Page 55 of 71 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 704

Thread: Exposing Atheistic Myths

  1. Top | #541
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,451
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    As to laws, yet again reality does not conform to science, laws are tested mathematical description of reality.o.
    If that is the case then my original point was quite valid. If laws are derived from reality, then it makes no sense to talk about a new phenomenon you haven't previously encountered as the "breaking of physical laws". If a phenomenon happened at all, then it hasn't broken any laws, it just needs to be incorporated into your existing sense of nature and natural laws. Which for a theist is obviously a theistic one. The idea that a theist would see God as a law-breaker, let alone that miracles can only be called such if God has broken some sort of law, is silly and does not correspond with what most theists I have ever met, regardless of tradition, generally think. Rather, most would consider the "law of the universe" to be God's to enact as he or she chooses.
    Let's say a comet is headed for Earth and Jupiter is diverted from the path predicted by the known physical laws so that it intercepts the comet and saves the Earth from certain destruction. It's no different than any other alleged miracle. Energy had to be added to the universe in order for the event to happen. The problem is the same as the one Descartes encountered in explaining how a dualistic self interacted with the physical self. There needs to be a rational explanation.
    There's that "had to be" along with the "laws" and "must" and "fixed" already in play. Even if there are, for unexplained and inexplicable reasons, laws that matter and energy must follow, how can we know what those laws are except by observing what does and does not happen? Unless we know something about the ultimate source of fundamental order in the universe, science can only ever be a descriptive enterprise.

  2. Top | #542
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,830
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    3,080
    Rep Power
    0
    There's also the fact that nobody has even proven man exists in an atheistic world yet. Philosophers have tried for centuries, but to no avail. Even the classic, "I think, therefore I am" is flawed because it's assuming the conclusion through the premise.

    So if nobody has even proven man exists yet, how can atheists expect proof of God?

  3. Top | #543
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,830
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    3,080
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post

    Let's say a comet is headed for Earth and Jupiter is diverted from the path predicted by the known physical laws so that it intercepts the comet and saves the Earth from certain destruction. It's no different than any other alleged miracle. Energy had to be added to the universe in order for the event to happen. The problem is the same as the one Descartes encountered in explaining how a dualistic self interacted with the physical self. There needs to be a rational explanation.
    There's that "had to be" along with the "laws" and "must" and "fixed" already in play. Even if there are, for unexplained and inexplicable reasons, laws that matter and energy must follow, how can we know what those laws are except by observing what does and does not happen? Unless we know something about the ultimate source of fundamental order in the universe, science can only ever be a descriptive enterprise.
    Yes, and nobody knows what anything is like if there are no minds around to describe something. Statements like, "the Earth will continue to exist long after we die" is nonsensical because nobody will be around to observe anything. So, how do we know things can exist without a mind around to observe them? This is a classic philosophical subject that atheists hate.

    If I ask an atheist, "Can you describe what the Earth is like without a mind around to see it?" they can not answer because they are already using their own mind to think about it. It's a classic problem.

  4. Top | #544
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,042
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,018
    Rep Power
    63
    This thread has degenerated into pseudo-philosophical pablum.

  5. Top | #545
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,830
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    3,080
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    This thread has degenerated into pseudo-philosophical pablum.
    People often havdwave things away if it boggles their brain too much.

    Face it, without God as "The Ultimate Observer," you guys got nothing for how we know things exist without a mind around.

    Bupkes, zilch, zero, nada.

  6. Top | #546
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,451
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    This thread has degenerated into pseudo-philosophical pablum.
    Degenerated? What exactly do you think it started with? I mean, the title alone...

  7. Top | #547
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,433
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    Let's say a comet is headed for Earth and Jupiter is diverted from the path predicted by the known physical laws so that it intercepts the comet and saves the Earth from certain destruction. It's no different than any other alleged miracle.
    It is if you SEE Jupiter do that.

    "Break" was a poor choice of word. The only thing a new, extraordinary event would break is the norm of people's expectations. If you see it happen then you have to say something else than it "breaks" the laws of science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    There needs to be a rational explanation.
    One should look for one. Jumping to "miracle" would be extremely presumptuous.

    The key word is "see". Who is known to have seen "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws"? The question is, what miracles has any theist ever seen?
    The point I was making assumes that the definition of miracle is God intervening in events within the physical universe from outside it.

  8. Top | #548
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,475
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,421
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    This thread has degenerated into pseudo-philosophical pablum.
    I find Politesse's contention far more interesting. I could actually learn something from thinking about the "breaking" of scientific laws and whether miracles (and God) become "natural" instead of "supernatural" if they happened. Arguing with what the fundies (Lion IRC, Learner and Half-Life) throw at us is nothing but sorting garbage.

  9. Top | #549
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,830
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    3,080
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    This thread has degenerated into pseudo-philosophical pablum.
    I find Politesse's contention far more interesting. I could actually learn something from thinking about the "breaking" of scientific laws and whether miracles (and God) become "natural" instead of "supernatural" if they happened. Arguing with what the fundies (Lion IRC, Learner and Half-Life) throw at us is nothing but sorting garbage.
    I wouldn't classify a philosophical position that has gone unrefuted for over 200 years as "garbage." I'd classify it as "quite a problem."

  10. Top | #550
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,712
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,212
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    There's also the fact that nobody has even proven man exists in an atheistic world yet. Philosophers have tried for centuries, but to no avail.
    i seem to remember you tried this claim before.
    But it was 'scientists' that worked hard to disprove gods. How are philosophers better for your argument?
    Even the classic, "I think, therefore I am" is flawed because it's assuming the conclusion through the premise.
    uh huh. Did you ever pony up the difference between deductive and inductive logic?
    So if nobody has even proven man exists yet, how can atheists expect proof of God?
    well, when thumpers keep using 'obvious' in their efforts to prove a gid exists, then we should be able to expect obvious proofs are obvious.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •