Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Esquilax]

Science is not fond of induction. But scientists are not going to let the absence of deduction prohibit them from making conclusions. Say that I am looking for a purple swan. I have searched the world over for a purple swan, and have yet to find one. Deductively, my experiment will lie incomplete. Inductively, I conclude that in all likelihood, purple swans do not exist. In the same way, we inductively say that all actions have causes, because we have yet to find otherwise. If we rule out induction, the jury is out and we cannot even discuss cause and effect. But that would be ludicrous. Even scientific LAWS are not 100% verified, because we have not tested them in every part of the universe—say, next to black holes or between dimensions.

Oh, I think I can clear up the issue here: science doesn't tell you about truth. What it does is give you a tentative conclusion based on available evidence, with the caveat being that this might change depending on new information. All scientists know this, and this is the prime difference between science and induction: science looks at the evidence and gives the most likely conclusion, while induction looks at what seems true based on your senses, and declares this to be true.

This is why induction is even more crucial when discussing “larger scale notions.” There is simply not enough data. It’s interesting for you to be so critical of induction, because induction is the only reasoning you have for concluding there is no God. Incomplete deduction = induction. They are flip sides of the same coin. And I just defended induction for you. You’re welcome.

What I said above. Incidentally, I'm not of the position that there's no god. I don't have a position on gods specifically because there isn't enough information. The disagreement we're having is that you're proposing you have knowledge of a god, and I don't believe you because what you're presenting doesn't convince me.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: atheism says nothing about creators. There could very well be a creator for the universe, but if you want me to believe in the one you're proposing, you'd better bring something convincing to the table. That's all.

We know the Spirit of God by its fruit. Any love, peace, faithfulness, ect. anywhere at all is a result of God. If there is bigotry in the Westboro Baptist church, it came from men's hearts. (I address love more thoroughly below.)

So, essentially, you agree with me. You're literally using the same dishonest tactic I called you on in the passage you quoted.

Infinity is not impossible. Just know that if you are willing to accept it is an answer, you are no less radical than if you accept God as an answer.

I don't accept infinity. I don't have a position. I'm trying to point out that discounting one position we have no evidence for based on an assumption that another position we have no evidence for is true, is a bad way to go about finding out what's real. Your whole position requires you to discard the notion of infinity to get to your first cause; you have no reason to do that.

If God expels his own energy into the universe, how can he gain anything from feeding on it?

You're talking to a writer here: god created beings with free will and consciousness, so that they could produce their own emotional states free from god needing to fuel them, so that he could feed on them. Essentially he made his own renewable energy.

Love is about thinking outside yourself. God thinks outside of himself first by creating us. We respond to his example by loving others. Without God, there is no reason for your free will to choose love. You are interested in self-preservation. You owe nobody nothing. But I’ll let you confirm this. Give me a logical reason to love that doesn’t in any way benefit the person loving.

Whoa, whoa, hold on: you're saying that sans god I'd be interested only in self preservation and things that benefit me, and then as if to prove that you ask me to give you a reason to love that doesn't benefit the person experiencing the emotion? If I answered that question wouldn't I be proving your point, and not my own?

[I’ll give you a few seconds.] Ok, the wording in that request was bias. The word “logical” always entails the individual. To love selflessly, one must be illogical. Would you, Esquilax, freely act illogically? Your hypothetical creator made you in such a way that you act for self-preservation above all else. If love does not serve you, it is not within your free will. Therefore, it must come from God.

See, like that. But love does serve me. It serves us all. Aside from some cool mental health benefits (we're social animals!) the emotion of love has a very clear evolutionary benefit; people who love each other are more likely to stick around and co-operate for the benefit of the group. We're designed to be in groups, our big weapon in the evolutionary arms race is a mind complex enough to form complicated social groups. What keeps us safe from predators? Each other.

Besides, people in romantic love tend to have kids together, right? And those kids remain helpless and in need of care and attention for many years; if both the parents love one another- and their kid- they are more likely to stick around for the entirety of the child's growth, and the child is more likely to survive and be successful.

Bam. Love is logical.

One may see the effects of the wind, but not the wind. All the unanswered questions in the world come together in the shape of God, who answers every one with organized precision.

Was Pharaoh’s heart contrary to Pharaoh's will, or in accordance with it?

If Pharaoh wasn't going to set the slaves free anyway, then why did god need to harden his heart at all?