A Question for Agnostics and OR Atheist

[Russell_SA]

I SUPPLIED THE EVIDENCE OF OUR POSITION WHICH MANY BILLIONS HAVE ACCEPTED; while you supplied “I don’t know” and expect that to be a sufficient answer.

Again to your previous arm-waving

1. Your first fact - universe so we could know god - assertion to your personal applied purpose to the universe. It is a fact that you hold this belief, but it is not a fact at all to everyone because you have yet to demonstrate that there is actually any difference between your deity and a literary figure. We could run an experiment where you start choking and let your church pray for you to breath and see if it steps in to help. Isn’t it said in your texts that let three of its true believers pray together and all that they pray for will come to pass? There’s a testable experiment. But really all that it would show is that performing those rituals creates a predictable result. It still doesn’t create a causal link between the results and the deity being the cause of those results.
2. Second fact was just gibberish - I don’t see the connection of the points of my dressing ability and your link to you proving your god exists. Again - assertion here.
3. third fact - humans are complex and special. So is every other creature out there. There are plenty of other highly socialized and intelligent animals that display the same characteristics you presented. We’re not that special as you seem to think we are which is good. We treat things better that we have commonality with instead of this superior ownership idea.
4. It is a fact we have intelligence, the ability to think, and the apparent ability to choose. All that comes from a functioning brain. No one has any data anywhere of any of those abilities surviving beyond the physical brain. So don’t know why you think it can. But, again, just assertions here without evidence to back it up. I can point to brain damage reports where people’s ability to do all three are affected and once someone dies, they seem to stop being able to carry on those functions. Show me how your assumed reality shows otherwise other than just asserting it. Asserting the reality you want it to be has no bearing on how it actually presents itself.
5. Next fact: you attribute all this to a diety and spirits. Well since there is no evidence of this I’ll leave your idea of facts with this statement: Ideas presented without evidence are dismissed without evidence. You seem to be confusing the idea that just because you believe it to be true, does not actually make it true. Especially when your ideas are indistinguishable from the cultural idea of santa, the genie, fairies, and all other mythical magical creatures of literature.
6. part 6 - your facts are assertions. seems like you don’t know the difference. Facts are just raw data, such as fossils, genetic codes, etc. Inferences about the reality you experience are just your analysis about these facts, raw data, etc. Such as 1+2=3. 1,2 are just raw data - the facts. The +, = is your applied logic. The 3 is your conclusion. But you’ve been going on about spirits and deities as facts. Sorry that’s like “magic” + 2 = 3. Magic isn’t actually a fact yet. Neither is the supernatural. Therefore, applying logic to how this supernatural realm actually works isn’t actually correct since you have no actual data on it. It’s like assuming an alien space ship is real and then going on about what that space ship can do. Yeah kinda gotta actually find the space ship first, then study it, then make conclusions about what it can and can not do.
7. questions about what science hasn’t discovered yet as to how the universe came into existence. No one knows yet. But labeling it as magic, isn’t actually an answer. It’s a conspiracy theory to fill in the gap of knowledge that makes people uncomfortable and may actually stop them from looking for a real answer.
   …
   I’m tired of this absurd conversation. Mostly because I just sucks my day down thinking this is what religion can do to people. Anyone else want to talk?

 

[Russell_SA]

Okay, if that is what you wish to believe.

I believe lots of things, what’s your topic of choice?

 

[Russell_SA]

Do you also require the rejection of the “invented realities” of the brilliant minds of the 20th century that envisioned the wave, particle or reaction before they reasonably proved its existence?



With your approach, the trajectory of knowledge grinds to a halt as whatsoever is discovered in often imagined before it is found.

Obviously this sometimes doesn’t pan out. There’s every rational reason to believe in aliens from another planet. But so far, no dice. Fermi paradox, is it?

Guess you missed my numerous postings about the example of Einstein’s gravity waves. He mathematically proved that they should exist. But being logically correct does not make them pop into existence. We had to develop the tools to look for them. Not until we found them in 2015 were we justified in believing they were actually a real part of our reality. The religious are doing the same thing with their idea of a deity and the supernatural. I’m fine going to go look for it, but I’m not going to say it’s actually there till we discover it. Our logic for it’s existence could still be wrong since the reality we exist in is more imaginative than we seem to be. Such as the summation of 1+2+3… to infinity actually appears to equal -1/12. The logical idea that something can not be in two different places at the same time, but apparently reality says it can even though our logic and intuition says otherwise. I use logic to go look for things in reality, but leave it up to reality to hold the bar for what is actually true about it instead of what I wish it to be.

 

[Nicea325]

I believe lots of things, what’s your topic of choice?

Will it have a purpose? I have already asked you numerous times. Explain to me how all matter come to existence? And yes, a purpose.

 

[Russell_SA]

Will it have a purpose? I have already asked you numerous times. Explain to me how all matter come to existence? And yes, a purpose.

Don’t know how the universe came into existence. Since we can not yet tell the difference between every imagined idea out there and the actual reason, it is better to just say, “I don’t know until there is actual evidence.” People’s logical conclusions about it is not enough. Example: dna evidence over eye witness testimony. People are logically correct and still factually wrong all the time. Every time I have to point this out to the religious, it keeps pushing me down the pathway of being unable to tell the difference between religion and a cult.

Purpose is up to each individual’s mind to find for itself but the thing’s existence is irrelevant some someone applying purpose or value to it. Since you have a mind and can look at the universe, does your purpose you place for the universe have any bearing on it being there or not? Not really. I can build a car for a purpose and then I can remove that purpose in my mind, but the car still exists regardless of my applied or removal of purpose. To the ants living in it, it’s purpose is a home, to the family selling it, it’s purpose is to help pay for the new car, etc. Even though the car had a limited life span, it’s purpose in my life was significant and meaningful since it help me get to the games to see the kids play. It didn’t need an ultimate purpose or have a deity assign it a purpose for it to make a difference in my life.

 

[Vonsalza]

Guess you missed my numerous postings about the example of Einstein’s gravity waves. He mathematically proved that they should exist.

Sure. But surely you’re not suggesting that he was somehow just “math-ing around” and stumbled into it. He conceptualized it and tried to create proofs to that effect.

He had the good fortune of being successful. Many don’t.

But being logically correct does not make them pop into existence.

Be very, very careful here. There’s plenty in your science textbooks that still hasn’t been materially proven and is just internally consistent. Like evolution. Black holes. M-Theory.

I’m fine going to go look for [God], but I’m not going to say it’s actually there till we discover it.

As our God is non-material, why are you looking?

I use logic to go look for things in reality, but leave it up to reality to hold the bar for what is actually true about it instead of what I wish it to be.

I think theists would agree here.

Obviously how they perceive reality is different.

 

[Nicea325]

Don’t know how the universe came into existence. Since we can not yet tell the difference between every imagined idea out there and the actual reason, it is better to just say, “I don’t know until there is actual evidence.” People’s logical conclusions about it is not enough. Example: dna evidence over eye witness testimony. People are logically correct and still factually wrong all the time. Every time I have to point this out to the religious, it keeps pushing me down the pathway of being unable to tell the difference between religion and a cult.

Purpose is up to each individual’s mind to find for itself but the thing’s existence is irrelevant some someone applying purpose or value to it. Since you have a mind and can look at the universe, does your purpose you place for the universe have any bearing on it being there or not? Not really. I can build a car for a purpose and then I can remove that purpose in my mind, but the car still exists regardless of my applied or removal of purpose. To the ants living in it, it’s purpose is a home, to the family selling it, it’s purpose is to help pay for the new car, etc. Even though the car had a limited life span, it’s purpose in my life was significant and meaningful since it help me get to the games to see the kids play. It didn’t need an ultimate purpose or have a deity assign it a purpose for it to make a difference in my life.

Indeed, very interesting. I respect your position.

 

[PJM]

As I understand it, freewill is the descriptive word we use to describe the actions someone takes that appear to be choices we make. If we are making the choices consciously or reacting to subconscious controls, I don’t know. I think you’re description of quantify here is wrong. It’s like asking someone to give the “size, weight, color, shape” of someone dancing. That is an action they are taking. But if you are asking about the freewill molecule, what makes you conclude that the supernatural is an influence in our current understanding of freewill. Also, it sounds like this is about the idea of consciousness. As far as we understand it, that is an emergent property of a functioning brain. Do you have an example of consciousness outside of a brain anywhere? Just as wetness is an emergent property of water, but how many water molecules does it take for something to have wetness property to it?

My friend, I’m truly sorry that you miss the point of what I shared. But that remains between you and God. I’m just a messenger.

Peace

All we have to access as data is this reality. We can not access the supernatural to know if it is even there or, if it is, how it can interact in this realms so that we are able to look at an event in this realm and know that event A had supernatural involvement and event B had only natural involvement. Currently we can not tell a difference. IE: empty glass A and glass B with supernatural transcendent dice. I’ll swap them around my back. Now pick the one with the supernatural transcendent dice. Then tell me how you were able to conclude your choice being any different than random choice.

Allow me to further simplify this for you:

[1] It cannot be rationally denied that all humans possess a a mind, intellect and freewill

[2] So They EXIST

[3] Yet they are not of “matter” BUT spiritual objects

[4] So what is their origin?

It appears to come from a functioning brain unless you have an example of it being anywhere else. Also, “can’t be determined” is the path to “god of the gaps”. I don’t know there fore a deity did it. Imagining a being that can do anything and choose to do anything can solve is an answer to every unknown. But it’s not really if you can’t justify the difference between the deity actually existing and it not existing. Just as an empty glass that either has nothing in it or supernatural transcendent dice in it. How do you tell the difference at this point?

Ahhhhh, this DOES prove the existence of a deity; you simply chose to ignore its reality

Friend your denial of God [which is the name I choose to give] this undeniable; most Powerful and Complex “GOOD-thing” in existence; is both illogical AND unprovable.

Heaven and hell are REAL; eternity is forever so you may wish to reconsider your position.
QUOTE]

Appeasing the bully just so that you don’t get beat up is cowardice and also tells you that bully is not a source of morality as well.

 

[PJM]

On the basis that there is not enough/no good evidence to believe in one.
Each point or argument I’ve heard so far to support the existence of a god has not been solid, IMO.

.

THANKS for sharing, so just what do you accept as valid evidence? … John 4:23-24 tells is that God “is SPIRIT”

Blessings,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

First Cause argument - ok - something started the big bang and our universe to develop from it. But if time started at t=0 for the big bang for us, how can you have a “before” or “after” in a realm where time does not exist? I can’t wrap my head around the idea that time is anything but necessarily linear. So if we look at time as describe that way, then t=0 doesn’t work at the big bang if there was an event before the big bang that set it off. But since we can’t look before the big bang, we can, tentatively, call that point as t=0 for us till we learn how to actually create universes. Imagining a being that has the power to do this and the ability to do this is interesting and a good place to go look for it, but we have yet to find it. Just as Einstein mathematically concluded that gravity waves should exist, we didn’t actually teach that they are facts until we discovered them in 2015. I’m fine with the idea of a deity being there, once we detect it being there. Until then, I’ll with hold my position on the topic and just say, honestly, “I don’t know what started the big bang because actually, no one does at this point.” If you want to call that a thing a god, fine. I’ll still just call it, I don’t know.[/QUOTES]

Here’s what your missing

TIME EXIST FOR MAN, [AND WAS CREATED BY MAN AS A MEASUREMENT] BUT FOR GOD EVERYTHING [PAST, PRESENT & FUTURE] ARE ALL “NOW”

So you acknowledge that their in an absolute sense HAD to be a FIRST CAUSE; yet you can’t define it or proof it except through FAITH… We choose to know it as OUR GOD

Our logic only works by referencing the reality as we experience it. B follows A, A does not equal B, excluded middle, etc. These are all, so far, universal truths in this reality. So how can you know that our logic works in a realm that is not this reality?

 

[PJM]

It is the norm for someone to be asked to present their case for the positive claim they are making about reality. This is your toy you play with, not mine. You believe X - It is on you, to present why you believe this. What is your data, what is your logic that you applied to this data. If it is not enough to convince me, then I’ll point out where it doesn’t. I am telling you what processes it may take to convince me though with my feedback. If there is a deity out there, it should know what it would take to convince me that it exists and has either chosen not to or is unable to. Either way, not my problem since it’s on it to do so since I can not go to it at all at this point.

What do you mean by “faith”?
This is how I see the difference between hope, faith, and belief.
Belief is to know that out of all the possible values on a 1d6 that a value of 1 to 6 will appear.
Hope is to want the best possible outcome to occur. So if you bet a 5 will appear on a 1d6 roll, you hope a 5 will land over all other possible solutions.
Faith is the hope in the best possible outcome that is not actually a justified possible outcome. Such as hoping for a 7 out of a 1d6 roll. As far as we understand reality, there is no data that supports that a 7 is possible at all.

So if you justify conclusions based on “faith”, how is that ever a correct pathway to actual truth about reality? What could you not justify as a belief about reality if you base it on “faith”? And, why would that ever be a virtue to hold?

My friend, just confirming that I HAVE read your previous POST, but have found noting in your positions worth discussion as they are ALL subjective only

Peace

 

[PJM]

Lack of evidence.

OK, so two questions

What is your position on the bible?

Just what would YOU accept and find suitable as evidence?

Bible:John.4 Verses 23 to 24

[23] But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him.
[24]** God is spirit,** and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Bible: Genesis 1: 26-27

[26] Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

So the QUESTION is HOW is this possible?

Peace
Patrick

 

[PJM]

On the basis that there is not enough/no good evidence to believe in one.
Each point or argument I’ve heard so far to support the existence of a god has not been solid, IMO.

.

I’m not aware of what you have and have not read on this STRING.

So I’ll ask again just what do YOU expect as “evidence?”

use this site to look up these teachings:

quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/

BTW

The Old Testament dates back some 4,000 years & the New Testament about 2,000 years

Then GOOGLE “Catholic Martyrs” … why would so MANY give their lives and usually in grotesque way’s IF this was NOT believable?

Countless BILLIONS have believed over the years

If YOU CAN be Objectively logical God is provable. Our friend Russell could not be:shrug:

Peace,

Patrick

 

[Picky_Picky]

My friend, I’m truly sorry that you miss the point of what I shared. But that remains between you and God. I’m just a messenger.

Peace

 

[Russell_SA]

Sure. But surely you’re not suggesting that he was somehow just “math-ing around” and stumbled into it. He conceptualized it and tried to create proofs to that effect.

He had the good fortune of being successful. Many don’t.

Many mathematical conclusions are not correct though. There are thousands of people out there that believe that they have mathematically disproved Einstein’s E=MC2 formula, but they still fail when applied to reality. Math and logic are just our best understanding for communicating about this reality. They are all just models we use. It’s reality that holds the ultimate results of our efforts to see if something is true or not. That is why we have to find it in reality some how. Otherwise it’s still just an idea in our heads.

Be very, very careful here. There’s plenty in your science textbooks that still hasn’t been materially proven and is just internally consistent. Like evolution. Black holes. M-Theory.

Funny how religious people jump straight to the sciences that most people don’t have a firm grasp on because it requires actual scientists in those fields to understand the nuances of it, but they never bring up lightning or gravity. Spooky science areas. Anyhoo… Science is just giving labels to observed phenomenon in this reality. There are always areas where they need to continue to study but it’s still based on repeatable observations in this reality that anyone can go explore for themselves. Careful with “evolution” though. I’ve been told by evolutionary scientists and astrophysicists that the science community concludes that evolution is a fact and that they know more about evolution than they do about gravity and that how evolution goes about is currently best explained through the model of the theory of evolution. If religion was able to illustrate it’s channeling ability of the supernatural in a repeatable way, then it would be part of this reality with the other areas of science. Just for fun, lets say from the bible that when three people in the name of their deity pray, then what they asked for will come to pass. - That is an actual testable event. But, even if people could do that, we still have to find a way to link it to a deity as the cause of the change. Such as taking an aspirin and praying for a headache to go away. Now try that without prayer. Now try that without the aspirin and keep the prayer. Now try that with out the aspirin and not praying. We all know that headaches go away in all three cases. So how do we tell the difference between what actually helped or not?

As our God is non-material, why are you looking?

Tentatively, I have no way of distinguishing a deity actually being there and not being there. Just as Einstein mathematically concluded that gravity waves should be there, but couldn’t definitively say that they were there or not there. So at this point, the idea of the deity is indistinguishable from a literary figure. Since we have no way of determining the difference between the two, the default position, aka the null-hypothesis, is the case till otherwise. To not hold that belief till we can tell the difference between the two.

Obviously how they perceive reality is different.

Yes they do, but how do we tell the difference between their understanding of reality and actual reality? Anyone can hold to rituals for psychological support, but does that lucky rabbit’s foot actually have magical powers? Probably not, but it made that person feel better about the situation and succeed where they may have given up.

 

[Vonsalza]

Many mathematical conclusions are not correct though. …That is why we have to find it in reality some how.

Again, much of your scientific “reality” is still theoretical and internally consistent. As was my point here.

Funny how religious people jump straight to the sciences that most people don’t have a firm grasp on because it requires actual scientists in those fields to understand the nuances of it, but they never bring up lightning or gravity. Spooky science areas.

Gravity is one of my favorite examples here. When I was a kids, gravity was a pull generated by mass. More mass, more pull. Now it’s a push generated by the spacetime the mass displaces and there are no “pulls”.

And I’m not all that old.

I smile when people refer to things like gravity when they want simple, concrete, known examples of the scientifically real and unchanging.

If religion was able to illustrate it’s channeling ability of the supernatural in a repeatable way,…

Again, read the things you type before hitting that “submit” button.
Do you know what “supernatural” means?

Just for fun, lets say from the bible that when three people in the name of their deity pray, then what they asked for will come to pass…

I’m an ex-Calvinist, Russell. I think intercessory prayer is largely a waste of time as God was still “on the throne” when you got your headache. “Thy will be done and may I accept it” is about the best I’ve got.

As such, I lack a fundamental premise that your test requires.

I’m not unique in that regard.

Since we have no way of determining the difference between the two, the default position, aka the null-hypothesis, is the case till otherwise.

Sure, the quintessential null - neither affirmation nor denial.

Yes they do, but how do we tell the difference between their understanding of reality and actual reality?

You can’t. To everyone there is no difference. They, just like you, are dead-certain that the reality they experience is the true one.

You can only alter their perception of the reality by convincing them of the same axioms with which you view it. As you’re free to reject theirs, they’re free to reject yours.

 

[PJM]

On the basis that there is not enough/no good evidence to believe in one.
Each point or argument I’ve heard so far to support the existence of a god has not been solid, IMO.

.

OK I GET THAT

We disagree, so just WHAT do kind of evidence do YOU find to be suitable:shrug:

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

On the contrary the existence of free will has been, and still is, denied by some philosophers and continues to be the subject of debate; and certainly there are many who believe mind and intellect are of matter, the functions of the physical brain.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Picky Picky;14803258:

Oh I don’t deny that it IS denied;

My position is that it cannot be denied RATIONALLY.

God Bless you
Patrick

But rationally is exactly how it is denied by those who deny it.

Get your teeth into this description of the rational debate, for example:

iep.utm.edu/freewill/#H3

 

[Russell_SA]

Again, read the things you type before hitting that “submit” button.
Do you know what “supernatural” means?

It seems to mean different things to different people. I presented it there as a realm that people, with faith, believe they can channel the power of it to alter this reality. Such as healing, winning at sporting events, or anything else they strongly desire. I understand the need for ritual as I still run my fingers over pictures of people I care about, even though I know they wouldn’t feel my touch. It’s a physical release to a highly emotional state is all I see about it; like punching the ground out of frustration. But there is no data to show that these religious rituals actually channel any deity’s attention or power. You’re particular take on this seems to be, Jesus take the wheel, approach. Predestination type or is that a wrong assessment?

Sure, the quintessential null - neither affirmation nor denial.

The default position, aka the null hypothesis, about belief is to affirm a disbelief in the topic presented until the person making the positive claim has meet the burden of proof to their audience. Once that burden of proof has meet the audience’s standards for believing something, then they change from not believing the claim to believing the claim. It’s not a knowledge claim of agnosticism where you just say, “I don’t know” - neither affirming or denying the claim. Or do you think that’s wrong some how?

You can’t. To everyone there is no difference. They, just like you, are dead-certain that the reality they experience is the true one.

This is why the current scientific process works best for getting to the truth of reality. Individually, we all can jump to conclusions about explaining an event we experienced, but, after running the process through the scientific approach, it begins to remove our inherent bias, emotional connection to one set of data points over others, etc. I’m only looking for justified belief about the reality I experience because I can’t know anyone else’s reality from their filter. So when someone has a personal experience of an alien abduction, even if they are my own family, I probably will not believe their explanation for the event they experienced. All I can justifiably believe is that I trust that they experienced something since their data can not be verified in any way.

You can only alter their perception of the reality by convincing them of the same axioms with which you view it. As you’re free to reject theirs, they’re free to reject yours.

Sure, but if my process continues to have a solid track record of self-correction, independently repeatable results of the experiment, open-source review for everyone, etc. vs their claimed experience, I’ll have to go with the track record of science for understanding and explain reality. Especially since all the data there seems to be for the supernatural is just people’s personal cultural rituals being ascribed to natural phenomena.