Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Solomon Zorn]

"Nothing is impossible," might be true, in the sense that it may be "impossible" for the universe to contain "nothing."

But "nothing is impossible," in the sense of "no event is impossible," I disagree with. I think it is possible, to conceive an impossible event.

[Baruch]

"Nothing is impossible," might be true, in the sense that it may be "impossible" for the universe to contain "nothing."

But "nothing is impossible," in the sense of "no event is impossible," I disagree with. I think it is possible, to conceive an impossible event.

People conceive lots of shit ... but make it happen, not so much.

[Drew_2017]

To wrap up on this thread the debate between Goddidit or Naturedidit is a philosophical different point of view. I asked a few times if anyone thought either naturalism (defined as naturalism all they way down) is a scientifically established fact no one responded affirmatively. Neither point of view is an established fact and whatever we think whether theism or atheism is merely an opinion.

I presented 5 known facts that support naturalism and not one single person disputed it was evidence. I presented known facts that support theism but no one accepted it as legitimate evidence. This is because one of the most revered hallowed axioms of atheism is there is no evidence in favor of theism. This is a preemptive mental construct that is impervious to any facts or data since the invariable response to facts that support theism is there is no evidence of theism.

The other division between the two beliefs is that the one belief naturalism is the rational matter of fact belief while theism is the extraordinary claim that is akin to magic. In reality either claim is extraordinary, the claim unguided non-intelligent natural forces some how came into existence and proceeded to cause a universe that had the laws of physics to create stars, planets galaxies and solar systems and subsequently life and sentience to exist is no less stunning then the belief it was caused intentionally by a transcendent Creator. Either way the fact sentient humans exist whether intentionally or by incredible happenstance is extraordinary event.     

[Drew_2017]

Drew you didn't get through the first step in providing proof that the universe was created. So we never got to the second step; a reminder that proving that the universe was created makes an excellent premise for proving the existence of a god. But proving there was a creator does not prove the existence of a god aka supreme being.

1. prove the universe was created by a localized entity.
2. prove the act of creation didn't kill the entity.
3. prove that the entity hasn't died between then and now.
4. prove that the creator entity is qualified as a supreme being.
5. prove that the entity actually wants the title of a god.

of course after you can prove the existence of a creator god we're still gonna have to ask what that has to do with us. Just because you claim to be a god is not a good enough reason to expect or demand anything from us....

I have already listed evidence in favor of naturalism (which no one disputed) and evidence in favor of theism which no one accepted even though both were simply facts that support either contention. I have throughout this dialog freely admitted my belief in theism is a belief just as your belief in atheism or naturalism is a belief. You may act like you know its a fact, but you can never support it to the level of being established as a fact. The level of evidence I have offered in favor of theism is a simple preponderance meaning more than not. Theism defined as...

belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Can you prove its naturalistic forces all the way down?
Can you prove naturalistic did cause all we observe? Can you prove naturalistic forces could cause all we observe? As I recall you guys don't believe in something unless its scientifically established. Are you a-naturlists as a-theists?

[Baruch]

"defined as naturalism all they way down" ... not something that can be defended ... but it is naturalism "almost all the way down".  But it is a false dichotomy ... naturalism and supernaturalism aren't opposites, just different POV.  I prefer the supernaturalism (as I define it, is really is almost the same thing as naturalism) ... because for most folks here, the are reductionist or materialist or rationalist ... but I deny all three of those.

[Solomon Zorn]

To wrap up on this thread the debate between Goddidit or Naturedidit is a philosophical different point of view. 

To "wrap up" eh? Funny how your conclusion, seems to be identical to your original premise.

[sdelsolray]

...

I presented 5 known facts that support naturalism and not one single person disputed it was evidence. I presented known facts that support theism but no one accepted it as legitimate evidence. This is because one of the most revered hallowed axioms of atheism is there is no evidence in favor of theism.
...     

No, it's because you do not understand the difference between the relevance of the five "facts" you presented in favor of theism and the relevance of the five "facts" you presented in favor of naturalism.

[doorknob]

I presented 5 known facts that support naturalism and not one single person disputed it was evidence. I presented known facts that support theism but no one accepted it as legitimate evidence. This is because one of the most revered hallowed axioms of atheism is there is no evidence in favor of theism. This is a preemptive mental construct that is impervious to any facts or data since the invariable response to facts that support theism is there is no evidence of theism.

 

That atheism is impervious to facts is a hoot. Every one has tried to reason with you and you refuse to be reasoned with. The only thing impervious to facts here seems to be you!  Philosophy is not fact nor data. All claims you made were claims not supported by anything but your insistence!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

That atheism is impervious to facts is a hoot. Every one has tried to reason with you and you refuse to be reasoned with. The only thing impervious to facts here seems to be you!  Philosophy is not fact nor data. All claims you made were claims not supported by anything but your insistence!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Atheism as materialism, rationalism ... is impervious to anything other than materialism, rationalism.  And that is as it should be, it is an ideology.  Atheism can only argue about what kind of atheism it should be (within the axioms).  Same as the ideology masquerading as a religion, known as Christianity.  Christianity was founded by Constantine, as a political act ... not because he was spiritual.  Originally Christianity is simply the status quo political party of the late Roman Empire.

Not saying that being atheist implies any particular political position.  Bohemians/hippies of all stripes however, including atheists and gays are ... along with other non-conforming groups ... fellow travelers.  Lenin was part Tartar and Stalin was a Georgian, and Hitler was a Jewish Austrian (as proven in genetic tests, he was Jewish not only on his mother's side, but on his father's as well).  Disaffected youths every one.  These wonderful folks were strongly alienated people, who happened to achieve great power.  We see the same thing in a lot of the US presidents as chosen by the CIA.

[Drew_2017]

That atheism is impervious to facts is a hoot. Every one has tried to reason with you and you refuse to be reasoned with. The only thing impervious to facts here seems to be you!  Philosophy is not fact nor data. All claims you made were claims not supported by anything but your insistence!

The mental construct there is no evidence in favor of theism is a slogan indelibly etched in the brains of most atheists and is impervious to facts to the contrary. No one objected or disputed facts that favor naturalism...only theism.

[Drew_2017]

No, it's because you do not understand the difference between the relevance of the five "facts" you presented in favor of theism and the relevance of the five "facts" you presented in favor of naturalism.

The difference is the facts I listed in favor of naturalism favor naturalism, the facts I listed in favor of theism favor theism. You explain the relevance....

[Baruch]

The difference is the facts I listed in favor of naturalism favor naturalism, the facts I listed in favor of theism favor theism. You explain the relevance....

And that is where philosophy gets you.  Not that it is a bad thing, but there are few philosophers here ... it is considered too threatening by most.

[doorknob]

The mental construct there is no evidence in favor of theism is a slogan indelibly etched in the brains of most atheists and is impervious to facts to the contrary. No one objected or disputed facts that favor naturalism...only theism.

I'm sorry but why would we dispute naturalism? We support naturalism. Obviously we are not going to dispute something that is true and or fact. Theism is not based on facts. There maybe a possibility of a creator. A creator must be established first. Then we can move on to whether that creator was a god. It is more likely that natural forces are responsible for the universe than an intelligent creator. Give us an example of a fact that points to the existence of a god. The laws of nature do not point to a divine creator no many how many times you repeat it or insist.

Besides what makes you so sure that the creator supposing one exists is your god? The theoretic creator could be any number of things let alone whether that thing is even a god. Pretty arrogant to assume that it is your god.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

"The laws of nature do not point to a divine creator ..."  Galileo and Newton would disagree.  Galileo was actually a good Catholic, not the stereotype pushed by science pushers.  And Newton was not a good Anglican, but he was gay, an alchemist and an amateur Revelations interpreter.

I don't agree with Galileo or Newton.  Feynman comes close ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoNMjA2yPlw

[Drew_2017]

"defined as naturalism all they way down" ... not something that can be defended ... but it is naturalism "almost all the way down".  But it is a false dichotomy ... naturalism and supernaturalism aren't opposites, just different POV.  I prefer the supernaturalism (as I define it, is really is almost the same thing as naturalism) ... because for most folks here, the are reductionist or materialist or rationalist ... but I deny all three of those.

I agree since if anything that can possibly happen happens it's going to be considered natural the only thing that wouldn't be natural is something that hasn't happened. A better distinction is unguided mechanistic forces vs guided intentional design is probably a better delineation. Atheists and naturalists believe we owe our existence and the existence of the universe to unguided mechanistic forces. Theists believe we owe the existence of the universe to a Creator commonly referred to as God.