Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[leroy]

I'll try again:

1. Your two options assume (Newtonian) time.

Nope... nobody is making that assumption

 

[ratiocinator]

Nope... nobody is making that assumption

Okay, so address my points and rephrase your options so that they make sense for the whole space-time.

 

[cladking]

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

The rules and mechanics of the results of atomic collisions are unknown but they determine the future and are the reality. Each collision is dependent on every other collision occurring now or at any time in the past. The odds of any specific event is effectively one in infinity yet reality exists just as outcome of any random process is the exact same no matter the outcome. It is exactly as likely to flip a coin a million times and have it come of heads each time as ANY other result.

We don't see this complexity but we still know it exists. Believers in science and its miracles of understanding just refuse to see it. They invent facile answers to every question from why species change to why science does not.

Using your logic I can propose flipping a coin an infinite number of times and every time it comes up heads. At any point the results will be just as likely as any other result. If there were such a thing as "infinity", and there is not, then ANY OUTCOME of coinflips at all is equally "impossible". Reality is impossibly complex. It is far more complex than the concept of infinity because each coin flip, every atomic collision, makes every outcome ever less likely; YET, HERE WE ARE. Atoms came together in such a way as to make free will possible. With free will a bee can find food and make honey propagating beekind and influencing the future forever. Where would we be today if a bee hadn't pollinated the apple that landed on Newton's head? This makes life and its consciousness even more impossible than reality (without life) itself. How can this be invisible to homo omnisciencis? Don't people study and understand science? How can anyone believe that we have any real answers or real understanding of what reality is or how it arose? Are anomalies invisible when we have every answer?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Whatever this^ means, the only thing I can get from it is that you want some super explanation which you believe without evidence. Scientific theories are not wild a** guesses and they are not assumed or held to be "correct". but the best explanation we have based on the evidence we have at the current time. They change when we have new evidence that requires an updated explanation.

You can believe we are a brain in a vat or that everything is controlled by some being, it would not change one thing about science and there are scientists who do believe those things, but they do not include them in their science because while they believe and have faith in them, the do not have evidence.

There are scientists that believe in miracles, but miracles are not a part of science, they are a part of belief systems.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Oh, no another person who feels left out and that the world is a conspiracy against him because he is hung up on an ancient campfire story.

 

[firedragon]

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

I would recommend the usage of "meta physical".

 

[Pogo]

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.

This is just superstitious gibberish, it doesn't even qualify as wrong, based on a poor interpretation of an ancient text. Humanity in general has grown up sufficiently to recognize that even if the root of the story is true, this interpretation is leftover from childhood.

 

[Pogo]

"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.

No, unknown implies we don't know it, not that the answer is simple or complex. For example Rocket Science was unknown to cavemen yet they understood and made use of many of its principles intuitively. The theories that are the basis for Rocket Science were developed almost 5 centuries ago by a radical heretic who disagreed with his protestant church's interpretation by the name of Isaac Newton. Turns out Rocket Science is fairly simple, so simple that it is taught in High Schools.

I will however agree that your perspective needs work.

 

[Pogo]

The rules and mechanics of the results of atomic collisions are unknown but they determine the future and are the reality. Each collision is dependent on every other collision occurring now or at any time in the past. The odds of any specific event is effectively one in infinity yet reality exists just as outcome of any random process is the exact same no matter the outcome. It is exactly as likely to flip a coin a million times and have it come of heads each time as ANY other result.

We don't see this complexity but we still know it exists. Believers in science and its miracles of understanding just refuse to see it. They invent facile answers to every question from why species change to why science does not.

Using your logic I can propose flipping a coin an infinite number of times and every time it comes up heads. At any point the results will be just as likely as any other result. If there were such a thing as "infinity", and there is not, then ANY OUTCOME of coinflips at all is equally "impossible". Reality is impossibly complex. It is far more complex than the concept of infinity because each coin flip, every atomic collision, makes every outcome ever less likely; YET, HERE WE ARE. Atoms came together in such a way as to make free will possible. With free will a bee can find food and make honey propagating beekind and influencing the future forever. Where would we be today if a bee hadn't pollinated the apple that landed on Newton's head? This makes life and its consciousness even more impossible than reality (without life) itself. How can this be invisible to homo omnisciencis? Don't people study and understand science? How can anyone believe that we have any real answers or real understanding of what reality is or how it arose? Are anomalies invisible when we have every answer?

Solipsism is neither a useful nor pretty philosophy as we can see from your implementation.

 

[PureX]

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.

Only because you refuse to acknowledge that an "eternity" is timeless. That time is just a cognitive perception derived from the relationship between space and motion. All of which are aspects OF existence expressed, not prerequisites of it's occurring.

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.

Time has nothing to do with the question of existential possibility (origin) apart from it being one aspect of what has been rendered possible. The fact that time "moves" in one direction is just more proof that existence is not eternal (as in the 2nd proposition).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

who is the one who believes in miracles?

The supernaturalist.

From my experience, atheists ( meaning “internet atheist”) don’t believe that things come from nothing, (nor they deny it ether) they keep an ambiguous and flexible view where they don’t claim nor deny anything , so that they can avoid the burden proof and “win” the debate with semantics

When I tell you that I am agnostic regarding the history and possible origin of our universe, you see that as a semantic trick to shift the burden of proof? Agnosticism is an evolved position whenever we can neither prove nor disprove a hypothesis. The natural tendency seems to be to guess an answer, but where's the value there short of comforting a mind uncomfortable with not guessing? I can tell you the danger of doing that, and I'll bet that you can as well.

Note that agnosticism refers to more than just questions about gods. It's applicable whenever one answers, "I don't know," which is what the roots of the word say - not knowing.

Incidentally, I agree with you that a claim is evidence. Any apprehension is evidence, and it need not be of the external world. Once evidence is apprehended (becomes evident to the conscious observer), we add the understanding prior experience confers and possibly an affective component (how we feel about it).

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

Whatever is said to be not amenable to empiric inquiry can be treated as nonexistent. Believers like to tell us that their gods are undetectable to scientists while also asking us to believe they've detected one. What Christians have done is to have invented a god that they say transcends reason and physics. OK, but being undetectable, it also transcends relevance as do all unfalsifiable "not even wrong" claims.

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

Disagree. Nature may be larger than our universe. If there is a multiverse by which I mean an unconscious source of universes, then that is nature as well.

what evidence is there that you know of that God does not exist?

If you mean the god of Abraham, science has ruled that deity out. There may be a god, but if so, it's not the one that is said to have created the world in six days including a first pair of humans. I understand that that's probably not important to you. You'll go on believing in that deity whatever evidence or argument is presented to you, because even though you ask for it, you're not considering the answer, which means that you can never be persuaded by what is recognized as a compelling argument to a critical thinker.

None of that makes evolution (the theory of) true.

And this is also a result of your unwillingness to apply reason to a cherished belief. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt, and it is possible to know that, but it is also possible to prevent oneself from the same.

But that's OK. It isn't important that you be right about any of this.

For the sake of others, in your own words as you understand the theory, showing, if you will (but you can't) how some fish morphed to become apes. You can't or won't do it. And neither can scientists, no matter how much you doth protest.

And again. Apes had fish ancestors. That's a fact that can be known. That you don't know it is also OK.

To assume religious thought is rooted in ancient superstitions is a superstition

God beliefs are superstitious. Look at the definition: "a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief"

Of what possible biological benefit would superstitions be to ancient people who were wholly ignorant of modern science and modern knowledge?

Superstitious belief isn't necessarily selected for just because it's prevalent. We would expect any living thing with instincts that assign agency to say thunder (my dogs are instinctively frightened of it) to become superstitious once it evolved symbolic thought (includes language).

Dawkins wrote an interesting piece about moths and flames in which he said that the correct question is not to ask what benefit flying toward and into light sources is to moths inasmuch as it is so prevalent among them, but rather to understand that phenomenon as an instinct that evolved when such light sources were heavenly bodies at a virtually intine distance away generating nearly parallel rays that was exploited by evolution in navigation.

But eons later, man starts making much closer light sources with diverging rays that coopt this system and cause moths to navigate in circles. I highly recommend looking at this link and Dawkins' explanation for the rise of religion throughout human culture. Religion need not confer a survival advantage to be widespread in humanity any more than flying into flames does that for moths: What Use is Religion?

It is hard to understand how God did create the world when there was nothing to start with. It took God thousands of years to create the earth. He started with just one little spectrum floating in space. He took it and started working it to where it became larger and was able to then create things inside.

That's pretty much the scientific idea as well, except without the deity. The earth formed from the collapse of the nebula that became the solar system and grew by accretion over a very long period of time (millions of years, not thousands).

You probably also meant speck and not spectrum

God only give miracles to the one that truly believes in him.

What that claim says to me is that if one believes in gods and miracles, then he will begin to see miracles, which is also known as seeing through a faith-based confirmation bias.

 

[ratiocinator]

Only because you refuse to acknowledge that an "eternity" is timeless.

Then the space-time manifold, as a whole, is eternal (according to General Relativity).

That time is just a cognitive perception derived from the relationship between space and motion.

We have a properly and extensively tested theory of space-time. Your amateur assertions about it are not relevant.

Time has nothing to do with the question of existential possibility (origin) apart from it being one aspect of what has been rendered possible. The fact that time "moves" in one direction is just more proof that existence is not eternal (as in the 2nd proposition).

Now the flow or "motion" of time is, according to the evidence, a cognitive perception. Time itself is just a coordinate in space-time.

You cannot have an 'origin' or things getting "rendered possible" without time, and your conclusion about existence (the universe/space-time) not being 'eternal' is a direct contradiction with established science, and your own definition of 'eternal' meaning 'timeless'.

Only things within space-time can come into existence or cease to exist. The space-time itself cannot because all events are spread out along its time-like coordinates. The entire history of anything within spacetime is simply a time-like path (line) through the manifold.

As I said, some theists seriously need to drag themselves out of the 19th century.

 

[ChristineM]

is simply a time-like path (line) through the manifold

Otherwise known as "the arrow of time" and "time's arrow"

 

[ratiocinator]

Otherwise known as "the arrow of time" and "time's arrow"

There is time itself, which is a direction through space-time, there is the 'flow of time', which is probably an artifact of how the brain works, and the 'arrow of time', which is the difference between the past and future directions. The last has been the subject of much debate, but is may well be down to thermodynamics.

 

[ChristineM]

There is time itself, which is a direction through space-time, there is the 'flow of time', which is probably an artifact of how the brain works, and the 'arrow of time', which is the difference between the past and future directions. The last has been the subject of much debate, but is may well be down to thermodynamics.

I see time as a way to quantify entropy and to ensure one thing happens after another.

 

[cladking]

Scientific theories are not wild a** guesses and they are not assumed or held to be "correct". but the best explanation we have based on the evidence we have at the current time. They change when we have new evidence that requires an updated explanation.

Real theory is derived from experiment and not whatever the highest bidder wants. Real theory explains experiment and is not a magical means of seeing all of reality. Yet most people seem see all of reality only in terms of what they believe is science and they see it in terms of their own narrow specialties.

Experiment is merely a means to see a tiny aspect of reality in the lab. It can never be extrapolated to reality except as an hypothesis but we all do it anyway. And then people use it to interpolate what isn't experiment. Rather than spectra we see a colored picture. We don't see the same picture as people 50 years ago or 500.

You can believe we are a brain in a vat or that everything is controlled by some being, it would not change one thing about science and there are scientists who do believe those things, but they do not include them in their science because while they believe and have faith in them, the do not have evidence.

There are cosmologists who believe there are an infinite number of pyramids on an infinite number of worlds all built with an infinite number of ramps. You don't see any problem with this because they have the math to show it. It would never occur to you or them that reality might be impossible to show mathematically. It would never occur to you that life is many orders of magnitude more complex than any chemical process. Many scientists don't even believe in free will which is perhaps the only reality in existence that is an abstraction to homo omnisciencis.

 

[cladking]

Solipsism is neither a useful nor pretty philosophy as we can see from your implementation.

Right. Reality is just an inconvenience that stands between us and our own omniscience.

 

[PureX]

Then the space-time manifold, as a whole, is eternal (according to General Relativity).

What is a "space-time manifold? It's a fancy object-sounding term for the relationship between space and motion that we perceive as "time". If nothing ever moved (movement requires space) there would be no "time". And that state would be eternal.

We have a properly and extensively tested theory of space-time. Your amateur assertions about it are not relevant.

Pretending you're a science guru means nothing to me. I do not worship the phantasm of scientific reality that you do so calling me naive or ignorant doesn't carry any weight at all. It's just empty 'shuckin' and jivin'".

Now the flow or "motion" of time is, according to the evidence, a cognitive perception. Time itself is just a coordinate in space-time.

Yes, as I have been pointing out all along, time is simply our perceived relationship between space and motion. Before these became a possible existential manifestation, there was no time. So time is not relevant to the question of existential source.

You cannot have an 'origin' or things getting "rendered possible" without time, and your conclusion about existence (the universe/space-time) not being 'eternal' is a direct contradiction with established science, and your own definition of 'eternal' meaning 'timeless'.

This is wrong. In fact, what this shows us is that whatever the existential source is, IT must logically be eternal, even though the existential realm emanating from it, is not. (Evidence in support of the aforementioned possibility #3).

Only things within space-time can come into existence or cease to exist. The space-time itself cannot because all events are spread out along its time-like coordinates. The entire history of anything within spacetime is simply a time-like path (line) through the manifold.

"Within" ... "within" ... you don't seem to be getting that the source is not "within" the result. All the limitations (time, space, matter, whatever) that exist WITHIN the expression of existence do not apply to the source that determined it's expression possible. You keep trying to insist that it somehow does. This is just not logical.

As I said, some theists seriously need to drag themselves out of the 19th century.

And most atheists need some lessons of logic 101.

 

[ratiocinator]

I see time as a way to quantify entropy and to ensure one thing happens after another.

On the level of basic physics (relativity) time is a coordinate or direction through space-time. Things like time dilation and length contraction in special relativity are the direct result of different observers having different directions through space-time as their time coordinate. General relativity complicates things a lot more and results in even more 'disagreement' between observers as to what direction is time.

The increase in entropy may be responsible for the past/future distinction, and is probably the consensus, but other hypotheses are available.

 

[ratiocinator]

What is a "space-time manifold?

Mathematically, it's a pseudo-Riemannian or Lorentzian manifold. Using this exact model has been extensively tested and has never failed to provide correct predictions.

It's a fancy object-sounding term for the relationship between space and motion that we perceive as "time". If nothing ever moved (movement requires space) there would be no "time". And that state would be eternal.

Worthless, intuitive hand-waving in the face of hard science.

Pretending you're a science guru means nothing to me.

I'm not a 'guru' nor am I pretending. I know what I know about the science through the hard work of actually studying it.

I do not worship the phantasm of scientific reality...

A 'phantasm' that gives you the technology to preach your anti-science superstitions to the world. Oh, the irony.

Yes, as I have been pointing out all along, time is simply our perceived relationship between space and motion.

That's not what I said, and motion requires time, not the other way around.

Before these became a possible existential manifestation, there was no time. So time is not relevant to the question of existential source.

There can't be a 'before' time, it's a contradiction in terms. The word 'before' is meaningless without time. You're again implicitly using Newtonian time, and you don't seem to even realise it.

This is wrong. In fact, what this shows us is that whatever the existential source is, IT must logically be eternal, even though the existential realm emanating from it, is not. (Exidence in support of the aforementioned possibility #3).

The space-time as a whole is timeless (not subject to time) you said timeless is what eternal means. The rest is more hand-waving nonsense.

"Within" ... "within" ... you don't seem to be getting that. All the limitations (time, space, matter, whatever) that exist WITHIN the expression of existence do not apply to the aource that made it's expression possible.

Well, space, time and matter all exist within the space-time manifold. You have provided no evidence or reasoning that actually support anything else.

You keep trying to insist that it somehow does.

No, I don't. Your vague hand-waving about a 'source' is not making coherent sense.

This is just not logical.

And most atheists need some lessons of logic 101.

Your grasp of logic seems as tenuous as your grasp of science.