Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Subduction Zone]

Because claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.

The issue here with you claiming to be a man is that it is so trivial and unimportant that nobody is going to care enough to demand evidence and instead just accept your claim at face value.

But it's still just a bare claim.

There are claims that we accept on face value because we know a person. "I bought a new pair of shoes", "I bought some spaghetti", "I bought a new puppy!". Most of those claims we would simply accept unless there was strong context against them. If your friend had no legs a claim of "I bought new shoes" would suddenly become dubious. If your friend was deathly allergic to dogs the claim of "I bought a new puppy" would require evidence. But regardless of who say "Everything in the universe was made by a being that no one can see, touch, or experience by any other physical means" then we need to demand strong evidence for that.

You know this, I know this. but at least two posters here cannot understand why that is the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not claiming that you are wrong…………I am accusing you for using creative semantics to refute the argument, instead of actually responding to the point made in the argument.

Besides the truth of your claim doesn’t affects any of my claims………..so you are just throwing a dishonest red herring



I agree………….I simply established that there is another possibility (time is infinite)

So

1 was time caused by nothing

Or

2 did time had a cause



Which of the 2 options do you think is more likely to be ture?

When you get down to it we do not know why time exists. We only know that it does exist. That does not help theists. Not knowing something is never an excuse for a god. You might be attempting to define god into existence, but you cannot define a willful god into existence. You can call the universe 'god" but that is merely switching one word for another. You are not showing that the universe is intelligent or has volition.

 

[leroy]

“ONLY” 2 possibilities?

You are talking about “possibilities“, so anything is possible, but Natural Sciences deal with what evidence are available and currently observable…meaning what are observable, as indications of what is “probable” or “likely“, or the opposites, thus ”improbable” or “unlikely”.

Sciences like physics, or astrophysics, focused on the evidence that can be observed, as the evidence tallies up or accumulate, and these provide data from samples, and they used vocabulary from the Statistics & Probabilities, hence the uses of terms, like probable vs improbable, likely vs unlikely…

WHAT THEY DON’T USE, ARE ”possible”, “possibility”. You may use these terms for philosophies, religions, mysticism, spirituality, supernatural, paranormal, magic, and so on, but with natural sciences, scientists preferred not to use them.

So whatever you could possibly imagine or dream of, could be possible…and there are myriads of possibilities, in which can make up something, no matter how crazy or unrealistic these imaginary they are.

Ok so translating your words

Yes Leroy you are correct, these are the possibilities, but in science you should go for more than just possibilities.

Is this a fare summery of what you said?

 

[leroy]

When you get down to it we do not know why time exists. We only know that it does exist. That does not help theists. Not knowing something is never an excuse for a god. You might be attempting to define god into existence, but you cannot define a willful god into existence. You can call the universe 'god" but that is merely switching one word for another. You are not showing that the universe is intelligent or has volition.

ok but why did you quote my comment, if you are not going to answer to the question?.............if you are just making randon and unrelated claims, why quoting my comment?

This is the question you are expected to answer.
So

1 was time caused by nothing

Or

2 did time had a cause



Which of the 2 options do you think is more likely to be ture?



..



Just kidding…………I know you will not answer the question

 

[PureX]

My point is that for the naturalist there are only 2 possibilities

1 it (the universe) has always existed

2 it came from nothing


In this context “universe” means all physical reality (all the natural world) ………….feel free to use any other word instead of “universe”

@leroy is quite right in this assessment.

Unfortunately, the philosophical materialists among us cannot comprehend the dilemma of existence in this way. To do so requires one to "look past" the physicality of existence to the source possibility of it. And they cannot do that. Because the physicality of existence is all there is, for them. They have cognitively disregarded anything else.

 

[Pogo]

Ok so translating your words

Yes Leroy you are correct, these are the possibilities, but in science you should go for more than just possibilities.

Is this a fare summery of what you said?

Why am I bothering?
This squiggly thing that we end sentences with and you begin as well with an upside down version does not indicate agreement, rather it is called an interrogation point or question mark to indicate that the receiver wishes the sender to provide more information to verify the sender's statement.

And yes it is summer here in the northern hemisphere but it comes without charge if I understand your meaning.

 

[cladking]

1 was time caused by nothing

What those who believe in scientific miracles don't understand is that such statements and the semantical arguments have no meaning and are irrelevancies. Without time there is no cause or effect. Without actual experiment and a proper definition even the word "time" has no meaning. There is no experiment that says what time is so anything believed about it is another of the many miracles some call "science".

 

[Pogo]

@leroy is quite right in this assessment.

Unfortunately, the philosophical materialists among us cannot comprehend the dilemma of existence in this way. To do so requires one to "look past" the physicality of existence to the source possibility of it. And they cannot do that. Because the physicality of existence is all there is, for them. They have cognitively disregarded anything else.

Fortunately if the philosophical constraints are understood and accepted an answer becomes possible.
If the constraints of the question are not defined, truth values can not be determined and the question becomes meaningless.

 

[Pogo]

What those who believe in scientific miracles don't understand is that such statements and the semantical arguments have no meaning and are irrelevancies. Without time there is no cause or effect. Without actual experiment and a proper definition even the word "time" has no meaning. There is no experiment that says what time is so anything believed about it is another of the many miracles some call "science".

I guess that is ok if you can find a scientific miracleist, but I don't know any and it is rather difficult to parse as a rational English sentence.

 

[ratiocinator]

how does that refute the comment that you are repllying to

my coment:
My point is that for the naturalist there are only 2 possibilities

1 it (the universe) has always existed

2 it came from nothing


In this context “universe” means all physical reality (all the natural world) ………….feel free to use any other word instead of “universe”

I'll try again:

1. Your two options assume (Newtonian) time. You are looking back in time and thinking the universe must have existed forever or not, and in the latter case, you think it must have 'come from nothing'.
   
   
2. According to our best relevant theory (general relativity) space-time is very much a part of the universe (physical reality).
   
   
3. The whole of space-time is a four-dimensional manifold (object), so when you ask "why does it exist?", thinking in those temporal terms and looking backwards in time (just an observer-dependant direction through said manifold) doesn't make sense.
   
   
4. Your option 1 is a truism in the sense that the universe must exist at all points in time, even if time is finite in the past.
   
   
5. Your option 2 is nonsensical because the whole of space and time cannot 'come from' anything as 'coming from' requires that time applies to it (as a whole), which it doesn't - it encompasses all of time as simply time-like directions though it.
   
   
6. Conclusion: you are approaching this as if Einstein and relativity never happened. You are looking at the problem of why the universe (or physical reality) exists from a 19th century perspective on time and causation.

 

[ratiocinator]

This is the question you are expected to answer.
So

1 was time caused by nothing

Or

2 did time had a cause

It's literally a gibberish question (at least it is if General Relativity is a good representation of physical reality and time). Causation requires the context of space-time to have any meaning.

It's kind of like asking what move in chess was responsible for the board, the pieces, and the rules.

A legitimate question would be why does the universe (including space-time) exist, rather than something else or nothing. Theists tend not to like that because, if they answer 'God', then we can immediately, and legitimately, ask the same question about any proposed God: why does this God exist, rather than a different one or nothing at all? The stock answer that "God is eternal" then doesn't work.

 

[cladking]

I guess that is ok if you can find a scientific miracleist, but I don't know any

Every time you apply reductionistic science to the real world you are seeing a miracle. Even if all of your assumptions were right, all of your definitions sound, and all experimental interpretation were correct there is still no means to know the theories apply to the real world. It would be one thing if science were always correct in these extrapolations and interpolations but history has shown they are always wrong just as surely as every scientist dies and science changes at his funeral.

This is not complex. Every human, every homo omnisciencis, who ever trod the earth thought he saw reality but it is eventually determined he was wrong about everything and when he was right he was right only in a left handed sort of way. This is the human condition. We do not see reality but rather we see what ewe believe and those who believe in science (rather than understanding it) are the holiest of all thous.

That face in the mirror you see is not the same face those around you see.

 

[cladking]

It would be one thing if science were always correct in these extrapolations and interpolations but history has shown they are always wrong just as surely as every scientist dies and science changes at his funeral.

Of course everyone imagines that since no living scientist is dead we must finally have it exactly right.

The is utter madness today because nothing is rooted in reality but rather in Soup of the Day Science. Real science evolves but our science is purchased by the highest bidder and then foisted on the public for profit. It changes daily and depends on such factors as whether it was purchased by the dairy industry or the utility companies. It depends o0n how much government can be rented to funnel money to the purchasers of the "science".

We are rushing headlong to Tower of Babel 2.0 because so few understand science (even among scientists) that we allow lobbyists to invent theory for their own purposes.

 

[PureX]

Time has nothing to do with the question at hand. The question at hand is one of possibility. How is existence possible? Why is it organized? What is the source?

1. It is eternal.

2. It self-generated.

3. It is the result of a source greater than any we could possibly comprehend.



1. Nothing that exists so far as we can perceive/conceive it, is eternal. So to presume existence itself is eternal when nothing that it manifests, is, would be highly illogical.

2. There is no extant scenario within which something can or has ever spontaneously sprung from abject nothingness. Again, to make such an assumption would be inherently contradictory and highly illogical.

3. Our inability to comprehend this mystery source does not preclude it from being a valid possibility. Whereas the logical failure of possibilities 1. and 2. have now made this possibility a necessity by default (as there are no others).

 

[cladking]

Real science evolves

And just like in real life, in nature, this evolution is punctuated equilibrium. There are no missing links because each new species arises at a very sudden paradigm shift. Humans were never fish or single celled. Every individual is NOT the same species as its parent. Just because theory after a paradigm shift might resemble its parent sometimes does not make it the same "species". We resemble homo sapiens but that doesn't make us like them.

Beliefs, all beliefs are superstitions. But, religion is more than just belief. It is a considered construct of evidence and logic and, I believe, founded in ancient knowledge.

 

[cladking]

1. Nothing that exists so far as we can perceive/conceive it, is eternal. So to presume existence itself is eternal when nothing that it manifests, is, would be highly illogical.

Indeed!

There is also no reason to believe in infinity. There aren't even two of anything in existence because everything is unique.

2. There is no extant scenario within which something can or has ever spontaneously sprung from abject nothingness. Again, to make such an assumption would be inherently contradictory and highly illogical.

Indeed. Science shows this again and again and again. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust.

3. Our inability to comprehend this mystery source does not preclude it from being a valid possibility. Whereas the logical failure of possibilities 1. and 2. have now made this possibility a necessity by default (as there are no others).

This is a virtually inescapable conclusion which I'm not ready to embrace. Obviously it is far better evidenced and more logical than the miracles in which most believe.

 

[ratiocinator]

Time has nothing to do with the question at hand. It's a question of possibility. How is existence possible? Why is it organized?

I don't claim to know.

1. It is eternal.

What does that mean if it's got nothing to do with time? The space-time manifold itself, would not be subject to time, so what would 'eternal' even mean?

2. It self-generated.

Again, 'generation' makes sense within time, but I'm not sure what it means otherwise.

3. It is the result of a source greater than any we could possibly comprehend.

'Result' is again a temporal word. It implies a 'before'. And why leap to beyond comprehension? What's wrong with just unknown?

2. There is no extant scenario within which something can or has ever spontaneously sprung from abject nothingness.

'Springing from' is more temporal language that makes no sense outside of the context of space-time, so it's absurd to apply it to space-time.

3. Our inability to comprehend this mystery source does not preclude it from being a valid possibility. Whereas the logical failure of possibility 1. and 2. have now made this possibility a necessity, by default (as there are no others).

No. You started out by saying, "Time has nothing to do with the question at hand.", but pretty much everything you've proposed, and are now trying to dismiss, makes no sense without it.

I know it's conceptually difficult to realise that time is basically a direction (actually observer-dependant directions) through a four dimensional object, rather than the intuitive Newtonian view, but it's not impossible to grasp it, and when you do, it changes the questions and the possibilities.

 

[cladking]

What's wrong with just unknown?

"Unknown" implies a simple answer a caveman could understand. The answer could be as impossibly complex as reality itself. Humans do not have the capacity to even understand rocket science so even after its invention it is still broken down into many specialties and computers are used for most calculations. I doubt reality is composed of natural laws and mathematics but even if it is we could never understand the interplay of all these natural laws even if we could discover them all.

Yes, it's unknown but almost certainly unknowable in terms of reductionism. Perhaps nonreductionistic species already have a better ability to see reality and how it came to be. What we see is always determined not only by what we believe but also our perspective.

 

[ratiocinator]

"Unknown" implies a simple answer...

No, it doesn't.

The answer could be as impossibly complex as reality itself.

What does "impossibly complex" even mean, and how can it apply to reality if it's impossible in some way?

It could be beyond human comprehension, but we have no way at all to ever conclude that because we can't tell the difference between an unknown and something we cannot know because it's beyond our ability. They will always look exactly the same: a gap in what we know.

 

[gnostic]

And just like in real life, in nature, this evolution is punctuated equilibrium. There are no missing links because each new species arises at a very sudden paradigm shift. Humans were never fish or single celled. Every individual is NOT the same species as its parent. Just because theory after a paradigm shift might resemble its parent sometimes does not make it the same "species". We resemble homo sapiens but that doesn't make us like them.

What I have highlighted in red, is just pure strawman and misinformation as to what the theory of Evolution explained.

The part that I have highlighted in BIG FONT, is your misunderstanding of Punctuated Equilibrium..it certainly isn’t the Punctuated Equilibrium that Stephen Jay Gould & Niles Eldredge have proposed.

Your version is completely different, and wrong, and you can’t really call your version “Punctuated Equilibrium”.

Punctuated Equilibrium stated that only on some rare occasions, certain population would change and you have sudden divergence of two or more speciation, and then then there would be no evolving or no speciation for a long period of time, before another occurrence, and this long non-evolving period is called a stasis.

What you (cladking) described that every reproduction, the next generation would be new species, hence no long period of stasis. What you are saying have absolutely nothing to do with Punctuated Equilibrium.

Once again, this is another strawman, because that’s not what Efredge & Gould were postulating for P.E. You are making up thing are not in any way true, making up some nonsensical pseudoscience claim.