Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Mr.Obvious]

You realize though everything you you say in bold is just speculation. I agree if life somehow obtained on the moon, or Venus even Mars it would be significantly different from ours and our planet would be lethal to such beings. The problem is we don't know of any other life or any other universe. We don't know if another universe existed it would have different laws of nature or no discernible laws at all. Your point here though interesting is by your own account something that might happen.

Well, seeing as I don't have a secret universe stashed away somewhere, yes, I'm aware this is 'speculation'. But seeing as some form of life can happen in our universe which happens to have the certain combined set of laws of nature and physics that it does, doesn't imply that no other combination would be viable to bring forth 'something else'. However relative and different that may be. Basically, all it's just trying to do is explain to you that saying: if the laws of physics in our universe were any different, there couldn't be anything, is not a viable conclusion.

As a person convinced of naturalism and the ability of natural forces to cause life and you go as far to suggest even in a totally different universe that sentient life would invariably arise as if this is something we should expect natural forces without plan or intent would do. This is the core belief of naturalists (and it is just a belief) that life and sentience arose from non living non-sentient forces that didn't care if life or sentience came about. The problem I have with this is in avoiding what you would call a miracle (a transcendent sentient being planned the universe, life and sentience to exist) you call for a greater miracle to occur. You call for these mindless naturalistic forces to come into existence somehow then by sheer happenstance cause the conditions for life and sentience to obtain. Isn't that as at least as miraculous? You have simply substituted a miracle you prefer. So I won't be detaching the existence of sentient life from my list of evidence in favor of theism any time soon.

You need to learn to read what I say if we're to have a decent convesation. I'm not claiming something will arise invariably. I'm saying it could in a number of combinations, not just the one that allowed us specifically to come into existance.
And seeing as a miracle is by definition a supernatural phenomenon. No, I don't think a natural process is a bigger 'miracle'. In fact, if you claim that a creator created everything by making a fine-tuned universe, than I think you'd agree that we could come to understand everything there is to understand, theoretically, about that universe and it's 'natural workings'. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Regarding the natural world, then, we wouldn't find any need for miracles. All your creator would add is a need for a miracle where there is none. As it itself would require an explanation. Not being able to accept you're not 'intended' is not a good reason for doing that, imho.

This may be a stupid example, but imagine this. If your parents had conceived their child one second later or earlier, you wouldn't be here. Some other sperm would've fertilized the egg. There are so many possible people that could have been here, instead of you. But you're here. At this point, I'm not looking for a reason why you or I are here specifically. It could've gone some other way. And if I ever find out that we're part of some grand plan, I'll do my best to accept it, when the evidence comes forth.
But what you do in this example is claim that because you specifically are here, and me, we should assume it's intended that way. You're looking for meaning where none is due.
Why are you specifically here? Could we expect natural forces to bring forth you specifically? Or me? And not some 'brother' or 'sister' that could have taken our place, now lost to the void of never-existance? It seems unlikely that you specifically were not planned. If not for a creator specially invested in choosing you above the trillions of trillions of other 'lost siblings' that could've taken your place, why would you be the one to come forth from oblivion?
The creator must've fine tuned the conditions that your parents would be conceived. That their parents would be conceived. And that their parents would be conceived. And that...
But the funny thing is. If it had turned out to be a different 'lost sibling' that I'd be talking too, he or she may have also believed to be special. And if it were someone else, some other sperm and perhaps some other egg, they too could've believed just as hardy as you do that they must've been intended. Them specifically, and not you, one of trillions of trillions of possibilities. And if none had come forth, your parents sterile or using a condom or... None would be there to call themselves special.

You can keep saying existance of sentience is proof of divinity. But we'll keep trying to explain to you why you're wrong about that. It's proof of sentience. You're looking for purpose and that's why you tag it on. I'm not looking to disprove purpose or meaning or intent. But I don't find anything to back it up either.

I have made the case in favor of theism from 6 lines of evidence. You and many others think that if facts I cite in favor of theism don't personally persuade you can say its not evidence as if the case I make is to be decided only by the atheists and naturalists on this board. I don't deny there is evidence in favor of naturalism. I could be as stubborn as a mule and every fact you site in favor of naturalism I can still say but that's not evidence can you please provide some?

And once again. Read what I'm saying. I'm not out to prove there is no supernatural realm. I'm not out to prove there is no creator. I'm not out to prove 'naturalism'. I'm not out to prove there is no intent.
I make no such claims. All I do, is see you make a claim and back it up with nothing of substance. I explain to you why it's not proving what you think it proves.
I need not back up a claim I don't make. Is this much at least sinking in? I'm not claiming there is no creator of the universe, you just fail to back up your claim that there is. And as long as you can't give some evidence, I can't be persuaded.

[Baruch]

"You can keep saying existance of sentience is proof of divinity." ... consciousness and sentience are over-rated.  Most of what a human does, is in the unconsciousness.  Most of it isn't mental math (sentience).  It has to do with managing a trillion body cells.

[Cavebear]

And once again. Read what I'm saying. I'm not out to prove there is no supernatural realm. I'm not out to prove there is no creator. I'm not out to prove 'naturalism'. I'm not out to prove there is no intent.
I make no such claims. All I do, is see you make a claim and back it up with nothing of substance. I explain to you why it's not proving what you think it proves.
I need not back up a claim I don't make. Is this much at least sinking in? I'm not claiming there is no creator of the universe, you just fail to back up your claim that there is. And as long as you can't give some evidence, I can't be persuaded.

Reading a post from someone not trying to prove there is a Creator Dude is good enough for me today..

[sdelsolray]

...
I have made the case in favor of theism from 6 lines of evidence.
...

This one's claimed achievement has now graduated to "the case" based on "6 lines of evidence".  He pretends well.

[Hydra009]

Its kind of like the idea of a infinitude of monkey's banging away at an infinitude of type writers and the belief given enough time and chances one of the monkey's would produce a copy of War and Peace. The problem is after watching an infinitude of monkey's pounding out gibberish would we be any less astonished to see one without error pound out a copy of war and peace? It leads me to believe there are somethings that time and chance alone won't create no matter how many chances given.

Improbable things happen all the time.  If there's even a small chance of something happening, it's definitely going to happen on an infinite timeline.

[trdsf]

Improbable things happen all the time.  If there's even a small chance of something happening, it's definitely going to happen on an infinite timeline.

Exactly that.  There's a very small chance of any particular thing happening, but there are billions of things happening all the time.  We hear about (and remember) the weird coincidences -- but not the non-coincidences.  Witness my test of a lesser version here -- it's confirmation bias, essentially, and that's why observation and measurement is important.

[Unbeliever]

My cock is kind of like, a banana...

You have a rooster? Is it a Rhode Island Red? How is a rooster like a banana?

[Baruch]

Exactly that.  There's a very small chance of any particular thing happening, but there are billions of things happening all the time.  We hear about (and remember) the weird coincidences -- but not the non-coincidences.  Witness my test of a lesser version here -- it's confirmation bias, essentially, and that's why observation and measurement is important.

All so-called physical laws are confirmation bias.  They only work under human contrived conditions.  Other than human contrived conditions, it is chaos.

[sdelsolray]

Exactly that.  There's a very small chance of any particular thing happening, but there are billions of things happening all the time.  We hear about (and remember) the weird coincidences -- but not the non-coincidences.  Witness my test of a lesser version here -- it's confirmation bias, essentially, and that's why observation and measurement is important.

Moreover, many events which occur in the Universe are much more likely to occur than over events.  For example, a methane molecule (CH4) is more likely to form than an identical molecule with gold replacing the carbon (i.e., AuH4).  Not surprisingly, events in the Universe that do occur do so because the underlying rules of physics, chemistry and biology make them easier and more likely to occur.

[sdelsolray]

All so-called physical laws are confirmation bias.  They only work under human contrived conditions.  Other than human contrived conditions, it is chaos.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate, using empirical evidence and the physical laws, of course.

You can start by demonstrating how the physical laws did not work when humans did not exist.  Easy peasy.

[Hydra009]

Moreover, many events which occur in the Universe are much more likely to occur than over events.  For example, a methane molecule (CH4) is more likely to form than an identical molecule with gold replacing the carbon (i.e., AuH4).  Not surprisingly, events in the Universe that do occur do so because the underlying rules of physics, chemistry and biology make them easier and more likely to occur.

Yeah, but to avoid confusing our friend, I wouldn't call them rules.  It could give the wrong impression that some outside authority is telling atoms what they can and cannot bond with.

[Baruch]

Just not in any way you can demonstrate, using empirical evidence and the physical laws, of course.

You can start by demonstrating how the physical laws did not work when humans did not exist.  Easy peasy.

Just get in your time machine and prove me wrong ;-)  What may or may not have happened before humans, isn't very relevant to daily life.

Mostly what we know of physics is unconscious, the motion of the body etc ... consciousness is just a little narcissism that rides on top of the sea of unconsciousness.

[Solomon Zorn]

My cock is kind of like, a banana...or then again, maybe it's nothing like that at all. Analogies are for moral tales, not science.

You have a rooster? Is it a Rhode Island Red? How is a rooster like a banana?

There both edible?

Whether it's dropping toothpicks, tornado's building airliners, or monkeys writing Shakespeare, analogies are not valid reasoning. They are sometimes useful for symbolically illustrating a pattern, but never for proving the validity of a theory. Even when analogies are used illustratively, the equity of the comparison is only valuable, when it is limited to a specific point of comparison. The broader the application, the more the analogy breaks down, because the two things being compared are not actually alike.

[Baruch]

Dropping sticks (not the I Ching kind) actually works if you use it right:
https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/estimate-pi-by-dropping-sticks/

Analogy is matching two things that are not alike?  No two things are alike.  On the basis of your analogy ... each human is its own species.  I get that you are trying to avoid over-generalizing ... but under-generalizing is a thing too.

[Solomon Zorn]

Analogy is matching two things that are not alike?

That is correct.

No two things are alike.

That is pedantic and irrelevant, but also correct.

On the basis of your analogy...

I used no analogy.

...each human is its own species.

Non sequitur.

I get that you are trying to avoid over-generalizing...

No. I am trying to explain the proper use of analogy. Drew, and others, misuse it.

but under-generalizing is a thing too.

Again, correct, but irrelevant.