Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[ratiocinator]

What I can say is that, with Science, everything has a cause and effect...

False.

...unless it can't be explained then it is a miracle.

The unexplained is a miracle? Is this a joke?

...unless atheists want to claim that based on 'water dipolarity theory' God parted the sea with giant magnets at that era?

You want science to explain an evidence-free myth?

...it seems to me that atheist in their attempt to disproof the Existence God with science...

Not something any sensible atheist would try to do. At least, not in the general case. Science can disprove some versions of 'God', such as the one that created everything 6,000 years ago in six literal days. Generally speaking, science has nothing to say about god(s), and atheists do not accept the claims of theists simply for lack of any reason to take them seriously.

Here the discussion, among other things, is about science falsifying some supposed arguments for a god, not god itself.

 

[B-psychedelic]

False.


The unexplained is a miracle? Is this a joke?


You want science to explain an evidence-free myth?


Not something any sensible atheist would try to do. At least, not in the general case. Science can disprove some versions of 'God', such as the one that created everything 6,000 years ago in six literal days. Generally speaking, science has nothing to say about god(s), and atheists do not accept the claims of theists simply for lack of any reason to take them seriously.

Here the discussion, among other things, is about science falsifying some supposed arguments for a god, not god itself.

To be able to make such statements,

1. you define what miracle is to science.​

2. you have to understand the question, understand my view and then you can recant.​

It seems you are too quick to respond without looking at the premises stated above. it is my opinion based on the question asked, observing some of the atheists i have come across, which i stated in my first submission. Please stop responding to questions that were never asked.

 

[leroy]

Of course that would follow if it wasn't obviously silly to suggest a cause for the natural world in the first place, because causation is a part of the natural world. If your God had a God, it would necessarily be a super-God, I guess.

I would like you to show evidence for that…how do you know that causation is limited to the natural world?

What is “non- sensical ” about a cause that exists “above nature” that caused the natural world?.............what alternative do you suggest and why is that alternative better?

because causation is a part of the natural world.

just ot be clear, I reject that claim

 

[ratiocinator]

To be able to make such statements,
1. you define what miracle is to science.

Not a thing.

2. you have to understand the question, understand my view and then you can recant.

I can only go by what you actually said, which appeared to be rather silly, hence my post was mostly questions.

You are simply wrong about science and cause and effect, and your idea that atheists try to disprove god with science is generally false too. In the general case, I'd be happy to argue with you that it can't be done. However, your view that they "always end up proving God's Existence and power" is rather absurd too.

 

[leroy]

No, it's the exact topic. Since you are talking about the origins of space-time.
And you wish to posit causality as at least part of that explanation.

So it's very much on-topic to point out that causality is a temporal phenomenon and that you thus are trying to invoke temporal phenomenon to try and explain the origins of temporal conditions. This makes no sense.



I can't answer your question because it seems to make no sense. See above.



Which would render your question into the category of "not even wrong"



But that's exactly what you are trying to do.............................................
Claiming that time came from pre-existing things that require time themselves.

Note how in this entire conversation, I haven't once made a claim about the origins of the universe or "the natural world".




Neither claim is a claim I'm making either.... so yeah... not really seeing the relevance here.


I understand. I understand you are making nonsensical statements hoping to score some kind of point.
I understand you are doing your very best to try and ignore your own faulty reasoning and are using strawmen to project it unto us.

I did my best………………. Ether

1 you are unable to understand simple stuff

or

2 you are pretending not to understand as a “debate tactic”

or

3 I am too bad in explaining stuff

My best guess is “2”….. but I can take the blaim and assume “3”………..in any case I have no interest in debating this with you

 

[Balthazzar]

For our resident atheists and I guess the truth in the title of this thread depends upon which side of the Einsteinian equation is prescribed to.

 

[ratiocinator]

I would like you to show evidence for that…how do you know that causation is limited to the natural world?

*Sigh* As I said before, because causation requires time, time is a coordinate in space-time, and space-time, is most definitely part of physical reality. The latter being absolutely clear from General Relativity and the evidence for it.

The space-time manifold 'just is'. Time is nothing but a class of directions through it. The manifold as a whole is not embedded in time, so cannot have a cause.

What is “non- sensical ” about a cause that exists “above nature” that caused the natural world?

See above.

.............what alternative do you suggest and why is that alternative better?

Not sure what you're asking for. An alternative to something incoherent? The alternative, and more sensible, question to ask is why does physical reality exist, rather than getting stuck in causation. But I said that before, too.

just ot be clear, I reject that claim

Given what we know from the evidence, this is just head-in-sand.

 

[leroy]

OK, but I don't think that addresses my point, which was that everything that is causally connected, that is which can affect and be affected by other things, can be called nature.

Why should that be the case?

I don't know why you wrote those words.

No, that isn't hard to understand. The first anything can't be caused by another same thing. It's also a trivial point.

Yes it was meant to be a trivial point, no idea why @TagliatelliMonster has so much problems in understanding

Do you understand what is being written to you? That doesn't seem to address it.

Because you are writing stuff that is unrelated to the point that I made

I've commented to you in the past that I have no idea what your reason for writing things you have written - what your larger point or goal was - and we're there again. What are you talking about and why?

The original point that I made is that if you are a naturalist you only have 2 options

1 ether nature (originally used the word universe) has always existed

2 nature came from nothing

The third alternative

3 “nature came from something” is not an option because this “something” would have to be non-natural (supernatural) which is something that a naturalist should accept

The larger point is that option 1 and 2 are likely wrong and there are good arguments against these options…………..making 3 the most probable option

An agnostic is somebody who says he doesn't know regarding any question, not just about gods. A religious agnostic doesn't need to give a likelihoods for gods existing, and in fact, has no way to do that. I addressed that yesterday in this post.

That is just semantics………….I obviously don’t claim to know with 100% certainty that God exists…but I think he evidence supports theism over atheism. …. Given this most people would label me as a theist despite the fact that by your definition I would be an agnostic (because really don’t know)

but whatever you can call me an agnostic if you whant

. Buit as you just saw if you looked at that link, I don't make such an assertion.

agree, If you dot assert that atheism is more likely to be true than theism, you have no burden proof

 

[leroy]

*Sigh* As I said before, because causation requires time,

How do you know that? ………..this is a highly controversial issue that is currently dividing experts form different areas…………… what information do you have that would end this controversy?

 

[ratiocinator]

How do you know that? ………..this is a highly controversial issue that is currently dividing experts form different areas……………

Such as whom, exactly, and how do they propose to have causation without time? Also, how do you cause something that is, as a whole, timeless (did not in any sense begin to exist), and that contains time?

In relativity (which is the best tested relevant theory we have, backed up by endless evidence), the causal structure is such that a cause must be within the past light-cone of what is caused. Obviously, that can only apply within space-time. There is no past light-cone for the whole manifold, it wouldn't even make sense.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why should that be the case?

I wrote, "everything that is causally connected, that is which can affect and be affected by other things, can be called nature."

Why call an aspect of reality that can interact with other real things by a different name than nature? Why isn't reality outside of our universe not also nature? I would call it extra-universal nature whether that be a multiverse, a deity, or something else.

The original point that I made is that if you are a naturalist you only have 2 options
1 ether nature (originally used the word universe) has always existed
2 nature came from nothing

OK.

The third alternative

3 “nature came from something” is not an option because this “something” would have to be non-natural (supernatural) which is something that a naturalist should accept

Here's where we part ways. I'm calling that something be it a multiverse or a deity (extra-universal) nature, too.

The larger point is that option 1 and 2 are likely wrong and there are good arguments against these options…………..making 3 the most probable option

If you define nature as I have, either 1 or 2 must be correct. What are your good arguments against them?

From a previous post about the origin of the universe. These are all of the logical possibilities in my estimation. Everything listed, if it exists, is an aspect of nature, one being the universe and two being putative extra-universal sources of it. Why do you want to say otherwise?:

I. The universe has no cause

It has always existed​

It came into existence uncaused​

II. The universe has a prior cause

It is conscious (a deity)​

It is an unconscious substance (multiverse, for example)​

That is just semantics

That was a response to "An agnostic is somebody who says he doesn't know regarding any question, not just about gods. A religious agnostic doesn't need to give a likelihoods for gods existing, and in fact, has no way to do that. I addressed that yesterday in this post"

OK. Definitions are an aspect of semantics, as it is about the meaning of words. Our discussion about the meaning of the word nature is also semantics:

Semantics - "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning."

I obviously don’t claim to know with 100% certainty that God exists…but I think the evidence supports theism over atheism. …. Given this most people would label me as a theist despite the fact that by your definition I would be an agnostic (because really don’t know)

It wasn't obvious to me that you aren't certain a god exists, but if that expresses your position, yes, by modern reckoning, you would be considered both a theist and an agnostic - an agnostic theist. You're a theist because you are a believer but agnostic because you don't claim that your god belief is correct. In my experience, most theists are gnostic theist. They claim to know that their god exists. In fact, many if not most Christians say that they have a personal relationship with their god. You're doing better than they are, but believing in something that you say you don't know exists is a logical error albeit a comforting one for many. Maybe a better word would be that you hope or suspect a god exists.

This, too, is semantics.

you can call me an agnostic if you want

I hope you understand now that that doesn't mean that I think you're not a theist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok so at least sometimes claims are evidence…………….as you just explained……..we agree…………the next time an atheist asserts that “clams are not evidence” (never ever) I will tag you so that you can correct him

I don't know why you'd do that, after having read what I wrote to you.

 

[ratiocinator]

From a previous post about the origin of the universe. These are all of the logical possibilities in my estimation. Everything listed, if it exists, is an aspect of nature, one being the universe and two being putative extra-universal sources of it. Why do you want to say otherwise?:

I. The universe has no cause

It has always existed​

It came into existence uncaused​

II. The universe has a prior cause

It is conscious (a deity)​

It is an unconscious substance (multiverse, for example)​

TBH you seem to be, partially at least, making the same mistake as @leroy. The whole space-time—even if it's much bigger than 'the universe' that we observe, say an "eternal inflation" type multiverse—cannot "came into existence". Things can only "came into existence" within a space-time.

The same goes for causation (at least from the scientific, relativistic point of view). There are also some rather strange options when one ditches Newtonian time and considers the options available when time becomes just a coordinate.

For example, there is more than one hypothesis that would lead to what has sometimes been described as a 'mirror universe' (not to be confused with the same term in Star Trek), which means the time dimension is continuous through the big bang but changes direction. In this case we have two 'universes', with time running in opposite directions, with the big bang in the past of both. Does it have a cause? No. The BB is in the past light-cone of everything, in both universes, but the BB has no past at all, let alone a past light-cone. Both time-like directions away from it are the future. Did it "come into existence"? No. It's still just a space-time manifold - a four-dimensional object.

 

[Pogo]

To be able to make such statements,

1. you define what miracle is to science.​

2. you have to understand the question, understand my view and then you can recant.​

It seems you are too quick to respond without looking at the premises stated above. it is my opinion based on the question asked, observing some of the atheists i have come across, which i stated in my first submission. Please stop responding to questions that were never asked.

The word miracle to a scientist means something a non-scientist claims, without evidence, implies a supernatural.
To the scientist, it is something that if it can even be demonstrated to exist is only something that we do not yet understand.
This differentiation has nothing to do with being an atheist, that refers to lack of belief in gods, but the scientific conclusion of we do not know for that which we do not know rather than calling it a "miracle".

 

[B-psychedelic]

The word miracle to a scientist means something a non-scientist claims, without evidence, implies a supernatural.
To the scientist, it is something that if it can even be demonstrated to exist is only something that we do not yet understand.
This differentiation has nothing to do with being an atheist, that refers to lack of belief in gods, but the scientific conclusion of we do not know for that which we do not know rather than calling it a "miracle".

please, help me understand this;

1. What type of faction of Atheism do you belong to?​

2. Which view Atheism are you using in this debate (Implicit or Explicit)?​

let me give you a clue "Implicit atheism is "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism is the conscious rejection of belief. It is usual to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism."​

the only way to reject religion is to prove it unreliability with logic and the only tool "outside religion" is science.

Also any occurrence that defies logic and reasoning is termed as a Miracle even according to atheism.
Many claim they are atheists and yet you will realize their reasoning is flawed in terms of practicality and the only way out of it is to say, science will discover the truth in the near future.

 

[Pogo]

Christ Jesus Is Lord!
What I can say is that, with Science, everything has a cause and effect unless it can't be explained then it is a miracle. So Atheist( at least most of them) treat miracles as unknown variables till it gets explained whiles believers don't. whether or not science is able to explain it, it is still a miracle to believers unless atheists want to claim that based on 'water dipolarity theory' God parted the sea with giant magnets at that era? it seems to me that atheist in their attempt to disproof the Existence God with science always end up proving God's Existence and power.

The silly water dipolarity exodus argument that was brought up somewhere recently was unrelated to science but a creationist attempting to take a Japanese paper about magnetic separation of dissolved solids and imply that it was evidence for the truth of the exodus. It was bad theology and not science. I laughed at it at the time, but since you brought it up, that is the reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like the word morph better than evolve in this case.
Ha ha, I like your last sentences. Very funny.

"Morph" is inaccurate since that usually applies to individuals. And as you have been told countless times individuals do not evolve.

 

[Pogo]

please, help me understand this;

1. What type of faction of Atheism do you belong to?​

2. Which view Atheism are you using in this debate (Implicit or Explicit)?​

let me give you a clue "Implicit atheism is "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism is the conscious rejection of belief. It is usual to define atheism in terms of an explicit stance against theism."​

the only way to reject religion is to prove it unreliability with logic and the only tool "outside religion" is science.

Also any occurrence that defies logic and reasoning is termed as a Miracle even according to atheism.
Many claim they are atheists and yet you will realize their reasoning is flawed in terms of practicality and the only way out of it is to say, science will discover the truth in the near future.

No, you have set yourself up a bunch of false dichotomies in an attempt to pretend that your predetermined conclusion is correct.
First atheism is a lack of belief in gods just as theism is a belief in one or more gods. Interestingly most theists are predominantly atheist in their thinking.
There are strong atheists who believe there are no gods, but I and most are not them, I personally believe that it is possible that we are the product of a snotty kid in God high school universe creation lab who created this universe and us humans just to see what we would do like focusing the sun on an ant maze with a magnifying glass to watch the ants. It explains the world every bit as well as the Christian god.

As to your claims about those you obviously don't really know, I will ignore them except to ask you for this definition of practicality and some evidence for whatever it is you are claiming for it?

Getting your understanding from creationist websites is a sure way to find yourself misinformed about reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christ Jesus Is Lord!
What I can say is that, with Science, everything has a cause and effect unless it can't be explained then it is a miracle. So Atheist( at least most of them) treat miracles as unknown variables till it gets explained whiles believers don't. whether or not science is able to explain it, it is still a miracle to believers unless atheists want to claim that based on 'water dipolarity theory' God parted the sea with giant magnets at that era? it seems to me that atheist in their attempt to disproof the Existence God with science always end up proving God's Existence and power.

So many things wrong in a rather short post. First off, not, not everything in science is cause and effect. When one gets down to quantum levels everything is based upon probabilities. Let me give you an example by scaling up a bit. If one has a block of radioactive material there is no known way to predict when a particular atom will decay. Though we can calculate what the odds are of any particular particle decaying over a known period of time. That is not "cause and effect".

The problem with miracles is that there is no reliable evidence that any of them ever happened. In fact as our technology to detect such events has increased their number has dropped precipitously indicating that there probably are no miracles.

As to the Red Sea parting that is likely just a myth. Ask an archaeologist why the whole Moses story appears to be made up. If it was real there should be evidence of their trek, but again, that evidence is missing.

Lastly the fact of evolution has nothing to do with trying to "disprove God". The theory of evolution only explains how life as we know it came to its present state. It has nothing to say about whether a God exist or not. In fact worldwide the highest percentage of "evolutionists" are also Christians. Atheists do not have to try to prove that God exists. That is a shifting of the burden of proof The burden of proof is upon various theists. Don't worry, we are waiting and we have plenty of popcorn.

 

[B-psychedelic]

So many things wrong in a rather short post. First off, not, not everything in science is cause and effect. When one gets down to quantum levels everything is based upon probabilities. Let me give you an example by scaling up a bit. If one has a block of radioactive material there is no known way to predict when a particular atom will decay. Though we can calculate what the odds are of any particular particle decaying over a known period of time. That is not "cause and effect".

The problem with miracles is that there is no reliable evidence that any of them ever happened. In fact as our technology to detect such events has increased their number has dropped precipitously indicating that there probably are no miracles.

As to the Red Sea parting that is likely just a myth. Ask an archaeologist why the whole Moses story appears to be made up. If it was real there should be evidence of their trek, but again, that evidence is missing.

Lastly the fact of evolution has nothing to do with trying to "disprove God". The theory of evolution only explains how life as we know it came to its present state. It has nothing to say about whether a God exist or not. In fact worldwide the highest percentage of "evolutionists" are also Christians. Atheists do not have to try to prove that God exists. That is a shifting of the burden of proof The burden of proof is upon various theists. Don't worry, we are waiting and we have plenty of popcorn.

I am here to learn, therefore kindly give evidence on your claim about Science other than miracles which are not actual science.