Question for Atheists...

[Polymath257]

You do not understand. Everything leads to God whether you want it too or not.

No, it leads to God *for you* because you want to find God everywhere. You start with the God assumption and force everything to fit it. That is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

A test. If God created the physics to add up perfectly, why would God have the people factor not add up? Where is your math? So you say God does not exist, but then why does the people factor add up along with the entire system?

Does it really? I don't find God when I look. I find physical properties acting by physical laws. People are biological beings--great apes with language and abstract thinking.

You discount an interaction with God. This is something that can not be duplicated nor imagined. I certainly do not have the capabilities.

Oh, I have had delusions that could be interpreted that way. But I realized them as my mind playing tricks on me.

God is very High Intelligence. We are but mere ants. One is peddling just to keep up. This is why a certain amount of understanding is needed. I think most would just be confused by the experience. A few moments conversation with God might take an intelligent person weeks to understand all that is said. Who knows what was missed going over one's head?

Once again, you start with the God assumption and don't seem to try to show it is wrong. Instead, you seek God in everything and find God in everything because you twist things to say God.

Everyone already knows God. Names are never needed. Everyone already knows who everyone is. The first thing God pointed out to me is that mankind carries such a narrow view. I cry that. I work on mine every day.

Yes, humans have a narrow view. We are accustomed to small velocities, mild gravitational fields. We only see a small part of the spectrum of light or hear a small part of the possible sounds. We don't detect a LOT of what is going on around us.

But the funny thing? God never told anyone about those things before science found them. Nobody suspected infrared light until some scientist found it by mistake. No theist predicted radioactivity before some scientist found it. No theist predicted DNA, but a scientist did. Theists like to talk about things we don't see. Science actually finds them and learns about them.

God is a joy to be around. God does not value so many of the petty things mankind holds so dear. There is no baggage or garbage like so many people carry around.

Yes, the universe is a joy to be in. No deities required for that.

Religions are created by mankind. That is who they reflect more than anything else.

I agree. But I also see *all* beliefs in a supernatural to be delusional, especially beliefs in deities.

God is about what is. It has never ever been about beliefs or non-beliefs. On the other hand, people can choose to limit themselves in so many ways which leads to a narrow view.

Science is also about what is. It is about what we can detect, study, and verify. It is about being skeptical and not taking answers on faith. It is about questioning ALL assumptions.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

And once again, I see it clearly as well. We simply disagree.

Now, is there a way to resolve that disagreement given our differing experiences? You find God everywhere. I find God nowhere except in imaginations.

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps you should stop searching for concepts and search for God instead. You rely on the concepts of others. Have you been conditioned by religion that knowledge is something gained by being convinced then believed? Discover takes works. One must be willing to venture into undiscovered country to discover what is.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

I don't start with the God assumption. I ask for evidence of the existence of God and find nothing that is convincing, or even particularly intriguing.

When do you give up a search when nothing is found?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, it leads to God *for you* because you want to find God everywhere. You start with the God assumption and force everything to fit it. That is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

Does it really? I don't find God when I look. I find physical properties acting by physical laws. People are biological beings--great apes with language and abstract thinking.


...

Yeah, your bias is the physical.

 

[Polymath257]

You do not Understand. My journey has not ended. There is always more to learn and discover.

And I agree. The universe is complex and immense.

In search for the truth as I became an adult, I had to come up with a starting point for my search. No one pointed the direction for me as I have done for you. How can you see nothing around you when so very much is going on?

Oh, I see a lot going on. I see gravity, and electromagnetism. I see chemistry and physics, and geology, and biology.

I just don't see a supernatural nor a deity.

How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how? IT WAS THERE ALL ALONG!!!!

Yes, and they could *see* that it was there. And, I might point out, it wasn't the theists that figured out how to fly. God didn't speak to them and reveal any secrets. Instead, someone figured it out.

Is there anything you might be missing?

Of course. And, like I have said, I have conducted the experiments theists have suggested and I didn't find what they predicted. Instead, I found a lot of self-delusion on the part of theists.

Feel free to give me your evidence. I will listen. Now if you say cancer and sick children, I will ask you to search out the results and the changes that occur. Widen your view beyond it hurts.

The evidence is that no God is required to understand the universe around us. No 'God assumption' leads to better predictions or deeper understanding (as revealed by actual observations).

Eternity has purpose. What is your purpose??? Please tell me what you have discovered instead of what you yet have to discover.

I don't assume things have a purpose unless there is a conscious being involved. So, no, I don't assume eternity has a purpose.

Do you have actual evidence that there is?

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Same here.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, your bias is the physical.

I can test the physical (by definition). If you can figure out how to test a non-physical, I'd be willing to listen.

 

[Polymath257]

Why do you believe the individual layers means individual years?

Because we can watch them forming over the years. We can see the dust and chemicals from volcanic eruptions that we know the dates for in the ice cores and the number of years agrees with the historical record. We have agreement between cores taken from different locations and with dates obtained in other ways (lake varves, radioactive dating, tree rings, etc).

Sure, there can be years that have more or less deposition. Maybe some years have none (but that only means things are older then what the cores show). But there is no way that the errors build up to be more than 5%. And that alone means your Biblical chronology is wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can test the physical (by definition). If you can figure out how to test a non-physical, I'd be willing to listen.

Yes, and now I am going to test it and do so by claiming everything is not physical. So your job is to explain how the bold is physical in physical terms and what that actually is in physical terms.
Your claim is you can answer everything in actual physical terms. Then do so in practice and not just use words that express your opinion in effect. Do it in pracitce otherwise than by just defintion.

 

[Polymath257]

What if for example ten years of layers are one year melted and mixed? Is it not possible?

Such melting would be clear because it would look different. Mixing would also be clear.

So, while theoretically possible, in practice it didn't happen.

How would you prove "Every year atmospheric sulfuric acid concentration is different"?

Um, by measuring it?

I think it can be possible that some glaciers gives same date, they can be formed similarly.

Except that they are in vastly different places and so very different environments. Take an ice core from the north pole and ask why it agrees with one from the south pole. What do they both agree with tree rings and lake varves? Why do all of these agree with radioactive dates?

But, they all can also have same systematic mistake in the way layers are count. The result is relative and doesn't necessary give exact year, only that there was an event that was recorded in same way at the same time, if it is actually true that they have similar layer.

And that is why calibration with other methods is important. And it has been done. And the results from wildly different systems agree.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, and now I am going to test it and do so by claiming everything is not physical. So your job is to explain how the bold is physical in physical terms and what that actually is in physical terms.

To be physical means that it is detectable and testable via previously determined physical systems (this is an inductive definition).

To exist also means to be detectable and testable. So all that exists is physical.

Your claim is you can answer everything in actual physical terms. Then do so in practice and not just use words that express your opinion in effect. Do it in pracitce otherwise than by just defintion.

Definitions first, so we are clear about meanings. Then we test to see what happens.

 

[Audie]

And I agree. The universe is complex and immense.

Oh, I see a lot going on. I see gravity, and electromagnetism. I see chemistry and physics, and geology, and biology.

I just don't see a supernatural nor a deity.

Yes, and they could *see* that it was there. And, I might point out, it wasn't the theists that figured out how to fly. God didn't speak to them and reveal any secrets. Instead, someone figured it out.

Of course. And, like I have said, I have conducted the experiments theists have suggested and I didn't find what they predicted. Instead, I found a lot of self-delusion on the part of theists.

The evidence is that no God is required to understand the universe around us. No 'God assumption' leads to better predictions or deeper understanding (as revealed by actual observations).

I don't assume things have a purpose unless there is a conscious being involved. So, no, I don't assume eternity has a purpose.

Do you have actual evidence that there is?

Same here.

Not quite the same.

The original quote would be better phrased,
" clearly, that's what I choose to see"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To be physical means that it is detectable and testable via previously determined physical systems (this is an inductive definition).

To exist also means to be detectable and testable. So all that exists is physical.


Definitions first, so we are clear about meanings. Then we test to see what happens.

How do you detect the word means? How do you test the word means?
Just as you can't point to God, you can't point to meaning.

Now golves off. If you actual think that the defintion as per meaning that the universe is physical as per the defition makes the universe physical, because the defnition causes the universe to be physical, you are delusional.
All the definition means as means, is that to you in your mind, you treat the universe as physical. But that doesn't mean the universe has the property of being physical.
All words are signs as standins for understanding and a possible referent. You conflate understanding with referent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And I agree. The universe is complex and immense.

Oh, I see a lot going on. I see gravity, and electromagnetism. I see chemistry and physics, and geology, and biology.

...

But you can't see as see a defintion. You see as understand a defintion. You are doing the fallacy of reification.

 

[Mock Turtle]

But you can't see as see a defintion. You see as understand a defintion. You are doing the fallacy of reification.

Well you are doing a fallacy but I'm not sure which, given that your beliefs would probably lead to nothing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well you are doing a fallacy but I'm not sure which, given that your beliefs would probably lead to nothing.

Yeah, you are doing the fallacy fallacy. As for beliefs, I am in effect an absurdist, in the knowledge in the strong sense is as absurd as the idea of God.
The problem for all of these debates is that some people believe the universe/God must make postive sense as such. I don't believe that.

In other words for the words true and false, I like false better. And you properly like true in some version as better. But that is psychology as is your
You answered with in effect a feeling. Are you aware of that?

 

[Ella S.]

Now golves off. If you actual think that the defintion as per meaning that the universe is physical as per the defition makes the universe physical, because the defnition causes the universe to be physical, you are delusional.

This is, hands down, the strangest Straw Man argument that I've ever seen.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah, you are doing the fallacy fallacy. As for beliefs, I am in effect an absurdist, in the knowledge in the strong sense is as absurd as the idea of God.
The problem for all of these debates is that some people believe the universe/God must make postive sense as such. I don't believe that.

In other words for the words true and false, I like false better. And you properly like true in some version as better. But that is psychology as is your
You answered with in effect a feeling. Are you aware of that?

Me? I look at results. And especially as to divisions, such that this is why I might appear to be so negative towards certain beliefs. All the rest I couldn't care less about, as long as such doesn't harm others or tries to oppress others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Me? I look at results. And especially as to divisions, such that this is why I might appear to be so negative towards certain beliefs. All the rest I couldn't care less about, as long as such doesn't harm others or tries to oppress others.

The same with me. As in effect it ends in feelings.
The problem is that your has no objective physical referent with natural science. You do feelings and so do I. But I don't care for the belief that the universe is physical. Nor do I care about theistic Gods.
BTW is also a feeling just as

 

[F1fan]

What if for example ten years of layers are one year melted and mixed? Is it not possible?

I'm sure experts are able to gather data from all over the planet and create data maps and then deduce winds, temperatures, and other data. No doubt you could read about their methods if you were inclined to learn.

How would you prove "Every year atmospheric sulfuric acid concentration is different"?

By taking measurements.

I think it can be possible that some glaciers gives same date, they can be formed similarly. But, they all can also have same systematic mistake in the way layers are count. The result is relative and doesn't necessary give exact year, only that there was an event that was recorded in same way at the same time, if it is actually true that they have similar layer.

You could always ask an expert intead of guessing.

More like because I think they have lied in other matters.

Did an atheist say you were attractive and had a pleasnt disposition?

Because the layers are essentially marks of rain, freezing and melting.

There's a thing called snow, and snow happens when the air is below the freezing point. Do you doubt experts' expertise and experience to understand what they study?

It could be that some year there was no melting, or rain and some year there was many different periods. Years are not identical, therefore we can't assume identical layers by every year. That is why the layers can be wrongly interpreted.

Do you think you as a non-expert have something to teach experts? Explain.

 

[F1fan]

That is plain false. Glaciers are formed from
snow.
It never ever rains in Antarctica.

You got one lil thing correct, by accident.

Of course each year is a little different.
That's what make it easy to confirm that ech
layer is from a different year.

I think 1213 is a bit confused since layers by year is a bit abstract and perhaps not absolute. It's not like snow falls in one major layer once a year, and that's the layer, like rings of a tree. It's more of a sublte accumulation marked with distinct layers from major events, like a volcano dumping ash. But what do I know? There could be an annual pattern of climate behavior that allows experts to identify year to year in layers of ice.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The same with me. As in effect it ends in feelings.
The problem is that your has no objective physical referent with natural science. You do feelings and so do I. But I don't care for the belief that the universe is physical. Nor do I care about theistic Gods.
BTW is also a feeling just as

Most people do. And given that most don't have a clue as to philosophy, it's on that base level that I have to argue.