Exposing Atheistic Myths

[Politesse]

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.

 

[Half-Life]

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?

 

[Half-Life]

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.

 

[skepticalbip]

This thread has degenerated into pseudo-philosophical pablum.

 

[Half-Life]

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.

 

[Politesse]

This thread has degenerated into pseudo-philosophical pablum.

Degenerated? What exactly do you think it started with? I mean, the title alone...

 

[Treedbear]

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.

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.

 

[abaddon]

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.

 

[Half-Life]

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."

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This thread has degenerated into pseudo-philosophical pablum.

People often havdwave things away if it boggles their brain too much.

or just stop posting in a thread for a while.

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

sounds like self-serving incredulity, to me.
Can you show this ststement to have any logical value?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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."

Or meaningless.

If it's meaningless, that would prevent a refutation.

There's also the fact that you are always wrong. Have to take that into account.

 

[Half-Life]

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."

Or meaningless.

If it's meaningless, that would prevent a refutation.

There's also the fact that you are always wrong. Have to take that into account.

There is a simple test, Keith.

Without using your mind, please describe what "The Earth" looks like if no mind exists.

If you can't do it, then you failed.

If you can do it, you just disproved a 200+ year old philosophical position. You'll be famous!

 

[steve_bank]

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."

Or meaningless.

If it's meaningless, that would prevent a refutation.

There's also the fact that you are always wrong. Have to take that into account.

There is a simple test, Keith.

Without using your mind, please describe what "The Earth" looks like if no mind exists.

If you can't do it, then you failed.

If you can do it, you just disproved a 200+ year old philosophical position. You'll be famous!

Dos the world exist with your eyes closed?

Does the refrigerator light really go out when the door is closed?

If you turn around fast enough can YOU see the back of your head? If not explain why not without using your mind.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Those who speak do not know, those who know do not speak.

How does one pass through the gate of no gate?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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."

Or meaningless.

If it's meaningless, that would prevent a refutation.

There's also the fact that you are always wrong. Have to take that into account.

There is a simple test, Keith.

Without using your mind, please describe what "The Earth" looks like if no mind exists.

oh, this is THAT argument again. I don't think you fully understand it.
You're trying to assert that a godmind must exist, but only showing me that my mind is kinda necessary for me to function.
I already knew that. And even with that knowledge, i remain an atheist.

Now, how does this help you show that an observer god exists?

 

[skepticalbip]

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."

Or meaningless.

If it's meaningless, that would prevent a refutation.

There's also the fact that you are always wrong. Have to take that into account.

There is a simple test, Keith.

Without using your mind, please describe what "The Earth" looks like if no mind exists.

If you can't do it, then you failed.

If you can do it, you just disproved a 200+ year old philosophical position. You'll be famous!

To expand your argument, using your same 'logic'... How can there be a god without humans? If we aren't here to imagine him then he can not exist.

On the reality side, humans have created quite a few gods (in our minds) which all vanished when we stopped imagining they were real.

 

[steve_bank]

Well, if there is no mind to perceive it doesn't look like anything. 'look' implies perception. No thinkee no lookee, savy?

How can the Earth look like anything but the Earth, at least within the visible spectrum of our eyes.

Wow, this philosophy stuff is way cool. Can you earn a living with it?

 

[Half-Life]

Well, if there is no mind to perceive it doesn't look like anything. 'look' implies perception. No thinkee no lookee, savy?

How can the Earth look like anything but the Earth, at least within the visible spectrum of our eyes.

Wow, this philosophy stuff is way cool. Can you earn a living with it?

Oh, you guys really are amateurs.

Consider color. Is the grass actually green? No, but our mind perceives it that way. A colorblind person would conceive grass color differently. Thus, it can not exist in objectivity, something that is both completely green and completely not green via law of non contradiction.

Everything we observe encounters this same problem. Still unrefuted.

 

[Half-Life]

There is a simple test, Keith.

Without using your mind, please describe what "The Earth" looks like if no mind exists.

If you can't do it, then you failed.

If you can do it, you just disproved a 200+ year old philosophical position. You'll be famous!

To expand your argument, using your same 'logic'... How can there be a god without humans? If we aren't here to imagine him then he can not exist.

On the reality side, humans have created quite a few gods (in our minds) which all vanished when we stopped imagining they were real.

Everything exists in the mind of God. Imagine the universe as drawing a circle on on paper. Now draw an even bigger circle around that circle. That is the mind of God.

 

[Rhea]

There is a simple test, Keith.

Without using your mind, please describe what "The Earth" looks like if no mind exists.

If you can't do it, then you failed.

If you can do it, you just disproved a 200+ year old philosophical position. You'll be famous!

Oh, hey! Looks like Half Life just proved how abortion is not a sin. If there is no mind the the early fetus, it’s not even here.
This is handy and will come in useful, I bet.