Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[gnostic]

I learned something new, I was wrong I thought that closed and isolated systems where the same


However I still don’t understand why you think it is a relevant point?

Having a mistake on how to call something is a semantic mistake ………. That doesn’t mean that I don’t understand the laws of thermodynamics

Actually, you have never understood entropy, nor that of laws of thermodynamics, until you have been corrected…so it is very relevant, and not just a matter of “semantic mistake”, as you have claimed.

And the real problem began, with your claim from a much earliest post (post 966), in regarding to thermodynamics & entropy, where you have demanded members to choose between 2 possible “natural“ occurring cosmologies, “eternal universe” or universe popping into “from nothing”…or they should choose the 3rd option, altogether, we would away all natural laws - God.

You were saying the only 2 of 32 hypotheses must be chosen, are more miraculous than the Genesis Creation, with the miracles of God creating the Earth and life (Genesis 1 & 2).

I’ll highlight about your 3rd option in “red”:

And all of those 32 hypotheses (if they really exist) ether: claim that the universe came from nothing or that it has always existed, (or are open for both possibilities)

My point is that for the there are only 2 possibilities

1 it has always existed

2 it came from nothing



The known laws of science (like the second law of thermodynamics) prohibit an eternal universe………..otherwise the entropy would be near to 100%

Sure you can speculate that “something happened” or that “some unknown mechanism” solved the problem………… but those speculation would be far more extraordinary than any miracle in the bible.

The laws of science say nothing about God therefore God doesn’t have need to have the same restrictions that the universe.


---

You burden is to:

1 pick one miracle in the bible

2 show that any of the 2 alternatives (the universe has always existed or the universe came from nothing) is more credible (less extraordinary) than such miracle.

In the blue highlight are 2 options of hypotheses.

First of…

A hypothesis isn’t science…so why must anyone accept any hypothesis that haven’t been tested and verified?

Why must anyone choose between two untested hypotheses of your selections?

If there are 32 hypotheses, then why only 2 hypotheses?

I wouldn’t choose any hypothesis, not the 2 hypotheses you have selected, nor any ones of the 32 hypotheses, because each ones are untested hypotheses.

Second:

While the 32 hypotheses of cosmology of the universe “may not be science” (not yet, for any one of them, as they are currently untested), they may not be probable (scientifically), each one of these 32 hypotheses are mathematically possible.

But science - particularly scientific theories - require evidence, not maths.

Science, or more precisely, the Scientific Method, will only accept a hypothesis to be -

(A) …the hypothesis be FALSIFIABLE (which is the first requirement), meaning it has to be testable, so having the potentially of been tested at later stage.​

​

Scientist (or scientists, if they are working together as a team) must include instructions of how one would test a hypothesis. If you don’t include such instructions or methodology of testing the hypothesis, then​

​

​

(B) …the hypothesis has to be rigorously tested and verified during the “testing” stage of the Scientific Method.​

​

There are 2 ways to test a hypothesis, or 2 types of observations:​

1. EXPERIMENT: Experiments often take place in some laboratories, where scientists have some measures of control, via controlling the variables.
2. EVIDENCE: Acquiring evidence, outside of the laboratory, which means possible fieldwork. Unlike lab experiments, scientists have no control of HOW, WHERE or WHEN they will find evidence…that if they find evidence at all.

Scientists can, most certainly, do both…which would be ideal. Gathering evidence from the real world, from nature itself, if far more important than lab experiments​

As I said earlier, no hypotheses are accepted as “science”, unless each of them have been rigorously TESTED & VERIFIED.

And even, when there is a hypothesis, that has been tested & verified, it may still not be elevated to “scientific theory” status…some hypotheses may still require more works, more evidence or more experiments...or a hypothesis could be competing with a rival hypothesis.

What you don’t seem to have grasp, if the hypotheses have no evidence to support them, yet, then either you would wait until there are evidence, or you could dismiss the hypotheses as being improbable and wrong. plus, there could be evidence, but those evidence might not support the hypotheses, so the hypotheses have been refuted.

While mathematical equations are valuable tools for modelling a hypothesis, they don’t test & verify or refute a hypothesis, only observational tests like experiments or evidence can do that.

Third.

if things were left to you, you would prefer us, to choose your 3rd option, which is the God of your Bible & your religion.

What you are asking us to choose, is superstition.

The “God did it” is a superstition, based on belief in the supernatural. That’s just utter ignorance & fear, not natural mechanism.

Every miracles in the Bible (and in other scriptures from other religions), are not only supernatural, they are unnatural.

Like turning soil or dust of the ground into a fully grown adult male (Genesis 2:7), or Jesus turning water into wine (John 2), or the miracle of resurrection…these are examples of the supernatural, some things that cannot happen, naturally and realistically.

Believing in such miracles, would be no better than believing from any other religions, or no better than believing in the magic of Harry Potter.

Believing that God, not only creating the Earth & creating life on Earth (like in Genesis 1 & 2, but that he can create the entire Universe from nothing, because as you said, God has no “restrictions” from the natural law, is the very definition of believing in a miracle.

That your claim that accepting the natural phenomena as the same as believing in a miracle; that’s just YOU, TWISTING THE VERY DEFINITION OF WHAT A “MIRACLE” IS!

You are trying to redefine what a miracle is.

 

[leroy]

Since there is zero evidence for it, and zero sound logical arguments, it's extremely unlikely, as is any other blind guess in a space of possibilities that is vast, if not actually infinite.

Well if “god’s biggest problem” was easily refuted with the archer example and your best objection to the KCA seems to be a semantic issue where tens less words should have been used …….perhaps a case for theism is not as lost as you seem to believe

 

[gnostic]

Well if “god’s biggest problem” was easily refuted with the archer example and your best objection to the KCA seems to be a semantic issue where tens less words should have been used …….perhaps a case for theism is not as lost as you seem to believe

The Methodological Naturalism doesn’t discount the possibility of any god, it simply doesn’t use God in any part of the explanation to model any natural & physical phenomena (plus the natural or physical mechanisms), as deities & other supernatural entities are NOT FALSIFIABLE.

A hypothesis or existing scientific can only EXPLAIN & TEST models that are FALSIFIABLE, and not those that are UNFALSIFIABLE, like gods, spirits, miracles, magic, resurrection, reincarnation, etc.

A scientist can & may personally believe whatever he or she like, but when it comes to science, a scientist shouldn’t include any supernatural phenomena in his or her explanatory & predictive models.

Metaphysical Naturalism or Philosophical Naturalism, on the other hand, differed from Methodological Naturalism.

Metaphysical Naturalism stated more definitively that only natural phenomena exist - there are no supernatural.

Methodological Naturalism is more neutral in regards to the supernatural. Metaphysical Naturalism is more restrictive.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well if “god’s biggest problem” was easily refuted with the archer example and your best objection to the KCA seems to be a semantic issue where tens less words should have been used …….perhaps a case for theism is not as lost as you seem to believe

Oh, wow!

Firstly, according to the forum search (admittedly not great), I never used those exact words. As I recall I was specifically talking about the problem with using God as an explanation.

Secondly, the archer analogy is ridiculous for the reasons I repeatedly explained.

Thirdly, the KCA is riddled with multiple problems. It has been compressively refuted in many different ways.

Is "semantic issue" become some sort of mantra for you now, that you just randomly throw at anything you don't like?

 

[leroy]

Actually, you have never understood entropy, nor that of laws of thermodynamics, until you have been corrected…so it is very relevant, and not just a matter of “semantic mistake”, as you have claimed.

And the real problem began, with your claim from a much earliest post (post 966), in regarding to thermodynamics & entropy, where you have demanded members to choose between 2 possible “natural“ occurring cosmologies, “eternal universe” or universe popping into “from nothing”…or they should choose the 3rd option, altogether, we would away all natural laws - God.

You were saying the only 2 of 32 hypotheses must be chosen, are more miraculous than the Genesis Creation, with the miracles of God creating the Earth and life (Genesis 1 & 2).

I’ll highlight about your 3rd option in “red”:



In the blue highlight are 2 options of hypotheses.

First of…

A hypothesis isn’t science…so why must anyone accept any hypothesis that haven’t been tested and verified?

Why must anyone choose between two untested hypotheses of your selections?

If there are 32 hypotheses, then why only 2 hypotheses?

I wouldn’t choose any hypothesis, not the 2 hypotheses you have selected, nor any ones of the 32 hypotheses, because each ones are untested hypotheses.

Second:

While the 32 hypotheses of cosmology of the universe “may not be science” (not yet, for any one of them, as they are currently untested), they may not be probable (scientifically), each one of these 32 hypotheses are mathematically possible.

But science - particularly scientific theories - require evidence, not maths.

Science, or more precisely, the Scientific Method, will only accept a hypothesis to be -

(A) …the hypothesis be FALSIFIABLE (which is the first requirement), meaning it has to be testable, so having the potentially of been tested at later stage.​

​

Scientist (or scientists, if they are working together as a team) must include instructions of how one would test a hypothesis. If you don’t include such instructions or methodology of testing the hypothesis, then​

​

​

(B) …the hypothesis has to be rigorously tested and verified during the “testing” stage of the Scientific Method.​

​

There are 2 ways to test a hypothesis, or 2 types of observations:​

1. EXPERIMENT: Experiments often take place in some laboratories, where scientists have some measures of control, via controlling the variables.
2. EVIDENCE: Acquiring evidence, outside of the laboratory, which means possible fieldwork. Unlike lab experiments, scientists have no control of HOW, WHERE or WHEN they will find evidence…that if they find evidence at all.

Scientists can, most certainly, do both…which would be ideal. Gathering evidence from the real world, from nature itself, if far more important than lab experiments​

As I said earlier, no hypotheses are accepted as “science”, unless each of them have been rigorously TESTED & VERIFIED.

And even, when there is a hypothesis, that has been tested & verified, it may still not be elevated to “scientific theory” status…some hypotheses may still require more works, more evidence or more experiments...or a hypothesis could be competing with a rival hypothesis.

What you don’t seem to have grasp, if the hypotheses have no evidence to support them, yet, then either you would wait until there are evidence, or you could dismiss the hypotheses as being improbable and wrong. plus, there could be evidence, but those evidence might not support the hypotheses, so the hypotheses have been refuted.

While mathematical equations are valuable tools for modelling a hypothesis, they don’t test & verify or refute a hypothesis, only observational tests like experiments or evidence can do that.

Third.

if things were left to you, you would prefer us, to choose your 3rd option, which is the God of your Bible & your religion.

What you are asking us to choose, is superstition.

The “God did it” is a superstition, based on belief in the supernatural. That’s just utter ignorance & fear, not natural mechanism.

Every miracles in the Bible (and in other scriptures from other religions), are not only supernatural, they are unnatural.

Like turning soil or dust of the ground into a fully grown adult male (Genesis 2:7), or Jesus turning water into wine (John 2), or the miracle of resurrection…these are examples of the supernatural, some things that cannot happen, naturally and realistically.

Believing in such miracles, would be no better than believing from any other religions, or no better than believing in the magic of Harry Potter.

Believing that God, not only creating the Earth & creating life on Earth (like in Genesis 1 & 2, but that he can create the entire Universe from nothing, because as you said, God has no “restrictions” from the natural law, is the very definition of believing in a miracle.

That your claim that accepting the natural phenomena as the same as believing in a miracle; that’s just YOU, TWISTING THE VERY DEFINITION OF WHAT A “MIRACLE” IS!

You are trying to redefine what a miracle is.

How does you long an boring post shows that your initial claim was true?

Actually, you have never understood entropy, nor that of laws of thermodynamics,

In what way does any of your assertions (even if true) support your accusation that I don’t understand “etropy”

 

[leroy]

The Methodological Naturalism doesn’t discount the possibility of any god, it simply doesn’t use God in any part of the explanation to model any natural & physical phenomena (plus the natural or physical mechanisms), as deities & other supernatural entities are NOT FALSIFIABLE.

A hypothesis or existing scientific can only EXPLAIN & TEST models that are FALSIFIABLE, and not those that are UNFALSIFIABLE, like gods, spirits, miracles, magic, resurrection, reincarnation, etc.

A scientist can & may personally believe whatever he or she like, but when it comes to science, a scientist shouldn’t include any supernatural phenomena in his or her explanatory & predictive models.

Metaphysical Naturalism or Philosophical Naturalism, on the other hand, differed from Methodological Naturalism.

Metaphysical Naturalism stated more definitively that only natural phenomena exist - there are no supernatural.

Methodological Naturalism is more neutral in regards to the supernatural. Metaphysical Naturalism is more restrictive.

The arguments for the existence of God and Intelligent design are falsifiable…………in fact some of them have been falsified in the past

God is falsifiable in that you could theoretically show that God doesn’t exist beyond reasonable doubt (in the same way it can and has been done with Santa clause or the YEC God)

There are many potential discoveries could be made in the future, that would ether strongly refute or support the existence of God depending on what discoveries are made

So you “god is not falsifiable” is just a meme that you keep repeating but you have never support it

 

[leroy]

Oh, wow!

Firstly, according to the forum search (admittedly not great), I never used those exact words. As I recall I was specifically talking about the problem with using God as an explanation.

and I showed Quite successfully that it is not really a problem………otherwise you would have refuted my actual point, rather than a straw man?

Thirdly, the KCA is riddled with multiple problems. It has been compressively refuted in many different ways.

Is "semantic issue" become some sort of mantra for you now, that you just randomly throw at anything you don't like?

Well it really is a semantic issue

 

[Pogo]

How does you long an boring post shows that your initial claim was true?



In what way does any of your assertions (even if true) support your accusation that I don’t understand “etropy”

It is only boring to you because you don't understand it. It might as well be random characters which is exactly the problem.

Again, we are not asserting you do not understand entropy, we read your posts and conclude it.

 

[gnostic]

God is falsifiable in that you could theoretically show that God doesn’t exist beyond reasonable doubt (in the same way it can and has been done with Santa clause or the YEC God)

The "beyond reasonable doubt" is for law courts, not for scientific enquiry or research.

And...

God is falsifiable in that you could theoretically show that God doesn’t exist beyond reasonable doubt (in the same way it can and has been done with Santa clause or the YEC God)

...and, you still don't understand what FALSIFIABILITY means.

You also don't understand what "THEORETICAL" means too.

Falsifiability means more than just using deductive reasoning, it has to be EVIDENCE-BASED or EXPERIMENTAL-BASED.

If you cannot support the reasoning with evidence or experiment, then IT ISN'T FALSIFIABLE.

In Natural Science, theoretical mean, using logic model, like solving mathematical equations.

For instance, General Relativity is both

• theoretical - solving problems by providing mathematical solutions, eg using Einstein Field Equations, the equations were derived using partial differentiation, and
• falsifiable - explanations (gravitation is explained as geometric property of spacetime) & equations (eg Einstein Field Equations that I have already mentioned above about "theoretical") that are supported by evidence and experiments. Without the test results (eg data) acquired from the evidence or experiments, then it would be falsified (which GR is clearly not).

If you can justify the existence of God, theoretically, then please demonstrated it mathematically: solve God's existence with mathematical equations?

And if you can justify the existence of God, falsifiably, then please demonstrated with actual observations of God, eg show the physical composition or properties of God, such as detection, quantities, measurements, etc.

That's what it would take, for the existence of God to be both theoretical and falsifiable.

When you use words that you don't understand, you are only fooling yourself with false claims.

 

[gnostic]

In what way does any of your assertions (even if true) support your accusation that I don’t understand “etropy”

leroy, I have quoted your original post, when you first talk about entropy and thermodynamics.

You clearly stated that in that post, if you cannot accept the hypothesis of Universe being eternal (because of the issue with entropy), or the hypothesis of the Universe popping into the existence, then you demanded that we accept the 3rd option - that "God did it", because God can circumvent the natural law, to create the Universe...in your own words:

"Sure you can speculate that “something happened” or that “some unknown mechanism” solved the problem………… but those speculation would be far more extraordinary than any miracle in the bible.​

​

The laws of science say nothing about God therefore God doesn’t have need to have the same restrictions that the universe."​

By making such an assertion, you have put the burden of proof upon yourself.

Of course, you are going to ignore the responsibility of your claim, as you normally do.

 

[ratiocinator]

and I showed Quite successfully that it is not really a problem………otherwise you would have refuted my actual point, rather than a straw man?

I did, multiple times (so did some other people, as I recall), but you seemed to be totally unable to grasp how silly the analogy was and kept on repeating your own mistakes instead of addressing the counterarguments (you seemed much more interested in trying to get people to admit problems is some bizarre point-scoring exercise). The problem was, and remains, the context. In your supposed analogy the context made intent inevitable regardless of the result, but when applied to God, the context (if it exists) is totally inaccessible, so intend cannot be inferred also regardless of what the result was. The inference of intent (or lack thereof) had nothing to do with the result in either case. With a God argument we only have the result.

Well it really is a semantic issue

What is? Exactly nothing that I've read (and I admit that I haven't read all your posts here) that you've called a semantic issue actually was one. The fact remains that the KCA has been refuted so often it's become a joke (as have all WLC's other 'arguments' for God).

 

[leroy]

It is only boring to you because you don't understand it. It might as well be random characters which is exactly the problem.

Again, we are not asserting you do not understand entropy, we read your posts and conclude it.

Ok then quote the alleged comments that convinced you that i don’t understand entropy……..can you do that? NO because you are just making things up


When you make mistakes I quote your exact words and show why are you wrong (usually with peer review sources)………………………why can’t you do the same?

 

[leroy]

The "beyond reasonable doubt" is for law courts, not for scientific enquiry or research.

And...


ms.

In science “falsify” means prove beyond reasonable doubt that something is wrong or fails……….otherwise nothing in science would really be falsifiable.

I won’t even read the rest of your comment because it is likely full of BS…………..and you are not worthy of my time

 

[leroy]

leroy, I have quoted your original post, when you first talk about entropy and thermodynamics.

You clearly stated that in that post, if you cannot accept the hypothesis of Universe being eternal (because of the issue with entropy), or the hypothesis of the Universe popping into the existence, then you demanded that we accept the 3rd option - that "God did it", because God can circumvent the natural law, to create the Universe...in your own words:

"Sure you can speculate that “something happened” or that “some unknown mechanism” solved the problem………… but those speculation would be far more extraordinary than any miracle in the bible.​

​

The laws of science say nothing about God therefore God doesn’t have need to have the same restrictions that the universe."​

By making such an assertion, you have put the burden of proof upon yourself.

Of course, you are going to ignore the responsibility of your claim, as you normally do.

Still you are falling to support the claim that I don’t understand entropy.

By making such an assertion, you have put the burden of proof upon yourself.

Dishonest red herring……………………first support the claim that I don’t understand entropy, then we can move to this other topic

then you demanded that we accept the 3rd option - that "God did it", because God can circumvent the natural law, to create the Universe...in your own words:

Regardless if my words are true or not………………. That has noting to do with your claim that I don’t understand entropy

 

[Pogo]

Ok then quote the alleged comments that convinced you that i don’t understand entropy……..can you do that? NO because you are just making things up


When you make mistakes I quote your exact words and show why are you wrong (usually with peer review sources)………………………why can’t you do the same?

The known laws of science (like the second law of thermodynamics) prohibit an eternal universe………..otherwise the entropy would be near to 100%

several answers for you.
"The relationship between entropy and the concept of an eternal universe is complex and can lead to some intriguing questions in physics and cosmology.

1. Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: The second law states that in an isolated system, entropy tends to increase over time. This means that systems naturally evolve toward a state of greater disorder. In a finite universe, this leads to a scenario where the universe could eventually reach a state of maximum entropy, often referred to as "heat death," where no usable energy remains, and all processes cease.
2. Eternal Universe: An eternal universe implies a cosmos that does not have a beginning or an end. If the universe is truly eternal and isolated, one might wonder how it can sustain an increase in entropy indefinitely. Some models suggest that if the universe is eternal, it could undergo cycles (like in oscillating models) or transitions that reset the entropy levels.
3. Steady-State Universe: Historically, some cosmological models, like the steady-state theory, proposed that the universe is eternal and expands while new matter is continuously created, maintaining a constant average density and allowing entropy to increase without leading to a maximum entropy state.
4. Modern Cosmology: The current understanding of the universe, based on the Big Bang theory, suggests that the universe is expanding and has a finite age. However, some interpretations of the multiverse or cyclic models propose mechanisms that could allow for eternal aspects while accommodating entropy.

In summary, while the increase of entropy does pose challenges for an eternal universe, various theoretical frameworks suggest ways that an eternal universe could exist without contradicting the principles of thermodynamics. The discussion is ongoing, and new theories in cosmology continue to explore these fascinating concepts."



The point is that your premise 1 is not true.

 

[leroy]

I did, multiple times (so did some other people, as I recall), but you seemed to be totally unable to grasp how silly the analogy was and kept on repeating your own mistakes instead of addressing the counterarguments (you seemed much more interested in trying to get people to admit problems is some bizarre point-scoring exercise). The problem was, and remains, the context. In your supposed analogy the context made intent inevitable regardless of the result, but when applied to God, the context (if it exists) is totally inaccessible, so intend cannot be inferred also regardless of what the result was. The inference of intent (or lack thereof) had nothing to do with the result in either case. With a God argument we only have the result.

It´s not my mistake, it´s your straw man.

Your original argument was

1 If an explanation “X” could result in ether observation A or observation B

2 and A and B are the only 2 possible results

You can not use “X” as an explanation for “observation A”

Is this a correct interpretation of what you argued in the past? (your actual words are in red letters at the end of this post)

Do you see now why your argument fails? do you see and grant that X could be a valid explanation for "A" even if X could have also have done "B"


for context this is what you said
"The main problem you run into with evidence for God is that god could have done anything"

What is? Exactly nothing that I've read (and I admit that I haven't read all your posts here) that you've called a semantic issue actually was one. The fact remains that the KCA has been refuted so often it's become a joke (as have all WLC's other 'arguments' for God).

If your “main problem” was a non-problem………… how do you know that you are not wrong with issues related to the KCA?,……….perhaps you are making trivial naïve mistakes as you did with what you call the “main problem”

 

[leroy]

several answers for you.
"The relationship between entropy and the concept of an eternal universe is complex and can lead to some intriguing questions in physics and cosmology.

1. Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: The second law states that in an isolated system, entropy tends to increase over time. This means that systems naturally evolve toward a state of greater disorder. In a finite universe, this leads to a scenario where the universe could eventually reach a state of maximum entropy, often referred to as "heat death," where no usable energy remains, and all processes cease.
2. Eternal Universe: An eternal universe implies a cosmos that does not have a beginning or an end. If the universe is truly eternal and isolated, one might wonder how it can sustain an increase in entropy indefinitely. Some models suggest that if the universe is eternal, it could undergo cycles (like in oscillating models) or transitions that reset the entropy levels.
3. Steady-State Universe: Historically, some cosmological models, like the steady-state theory, proposed that the universe is eternal and expands while new matter is continuously created, maintaining a constant average density and allowing entropy to increase without leading to a maximum entropy state.
4. Modern Cosmology: The current understanding of the universe, based on the Big Bang theory, suggests that the universe is expanding and has a finite age. However, some interpretations of the multiverse or cyclic models propose mechanisms that could allow for eternal aspects while accommodating entropy.

In summary, while the increase of entropy does pose challenges for an eternal universe, various theoretical frameworks suggest ways that an eternal universe could exist without contradicting the principles of thermodynamics. The discussion is ongoing, and new theories in cosmology continue to explore these fascinating concepts."



The point is that your premise 1 is not true.

granted That part in red is granted and I made a mistake

my words
"The known laws of science (like the second law of thermodynamics) prohibit an eternal universe………..otherwise the entropy would be near to 100%"

I should have used some other terminology “prohibit” is a very strong Word……………..I should have used something like your words something like "entropy pose challenges"


But aren’t you being very , very very uncharitable?............. do you really think is reasonable to conclude that I don’t understand entropy just because I used the incorrect word? (I used prohibit instead of pose challenges)

The point is that your premise 1 is not true.

Not even close………..from the fact that there are hypothetical models of eternal universes that could theoretically solve the problem of entropy , it doesn’t follow that the universe is eternal…………..there is a big difference between having a hypothetical and speculative model and having a model that is likely to be true

while new matter is continuously created,

So all you need to do to avoid the second law of thermodynamics and the entropy challenge is to deny the first law of thermodynamics and claim that new matter is being created ……………doesn’t sound like a super elegant solution to me

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"beyond reasonable doubt" is for law courts, not for scientific enquiry or research.

That's the phrase I use to describe settled science. When the creationist says that evolutionary theory has never been proven, it is appropriate to explain why prove is the wrong word, and then add that the theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. I often also add that rejecting it unreasonable doubt, since the rejection is faith-based, which an alternative path to beliefs that bypassed reason and evidence.

I just mean a “generic” type of God

I would suggest that you write that with a small-g. When I see capital-G God, I assume that you mean your god, the god of Abraham.

a being that has the ability to perform miracles (do things that are impossible according to the natural laws of science)……………how unlikely is the existence of that type of god?

I can't answer that. Neither can you. What I can say is that I am aware of no god performing miracles. I am also unaware of any god not intervening in observable reality. The proper way to sum that up is to avoid terms like likely and unlikely altogether, and simply note that gods can neither be ruled in or out, so there is no reason to believe they exist and no grounds to say that they don't.

Do you know what do we call a person who neither believes in gods nor asserts that they don't exist?

Spoiler: answer

Agnostic atheist. He's an atheist because he lacks a god belief but agnostic because he doesn't claim to know that gods don't exist, either. There is no other position possible for a critically thinking empiricist.

1 would you put God in the same category than Santa Clause (someone that almost certainly doesn’t exist)
2 would you put god in the same category you would put Intelligent Aliens (perhaps they exist perhaps not, who knows)
3 somewhere in between? Santa clause and Aliens?

Look at how you freely go from God to god.

Santa Claus (note the spelling) can't be ruled out, but Santa living at the North Pole and delivering presents down chimneys Christmas Eve can be.

Aliens can't be ruled out, but very likely exist, even if by aliens you mean more than bacteria. Why? Because life very likely arose by naturalistic abiogenesis, and any natural process can be expected to be repeated wherever the conditions are right. Every time that ice can freeze or melt, t does. Whenever bread can become moldy, it does. And we should expect that wherever the conditions and ingredients present support abiogenesis that it will occur. That's why we're keen to get probes into the oceans of the moons in our solar system with liquid water under icy shells.

If you're unfamiliar with that topic and interested, look at this: Europa and Enceladus

God is falsifiable in that you could theoretically show that God doesn’t exist beyond reasonable doubt (in the same way it can and has been done with Santa clause or the YEC God)

Yes, God is and has been ruled out because of the claims made about that deity that science has falsified, but not all gods are falsifiable. The example I gave is the deist god. Also, the gods of the polytheists.

When you make mistakes I quote your exact words and show why are you wrong

Not enough. You also need to link to them. I wouldn't trust your claim that such-and-such is what I wrote if it didn't resonate with me. In the past, you have put words in quotes and attributed them to me, but they weren't actual quotes. They were paraphrasings, and many inaccurate.

if you think something valuable can flow from the post about evidence, I will respond to it.............I apologize for ignoring it, sometimes I get like 8 different people answering to me and I simply cherry pick 3 or 4

Of course I think something valuable can result from that discussion. For you, learning. For me, just the courtesy of a reply. I don't consider your reason an adequate one for disregarding the post and multiple references to it thereafter until just now.

You're not too busy to reply, "I'm too busy to reply to this now. Thank you for your interest. If I can. will get back to it. I've bookmarked it." That's not only not offensive, it's respectful. Being disregarded is offensive. If you want to be treated with respect, you'll need to give respect. Maybe you don't care. Your posting etiquette suggests that to me.

As I've told you repeatedly, if there's nothing in your posting for the other guy, expect him to be offended at your selfishness and lose interest in trying to give you what you want. Previously, I would answer any question that you asked simply because you asked it. Now, it has to interest me for me to do that. I'm no longer interested in what you want, just what I want. Those are the terms your behavior has led to. I hope that's what you were going for, because that's what you did.

 

[ratiocinator]

Your original argument was

1 If an explanation “X” could result in ether observation A or observation B

2 and A and B are the only 2 possible results

You can not use “X” as an explanation for “observation A”

Is this a correct interpretation of what you argued in the past?

No.

for context this is what you said
"The main problem you run into with evidence for God is that god could have done anything"

So, we can add 'context' to the list of things you don't understand (kind of explains your flawed analogy too). At least you've given me enough to find the actual context (one has to wonder why you didn't do that...), here it is:

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.

I totally, 100%, stand by that explanation. That's exactly why you cannot have evidence for a God.

Arguments for God (including the KCA), tend to be attempts at logical deduction, rather than even pretending to provide evidence, so it doesn't even come into it.

Logical deductions need sound, which means having a valid structure (it's impossible for its premises to be true and the conclusion false) and also have true premises.

Most arguments for God fall down at the premises. The KCA falls down as follows. The first part (the bit that argues for a cause for the universe), steps 1 to 3 in the following link, is valid but unsound. (the premises are both wrong). Step 4 is pure fantasy.

Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If your “main problem” was a non-problem...

It isn't a non-problem.

...how do you know that you are not wrong with issues related to the KCA?

For a start, it's not just my opinion, and I've explained it above.

 

[ratiocinator]

...do you really think is reasonable to conclude that I don’t understand entropy...

Given that you expressed entropy as a percentage, it's absolutely certain that you don't understand it.