Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Drew_2017]

SGOS,

Yes you do.  You present it as logical alternative explanation for existence.  You may not use the words "Goddidit,"  but it's presented as an explanation for existence.  It's the god of the gaps whether it's presented as an ultimate divine truth, as many theists do, or as a theistic hypothesis, as you seem to be doing.

My affirmative defense of theism is 6 known facts that I argue support theistic belief over naturalistic belief. I've already listed them or listed a link to them on several occasions in this thread.

Intellectually, you seem to grasp this, [that naturalism in the gaps are as fallacious as God in the gaps] but you can't quite turn it into a logical defense.  Gaps in naturalist explanations are not filled in with "naturalism."  They are gaps, nothing more.  They are blots of ignorance.  They are gaps in knowledge.

The only way you can express your complete confidence its naturalistic forces all the way down is to assume the gap will be filled with naturalistic explanations as far as we can drill down. You may have facts that support the inference its naturalistic forces all the way down (the opposing view 'naturedidit') but I site facts that led me to infer we are the result of intentional design (Goddidit).  Science itself is committed to naturalistic explanations on philosophical grounds, any explanation must be naturalistic to be scientific. 

Including your assertion here that the existence of God cannot be shown to exist. You don't know that.

Then show me that he exists.  Don't bother showing me that he might exist.  I already understand this.  I would agree with you.  Show me that he does exist.

I can't show you God exists anymore than you can 'show me' its naturalistic forces all the way down. Neither of us can prove or demonstrate our respective beliefs but only one of us acts like their belief is a fact and not an opinion.

I can't respond to this.  I have no idea what you are going on about.  It's just a morass of assumptions, anecdotes, and hypotheticals.  I hope it's not important to your position.

It wasn't that difficult to follow. How an issue is framed is often more important than the issue itself. Atheists naturally want to frame theism as an absurd baseless faith notion vs a damn near scientifically validated indisputable fact. I didn't post to this forum because I thought I could change atheists minds and become theists. I thought it might be possible to show why the majority of people continue to believe we owe our existence to a Creator and its not because they are indoctrinated, brainwashed, ignorant or stupid. Many believe it because it makes more sense from their experience. It makes more sense to me. I've examined and treated this subject very fairly, I wrote an affirmative defense of naturalism as I did theism to demonstrate that either side can make a valid case from facts. The single biggest draw back to naturalism (IMHO) is the notion that lifeless mindless forces without trying to or wanting to, by happenstance created something unlike itself, life and sentience. We can explain the existence of stars and planets by appealing to the laws of physics but there is no explanation why there are laws of physics or why they fortuitously created conditions that allowed our existence. I'm not offering the fact most people believe in theism as a reason its true I'm offering reasons why so many subscribe to such a belief. If it was obvious (due to facts and data) we owe our existence to forces that didn't intend of care if we existed theistic belief would over time be abandoned.     

[Sorginak]

I thought it might be possible to show why the majority of people continue to believe we owe our existence to a Creator and its not because they are indoctrinated, brainwashed, ignorant or stupid. Many believe it because it makes more sense from their experience.

Personal experience in no way correlates with evidential reality due to the lack of objectivity as well as the lack of evidence to support an existence in correlation with the belief.

An individual can claim to believe in the existence of anything.

Persistence in the belief when faced with the underwhelming evidence in favor of stated belief merely defies logic. 

Man has the capability to create anything with his mind, many things which clearly do not exist in reality yet have been created by the mind to exist on paper and in film through the popular form we understand to be mythology and fiction.

Theism is no different despite the number of people who willfully and ignorantly adhere to belief systems that require faith rather than evidence to support them. 

[Drew_2017]

I'm confused why do you get to assert your beliefs (Something which obviously does not exist) as if they are incontrovertibly scientifically established facts whereas I can't offer an opinion we owe our existence to a Creator without offering evidence (which is summarily dismissed). What makes it so obvious other than your complete faith its true?

You are starting to glimpse the problem in drawing conclusions from nonsense.  I can't do it, and you can't do it and remain on logical ground.  See:  "Tongue in cheek"

Except you'll never find anywhere I ever stated theism as any more than an opinion. I made a case in favor of theism as well as a case in favor of naturalism. Either conclusion is far from nonsensical since it's near certainty one or the other is true and there is circumstantial evidence to support either view.

Yes, and their claims of the existence of unalienable rights has always perplexed me, especially for a group trying to establish a secular government, while defying the divine birthright of a king.

This is because you either don't understand or you don't believe theism is a philosophical position not a religious one. Theism in a nutshell is the belief we owe our existence to a Creator. Its as secular as the belief we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces that didn't intend or care if we existed. But imagine how the constitution would read.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by unguided naturalistic forces that couldn't care less if we existed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â€" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

I'm well aware that some atheistic governments have had abysmal human rights records.  I'm also aware of he human rights abuses of Theocratic governments, including countries that are Christian, Islamic, and Hindu.

I'm not in favor of a theocratic government I prefer a secular government philosophically tied to a theistic world view that says we are endowed by a Creator with unalienable rights therefore not negotiable. It goes on to say the governments are instituted to secure these rights. This puts the individual rights on a higher plane than the governments rights.

[SGOS]

I can't show you God exists anymore than you can 'show me' its naturalistic forces all the way down. Neither of us can prove or demonstrate our respective beliefs but only one of us acts like their belief is a fact and not an opinion.

I presume you intend that you are not the one claiming facts.  Thanks, but I already know this, in spite of the fact that you claim to have 6 facts supporting the existence of God.

Natural forces are well known to exist.  Many have been reduced to mathematical formulas, and act repeatedly according to those formulas, and with such precision, they have been used to send space vehicles to the Moon, Mars, and the outer reaches of the solar system.

God cannot be shown to exist "all the way down", and not even just a little bit.  OK, now is when you say, "You can't know this," to which I would reply, "You just said, you can't prove God exists."  What's that?  "Just not all the way down," you say?  I'm not impressed.

Furthermore, you are starting to bore.

[Drew_2017]

Personal experience in no way correlates with evidential reality due to the lack of objectivity as well as the lack of evidence to support an existence in correlation with the belief.

That would apply to everyone even scientists and yourself.

An individual can claim to believe in the existence of anything.

Trivially true.

Persistence in the belief when faced with the underwhelming evidence in favor of stated belief merely defies logic. 

Folks in here define evidence as something only naturalism has and theism can't have.

Man has the capability to create anything with his mind, many things which clearly do not exist in reality yet have been created by the mind to exist on paper and in film through the popular form we understand to be mythology and fiction.

Yet understood by the masses to be mythology and fiction.

Theism is no different despite the number of people who willfully and ignorantly adhere to belief systems that require faith rather than evidence to support them.

Anytime you want to debate Goddidit Vs Naturedidit in the debate forum let me know...

[Sorginak]

Anytime you want to debate Goddidit Vs Naturedidit in the debate forum let me know...

By all means, I will keep an eye out for when you have anything of actual substance to provide.  As it stands, your debate tactics are poorly constructed due to the fact that you are precisely the same as every other theist who cannot properly discern the difference between delusion and reality.

[Baruch]

"Folks in here define evidence as something only naturalism has and theism can't have."

That is the general scholastic standard, not just someone's prejudicial view.  Has to do with their definition of "naturalism" and "theism".  I don't accept their definitions, I make up my own, based on my own experience, not based on rhetorical need.  In my definition, those aren't different things, they are the same things ... actually "naturalism" and "supernaturalism" is a way in which people make a false dichotomy (Black/White argument).  Almost everything people say, is backed by false dichotomy.

False Dilemma/Dichotomy .. see http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-fallacies.html ... people use them all the time, or accuse others of doing so.  Monkey sounds mostly meaningless.

[Sorginak]

actually "naturalism" and "supernaturalism" is a way in which people make a false dichotomy

You might want to brush up on what a false dichotomy is, unless you believe there is something other than naturalism or supernaturalism by which we can use to describe our reality. 

[Drew_2017]

By all means, I will keep an eye out for when you have anything of actual substance to provide.  As it stands, your debate tactics are poorly constructed due to the fact that you are precisely the same as every other theist who cannot properly discern the difference between delusion and reality.

Then this should be a walk in the park after all in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king right? There is a formal and informal debate forum you can choose I'm ready to make an opening statement any time you agree.

[Baruch]

You might want to brush up on what a false dichotomy is, unless you believe there is something other than naturalism or supernaturalism by which we can use to describe our reality.

Monism ... the idea that there is only one idea, and that it conveniently happens to be the one you hold.  Hence ... nature, there is no alternative.  Democrat ... there is no alternative.  Sorry, there are an infinity of alternatives.

[Sorginak]

Monism ... the idea that there is only one idea, and that it conveniently happens to be the one you hold.  Hence ... nature, there is no alternative.  Democrat ... there is no alternative.  Sorry, there are an infinity of alternatives.

How many of those infinity of alternatives provide evidence toward our reality?

[Baruch]

How many of those infinity of alternatives provide evidence toward our reality?

All of them.  Define evidence?  Just so happens, it matches my dogma.  Can you spell ... single minded?  My reality isn't your reality ... I figured you would have realized that.  You define reality ... as whatever atheists agree on.  Nothing wrong with that, very social of you.  Theists do the same, until they get to the details, and then kill each other.  But ultimately, your reality is just for you, not for anyone else.  Hell is having to spend eternity with only yourself.  The idea that you share reality with anyone else, is anti-solipcist ;-)

[Sorginak]

My reality isn't your reality

Actually, it is.

We are all made of the same matter.
We all breath the same air.
We all have wonderfully magnificently working brains.
We all bleed blood.

Reality remains the same no matter what.  Reality is only delusionally distorted by those who want power for their own gain.

[Baruch]

Only if I am you, and you are me and we are both everyone, and every creature.  But then .. that would be the Buddhism you don't care for.

Objectivity is useful, but like a hammer ...

[Sorginak]

Only if I am you, and you are me and we are both everyone, and every creature.  But then .. that would be the Buddhism you don't care for.

Objectivity is useful, but like a hammer ...

No, we are not connected via some hive mind akin to the Borg. 

We are certainly different in the ways that matter, those ways that lead to war and fighting, because our personalities are our own.

The reality in which we all live is as a community on the same planet, breathing the same air, bleeding the same blood, yet somewhere along the line we stopped caring about community and created strife. 

I suppose it is only natural for strife to exist when there are so many differing personalities wanting to decide how best to control that which cannot be controlled.