Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[polymath257]

The fact that there is no internal contradiction means it isn't logically eliminated. So, yes, we get to assume any axiom that isn't contradictory. The *logic* isn't violated.

Metaphysics is bunk. Pure and simple. There is no such thing as valid metaphysical reasoning: only metaphysical assumptions, usually invalid ones.

I won't come up with a metaphysics article because I consider *all* metaphysics articles to be bunk. But, the math and physics articles are very clear about the *logical* possibility of an actual infinite.

The problem I have with 'concrete' objects is that I don't consider the word 'concrete' to be well defined. For example, is an electron a 'concrete object'? Give reasons for your answer. is a neutrino a 'concrete object'? is a photon? These are the *actual* objects from which the universe is built. These are the ones that matter. Whatever your vague notion of 'concreteness' is irrelevant to the actual physics. And if your metaphysics doens't allow the actual physics, then it is simply invalid.

Good. Further conversation on this is impossible because this conversation is about metaphysical concepts and you just declared all metaphysics to be "bunk". I'll leave you with a list of the "Central Questions" of metaphysics--but you probably don't care about any of them, they're just "bunk"...

2.1 Ontology (Being)
2.2 Identity and change
2.3 Space and time
2.4 Causality
2.5 Necessity and possibility

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysic..._questions


It also sucks for science, since these and other metaphysical concepts are required to have a philosophy of science--without which science cannot exist. Damn, what a shame when they all find out...

These are questions of physics, not metaphysics. They are to be determined through observation. Philosophical speculation can only guide further investigation, not solve the relevant questions. As philosophers approach them, though, yes, they are bunk. Philosophers (metaphysicians) understand so little about the universe because they are bound by their preconceived ideas about how things 'must be' so they lose track of how things actually are.

We do NOT have to answer these metaphysical questions to be able to investigate things scientifically. Again, you are simply wrong about this. All that is required to do science is to formulate *testable* hypotheses. We then use observation to see which hypotheses survive. We do NOT prove things beyond any doubt, only beyond reasonable doubt.

Mathematics is different than science: it is the study of formal systems, which includes logic. It then becomes the *language* of scientific investigation.

[RoadRunner79]

So many atheists appear to be against logic and philosophy for some reason.

[polymath257]

Redefining something as ‘beyond scientific understanding’ is neither an explanation, nor a positive descriptor of the particular thing in question.  Let me ask you, how do we make the determination that something is beyond science’s ability to explore?

I'm not redefining anything. That is the definition. 

The best way is context. Events contrary to what we know about the laws of nature are more likely miracles when there is a context that suggest a supernatural cause. For example, if Jesus tells a crippled man from birth to stand up, take up his mat and walk, that would seem more likely a miracle than not. 

If a whole church is praying for a little boy (like my brother-in-law) who had a brain tumor and on the morning of his surgery he had a CT scan for the surgeon to map his cuts, there was no tumor. Never came back. That might be a miracle.

If someone looses their car keys and prays and then finds them. Probably not. 

Looking through a microscope at a some sub-atomic particle that isn't behaving as expected would never be thought of as a miracle--there is no context to think that it would be. That concept is called epistemological naturalism and that is how a Christian who is also a scientist would approach his/her work.

Events that violate the 'known' laws of physics simply means we don't have the valid laws in that case. A supernatural explanation is *never* better than a more refined physical law.

And I disagree with your evaluation of the Jesus story. It would be much more likely to be a spontaneous remission that is coincidental to Jesus than anything else. A psychological paralysis is also a strong possibility. And *that* is even giving you that the story is reliably told.

The same goes for a church praying. Spontaneous remissions do actually happen. That just means we need to study more to understand why they happen. A supernatural explanation just isn't a real explanation.

---

So many atheists appear to be against logic and philosophy for some reason.

I am in full support of good logic and good philosophy. I am against bad logic and bad philosophy. I am also in support of mathematical investigation as well as scientific investigation.

Philosophy is good for discussions over drinks but little else.

[Deesse23]

I'm not redefining anything. That is the definition.

The best way is context. Events contrary to what we know about the laws of nature are more likely miracles when there is a context that suggest a supernatural cause.

Learning more about the laws of nature isnt an option, right? Throwing our hands up in the air, dropping to our knees shouting "goddidit" is, right?
Also.....please continue to the next remark.

For example, if Jesus tells a crippled man from birth to stand up, take up his mat and walk, that would seem more likely a miracle than not.  

Bolding mine: Please call in again after you have demonstrated that something like this ever happened.

If a whole church is praying for a little boy (like my brother-in-law) who had a brain tumor and on the morning of his surgery he had a CT scan for the surgeon to map his cuts, there was no tumor. Never came back. That might be a miracle.

It might as well be "i dont know", and then pulling "miracle" right out of your ass. Your method fails.
Too bad not enough churches fulla people (being full of it) are praying for all those starving kids in Africa. If i ever encounter such a scenario like you did, i can only hope its no miracle and there is no god who is so capricious as you suggest.

If someone looses their car keys and prays and then finds them. Probably not.

Too bad, god just wanted to help by makig this guy find his car keys. Your "method" to determine miracles failed.......again.

Looking through a microscope at a some sub-atomic particle that isn't behaving as expected would never be thought of as a miracle--there is no context to think that it would be.

Oh, this time its not "miracle" but "i dont know"? Interesting.

tl;dr: please look up "argument from ignorance", because thats all it is you are preaching here: "I dont know, therefore miracle/god/supernatural/pink unicorn".

[The Grand Nudger]

One supposes that the tissue in the walking cripple or the miraculous cancer remission would have been doing -very- strange things, viewed under a microscope.  Hell, could be that the particles involved in the miraculous key finding (fuck you, miracle skeptics!) were jumpy as shit. It's not clear why looking at them under a microscope would make them non miraculous, or differentiate one between the other. Hell, if none of the particles involved were behaving strangley, but the status of the subject made of those particles changed in such a manner..that would be -super- strange. Imma call that the ultra-supernatural. A force capable of effecting change without detectable change, as opposed to the mundane supernatural..which changes things through unknown means.

[SteveII]

I'm not redefining anything. That is the definition.

The best way is context. Events contrary to what we know about the laws of nature are more likely miracles when there is a context that suggest a supernatural cause.

Learning more about the laws of nature isnt an option, right? Throwing our hands up in the air, dropping to our knees shouting "goddidit" is, right?
Also.....please continue to the next remark.

For example, if Jesus tells a crippled man from birth to stand up, take up his mat and walk, that would seem more likely a miracle than not.  

Bolding mine: Please call in again after you have demonstrated that something like this ever happened.

If a whole church is praying for a little boy (like my brother-in-law) who had a brain tumor and on the morning of his surgery he had a CT scan for the surgeon to map his cuts, there was no tumor. Never came back. That might be a miracle.

It might as well be "i dont know", and then pulling "miracle" right out of your ass. Your method fails.
Too bad not enough churches fulla people (being full of it) are praying for all those starving kids in Africa. If i ever encounter such a scenario like you did, i can only hope its no miracle and there is no god who is so capricious as you suggest.

If someone looses their car keys and prays and then finds them. Probably not.

Too bad, god just wanted to help by makig this guy find his car keys. Your "method" to determine miracles failed.......again.

Looking through a microscope at a some sub-atomic particle that isn't behaving as expected would never be thought of as a miracle--there is no context to think that it would be.

Oh, this time its not "miracle" but "i dont know"? Interesting.

tl;dr: please look up "argument from ignorance", because thats all it is you are preaching here: "I dont know, therefore miracle/god/supernatural/pink unicorn".

You're very new here so you get a little slack from me. I am interested in discussions ONLY. You appear to be interested in ignorant, simplistic, abusive dialog of a 13-year-old where your goal is not to learn anything about my views but rather mock what little you understand to...what end?...make yourself feel smarter than you really are? I'll leave you off of block for now, so while I am don't think you have what it takes to have a real discussion, I might be wrong and you might change your mind as to your goals when you reply to something I say.

[LadyForCamus]

Redefining something as ‘beyond scientific understanding’ is neither an explanation, nor a positive descriptor of the particular thing in question.  Let me ask you, how do we make the determination that something is beyond science’s ability to explore?

I'm not redefining anything. That is the definition.

Yes, that is the definition of the word, “supernatural.”  That the word has a definition doesn’t necessary mean that the concept itself is coherent, nor that it can be coherently  applied to the reality we exist in. The dictionary also has definitions for words such as, “ghost”, “soul”, “fairy” and “Santa”, but that doesn’t mean these concepts are (or could ever be) manifest in reality. 

The best way is context. Events contrary to what we know about the laws of nature are more likely miracles when there is a context that suggest a supernatural cause. For example, if Jesus tells a crippled man from birth to stand up, take up his mat and walk, that would seem more likely a miracle than not.

That people involved in the event in question are credulous to the notion of a supernatural cause, is not in any way related to the actual cause of the event. And it does not affect the probability of that event being supernaturally caused versus naturally caused.  

If a whole church is praying for a little boy (like my brother-in-law) who had a brain tumor and on the morning of his surgery he had a CT scan for the surgeon to map his cuts, there was no tumor. Never came back. That might be a miracle.

So, again; rare medical phenomena happen.  How do you rationally determine that the cause can’t, and never can be explainable via science, versus a natural cause that science can and may be able to explain at some point in the future?  Because, people prayed first? I know you know what a ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacy is.

If someone looses their car keys and prays and then finds them. Probably not.

Why not? 

Looking through a microscope at a some sub-atomic particle that isn't behaving as expected would never be thought of as a miracle--there is no context to think that it would be. That concept is called epistemological naturalism and that is how a Christian who is also a scientist would approach his/her work.

Scientists have managed to explain many a rare, and seemingly miraculous natural phenomena using tools such as microscopes, Steve, lol.  You talk about subatomic particles as though they aren’t in play during these supposedly miraculous healings.

[SteveII]

I'm not redefining anything. That is the definition.

Yes, that is the definition of the word, “supernatural.”  That the word has a definition doesn’t necessary mean that the concept itself is coherent, nor that it can be coherently  applied to the reality we exist in. The dictionary also has definitions for words such as, “ghost”, “soul”, “fairy” and “Santa”, but that doesn’t mean these concepts are (or could ever be) manifest in reality. 

The best way is context. Events contrary to what we know about the laws of nature are more likely miracles when there is a context that suggest a supernatural cause. For example, if Jesus tells a crippled man from birth to stand up, take up his mat and walk, that would seem more likely a miracle than not.

That people involved in the event in question are credulous to the notion of a supernatural cause, is not in any way related to the actual cause of the event. And it does not affect the probability of that event being supernaturally caused versus naturally caused.  

If a whole church is praying for a little boy (like my brother-in-law) who had a brain tumor and on the morning of his surgery he had a CT scan for the surgeon to map his cuts, there was no tumor. Never came back. That might be a miracle.

So, again; rare medical phenomena happen.  How do you rationally determine that the cause can’t, and never will be explainable via science, versus a natural cause that science can and may be able to explain at some point in the future?  Because, people prayed first? I know you know what a ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacy is.

If someone looses their car keys and prays and then finds them. Probably not.

Why not? 

Looking through a microscope at a some sub-atomic particle that isn't behaving as expected would never be thought of as a miracle--there is no context to think that it would be. That concept is called epistemological naturalism and that is how a Christian who is also a scientist would approach his/her work.

Scientists have managed to explain many a rare, and seemingly miraculous natural phenomena using tools such as microscopes, Steve, lol.  You talk about subatomic particles as though they aren’t in play during these supposedly miraculous healings.

Do you notice that you start by claiming the idea incoherent and then write 4 more paragraphs coherently discussing the concept? You seem to understand it fine.  Also, the ideas of supernatural, ghost, soul, fairy and Santa are all coherent no matter if they are real or not.

[Simon Moon]

Yes, that is the definition of the word, “supernatural.”  That the word has a definition doesn’t necessary mean that the concept itself is coherent, nor that it can be coherently  applied to the reality we exist in. The dictionary also has definitions for words such as, “ghost”, “soul”, “fairy” and “Santa”, but that doesn’t mean these concepts are (or could ever be) manifest in reality. 


That people involved in the event in question are credulous to the notion of a supernatural cause, is not in any way related to the actual cause of the event. And it does not affect the probability of that event being supernaturally caused versus naturally caused.  


So, again; rare medical phenomena happen.  How do you rationally determine that the cause can’t, and never will be explainable via science, versus a natural cause that science can and may be able to explain at some point in the future?  Because, people prayed first? I know you know what a ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacy is.


Why not? 


Scientists have managed to explain many a rare, and seemingly miraculous natural phenomena using tools such as microscopes, Steve, lol.  You talk about subatomic particles as though they aren’t in play during these supposedly miraculous healings.

Do you notice that you start by claiming the idea incoherent and then write 4 more paragraphs coherently discussing the concept? You seem to understand it fine.  Also, the ideas of supernatural, ghost, soul, fairy and Santa are all coherent no matter if they are real or not.

I don't see any [i]claim[i] that the idea is incoherent.

I only see the phrase "doesn’t necessary mean that the concept itself is coherent, nor that it can be coherently applied to the reality we exist ".

I consistently see theists make assumptions about statements of conjecture or hypothesis, as being claims, in the absolute sense. That may be the reason why most theists I talk to can't seem to understand how most atheists define their atheism.

Why is that?

[The Grand Nudger]

@steve
That much can't be said for your key magic skepticism and miraculous non-miraculousing microscopes.