Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[John53]

Depends. I have lots to read.

If you can't be bothered reading the replies why ask questions? Perhaps because you're trolling?

Do you believe humans descended from some sort of fish by random mutations?

I've answered that question numerous times for you as have many others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You may be using a false dichotomy. The universe may have existed forever, and still had a beginning.

 

[firedragon]

The earliest copies of Gilgamesh are are gigantic mess (or gigamash). Most words are missing and readers can see anything they want. People just see what they expect and they expect literature where none may exist.

ETCSLhomepage

Even if it's in pristine quality, one could not assume the Bible absolutely copied from it. Similarity does not absolutely mean plagiarism. That was the point I was trying to make to this evangelical and arrogant person overt here who assumes others have not read books and only him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if it's in pristine quality, one could not assume the Bible absolutely copied from it. Similarity does not absolutely mean plagiarism. That was the point I was trying to make to this evangelical and arrogant person overt here who assumes others have not read books and only him.

Yes, that is why it is best to say that they probably copied from the Epic of Gilgamesh. There is quite a bit of evidence that was where the Noah's Ark myth can from, but we cannot state that as fact. There is no evidence of any other sources that I know of, and of course the story has been refuted for hundreds of years.

 

[cladking]

Even if it's in pristine quality, one could not assume the Bible absolutely copied from it. Similarity does not absolutely mean plagiarism. That was the point I was trying to make to this evangelical and arrogant person overt here who assumes others have not read books and only him.

Even if you're right, and you could be, my point is that the earliest versions are such a mess that we can't even be sure that Gilgamesh was unchanged from it's earliest forms. We can't know the later intact versions were or were not underlying the Bible so how are we to determine the oldest "versions" have any descendants today?

There is a long list of assumptions about the origin of thought, writing, and religious sources. Any deductions are dependent on these assumptions. Too many people simply take "science" at face value and don't see the magical thinking required for this. Science is merely a tool and in discussions of this sort it is used as a weapon instead.

 

[cladking]

There is a long list of assumptions about the origin of thought, writing, and religious sources. Any deductions are dependent on these assumptions.

The Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that the origins of religion could go back far further than people imagine. And from whence arose these origins? To assume religious thought is rooted in ancient superstitions is a superstition. Why would religious precepts ring true to so many individuals if they are rooted on nothing but magical beliefs? Are we to believe humans are born with such beliefs? Of what possible biological benefit would superstitions be to ancient people who were wholly ignorant of modern science and modern knowledge? How could they have survived to create us and modern science through superstition?

 

[firedragon]

Even if you're right, and you could be, my point is that the earliest versions are such a mess that we can't even be sure that Gilgamesh was unchanged from it's earliest forms. We can't know the later intact versions were or were not underlying the Bible so how are we to determine the oldest "versions" have any descendants today?

There is a long list of assumptions about the origin of thought, writing, and religious sources. Any deductions are dependent on these assumptions. Too many people simply take "science" at face value and don't see the magical thinking required for this. Science is merely a tool and in discussions of this sort it is used as a weapon instead.

Agreed.

 

[leroy]

3 it came from something else.

If the universe (all physical reality) came from something else, then by definition this “something else” has to be supernatural.

If you don’t understand something as simple as that, then forget about understanding other more complex stuff relevant in these type of discussions

 

[leroy]

it was just clarification for you, not for her.

Irrelevant…….my question is, how do you know that @YoursTrue is a woman?..................remember claims are not evidence (or at least this is what most fanatic atheist from this forum have told me multiple times)

 

[SkepticThinker]

the claim that the universe (meaning all physical reality) came from nothing is more extraordinary than any miracle reported in the bible.

You think atheists make this claim?
They don't.
They reject only one claim - the claim that god(s) exist.


Besides all that, this is actually a religious claim.

The claim that the universe has always existed is more extraordinary than any miracle reported in the bible

You think atheists make this claim?
They don't.
They reject only one claim - the claim that god(s) exist.

As a naturalist these are your only 2 options ……………so unless you reject naturalism you are necessarily believing in something more extraordinary than any miracle reported in the bible

Now you're conflating "atheist" with "naturalist."
Atheists are people who reject god claims.
That's it.

 

[leroy]

it was just clarification for you, not for her.

Irrelevant…….my question is, how do you know that @YoursTrue is a woman?..................remember claims are not evidence (or at least this is what most fanatic atheist from this forum have told me multiple times)

 

[leroy]

it was just clarification for you, not for her.

Irrelevant…….my question is, how do you know that @YoursTrue is a woman?..................remember claims are not evidence (or at least this is what most fanatic atheist from this forum have told me multiple times)

 

[ChristineM]

If the universe (all physical reality) came from something else, then by definition this “something else” has to be supernatural.

Ehm, ever heard of a multiverse? No magic required

If you don’t understand something as simple as that, then forget about understanding other more complex stuff relevant in these type of discussions

If you don't understand cosmology then why are you even discussing it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok more excuses for not answering to my request

Quote her words and explain why is she wrong

I've already quoted her words. And as noted, I've already corrected each of the individual claims she's been making since she first arrived on this board. Umpteen times. I'm not wasting my time doing it again. But I will continue to point out that the claims are, in fact, erroneous.

And I'm pretty sure I don't need your permission.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was thinking the same thing. How do 'they' know whether I'm male or female? Just because I may claim to be on these forums? hmmm....kind of like the way some people say oh yes, evolution is true because scientists say so. Even though they COULD BE WRONG... And, of course, the evidence is not there. Although they may claim it to be there.

Nobody says "evolution is true because scientists say so."

Evolution is true because that's what the EVIDENCE demonstrates.

Also, if you say you're a woman, I'm going to call you what you've requested to be called. I don't really care what your DNA says.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am speaking of the conjectures regarding evolution. While there is DNA and RNA and flopping fish, there is simply no distinct evidence showing that fish evolved to become apes. It is all conjecture insofar as evolution goes. The theory of. You may say it's true, many scientists may say so, but -- that doesn't make it true.

There are no "conjectures regarding evolution."

Genetics (nested hieararchies) and the fossil record demonstrate the evolution of all living things.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If the universe (all physical reality) came from something else, then by definition this “something else” has to be supernatural.

If you don’t understand something as simple as that, then forget about understanding other more complex stuff relevant in these type of discussions

What? Who says?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Irrelevant…….my question is, how do you know that @YoursTrue is a woman?..................remember claims are not evidence (or at least this is what most fanatic atheist from this forum have told me multiple times)

She told us she is. That's good enough for me, and anybody's gender is completely and utterly irrelevant to this discussion we're having.

 

[leroy]

Oh please, you practically never admit mistakes. But I will break my rule, which I can when I want to.

This site used to have the stated gender of members as public information. I do not like to misgender people so I would regularly check the claimed gender of members. I want to make the same mistake often and assume that people that I am talking to are male. It is often an easy error to make. Especially in an area that is disproportionate in the gender of its members. But there are female members here and it is a good idea to never forget that.

You don’t get it. (neither does @gnostic )

You don’t have evidence that @YoursTrue is a woman; all you have is a claim (she claiming to be a woman when she register in the forum)

You and your atheist friends in this forum have been very explicit and very vocal in that “claims are not evidence”………….so by your logic you have no evidence that she is a woman.

Obviously there is an easy solution,

Solution: is likely a woman because claims (at least sometimes) are evidence……..in this case her claim of she being a woman does count as evidence.

The only problem is that by accepting this solution, you have to drop your “claims are not evidence” nonsense.

 

[leroy]

What? Who says?

Simple logic

If the “natural world” (the universe) was caused by something else……………then by definition this “something else” has to be non natural or “supernatural”



Who is ready for 100+ post of you pretending that you dont understand this simple and uncontroversial statement?