Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Baruch]

The upshot of theistic belief is that we owe our existence to an intelligent personal cause as opposed to unguided mechanistic causes. Who that intelligent personal cause is, is another subject and thread. Solomon said 'No. A scientist-creator would still be naturalism, only taken to an absurd level of unnecessary additional complexity.' I thought the notion of theism would be more palatable if they could still say it was a naturalistic cause. A naturalistic theism?

Relying on unknowable details of the Big Bang, for theism or atheism ... is ignostic, not even agnostic.  If it isn't here and now, you know nothing.

[Baruch]

Solomon wrote:

Assuming its true we owe the existence of the universe to naturalistic unguided forces that had no intent, plan or desire to create anything (not even there own existence) would we predict such forces would cause:

The conditions for life to exist?
The conditions for sentient life to exist?
A universe dominated by laws of physics?
A universe in which mathematics is applicable?

If I believed naturalistic forces caused the universe to exist I would predict we'd observe a lifeless chaotic universe. Why would I expect otherwise?

Most of reality is chaotic.  Life and consciousness only exist on the margins where it isn't.

[Baruch]

Math is how we "map" reality. If reality were different, math might be different. This shows we created math to understand things, not that things exist to be described by math.
If The laws of physics were different but allowed Some other form of being to exist, they'd very likely see that system of physics as orderly, where for us it'd be labeled chaotic. Like before, laws of physics are how we describe The system that is, but in no way, shape or form implies were meant to be such. And important to keep in mind is that order, chaos and even life in alternative models are relative concepts.
If you look for intent, you may find it anywhere. We are biased Like that. Interpreting proof to befit our standpoint and looking for patterns is one of the reasons our species has thrived. But that does lead us to things that at first glance seem more telling or important than they are.
It all seems to boil down to this for you: The universe was created for sentient life  (and by extension us), because otherwise we wouldn't expected to be here. Yet in truth you've not provided proof for anything other than we managed to come into being in the universe as it is. I know you think you've supplied evidence that our surroundings are created for us, but there is no prof of that. We can't say anything beyond the fact that we've grown to fill a mold. And we don't have grounds to claim The mold was created for us.

With anthropomorphic theism, and anthropomorphic atheism (the usual Anthropic Principle) ... what word do they share?  And you are correct, Mr Obvious, the Aristotelian 4 causes don't apply equally to everything.  That is the whole point of naturalism.

[Drew_2017]

author=Solomon Zorn link=topic=11330.msg1169674#msg1169674 date=1488790331]
Because naturalistic forces ARE order. They could not produce a "chaotic universe," where mathematics and physical laws don't apply.

And you believe this because scientific experiments have proven time and again there must be rules of nature and a universe can't come in to existence where the laws of physics don't apply. I know this must be conclusively shown to be factually true because I know you wouldn't believe it if it was anything less than a fact and certainly not just a fanciful thought. Has it been determined that if a universe comes into existence it must be like the one we observe or do they come in all shapes and sizes? You must have information about this as well since you 'know' natural forces couldn't produce a chaotic universe. Send me the links, papers experiments done that prove this to be true. If it takes a few days no worries I'm a patient man. Or is this just a philosophical belief on your part?

This has been explained to you already, but you keep repeating the same ridiculous crap, as though you're making a valid point.

I'm sure others have stated their beliefs as scientific fact as naturalists are often want to do...

[Drew_2017]

Relying on unknowable details of the Big Bang, for theism or atheism ... is ignostic, not even agnostic.  If it isn't here and now, you know nothing.

Agreed. I rely on what we do know to infer the existence of an intelligent creator.

[Drew_2017]

Most of reality is chaotic.  Life and consciousness only exist on the margins where it isn't.

It appears that way. On what epistemological basis should I think naturalistic forces would cause any life or consciousness to exist? Sir Martin Rees a highly respected astronomer believes this is one of an infinitude of universes based on his knowledge of how unlikely conditions would obtain for any life at all to exist or for that matter, planets and stars. Its interesting that he takes information that appears to make the case for design and instead argues its evidence this is one of an infinitude of universes or varying types. The overwhelming majority being sterile.   

[Drew_2017]

Math is how we "map" reality. If reality were different, math might be different. This shows we created math to understand things, not that things exist to be described by math.

I think you're mistaken about that. Suppose other advanced sentient beings existed on another planet. Do you think they would describe reality in a different way and come up with different math since we wrote our math into the universe? I believe if advanced they would discover the same laws formula's and equations we have. How could we apply this knowledge to the real world if we just 'wrote' into it?

I see an article in Scientific American ( I hope that's a notch above Popular Mechanics Baruch) about this very topic. Below are some excerpts from the article.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/deep-in-thought-what-is-a-law-of-physics-anyway/

Deep in thought: What is a "law of physics," anyway?

Why should nature be governed by laws? Why should those laws be expressible in terms of mathematics? Why should they be formulated within space and time? These were the questions posed at a fascinating workshop two weeks ago at the Perimeter Institute, the sequel to a workshop held at Arizona State University in December 2008. One of the participants, Sabine Hossenfelder, talked about it yesterday at Backreaction, one of the most consistently thoughtful of all physics blogs. The bottom line is that the organizers had better start planning on more sequels, because the questions seem as intractable as ever.

Roberts reviewed some leading philosophical schools of thought, found them wanting, and argued that the concept of a law is inseparable from the way that physicists discover laws. Their main tool is a controlled experiment, which, by its very nature, looks for patterns that hold whatever the specific conditions might be. I confess that I didn't understand how Roberts's approach helps with the questions we most care about: Why is nature is patterned rather than chaotic? Why does a law gleaned from one situation (say, falling apples) works in unrelated situations (orbiting planets)? But it does seem useful to acknowledge that our laws, even if they capture some objective reality, are conditioned by our process of discovery.

The real fireworks at the workshop came from disagreements over time -- not over whether the speakers were running behind schedule and cutting into the coffee breaks, but over whether time itself is a derived concept or a fundamental one. Does time emerge from something deeper or is it an irreducible part of the natural world? In our current issue, philosopher Craig Callender of U.C. San Diego lays out the case for the first option, based partly on Barbour's ideas.

The main trouble I had with the talk was that I didn't see how the abstract ideas related to the world we experience. Time seems so real. How did it arise? Why is the world structured in the very special way that is needed to give rise to time? In short, what do we really gain by saying that time isn't real?

It all seems to boil down to this for you: The universe was created for sentient life  (and by extension us), because otherwise we wouldn't expected to be here. Yet in truth you've not provided proof for anything other than we managed to come into being in the universe as it is. I know you think you've supplied evidence that our surroundings are created for us, but there is no prof of that. We can't say anything beyond the fact that we've grown to fill a mold. And we don't have grounds to claim The mold was created for us.

That's true, to be a naturalist or an atheist of necessity you have to conclude we owe our existence (and the universe, laws of nature, time and matter) all to happenstance since no volitional planning could be involved. Its true if we didn't exist we'd have no reason to think we were intentionally caused to exist. I'm always tasked with providing proof of something...if either of us could prove our respective positions we'd relegate anyone denying it to nutcase status like folks who claim the USA never landed on the moon. You declare its a fact we've grown to fill a mold. Are you sure that isn't an opinion you're expressing? I've only provided evidence I feel is strong enough to merit a belief in theism, I've never started it as a fact. If it truly is a fact (a scientific fact or otherwise) that we've grown to fill a mold (and your not just saying that because it has to be that way if naturalism is true) the show me the evidence that makes it a fact? Just think we can put this whole debate to bed right here and now!!

[Baruch]

Agreed. I rely on what we do know to infer the existence of an intelligent creator.

You assume what you infer.

[Baruch]

It appears that way. On what epistemological basis should I think naturalistic forces would cause any life or consciousness to exist? Sir Martin Rees a highly respected astronomer believes this is one of an infinitude of universes based on his knowledge of how unlikely conditions would obtain for any life at all to exist or for that matter, planets and stars. Its interesting that he takes information that appears to make the case for design and instead argues its evidence this is one of an infinitude of universes or varying types. The overwhelming majority being sterile.

Yes, multiverse theory is rather sterile, it isn't even science.  You know what a Taylor's series is, such as one used to approximate the exponential function of "e"?  There are an infinite number of terms in it, yet it sums to a finite value.  Can we then assume that each term in the series (and it isn't the only infinite series we can use, we can also use trig functions rather than polynomials) is a separate universe?  That is what the wags are doing in Quantum Field Theory.  The Larmor shift is a finite value, to calculate it, we can use an infinite series of Feynman diagrams (each of which represents some term in the sum).  From that they deduce that there an infinity of universes, one for each term.  But none of those terms by themselves ... allows life, only the finite sum does.  So really multiverse theory is an infinity of sterile universes, that sum to our non-sterile one.

[fencerider]

drew and zorn have inspired me to start a new thread, so that we can continue this argument from a different angle.

as far as the universe looking like it was created for us looking more like intelligent design to drew than nature.... the universe we see can be all that is left. There may have been other inteligent species on earth that didnt survive because they weren't adjusted to the system that is. Any planets not in a stable orbit may have been sent rogue into the cosmos. (no way to no with advanced warning if a rogue planet is on a collision course with earth). Don't forget Drew that even in modern society we adjust to conditions that are less than ideal. Even living in an appartment that doesnt make life comfortable or having a job that taxes us physically. All of us adjust to our world the way it is even if it is not the way we want it to be...

[Drew_2017]

Yes, multiverse theory is rather sterile, it isn't even science.  You know what a Taylor's series is, such as one used to approximate the exponential function of "e"?  There are an infinite number of terms in it, yet it sums to a finite value.  Can we then assume that each term in the series (and it isn't the only infinite series we can use, we can also use trig functions rather than polynomials) is a separate universe?  That is what the wags are doing in Quantum Field Theory.  The Larmor shift is a finite value, to calculate it, we can used an infinite series of Feynman diagrams (each of which represents some term in the sum).  From that they deduce that there an infinity of universes, one for each term.  But none of those terms by themselves ... allows life, only the finite sum does.  So really multiverse theory is an infinity of sterile universes, that sum to our non-sterile one.

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.

[Solomon Zorn]

Its kind of like the idea of a infinitude of monkey's banging away at an infinitude of type writers...blah, blah, blah.

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.

[Mr.Obvious]

I think you're mistaken about that. Suppose other advanced sentient beings existed on another planet. Do you think they would describe reality in a different way and come up with different math since we wrote our math into the universe? I believe if advanced they would discover the same laws formula's and equations we have. How could we apply this knowledge to the real world if we just 'wrote' into it?

I see an article in Scientific American ( I hope that's a notch above Popular Mechanics Baruch) about this very topic. Below are some excerpts from the article.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/deep-in-thought-what-is-a-law-of-physics-anyway/

Deep in thought: What is a "law of physics," anyway?

Why should nature be governed by laws? Why should those laws be expressible in terms of mathematics? Why should they be formulated within space and time? These were the questions posed at a fascinating workshop two weeks ago at the Perimeter Institute, the sequel to a workshop held at Arizona State University in December 2008. One of the participants, Sabine Hossenfelder, talked about it yesterday at Backreaction, one of the most consistently thoughtful of all physics blogs. The bottom line is that the organizers had better start planning on more sequels, because the questions seem as intractable as ever.

Roberts reviewed some leading philosophical schools of thought, found them wanting, and argued that the concept of a law is inseparable from the way that physicists discover laws. Their main tool is a controlled experiment, which, by its very nature, looks for patterns that hold whatever the specific conditions might be. I confess that I didn't understand how Roberts's approach helps with the questions we most care about: Why is nature is patterned rather than chaotic? Why does a law gleaned from one situation (say, falling apples) works in unrelated situations (orbiting planets)? But it does seem useful to acknowledge that our laws, even if they capture some objective reality, are conditioned by our process of discovery.

The real fireworks at the workshop came from disagreements over time -- not over whether the speakers were running behind schedule and cutting into the coffee breaks, but over whether time itself is a derived concept or a fundamental one. Does time emerge from something deeper or is it an irreducible part of the natural world? In our current issue, philosopher Craig Callender of U.C. San Diego lays out the case for the first option, based partly on Barbour's ideas.

The main trouble I had with the talk was that I didn't see how the abstract ideas related to the world we experience. Time seems so real. How did it arise? Why is the world structured in the very special way that is needed to give rise to time? In short, what do we really gain by saying that time isn't real?

That's true, to be a naturalist or an atheist of necessity you have to conclude we owe our existence (and the universe, laws of nature, time and matter) all to happenstance since no volitional planning could be involved. Its true if we didn't exist we'd have no reason to think we were intentionally caused to exist. I'm always tasked with providing proof of something...if either of us could prove our respective positions we'd relegate anyone denying it to nutcase status like folks who claim the USA never landed on the moon. You declare its a fact we've grown to fill a mold. Are you sure that isn't an opinion you're expressing? I've only provided evidence I feel is strong enough to merit a belief in theism, I've never started it as a fact. If it truly is a fact (a scientific fact or otherwise) that we've grown to fill a mold (and your not just saying that because it has to be that way if naturalism is true) the show me the evidence that makes it a fact? Just think we can put this whole debate to bed right here and now!!

(Edited:)

I'm sorry, but could you try rereading my first part about math and physics? English isn't my first language. So maybe the fault is mine, but your reply is completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to get across. We can discuss if our math is a 'pure language' or not all day. But that's not the point. It doesn't matter. So for sake of argument: I'm willing to give you that a different sentient being in our universe would develop the same 'language' as it's  a pure one. I'm willing to say they find the same grasp on the laws of physics and find them to be the same as we find them. But i'm not talking about other beings in this universe. I'm saying if the universe were different with different laws then sentience, life itself, math and the working physics and the laws describing them might be completely different. But if anything 'living' and 'sentient' would ever come into being in such a different universe, (and those concepts could be relative and perhaps even inconceivable to us,) could see their working of physics, which might appear as chaos to us as it would be uninhabitable for us, as perfectly orderly. Such beings that could not exist in our universe might themselves think physics as found in our universe would never lead to 'life' and would be chaos.

Regarding the fact of the mold; my bad on misuse of the word 'fact' as in regards to Growing to fit it. I'll be the first to admit it. I usually use that more in line with people who claim evolution does not exist. Though the principle remains tge same at the core. What I should've said is that all you've shown with the fact that our sentient existence could come into being in this universe is that we 'fit the mold'. That we fit the mold is something you'd probably agree with, I imagine.
What I means to get at is, in simple terms, that our existance as (sentient) life forms is not evidence for a creator at all. We fit in this universe, this reality, that's all you've been justified to claim so far. If you understand my above point about math and the laws of physics, you might understand why you need to detach that from your evidence for creation.
Is us existing evidence against creation? Is our universe being the way it is evidence against creation? No. And it's not evidence in favor of 'naturalism' either. But your interpretation of it being in favor of your assumptions is unwarrented. And from that imaginary stepping stone you seem to be demanding we surpass you. But you are not higher than us, simply overreaching.
I also think you need to learn the difference between criticising a claim and being forced to make one. I'm not claiming 'naturalism' must be true, I'm simply not buying into the notion that there must be something beyond that natural world untill you back up your claim. Likewise, as an atheist, I am not claiming there can't be a god. There simply just isn't any evidence, ever presented to support the god claim.

[Baruch]

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.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.  Don't tell the one person here, who is a statistician, that I let their secret out!

An actual guy, has taken the entire known universe, treated it as a quantum computer, and the length of known time since the Big Bang, and calculated how far along development would be ... turns out the odds are so low, even with a quantum computer the size of the universe (not even the Earth as in HGTTG) that there hasn't been enough time to get to the Cambrian era of life yet.  Lots of people use Popular Mechanics arguments, that are complete bullshit.  Fun, but useless.  An example of this is ... calculate the number of permutations in a set of English letters, 100 letters long ... to sort thru that, would take a long time with any computer, because it is greater than the sum of all the atoms in the known universe.

Of course the wags can get around that by using an infinity of universes working in parallel ... (aka let each term in the infinite series represent the output of one large but finite "universe" computer).  That on a small scale, is what the quantum computer pushers are pushing, a computer that is 500 bits long, that is about 20 English letters long (not even 100).  So far a computer made with 2-4 bits hasn't been shown to be any faster than a regular supercomputer (as of 2014).  Why is that?  Maybe because you can't harness multiple universes to your will ... talk about egomania and fantasy over actual science.  Maybe we can't harness multiple universes, because they don't exist, maybe Pythagoras, who lived 2500 years ago wasn't too up on QFT.  Actually what is happening philosophically, is the inverse of Pythagoras.  Instead of reality being mathematics (Pythagorean theorem plus musical harmony), the idea is that all mathematics represents universes in the multiverse.  So if you have an equation that doesn't describe this reality (arguable anyway) then it does represent some other universe, that supposedly we can harness in a quantum computer.

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/d-wave-quantum-speedup/

Of course, like fusion reactors and AI, a breakthrough is just around the corner in another 20 years ;-)  Grantsmanship by academics ... Plato was the first Academic.  So far, fusion power, AI and quantum computing are mostly fraudulent, just like Cold fusion.  Our science is being driven by Futurism, by neoliberal Lysenkoism.  Because, all this science is being funded, mostly by governments, run by politicians who have all flunked elementary arithmetic.  Stalin wasn't the Chairman because of his ability to do mental math, or was he ... i.e. the Count of Sesame Street ... One million dead Kulaks, two million dead Kulaks ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism ... Italian pre-fascism.

[Drew_2017]

author=Mr.Obvious link=topic=11330.msg1169747#msg1169747 date=1488871545]
(Edited:)

I'm sorry, but could you try rereading my first part about math and physics? English isn't my first language. So maybe the fault is mine, but your reply is completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to get across. We can discuss if our math is a 'pure language' or not all day. But that's not the point. It doesn't matter. So for sake of argument: I'm willing to give you that a different sentient being in our universe would develop the same 'language' as it's  a pure one. I'm willing to say they find the same grasp on the laws of physics and find them to be the same as we find them. But i'm not talking about other beings in this universe. I'm saying if the universe were different with different laws then sentience, life itself, math and the working physics and the laws describing them might be completely different. But if anything 'living' and 'sentient' would ever come into being in such a different universe, (and those concepts could be relative and perhaps even inconceivable to us,) could see their working of physics, which might appear as chaos to us as it would be uninhabitable for us, as perfectly orderly. Such beings that could not exist in our universe might themselves think physics as found in our universe would never lead to 'life' and would be chaos.

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.

Regarding the fact of the mold; my bad on misuse of the word 'fact' as in regards to Growing to fit it. I'll be the first to admit it. I usually use that more in line with people who claim evolution does not exist. Though the principle remains tge same at the core. What I should've said is that all you've shown with the fact that our sentient existence could come into being in this universe is that we 'fit the mold'. That we fit the mold is something you'd probably agree with, I imagine.
What I means to get at is, in simple terms, that our existance as (sentient) life forms is not evidence for a creator at all. We fit in this universe, this reality, that's all you've been justified to claim so far. If you understand my above point about math and the laws of physics, you might understand why you need to detach that from your evidence for creation.

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.

Is us existing evidence against creation? Is our universe being the way it is evidence against creation? No. And it's not evidence in favor of 'naturalism' either. But your interpretation of it being in favor of your assumptions is unwarrented. And from that imaginary stepping stone you seem to be demanding we surpass you. But you are not higher than us, simply overreaching.
I also think you need to learn the difference between criticising a claim and being forced to make one. I'm not claiming 'naturalism' must be true, I'm simply not buying into the notion that there must be something beyond that natural world untill you back up your claim. Likewise, as an atheist, I am not claiming there can't be a god. There simply just isn't any evidence, ever presented to support the god claim.

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?