being right and everybody else being wrong. No hint of reasoning or the tiniest scrap of evidence.

What's the point?

You are arguing definitions. This is by definition word games or a semantical argument. I can use any damn word I choose to mean "basis of science" and chose this one for two reasons; One because it's the first definition of "metaphysics" and two because I am a "metaphysician".

If you don't like it then take it up with the dictionary publishers.

 

[cladking]

If you don't like it then take it up with the dictionary publishers.

Take it up with homo omnisciencis who arose from the dust of the tower of babel. It is they who first could use any word to mean anything.

It is not my problem that so many people believe the basis of science is magical. Talk about irony and miracles. "Intelligence" truly is a miracle that is perceived through a brain operating on symbolic language.

 

[cladking]

not only has Otzi's brain not been studied in such detail yet but there is hardly any certainty that the subtle anatomical difference can be detected in a brain that isn't alive.

If Otzi were alive and you stuck an electrode in his brocas area he would not speak. He wouldn't even dream of words or speech. I doubt the subtle difference in the usage of this area of the brain would even show up on autopsy. I don't know. Unlike those who believe in science I don't really know anything at all. I never claimed to. I am merely stating how experiment can be interpreted to explain everything; the big picture.

If I am right then science is wrong about everything. Most would be easily repaired but it is still wrong at this time and always has been.

 

[Subduction Zone]

(red letters added by me to correct a typo mistake)

"but that does not mean that the entropy of the Earth has to increase. "

Good to know………………luckily nobody is claiming such thing...............

There was no error there. You do not know what a closed system. Once again, the Earth is a for all practical purposes a closed system. If you do not even know what the three systems of thermodynamics are how do you think that you can even understand how to apply it at all.

correction... , your straw man version of my approach to entropy is wrong.

You do not get to claim "strawman" without an explanation. I doubt if your version is correct. You already showed that you do not know jack squat about thermodynamics.

I am just curious……………..why are you implying that I am cliaming that the earth is not an open system?............did I ever made a claim that could remotely be interpreted as if I had made such a statement?

Your poor understanding of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems. And I would not call the Earth an open system. Technically it is , but that is almost never enough to affect thermodynamics at all.

You should learn the basics of thermodynamics. Here is your first lesson:

Khan Academy

www.khanacademy.org

 

[ratiocinator]

You are arguing definitions. This is by definition word games or a semantical argument. I can use any damn word I choose to mean "basis of science"...

Yeah, and, by the same illogic, I can claim that 'cat' means 'pink poetry'. Doesn't mean anybody would take me any more seriously than they take you when you try to arbitrarily change the meaning of a 'basis of science'.

Try living in the real world for a change.

 

[leroy]

It's your analogy that is completely nonsensical.


Nonsense. A said that 'God' was not an explanation because it could explain anything.

the same is true with the archer...an archer could do anything too

This stand because both your analogies assume that we know far, far more of the context than we could possibly know in the case of some supposed 'God'.

Granted, i am not saying that the archer and God are analogous in every single aspect………………..they are just analogous on that they both "could do anything"

No. If you can't see the point by now, you probably never will, so I'm done with this line of nonsensical 'reasoning'.

I see your point………….your point is that we know much, much, much more about archers and targets than we know about an alleged God, which is why we can infer "inted"with archer but not with god?

Now do you see my point? Can you explain my point with your own words? Please!!

 

[leroy]

There was no error there. You do not know what a closed system. Once again, the Earth is a for all practical purposes a closed system. If you do not even know what the three systems of thermodynamics are how do you think that you can even understand how to apply it at all.

I am not sure if I agree...Which “practical purposes” are your referring to?......The planet receives energy from the sun and that has many relevant implications (or practical purposes)


But even more important……….why is that relevant to any of my prior arguments or prior comments?.............None of my arguments is dependent on the claim that the earth is an open nor a closed system………………why mention it?

Y

 

[cladking]

Yeah, and, by the same illogic, I can claim that 'cat' means 'pink poetry'.

Sure you can.

But first you'll need to let people know what "pink poetry" is.

Isn't language grand? You can say anything you want even if it makes no sense at all.

Ancient Language wasn't like that because if it didn't agree with the laws of nature and proper grammar it just sounded like word salad and you got demoted to a less demanding job. More likely you never got that promotion to start with. You wouldn't even get a mate from the A-list. If you spoke enough gobbledty gook you'd have to learn a pidgin language.

We've devolved horribly and allow the amoral to buy science and governance while wasting resources for profit.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ancient Language wasn't like that because if it didn't agree with the laws of nature and proper grammar it just sounded like word salad and you got demoted to a less demanding job. More likely you never got that promotion to start with. You wouldn't even get a mate from the A-list. If you spoke enough gobbledty gook you'd have to learn a pidgin language.

We've devolved horribly and allow the amoral to buy science and governance while wasting resources for profit.

Yet more baseless, unargued, unevidenced assertions.

 

[cladking]

Yet more baseless, unargued, unevidenced assertions.

And, as always, ignoring the point. You remember the point; I can use any word I want to mean "metaphysics" and "basis of science" just as you can use "cat" to mean "pink poetry".

This is how symbolic language works.

 

[ratiocinator]

This is how symbolic language works.

But not how logical arguments or science works. Both require precise, agreed definitions.

If you're just redefining words arbitrarily, then you're effectively talking gibberish that nobody can expect to understand. You will never persuade anybody with gibberish that consists of your own secret meanings for the words you use.

'Metaphysics' means 'made up nonsense'.

 

[cladking]

But not how logical arguments or science works. Both require precise, agreed definitions.

If you're just redefining words arbitrarily, then you're effectively talking gibberish that nobody can expect to understand. You will never persuade anybody with gibberish that consists of your own secret meanings for the words you use.

'Metaphysics' means 'made up nonsense'.

This is the last time I'll tell you that I can use any word I choose and the very first definition of "metaphysics" is "basis of science".

The metaphysical foundations of modern physical science; a historical and critical essay : Burtt, Edwin A. (Edwin Arthur), 1892- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

26

archive.org

Maybe in your world everyone has to use words if and only if you approve them.

You are now on my ignore list.

 

[PureX]

You are simply stopping at what you'd like. Let's say some 'being' with intent exists to explain all these simplistic assumptions about the universe. Logically, we should then apply the same 'reasoning' to this 'being'. So this 'being' has to have the intent to want this universe, rather than anything else, or nothing, so we are left with exactly the same supposed improbability, plus the improbability of all the other attributes you seem to want to add.

This 'being' would be even more complex and improbable than the universe itself.

You keep saying this because it's what YOU would like to believe. As it supports YOUR biased presuppositions. But if the universe was not so intricately and functionally complex, science would have nothing to study, or it would have already figured it all out. And yet there is little hope of that happening anytime soon, or ever. Yet you still are trying to insist that all this complexity occurred by random chance. Even when you can go to any gambling casino and witness for yourself just how difficult it is for a complex AND specific result to occur by randomized chance. And the more complex and specific the desired result, the more unlikely it is to occur via random chance. It's a simple observation and yet somehow you just cannot accept it. And in fact, random chance is itself very difficult to actually achieve. It does occur, but it's actually very rare and limited to a very specific balance of influences. What we usually end up labeling "random chance" are just design parameters that are too subtle and complex for our minds to identify.

Let's say some 'being' with intent exists to explain all these simplistic assumptions about the universe. Logically, we should then apply the same 'reasoning' to this 'being'.

Actually, no. Because whatever this entity would be, it would by necessity be transcendent of any of the logical 'rules' and limitations that apply to existence as we comprehend it. So we would not be able to logically presume anything about this mysterious transcendent source. As indeed we cannot. We cannot even logically presume it to express intent. We can only speculate. Which is what this discussion is about.

So this 'being' has to have the intent to want this universe, rather than anything else, or nothing, so we are left with exactly the same supposed improbability, plus the improbability of all the other attributes you seem to want to add.

It doesn't "have to have" anything. It doesn't have to be a "being". It doesn't have to have intent. It wouldn't even "exist" in any way that we could grasp. It is an absolute and total mystery. And yet logic as it's applied to existence as we comprehend it, nevertheless necessitates it.

This 'being' would be even more complex and improbable than the universe itself.

Dunno. No way to even presume.

 

[ratiocinator]

This is the last time I'll tell you that I can use any word I choose...

Of course, you can, but it still results in gibberish.

...very first definition of "metaphysics" is "basis of science".

Nonsense 'metaphysics' is philosophy and not even the philosophy of science. Philosophy is necessarily imprecise and subject to debates that often can't be solved, even to the satisfaction of most philosophers.

Maybe in your world everyone has to use words if and only if you approve them.

No, that appears to be your world. In mine, people who are trying to present arguments have to define their terms or use widely accepted meanings.

You are now on my ignore list.

Running away...? Won't stop me pointing out illogical drivel when I see it.

 

[leroy]

Thanks for the vote of confidence there @leroy. I would add

3. My claim is not extraordinary

what do you mean by extraordinary?

assuming that extraordinary means “not ordinary” and according to quick Google search, there are 127,000,000 people living in Mexico and only 1.2% of them are native English speakers,…………. So an English speaker in Mexico is pretty extraordinary.

Or what exactly do you mean by extraordinary?

4. Like many here, I have a reputation based on an extensive amount of posting, and I'd like to think that I am considered honest, knowledgeable, and interested in accuracy.

Now compare that to biblical scripture and the claims therein of witnesses describing a resurrection. None of those things is true there. If there actually were people that claimed that and somebody wrote than down accurately, [1] which among them is well-informed enough to say that what they saw was the revivification of a body three days dead? Also, [2] the Bible writers who were promoting this religion had an incentive to manufacture magical stories about Jesus, [3] their claim is extraordinary, and [4] the alleged claimants are anonymous, and we know nothing about their intelligence or character.

Altogether, we can say that I probably live in Mexico and Jesus probably was not resurrected. That's the spectrum of possibility from one extreme to the other.

which among them is well-informed enough to say that what they saw was the revivification of a body three days dead?

Anyone who lived in that area and in that time, or anyone who knew someone who did would have been a well-informed person…………………..this person would be in a position to know it the reports are true or not.

1 I argue that The authors of the gospels where well informed on the basis that all (or at least most) of the testable claims that they report are true………………..isn’t this good enough for you?.

2 What incentives did the writers of the gospels had to make up stories? (lie) ...........The gospels are fool of embarrassing details…………….details that harmed the early Christian movement…….this strongly suggests that they authors where not making up stories but rather that they reported what they *thought* was true……………..otherwise they would have omitted those embarrassing details...................This doesn’t prove that the events reported in the gospels are true………………….but it proves with high degree of certainty, that the authors reported what they thought was true

3 I would like to know what do you understand by the word “extraordinary” before commenting


4 why do you think that being anonymous is relevant?..................... if the gospels where written by well informed people that where reporting what they thought was true (as I think it can be shown)……………….what difference does it makes if they are anonymous or not? What difference would it make if the author of Luke was man named Luck or a man named Joe or an anonymous author?............................you are also an anonymous person in this forum, but that has no bearing on the reliability of your testimony of you living in Mexico

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not sure if I agree...Which “practical purposes” are your referring to?......The planet receives energy from the sun and that has many relevant implications (or practical purposes)

I see that you either did not read or did understand the link that I gave you. Yes, energy enters and leaves the Earth all of the time. That is one of the traits of a closed system.

But even more important……….why is that relevant to any of my prior arguments or prior comments?.............None of my arguments is dependent on the claim that the earth is an open nor a closed system………………why mention it?

Because you used a poor argument that demonstrated that you did not understand even the basics of thermodynamics. I can point out tyour errors. I cannot think for you.

Why didn't you click on the link that I provided for you?

 

[ratiocinator]

You keep saying this because it's what YOU would like to believe. As it supports YOUR biased presuppositions. But if the universe was not so intricately and functionally complex, science would have nothing to study, or it would have already figured it all out. And yet there is little hope of that happening anytime soon, or ever. Yet you still are trying to insist that all this complexity occurred by random chance. Even when you can go to any gambling casino and witness for yourself just how difficult it is for a complex AND specific result to occur by randomized chance. And the more complex and specific the desired result, the more unlikely it is to occur via random chance. It's a simple observation and yet somehow you just cannot accept it. And in fact, random chance is itself very difficult to actually achieve. It does occur, but it's actually very rare and limited to a very specific balance of influences. What we usually end up labeling "random chance" are just design parameters that are too subtle and complex for our minds to identify.

I did not 'insist' on any such thing as 'random chance'. And you ignored my actual point completely.

Actually, no. Because whatever this entity would be, it would by necessity be transcendent of any of the logical 'rules' and limitations that apply to existence as we comprehend it. So we would not be able to logically presume anything about this mysterious transcendent source. As indeed we cannot. We cannot even logically presume it to express intent.

Baseless assertion and utterly shameless special pleading. And "transcendent of any of the logical 'rules' and limitations that apply to existence as we comprehend it." means about as much, and contains exactly as much reasoning, as "it's magic, innit?"

It doesn't have to be a "being". It doesn't have to have intent.

It's you who argued from intent, and it doesn't matter if you'd consider it a 'being' or not, that's why I put 'being' in scare quotes.

No way to even presume.

I'm just using your own 'reasoning' that you applied to the universe. You're now trying to excuse your preferred 'answer from your own argument by basically claiming "but...but... it's magic!"

It's just comical.

 

[cladking]

Nonsense 'metaphysics' is philosophy and not even the philosophy of science. Philosophy is necessarily imprecise and subject to debates that often can't be solved, even to the satisfaction of most philosophers.

Silly me. I checked one more time to see if I'd get an apology. Instead you double down on mean.

If you were to check a REAL dictionary like a 1952 unabridged Funk and Wagnalls you'd see that I am right. Siri is an idiot used by geniuses who already know everything because they can ask Her anything at all. You can't teach chatAI anything whatsoever. You can't even shame it into doing a proper search.

Knowledge is chiefly experience and those who want to take a shortcut through science are fooling only themselves.

 

[PureX]

You can claim that nothingness is more likely than somethingness, but all you have to support that is intuition.

No so. Logically nothingness is perfect, eternal, absolutely self-sufficient and requires no source. It is clearly the logical conceptual default. Whereas every example of 'something' that we have any knowledge or experience of is imperfect, temporal, relative, and dependent, and does require not only a source, but is an expression of the intended purpose of 'being'. For anything to occur requires effort, and organization, and context. And like it or not, will there for become an expression of intent.

And only the complexity of nature causes you to think an intelligence is behind it and not the complexity of the intelligence you posit to account for it.

The intelligence is WITHIN the complexity for anyone to observe. All you have to do is open your eyes.

The hypothesis of an intelligent designer explains nothing. It just kicks the mystery of existence and apparent complexity back to the intelligent designer.

I am not hypothesizing an "intelligent designer". That's your boogeyman that you can ever let go of, not mine. I am simply pointing out the obviousness of the profound mystery within which we are all living. And speculating about it from our very limited human perspective.

Whatever answers believers give for their gods existence can apply to what the god is thought to have created, and whatever reasons they can give for the universe needing a source apply to gods as well.

No one has any answers, especially the "believers" among us. And that includes the anti-theism believers.

What are the odds of a god existing by accident?

"Odds" (chance/probability) aren't going to apply to the source of all possibility and impossibility.