Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[SkepticThinker]

ok

and how about answering my question
hen what would the proper word for this possition ? “I dont know and I have no reason to think that one view is more likely to be true than the other”

Do you believe in god(s)? Do you believe that the existence of god(s) is knowable or not knowable?

Please note this is different from what you said before when you threw in your 50% "probability" claim.

And even more important, does that position represents you?

I've just told you what my position is: Agnostic atheist.

 

[leroy]

I accept the existence of things that are observable, measurable and demonstrable in some way.
I try not to make claims about things that don't fit that description.

ok, and what woudl your answer to my question would be?

What is the point of quoting my comments, if you are not going to respond the question?

 

[SkepticThinker]

ok, and what woudl your answer to my question would be?

What is the point of quoting my comments, if you are not going to respond the question?

I just told you.

 

[leroy]

Do you believe in god(s)? Do you believe that the existence of god(s) is knowable or not knowable?

Please note this is different from what you said before when you threw in your 50% "probability" claim.

I've just told you what my position is: Agnostic atheist.

again answer my question

if not agnostic, would describe someoen who claims: I dont know and I have no reason to think that one view is more likely to be true than the other

I've just told you what my position is: Agnostic atheist.

Irrelevant, form your definitions an agnostic atheist could answer yes or no to the question.

As an agnostic atheist , and given the evidence that we have, do you affirm that the evidence supports one view (theism or atheism) over the other?...given the evidence do you think one view is more likely to be true than the other?........or would you say that both sides have more less the same amount of evidence ? (are equally likely to be true)

 

[leroy]

I just told you.

No, as usual you avoided the question

 

[leroy]

I just told you.

No, as usual you avoided the question

 

[Pogo]

Granted, but in this case, you (nor any scientist) cannot reconstruct the evolution of the eye


Would you grant that the evolution of the eye is analogous to the pyramids in Egypt? …….we know that these pyramids where built by someone, and we know the general clues of how it was done……………but we don’t really know the specific details for how could this be done.

Another of your disingenuous loaded questions trying to set up some dichotomy to justify your sky daddy.
We know specific details about how to cut and haul stone using only technology available at the time. We don't have a video to know if we put the foremen in exactly the right place etc, but we know how to build a pyramid without invoking magic.

 

[cladking]

Would you grant that the evolution of the eye is analogous to the pyramids in Egypt? …….we know that these pyramids where built by someone, and we know the general clues of how it was done……………but we don’t really know the specific details for how could this be done.

The irony here is that all the physical evidence for how they were built is dismissed by Egyptologists as red herrings as surely as all the clues to change in species is dismissed by biologists. Despite the fact we see sudden change in species they pick up a fossil and see gradual change accumulating into big changes.

The same problem you've identified here with pyramids and eyes applies in spades to consciousness. Obviously the first few chemicals that came together were not conscious so how did it arise?

 

[cladking]

We know specific details about how to cut and haul stone using only technology available at the time. We don't have a video to know if we put the foremen in exactly the right place etc, but we know how to build a pyramid without invoking magic.

Lol.

You should investigate this for yourself. It's very amusing how they refuse to gather evidence because they say it doesn't matter. When real scientists gather it for them, they refuse to allow publication.

Where the foreman was standing...

...or what species he was!

but we know how to build a pyramid without invoking magic.

My avatar is the closest recognizable approximation to Egyptological beliefs. Google MC Escher.

 

[Pogo]

You are linking me to Google, was that your intent?

Can you read? first on the page.

The Kalam Cosmological argument is fundamentally flawed.​

Reddit · r/DebateReligion
20+ comments · 2 years ago




The Kalam, as usually stated, is: Everything that beings to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. The universe has a cause.
Some Objections to Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument
Nov 7, 2021
One of my Problems with the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Jun 20, 2022
A problem with causality in the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Sep 27, 2020
Good refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? - Reddit
Oct 19, 2020
More results from www.reddit.com


Second result,

A summary of the problems with the Kalam Cosmological ...​

WordPress.com
https://jonathandavidgarner.wordpress.com › 2017/01/20




Jan 20, 2017 — The Kalam Cosmological Argument is as follows: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist

And it goes on from there.

Put on your big boy pants and feed yourself.

 

[Pogo]

From previous conversations it is obvious that you do not understand many of the arguments

you don't have arguments, only demands that we accept your assertions.

 

[YoursTrue]

And only you and the ID crowd posit that, that is why their numbers are meaningless.

I don't know about others. But to imagine that cells popped up out of the blue borders on insanity. Take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

you don't have arguments, only demands that we accept your assertions.

I have rarely if ever seen you give a complete detailed informative answer. Take care.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes but your burden is to show that it is more probable (not just possible)

No, because I'm not claiming that it's the right hypothesis. I don't need to, to dismiss WLC's drivel. I'm denying his claim that it's impossible (not that that's his most significant blunder).

1 pick your favorite hypotheiss

Don't really have a favourite, by Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is neat.

2 explain how that hypothesis (if true) would imply that the universe is infinite in to the past

Wasn't really my point. Most of them don't have infinite pasts but also don't have first moments, but Conformal Cyclic Cosmology does have an infinite past. Follow the above link or watch this:

That's actually part of a series of YouTube videos that take in most of the ideas I've mentioned. They're very good for pop-science, and amzingly good for YouTube.

3 explain why that hypothesis is better than say the big bang model (the universe began 14B years ago)

Again, not my point. The BB is the only theory based on accepted science. Its only problem is the singularity and your inability to understand that a finite past doesn't have the significance that either you or WLC think it has. I was hoping that a few other suggestions would help you understand that totally different view of time we now have from the one you cling to from the 19th century.

no sure what you mean but Yes, if you show that there is an actual infinit number of possitions between 2 points, the argument woudl fail and you would "win" the argument

What don't you get? It's a basic property of a continuum that it is infinitely divisible. Take two numbers, say 0 and 1. You can find a point between them, e.g. 0.5. Then do the same between 0 and 0.5, to get 0.25, do the same between 0 and 0.25, and you can go on doing this literally forever to get an infinite number of points. Translate the numbers to distance, say metres, and you have the result.

In fact, it is provable that there are more points between 0 and 1, (continuum infinity) than all the natural numbers: {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.....} (countable infinity).

Then explain why , develop an argument or provide a source, at this point it seems just semantics to me

Let's look at an analogy. Space-time is a geometrical manifold with 4-dimensions. So is the surface of the earh (or any sphere), with 2-dimensions. If we ignore 2 dimenions of space and compare the space-time with the surface of Earth, we can compare longitude with time and latitude with space. Except, it's not quite that simple, as there are many directions on the Earth that are neither latitude nor longitude. It's actually (sort of) the same with space-time, except every observer will see a different direction as time, so we need to define the possible time directions and the possible space directions (as seen by each observer) so we end up with spacelike directions and timelike ones, So let's do the same on the surface of the earth. If a direction that's closer to being longitude, we can call it a longitudelike direction, and similarly with latitudelike directions.

The main difference now is that, on Earth, there are absolute latitudes and longitudes. This is not true in space-time; there are no absolute time and space directions. So space and time are even less well-defined in space-time, than latitude and longitude on Earth.

All we are left with in space-time are spacelike and timelike directions, and even those vary from point to point. In fact, in extreme examples (like black holes), they swap over entirely, so a spacelike direction at one point can become timelike at another.

All we are left with is the space-time manifold itself and its geometry. There is no universal time that applies to all of it. The way we calculate the 'time' back to the BB is using the time of an impossible notional observer, that emerged from the big bang as was literally unaffected by anything but the expansion of the universe.

Can you see now that it is only the manifold that exists, and it has to exist as a whole, because different observers see different slices through it as space and time? It cannot 'start to exist' because unless it all exists, we cannot account for every observer. There cannot be a universal past, present, and future that applies to it all, so it has to just be.

You may be more familiar with the idea of 'eternalism' or the 'block universe'. This is basically the model relativity forces us into. Past, present, and future all have to exist together in order for them to be relative in the way required.

 

[Pogo]

Do you believe in god(s)? Do you believe that the existence of god(s) is knowable or not knowable?

Please note this is different from what you said before when you threw in your 50% "probability" claim.

I've just told you what my position is: Agnostic atheist.

But you didn't tell him what color gray is .

 

[YoursTrue]

But you didn't tell him what color gray is .

Another example of your lack of knowledge and inability to explain.

 

[John53]

I have rarely if ever seen you give a complete detailed informative answer. Take care.

But by your own admission you don't read posts that are longer than a few sentences.

 

[YoursTrue]

arguing from ignorance again . . .

You're arguing from lack of truthfulness and knowledge.

 

[SkepticThinker]

again answer my question

if not agnostic, would describe someoen who claims: I dont know and I have no reason to think that one view is more likely to be true than the other

I need more information from you. Hence my questions. It's like you've not taken in anything from earlier in our conversation about a/gnosticism and a/theism. And you've also altered the claim you made earlier (you've omitted the 50% probability claim here).

Do you believe in god(s)? Do you believe that the existence of god(s) is knowable or not knowable?

Please note this is different from what you said before when you threw in your 50% "probability" claim.

Irrelevant, form your definitions an agnostic atheist could answer yes or no to the question.

Here I'll spell it out, since you seem to have forgotten my definitions already:
I am an agnostic atheist.
The latter parts tells you that I lack belief in god(s).
The former part tells you that I don't believe anything is known about any god(s) and I don't know that anything can be known about god(s).

As an agnostic atheist , and given the evidence that we have, do you affirm that the evidence supports one view (theism or atheism) over the other?...given the evidence do you think one view is more likely to be true than the other?........or would you say that both sides have more less the same amount of evidence ? (are equally likely to be true)

I lack belief in gods because there is insufficient empirical evidence for me to believe in god(s). Should sufficient empirical evidence present itself to me, I will believe in that god.

Do you have any evidence of any gods?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, as usual you avoided the question

I am an agnostic atheist.