Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[ratiocinator]

Okay, please give all relevant explanations for how subjective and objective work.

I see no problem with the first dictionary I looked at (Cambridge).

Subjective: influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts.

Objective: based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings.

 

[ratiocinator]

1 General Relativity is wrong

2 Scientists are not measuring the amount of matter correctly

3 Laws of gravity are different in other galaxies,

4 regular matter is producing the effect, dust, asteroids, black holes etc. (we just can´t detect it)

5 we live in a simulation, the observations are just glitches of this simulation

6 scientists are just lying and making up stuff in a big crazy conspiracy

7 Dark matter, there is a substance that has no light, nor energy, but it does has gravity that is causing this effect

1 has actually been proposed as an explanation for dark matter. 2 is possible but seems unlikely. 3 wouldn't explain the effects we see on our own galaxy. 4 can be ruled out on evidence, (we'd expect to see blocking of light from other sources). 5 is possible, I guess. 6 getting scientists to agree to a deception would make herding cats seem trivial. 7 where on earth did you get the idea it has no energy, from?

So why are you making an arbitrary exception with the origin of the universe and God?

Because it isn't an explanation. It explains exactly as much as if you said "it's magic, innit?"

 

[ratiocinator]

that DM is the best explanation for the gravitational effects

Again DM is not an explanation. We are seeing an effect that looks like there is more matter than we can detect. After that, it's an unknown. I read another conjectured explanation recently involving an extra special dimension and gravitons.

ETA: Here you are: How a simple physics experiment could reveal the “dark dimension”.

 

[Nakosis]

You think your fate is to remain a dumb animal? Just doing whatever satisfies the animal's desires? Could it be that in seeking what we cannot attain that we might gain something even greater?

Yes, I am a dumb animal, the definition of a human being.
You want to dream of being something more than that, that's fine for you. My dream is different.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see no problem with the first dictionary I looked at (Cambridge).

Subjective: influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts.

Objective: based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings.

Okay. take a person that likes to work and in effect is sad by the thought of not having a job.
Then take me, I can't work because it gives me stress and I am glad that I don't have a job.

Is that subjective or objective?

 

[PureX]

If you can't see the logical objections and questions in post #3,724, then you simply don't understand what logic is. Try giving an example, maybe?

I explained to you that time has no logical validity within an eternity, ... in the same way that an increment has no validity within an infinity. One increment is all increments and that "all" is endless (i.e., meaningless, irrelevant). What is an hour within an eternity? It's a meaningless increment in an endless sea of increments. All the same, in every possible direction and variation, forever.

The reason an "eternal existence" is a logically incoherent proposition is because existence as it is being manifested and experienced is constantly changing. Things begin, things end. More things begin, more things end. Why would an eternity manifest any changes at all? That makes no sense. All an eternity would manifest as absolute stasis. Never changing. Never a beginning, and never an end. Never a 'this' and never a 'that', because 'this' and 'that' need boundaries just to exist. They need to begin where the other one's end, and end where the other one's begin. But in an eternal state, there is no beginning or end. There is no past, present, or future. IT'S ALL STAYS THE SAME, always and forever.

Please explain why you think an eternal existence would manifest any changes at all?

I have, several times now, posted alternatives.

You posted illogical fantasies about a universe that keeps repeating it's own beginning and end, over and over. But you did not address the logical incoherence of that proposal. Nor how you presume to overcome it, logically.

It's rather difficult to have a discourse with somebody who simply ignores a detailed post, like #3,724, and just robotically repeats that I haven't articulated any logical objections. Almost like you'd like anything but a discourse....

I didn't ignore it. But apparently you did ignore my responses to it.

When all you say is things like "you're stupid",

I did not say "you're stupid" to you or to anyone else. I say things like "response X is stupid". And then you can decide if that response was an equivalent to yours or not. Or if it applies to you in any way.

 

[PureX]

Yes, I am a dumb animal, the definition of a human being.

That is not the definition of a human being, as human beings are able (if we choose) to transcend the dumb animal motives and instincts within us that the other dumb animals around us are not able to transcend.

You want to dream of being something more than that, that's fine for you. My dream is different.

Yes, but you didn't answer my question. Could it be that in seeking what we cannot attain (truth) that we might gain something even greater? And if so, why would you want to cheat yourself out of that potential gift? When all that is being asked of you is an open inquisitive mind.

 

[ratiocinator]

I explained to you that time has no logical validity within an eternity, ... in the same way that an increment has no validity within an infinity. One increment is all increments and that "all" is endless (i.e., meaningless, irrelevant). What is an hour within an eternity? It's a meaningless increment in an endless sea of increments. All the same, in every possible direction and variation, forever.

So any finite time is infinitesimal compared to an actual infinity. Okay, but what has it got to do with your options, or, in fact, anything else we've been discussing?

The reason an "eternal existence" is a logically incoherent proposition is because existence as it is being manifested and experienced is constantly changing.

Whether it's strictly being 'manifested' depends on your philosophy of time.

Things begin, things end. More things begin, more things end. Why would an eternity manifest any change? That makes no sense.

Why not?

All an eternity would manifest as absolute stasis. Never changing.

Why?

Never a beginning, and never an end.

Yes, that's eternity means, but I don't see any reason to think it can't change through time.

Because in the eternal, there is no beginning or end. There is no past, present, or future. IT'S ALL THE SAME, always and forever.

Again, you're not explaining yourself. What would be the logical contradiction in it changing though time, just because time has no beginning or end? Why should the total extent of time affect whether change can happen at any point within it?

You seem to be saying something akin to an infinitely long line would have to be straight. Why?

Please explain why you think an eternal existence would manifest any change at all?

I can't think of any reason why not. Nothing you said above amounts to a logical argument that it can't - it's all assertions.

You posted illogical fantasies about a universe that keeps repeating it's own beginning and end, over and over. But you did not address the logical incoherence of that proposal. Nor how you propose we overcome it, intellectually.

One of my alternatives was a scientific hypothesis that this might be the case. What logical incoherence? I don't recall you pointing any out. If you did, sorry I missed it, can you post again or link, please?

Regardless, that was just one option. My most recent option regarded the philosophical concept of eternalism with a finite past. Note that I referred to a specific philosophy of time called 'eternalism', not eternity.

Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In eternalism (block universe0 view, there would be no change in the block as a whole, from the link:

It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block", as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time. ​

But that doesn't mean that there is no change along the block's time-line - and again note, this is an article about philosophy, not science.

This happens to be what science now accepts as being correct, based on the evidence (with some extra complications that never occurred to philosophers), but eternalism has been discussed as a logical possibility for a long time before that.

 

[Nakosis]

That is not the definition of a human being, as human beings are able (if we choose) to transcend the dumb animal motives and instincts within us that the other dumb animals around us are not able to transcend.

I'll believe that when it happens. If it happens we won't be defined as human anymore.

Yes, but you didn't answer my question. Could it be that in seeking what we cannot attain (truth) that we might gain something even greater? And if so, why would you want to cheat yourself out of that potential gift? When all that is being asked of you is an open inquisitive mind.

We are obtaining greater without fantasizing about some universal truth beyond our perception. I don't see accepting reality as it presents itself as an obstacle in obtaining something greater. I see the greater obstacle is in fantasying in a reality we want to exist instead of the one that makes itself obvious.

 

[PureX]

So any finite time is infinitesimal compared to an actual infinity. Okay, but what has it got to do with your options, or, in fact, anything else we've been discussing?

If I understood correctly, you were trying to use some conception of time to justify an existential eternity. But time is not relevant within an eternity. There is no 'before' or 'after' within an eternity. All time is the same time.

AND, this is clearly not the way that THIS existence is manifesting. THIS existence clearly does express a before and after, in ALL manner of things.

Whether it's strictly being 'manifested' depends on your philosophy of time.

No, it doesn't. In fact, regardless of anyone's philosophy of anything, time is still passing for all. It still takes time for anything and anyone to move from "here" to "there". And moving back to "here" from "there" does not reverse that passage of time. Time is an increment of change, and in this existence, change is inescapable. Which is precisely why this existence is not eternal. The eternal does not change. Why would it? It's not going anywhere. It's not achieving anything. In fact the perfect example of eternity would be NON-existence.

Yes, that's eternity means, but I don't see any reason to think it can't change through time.

Because 'eternity' means there is no time. Any time is all time. Time is therefor indistinguishable. Meaningless. And since time is really only an increment of change, then change is likewise an irrelevant concept within an absolute state of being. Logically, time and change become incoherent concepts when applied to an eternity.

One of my alternatives was a scientific hypothesis that this might be the case. What logical incoherence? I don't recall you pointing any out. If you did, sorry I missed it, can you post again or link, please?

Regardless, that was just one option. My most recent option regarded the philosophical concept of eternalism with a finite past. Note that I referred to a specific philosophy of time called 'eternalism', not eternity.

I assume this refers to a universe that "banged" into being, but then fizzles out forever. If so, the original question remains unanswered: the source of the "bang". For existence to happen, it had to be possible. But how was it possible? What originated that possibility? This very logical question is what then logically requires some outside, transcendent source.

Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In eternalism (block universe0 view, there would be no change in the block as a whole, from the link:

It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block", as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time. ​

But that doesn't mean that there is no change along the block's time-line - and again note, this is an article about philosophy, not science.

This happens to be what science now accepts as being correct, based on the evidence (with some extra complications that never occurred to philosophers), but eternalism has been discussed as a logical possibility for a long time before that.

This theory is fatally flawed because it overlooks the very basic realization that time is an increment of change. Just as space, and motion, and heat, and light, and even matter are all just increments of change. Like the increments on a thermometer recording the increase in energy in a substantial field. Time is the increment recording movement through space (i.e., change). Claiming that time is somehow magically some static "block" is just completely ignoring the fact that the "block" is a block of change. In fact, the whole universe is basically one big 'block of change'. Which is completely antithetical to it being "eternal" (perpetually unchanged).

These theorists are trying to re-label change to make it eternal. But it just doesn't make any sense. The perfect eternal state (and one can clearly argue that eternity is, by definition, a perfect or absolute state) would be absolutely timeless, spaceless, completely undetermined and UN-changing.

 

[PureX]

I'll believe that when it happens. If it happens we won't be defined as human anymore.

Well, that's semantics. But at the present time, we do not label animals and humans the same way because we do not consider them to be the same class of entities. Biologically, we are very similar, but cognitively we are VERY different. And the big difference is META-cognition. Not just conscious awareness, but the ability to be aware of that awareness. We humans possess this capability and the other animals do not. And like it or not, it is an extraordinary cognitive leap that it deserves to be employed and explored.

We are obtaining greater without fantasizing about some universal truth beyond our perception.

We are about to destroy ourselves because we keep using our amazing cognitive gift to serve the dumb animal desires within us.

I don't see accepting reality as it presents itself as an obstacle in obtaining something greater.

Reality IS a fantasy. Once we recognize this we can imagine a better reality, and make it happen. But "better" according to what? The transcending human within, or the dumb animal within?

I see the greater obstacle is in fantasying in a reality we want to exist instead of the one that makes itself obvious.

And you are 180 degrees wrong. Everything good that we humans have achieved so far we have achieved because we imagined a better world, acted accordingly, and thereby made it so.

 

[ratiocinator]

If I understood correctly, you were trying to use some conception of time to justify an existential eternity.

Not really, I just said that it couldn't be logically dismissed as an option.

But time is not relevant within an eternity. There is no 'before' or 'after' within an eternity. All time is the same time.

You seem to be mixing up whether time objectively 'flows' in some way with its total extent. I simply don't see the connection. As far as I can see, all four possible true/false combinations of objective flow and infinite time, are logically possible.

Why does an eternity have to be 'all the same'? In fact, within an infinite time we can logically expect everything that can possibly happen, to actually happen. Far from being all the same, it would actually express all possible variety.

You seem to have some view of eternity in your head that is either not justifiable or you are failing to explain the justification.

No, it doesn't. In fact, regardless of anyone's philosophy of anything, time is still passing for all. It still takes time for anything and anyone to move from "here" to "there". And moving back to "here" from "there" does not reverse that passage of time. Time is an increment of change, and in this existence, change is inescapable.

That's our experience from being embedded in time, yes. But, as the article I linked said, philosophers have explored several versions of how time actually works.

The eternal does not change. Why would it?

Why wouldn't it?

Because 'eternity' means there is no time.

As I think I pointed out before, eternity can mean 'timeless' or 'infinite time'. They are not the same. You seem to be switching from one to the other depending on what point you want to make...

And since time is really only an increment of change, then change is likewise an irrelevant concept within an absolute state of being. Logically, time and change become incoherent concepts when applied to an eternity.

So you keep asserting. I'm seeing no logical justification, just stating the same assertion with different words.

Frankly, whether time is actually infinite or not is something that is not particularly important to me and I'm not claiming to know, because there are logical alternatives to your options regardless.

One argument against your lack of change idea, is how would we know, from being at one point in time, whether it is infinite or finite? All we have any evidence of is a finite part of it. What if that is simply an infinitesimal portion of infinite time? Where would the contradiction be that would make it impossible?

I assume this refers to a universe that "banged" into being, but then fizzles out forever.

No. You really do need to understand what eternalism (block universe) means.

This theory is fatally flawed because it overlooks the very basic realization that time is an increment of change.

So, just to be clear, you're claiming a 'basic realisation' that settles a philosophical debate that has been going on since antiquity, even among theists? Somehow, people like, for example, Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, totally missed this incredible insight of yours?

And that's before we even get to the evidence from modern science.

You do think a lot of your own intellectual abilities, don't you?

Just as space, and motion, and heat, and light, and even matter are all just increments of change. Like the increments on a thermometer recording the increase in energy in a substantial field. Time is the increment recording movement through space (i.e., change). Claiming that time is somehow magically some static "block" is just completely ignoring the fact that the "block" is a block of change. In fact, the whole universe is basically one big 'block of change'. Which is completely antithetical to it being "eternal" (perpetually unchanged).

If you're so certain, why not publish in a journal of philosophy, and take your place among the greatest minds in all of history? Fame and fortune await!

See also #4,003.

 

[leroy]

My question goes to the heart of the problem with your claim. It was,

What is the difference between the manner in which God exists and the manner in which Mickey Mouse exists?​

That is a very interesting question.... But irrelevant and it seems like an attempt change the topic


All I am saying is that if one affirms or denies that A is the best explanation for B ..... He has a burden .... Agree?

 

[Pogo]

That is a very interesting question.... But irrelevant and it seems like an attempt change the topic


All I am saying is that if one affirms or denies that A is the best explanation for B ..... He has a burden .... Agree?

So when are you going to provide any evidence for any of these claims that you "affirm"?
As you say, you have a burden for us to be able to evaluate your claims.

 

[Valjean]

Do you think it's necessary to spend lots of time trying to figure the origin of the universe?

No. Not necessary, but most of the things we've learned about the world aren't "necessary." We spent 99% of our existence as hominins knowing almost nothing but how to knap flint. after all.

However, we're a curious species, and our curiosity about things that seemed silly or trivial at the time has driven a massive technology boom and expansion of understanding. Who knows what knowledge will come out of a study of origins?

 

[Valjean]

There are benefits to many people in this live from living via faith in a higher power. Billions of people will attest to this, but you will ignore it, of course.

Is religion an ontological claim, or a psychotherapeutic modality?

 

[Valjean]

That's not what I posted.

The very real consequence is who you are, and who you are becoming because of how you are responding to the realization that a conscious higher power is a logical possibility. If you don't believe it, just look at your own post, and at the condescending disregard it shows toward those who find meaning and purpose in their faith in their God. See who your choice is causing you to become.

Is anyone claiming Belief in God can't have benefits? I thought we were discussing its truth, not its utility.

 

[Valjean]

Even dumb animals can follow the instinct of their animal desires. Seems a waste of a human being, though, to live like dumb animals. We evolved to look deeper into existence then that for a reason. Seems the least we could do is fulfill our fate.

Now a teleological claim? Any evidence to support it?

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Not necessary, but most of the things we've learned about the world aren't "necessary." We spent 99% of our existence as hominins knowing almost nothing but how to knap flint. after all.

However, we're a curious species, and our curiosity about things that seemed silly or trivial at the time has driven a massive technology boom and expansion of understanding. Who knows what knowledge will come out of a study of origins?

Stats have it that the world has never been as hot as it is now. If you ask me which I know you're not, I would say it's a losing game for anyone, including scientists, to play and try to solve the problems of the earth warming up to the degree it will and does kill people and essential things. I guess it's easier to play trying to figure how did life start.

 

[Valjean]

And I suspect you desperately want me to be wrong. Yet so far, after many such accusations, you cannot seem to come up with any logical reason to assume that I am.

I don't want you to be wrong, but I do get frustrated when you so assiduously choose to be after so many corrective and explanatory posts.