Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Minimalist]

Humans have remarkable memories.

History tells us otherwise.

[Foxaèr]

History tells us otherwise.

Indeed, since the bad parts of it continue to be repeated.

[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?

[Bad Writer]

Contrary. Exodus makes that abundantly clear since Pharoah is about to let them go, but God keeps hardening his heart. Why are you arguing against this, exactly? Did I stutter when I first mentioned it?

You mean to say the heart is different from the will?

I guess you forgot all about Synonyms when you learned elementary school English. Hearts don't control actions unless you come from a school of special logic, so what do you think it meant when Exodus mentioned the hardening of Pharoah's heart? Stop arguing this; it's written in your storybook.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God needs our sacrifices.

Oh, so you don't consider the Torah to be part of your holy book? Excuse me for thinking that something I read in there actually pertained to your religion.

---

We're designed to be in groups...

Slip of the tongue You brought it right back to evolution though in the next sentence.

[Undeceived]

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

Fair enough.

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.

I understand your position. But I urge you to look beyond the facts to their meaning. Most dogs cannot understand pointing. You point at food on the floor, and they sniff your finger. A finger is a finger to them, and nothing more--all facts, no meaning. Similarly, love produces within us physical reactions, such as flutters in the stomach. But we know the meaning of the flutters because we have inside information--we know what love feels like. Science will not tell you what love feels like. It is information like this that causes us to imagine what greater meanings there could be. When you request that I "bring something convincing to the table" I get the hunch that the "something" you are looking for are facts. I like that we are both writers. Use your ardent imagination. Make it your business to be convinced by meaning, and not merely facts. Note what it is your gut tells you, and work backwards. If you start at evolution, you force facts into a theory designed to accept every fact--a theory which changes, depending on the facts. Ask yourself what doesn't change. Ask yourself if there is anything more important than survival.

Your whole position requires you to discard the notion of infinity to get to your first cause; you have no reason to do that.

My reason is that I can continue my research and confirm the first cause with other evidence/arguments.

Analogy:
A murder has two possible suspects. The first one, Dave, is in custody. The other, John Doe, was blown up by a grenade, identification and all. Both are possibilities. But police will pursue Dave because they can find more information about him. He isn’t a dead end.

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.

I’m not sure if you’re being serious, but this scenario makes some assumptions. First, that God, or anyone, could feed on emotional states. Second, that humans are actually capable of raising the net energy in the universe.

But love does serve me. It serves us all.

I referred to “selfless love”. In other words, love that doesn’t serve the lover. Such as loving one’s enemies. Do you deny that this kind of love exists?

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

The question is one of free will: Was God’s will for Pharaoh in line with Pharaoh’s new will? Suppose you’re a computer. Your operating system drives you to play solitaire in your spare time. A technician upgrades your operating system. Now you desire to play minesweeper. At no point has your free will been compromised. Now, you may argue that you should be able to choose your operating system. But how are you to choose before your creator gives you a system by which to make the choice? Free will cannot be extended before creation itself. Romans 9:

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory?

---

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God needs our sacrifices.

Oh, so you don't consider the Torah to be part of your holy book? Excuse me for thinking that something I read in there actually pertained to your religion.

Show me where in the Torah it says that God needs our sacrifices.

[Esquilax]

I understand your position. But I urge you to look beyond the facts to their meaning. Most dogs cannot understand pointing. You point at food on the floor, and they sniff your finger. A finger is a finger to them, and nothing more--all facts, no meaning. Similarly, love produces within us physical reactions, such as flutters in the stomach. But we know the meaning of the flutters because we have inside information--we know what love feels like. Science will not tell you what love feels like.

Well, science can't tell you about the subjective qualities of love, because science concerns itself with objective measurements, or as close as it can come to that. However, science can show you the objective qualities of love, how your body reacts to the emotion, the physical, quantifiable portions of it. It can even tell you whether you're in love or not, based on readings of your brain, and what elements of your body become active in the presence of your beloved.

So, science can't tell you exactly how love feels to each individual person, but then, nobody can. But it can give you a fairly good approximation, same as anyone else.

It is information like this that causes us to imagine what greater meanings there could be. When you request that I "bring something convincing to the table" I get the hunch that the "something" you are looking for are facts. I like that we are both writers. Use your ardent imagination. Make it your business to be convinced by meaning, and not merely facts.

If we were discussing a subjective thing you'd have a fair point here. But the concept of a first cause is an objective, existential position; either that first causes exists, or it does not. There's no possible way that this first cause can exist for you, and not exist for me; whether it does or it doesn't, belief won't change that. Therefore, what we can imagine has no bearing on the truth of the matter; however hard you feel it's true, it's either true or not, regardless.

Note what it is your gut tells you, and work backwards. If you start at evolution, you force facts into a theory designed to accept every fact--a theory which changes, depending on the facts. Ask yourself what doesn't change. Ask yourself if there is anything more important than survival.

This part's kind of a non sequitur; accepting factual things is just the way the world works. It's the way rational beings must work. Your beliefs on objective things has no bearing; they remain factual anyway. I'm sorry if these ideas are uncomfortable to you,, but that doesn't change their truth value. Evolution is a fact: we've observed it happening, we've reproduced it under laboratory conditions. It's a done deal. Accepting it as such is exactly the same thing as accepting the sky is blue.

My reason is that I can continue my research and confirm the first cause with other evidence/arguments.

That's precisely the same thing I and the other atheists are doing, we just don't see a reason to accept the first cause claim as true before we've confirmed it. To me, what you're doing seems to be leading the evidence toward your preferred conclusion, rather than the true one.

Analogy:
A murder has two possible suspects. The first one, Dave, is in custody. The other, John Doe, was blown up by a grenade, identification and all. Both are possibilities. But police will pursue Dave because they can find more information about him. He isn’t a dead end.

Yes, but if the evidence shows that Dave couldn't have committed the murder, the police don't go on to arrest him because he's the only one still alive.

I’m not sure if you’re being serious, but this scenario makes some assumptions. First, that God, or anyone, could feed on emotional states. Second, that humans are actually capable of raising the net energy in the universe.

Well, I wasn't being serious, I was just pointing out that you're making your own assumptions about what god can or can't do, and even what god has and has not done, based on the same lack of evidence that I have. My point is that neither of us should be making assumptions.

I referred to “selfless love”. In other words, love that doesn’t serve the lover. Such as loving one’s enemies. Do you deny that this kind of love exists?

I'm not going to deny anything. What I will say is that we're not perfect biological machines in any respect. We're cobbled together from a million million evolutionary changes and behavioural tics developed through the operation of this imperfect software and hardware. We're allowed to be irrational or selfless without recourse to a god.

[Chas]

... In the same way, we inductively say that all actions have causes, because we have yet to find otherwise. ...

Untrue. In radioactive decay, there is no known cause for a particular atom to decay. All of our measurements are statistical. Listen to a Geiger counter.

[Rahul]

Untrue. In radioactive decay, there is no known cause for a particular atom to decay. All of our measurements are statistical. Listen to a Geiger counter.

Instability causes the atom to decay.

We know why they decay. You could throw a theoretical atom at a physicist and he could predict how fast it would decay based on it's properties.

Isn't it Lead that is the highest element that is completely stable?

[Brakeman]

Your whole position requires you to discard the notion of infinity to get to your first cause; you have no reason to do that.

My reason is that I can continue my research and confirm the first cause with other evidence/arguments.

Analogy:
A murder has two possible suspects. The first one, Dave, is in custody. The other, John Doe, was blown up by a grenade, identification and all. Both are possibilities. But police will pursue Dave because they can find more information about him. He isn’t a dead end.

No, according to the deluded, there are many more suspects. There is the devil who beguiles the minds of Dave and John Does to do evil. Demons possess the Dave and John Does and move them to murder most vile. Them there is god, making way for his chosen people or killing to punish.
According to christians, there is no way to prove who the guilty killer is, until after they die and god gives them their magic eyeglasses. And no matter who the perpetrator has injured and wronged, he simply has to ask jesus to forgive him and he is rewarded with heaven.

geeZ!

[Bad Writer]

Wait...why are we counting Devils and Demons as suspects? I suppose we might as well throw Santa and the Easter Bunny in there for good measure? Where is this wild ride of a thread taking us?!