We don't need to take materialist atheism as a whole seriously.

[Thief]

You still presuppose a "beginning," in the commonly accepted, subjective sense. You're trying to squeeze a square Reality into the round hole of human sensory experience.

and science would have you believe all of the universe could be held in a volume no more than a grain of sand

or maybe you prefer multiple starting points

even so......one of them had to be first

what set the motion into play?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

a good line of reason is better than.....'I don't know'

Well then, let me pose something to you... how many of the workings of members and sub-members of the universe behave according to patterns of cycles? Quite a ridiculous number. Spinning and spiral motions? All cyclical, and existing in abundance everywhere. All sorts of waves displaying a frequency component - again a cycling. The cells in our body constantly requiring input and refresh - oxygen, water, food input. A cycle of hunger and satisfaction that sustains our very being. Earth's orbit, itself a cycle - cycling through the seasons is a result of that. The moon orbiting in a cycle around the Earth, instigates the tides, a cycle that helps keep the seas in motion, free from stagnation, bolstering the winds and the weather cycles of the planet that keep vegetation and animal life sustained inland. Cycles, cycles and more cycles. Absolute beginnings are actually fewer and further between in this universe, when you stop to think about it.

 

[Valjean]

and science would have you believe all of the universe could be held in a volume no more than a grain of sand

At the "time" of the "creation," "volume" didn't exist. You're trying to impose commonsense and subjective experience on Reality. Physics left these behind in 1905.

or maybe you prefer multiple starting points
even so......one of them had to be first

Doesn't "first" presuppose time? Again, you're trying to impose your subjective perception on Reality.

what set the motion into play?

Multiple possibilities. It's an active area of research.

 

[Thief]

Well then, let me pose something to you... how many of the workings of members and sub-members of the universe behave according to patterns of cycles? Quite a ridiculous number. Spinning and spiral motions? All cyclical, and existing in abundance everywhere. All sorts of waves displaying a frequency component - again a cycling. The cells in our body constantly requiring input and refresh - oxygen, water, food input. A cycle of hunger and satisfaction that sustains our very being. Earth's orbit, itself a cycle - cycling through the seasons is a result of that. The moon orbiting in a cycle around the Earth, instigates the tides, a cycle that helps keep the seas in motion, free from stagnation, bolstering the winds and the weather cycles of the planet that keep vegetation and animal life sustained inland. Cycles, cycles and more cycles. Absolute beginnings are actually fewer and further between in this universe, when you stop to think about it.

for years......more than 8yrs I have posted.....

the big bang would have been a single percussion wave
a hollow sphere of energy ....expanding uniformly......but...

rotation was present BEFORE the expansion began

rotation is the proving......

Spirit first

 

[Thief]

At the "time" of the "creation," "volume" didn't exist. You're trying to impose commonsense and subjective experience on Reality. Physics left these behind in 1905.
Doesn't "first" presuppose time? Again, you're trying to impose your subjective perception on Reality.
Multiple possibilities. It's an active area of research.

that's the point.....at the point......

no light ...no shadow
no movement ...no time
no heat ...no cold

and to say ....I AM!.....
would be a mystery

but something happened
and the gest of it all indicates

Spirit first

 

[Valjean]

that's the point.....at the point......

no light ...no shadow
no movement ...no time
no heat ...no cold

and to say ....I AM!.....
would be a mystery

but something happened
and the gest of it all indicates

Spirit first

But what is this "spirit?" Has anyone detected it; measured it?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

for years......more than 8yrs I have posted.....

Of what significance is the amount of time you have been posting something?

the big bang would have been a single percussion wave
a hollow sphere of energy ....expanding uniformly......but...

"a hollow sphere of energy" - what is that supposed to mean? Is this any more than some specious supposition on your part?
"expanding uniformly" - until things weren't uniform. Not sure how "uniformity" even applies, or, again, how you supposedly know this.

rotation was present BEFORE the expansion began

Probably. And?

rotation is the proving......

Spirit first

So "spirit" is "rotation" now? Can you tell me... do you even know what this "spirit" you keep tossing around IS? Is it "motion?" Rotation? Uncaused cause? Consciousness? All of the above? Seems more to me that it is just some "catch-all" term to explain anything and everything that currently has insufficient material explanation.

 

[Milton Platt]

Let's jump right into the why.

1. It's a supposedly non position, something followers parrot pretty much more than they say anything else. Just a lack of belief according to them, which is absurd and unlogical in it's on right.
And yet it is exactly that....a lack of belief in any deities. Are there things you do not believe? If so, are you being illogical to not believe them?
2. It won't be defended because it's supposedly not a position. Any ideology that can't or won't defend itself can't be seriously considered, it's the equivalent to an unfalisfiable hypothesis.
How is not believing in something a hypothesis? Not believing in something is not an ideology. Is not believing in the existence of Santa Clause an ideology? What is there to be falsified in a lack of belief in deities?
3. They cannot provide the slightest evidence for the position. Literally all we have in favor of physicalism is brain-mind correlation, but materialism has ridden this all the way to the end goal of reduction. After being asked for years by anyone outside their position, still not one shred of evidence has been put forth.
What evidence do you feel you need to prove that someone lacks a specific belief?
I don't know what physicalism is...please provide one or more sources for the usage of this word.
4. The immaterial is self evident, which for any objective thinker discredits the position anyways. Math, logic, the laws of nature themselves, certain fields, and most obviously our own subjective experience.
You fail to support your assertion here. Please link the items to the assertion with evidence.
5. Most will claim the position is default, that we start from physicalism and go from their, despite the fact that this is self evidently not the case. This is an extremely dishonest tactic most groups won't even use specifically because said groups are able and willing to defend their position.
No, it is the null hypothesis that is the default position. It is not logical to believe unless you have been presented with sufficient evidence. Do you believe virtually everything?
6. The burden of proof is itself a game based in #1, 2, and 3. Again, if a position can and will not defend itself we need not take it seriously.
Again, there is no position to defend....theists assert there is a god, atheists reject the claim. How is that so hard for you to grasp?
7. Fideism, faith over science and reason, is rampart in this position, where people will literally deny any valid arguments for gods, will deny the existence of things like the self and math, will deny the benefits of religion, will deny any science not directly supporting materialism, and worse they'll pretend none of it was presented at all. This is done, of course, because the arguments can't be refuted and the position cannot be defended.
There is no scientific support for the existence of any deity. No atheist has denied the existence of math or self. Provide the scientific papers demonstrating the existence of your deity. You must be the only one who has read them.
I like the number 7, and we have more than enough reasons to not take materialism and atheism in this form seriously. It refuses to defend itself, denies the self evident, has provided no evidence, plays dirty games, and rejects factual knowledge on faith.
Can you defend these assertions? I think not, or you would have in the first place.

 

[Milton Platt]

Simply put, if I find the existence of no gods more likely than the existence of one or more gods, I believe that there are no gods, or that this position is more likely. It is, indeed, a belief. Not that atheism is a positive assertion that there are no gods, which goes beyond simple belief. It's comparable to how I believe Bigfoot and unicorns are fabrications.

It is possible not to have a belief one way or the other...that is the point you are missing. The answer can be, "I don't know".

 

[McBell]

a good line of reason is better than.....'I don't know'

You demonstrate this to be flat out wrong every time you sing your song and dance....

At least "I don't know" is an honest answer.

 

[McBell]

But what is this "spirit?" Has anyone detected it; measured it?

I foresee history repeating itself and no one getting a meaningful or useful answer to the three above questions.

 

[PureX]

Ego? It's based on formal logic -- mathematics. No ego.

BAH-loney.

 

[1137]

And yet it is exactly that....a lack of belief in any deities. Are there things you do not believe? If so, are you being illogical to not believe them?

I do lack a belief in things, in the sense that I believe the opposite to be more likely. You can't have on without the other, it would be like like having half a coin. For example, I lack a belief in unicorns because I believe unicorns do not exist and are fabricated. This is why the idea of "just a lack of belief" is absurd. If you lack belief in X you find non-X more likely.

How is not believing in something a hypothesis? Not believing in something is not an ideology. Is not believing in the existence of Santa Clause an ideology? What is there to be falsified in a lack of belief in deities?

See above. What can be falsified is the non-existence of deities, rather obviously.

What evidence do you feel you need to prove that someone lacks a specific belief?
I don't know what physicalism is...please provide one or more sources for the usage of this word.

Physicalism - Wikipedia

Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Physicalism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

Google is awesome.

You fail to support your assertion here. Please link the items to the assertion with evidence.

So show me any of the mentioned things in a physical way, rather simple.

No, it is the null hypothesis that is the default position. It is not logical to believe unless you have been presented with sufficient evidence. Do you believe virtually everything?

Why would I believe everything? I completely agree we shouldn't accept something without evidence, which is why I'll reject physicalism as long as they're incapable of providing a shred of valid evidence for the position.

Again, there is no position to defend....theists assert there is a god, atheists reject the claim. How is that so hard for you to grasp?

See above. You don't think their is a god but don't think no gods is more likely? This is funnier to me than flat earthers arguing the moon is a potato, it's just so unbelievably silly.

There is no scientific support for the existence of any deity. No atheist has denied the existence of math or self. Provide the scientific papers demonstrating the existence of your deity. You must be the only one who has read them.

So there's no evidence of cause and effect? No evidence of life fields? No evidence of a massive leap 180,000+ into human history in cognition? Hahahah, please see #7.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

up against.......
is the key

you're not here to learn
you are here to oppose

you have an agenda

And you do not have an agenda?

Are you attempting to assert that the only possible way to "learn" is to accept, uncritically, what one is told? No matter how little sense it makes?

I would rethink that, if I were you.

 

[Milton Platt]

I do lack a belief in things, in the sense that I believe the opposite to be more likely. You can't have on without the other, it would be like like having half a coin. For example, I lack a belief in unicorns because I believe unicorns do not exist and are fabricated. This is why the idea of "just a lack of belief" is absurd. If you lack belief in X you find non-X more likely.



See above. What can be falsified is the non-existence of deities, rather obviously.

No, falsifying a negative is not possible, at least in this sense. Can you falsify the non-existence of invisible unicorns for me, then? You have no evidence that they don't exist someplace in the universe. Not believing they exist is not the same as declaring they cannot exist, whether it is a god, or a unicorn. You MAY believe they do not exist, but you do not HAVE to believe that. You may simply reserve judgement until the assertion that they do is grounded with good evidence. Instead of playing these games, why don't you present your evidence?

Your own statement confirms my position. You did not say unicorns did not exist, you stated you did not believe they did. Those are two different things. That is exactly what I was saying. I believe that you do not believe they exist. I do not need any evidence to think you are telling the truth about your lack of belief. If you declare that they cannot exist, then I would require you to show the evidence for your claim.

As to the philosophical term "physicalism", thanks for the links. I perused them and will read more later. Yes, I do think that what physically exists (if you consider energy as a part of that) is all there is. If you have convincing evidence to the contrary, then surely a Nobel prize awaits you.

However, this has nothing to do with whether I believe the claims of a deity. That rests entirely on the lack of the ability of people such as yourself to provide convincing evidence for your claims.

By the way, saying "I lack belief because I do not believe" (which is what you said) is a silly statement to make and says nothing.



Physicalism - Wikipedia

Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Physicalism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

Google is awesome.



So show me any of the mentioned things in a physical way, rather simple.



Why would I believe everything? I completely agree we shouldn't accept something without evidence, which is why I'll reject physicalism as long as they're incapable of providing a shred of valid evidence for the position.



See above. You don't think their is a god but don't think no gods is more likely? This is funnier to me than flat earthers arguing the moon is a potato, it's just so unbelievably silly.



So there's no evidence of cause and effect? No evidence of life fields? No evidence of a massive leap 180,000+ into human history in cognition? Hahahah, please see #7.

 

[1137]

@Milton Platt
Can you properly quote and reply to this so I can actually read it and respond?

 

[Milton Platt]

I do lack a belief in things, in the sense that I believe the opposite to be more likely. You can't have on without the other, it would be like like having half a coin. For example, I lack a belief in unicorns because I believe unicorns do not exist and are fabricated. This is why the idea of "just a lack of belief" is absurd. If you lack belief in X you find non-X more likely.



See above. What can be falsified is the non-existence of deities, rather obviously.



Physicalism - Wikipedia

Physicalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Physicalism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

Google is awesome.



So show me any of the mentioned things in a physical way, rather simple.



Why would I believe everything? I completely agree we shouldn't accept something without evidence, which is why I'll reject physicalism as long as they're incapable of providing a shred of valid evidence for the position.



See above. You don't think their is a god but don't think no gods is more likely? This is funnier to me than flat earthers arguing the moon is a potato, it's just so unbelievably silly.



So there's no evidence of cause and effect? No evidence of life fields? No evidence of a massive leap 180,000+ into human history in cognition? Hahahah, please see #7.[/QUOte

There is evidence of cause and effect, what the heck life fields are, I have no idea. Neither are what I asked for, which was evidence for a deity.

 

[Milton Platt]

@Milton Platt
Can you properly quote and reply to this so I can actually read it and respond?

Sorry, I know I am doing it incorrectly. couldn't figure out the quote system here. my apologies.

 

[Valjean]

@Milton Platt
Can you properly quote and reply to this so I can actually read it and respond?

Expand and read the red replies.

 

[Valjean]

BAH-loney.

horsefeathers!