Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[fencerider]

The limits of programming a virtual universe or changing the laws of that universe are limited by the limits of software and programmers. Every year the ability of programmers gets better. A virtual universe created today can be more realistic than on an Apple IIe, but there are still limits.


I will bite on your claim Drew: naturalists can not provide direct proof of how the universe was created, but there is great correlation between the working model and particle physics as measured in a particle accelerator. What is supposed to happen at time zero can not be described because of a divide by zero error. What happened before can not be explained because it requires an understanding of time that we dont have.

Lack of evidence is not conclusive proof that a particular god does not exit, but it sure is a good head start. If any of the gods described by religion are real, I should be able to figure out on my own without any holy writ or any kind of preacher tellin me about that particular god. I dont have any need to worship some superior being. If he or she or they stay out of sight they are going to be completely ignored by me; not going lookin for them.

Your whole argument is about proof of a Creator. I assume because you think of a supreme being controlling the universe today and a creator as the same being. I do make the distinction between the two. Proof of a creator is not proof of a supreme being and visa versa. If you can prove the universe was created its just another meaningless factoid in my head. If you have proof of the real age of the universe that would also be a meaningless factoid. I suppose that means I am more of a pragmatist than a scientist (pure science being about answering those meaningless questions with no presupposition of the answer)

[Cavebear]

If all theists ceased to exist, think of all the contentions that would cease to exist without them.

[Hydra009]

If all theists ceased to exist, think of all the contentions that would cease to exist without them.

Desert property values would certainly drop.

Al in all, it would probably resolve a lot of wearisome disputes and set mankind on a more forward trajectory.  But there's a ton of bullshit floating around, and not all of it is holy fertilizer.  Without solving the fundamental problem of magical thinking, we'd just be at loggerheads with swelling ranks of non-religious believers in New World Order plots and ancient aliens.

Also, I wonder if hateful people - the sort of people who of course don't personally hate, but simply communicate God's disapproval and perpetually imminent retribution - I wonder if those people would even change in the slightest.  Religion gone all over the world in an instant and they probably don't even skip a beat.  Maybe religion's just the most socially-approved venue for that sort of thing - a pretty blanket hiding a rabid critter.  I'm not saying we shouldn't lift the blanket - I'm just saying we shouldn't lift the blanket without a shovel in the other hand.

[Cavebear]

Desert property values would certainly drop.

Al in all, it would probably resolve a lot of wearisome disputes and set mankind on a more forward trajectory.  But there's a ton of bullshit floating around, and not all of it is holy fertilizer.  Without solving the fundamental problem of magical thinking, we'd just be at loggerheads with swelling ranks of non-religious believers in New World Order plots and ancient aliens.

Also, I wonder if hateful people - the sort of people who of course don't personally hate, but simply communicate God's disapproval and perpetually imminent retribution - I wonder if those people would even change in the slightest.  Religion gone all over the world in an instant and they probably don't even skip a beat.  Maybe religion's just the most socially-approved venue for that sort of thing - a pretty blanket hiding a rabid critter.  I'm not saying we shouldn't lift the blanket - I'm just saying we shouldn't left the blanket without a shovel in the other hand.

OK, let's define "theists" as all "magical thinkers" and combine the lot of them.

[Drew_2017]

What I do understand from viewing your responses in this thread and other threads is that you repeat the same ill logic without deviating.  If the reason I employ is not working to make you think rather than merely repeat apologist arguments verbatim, then it does not bode well for me to continue along a path of debate. 

I've been debating atheists (formally and informally) for over 15 years. I haven't seen a new argument in the past 10 years. You seem to use the same play book. Impugn theism as a baseless belief, deny any evidence exists (whether it does or not) then just hold up naturalism as a default position. But who knows maybe you'd surprise since you claim to reject theism on philosophical grounds...

[Drew_2017]

The limits of programming a virtual universe or changing the laws of that universe are limited by the limits of software and programmers. Every year the ability of programmers gets better. A virtual universe created today can be more realistic than on an Apple IIe, but there are still limits.

Yes I'm not suggesting they're creating a real universe, at best there trying to imitate the one that exists. The point is its a good example of a theistic universe caused intentionally by creators. Have you seen the naturalistic model yet?

Lack of evidence is not conclusive proof that a particular god does not exit, but it sure is a good head start. If any of the gods described by religion are real, I should be able to figure out on my own without any holy writ or any kind of preacher tellin me about that particular god. I dont have any need to worship some superior being. If he or she or they stay out of sight they are going to be completely ignored by me; not going lookin for them.

Theism all by its lonesome is a philosophical belief not a religious one. I don't defend theism by quoting any alleged holy writ.

Your whole argument is about proof of a Creator. I assume because you think of a supreme being controlling the universe today and a creator as the same being. I do make the distinction between the two. Proof of a creator is not proof of a supreme being and visa versa. If you can prove the universe was created its just another meaningless factoid in my head. If you have proof of the real age of the universe that would also be a meaningless factoid. I suppose that means I am more of a pragmatist than a scientist (pure science being about answering those meaningless questions with no presupposition of the answer)

I've stated before if it turns out the universe was caused and created by a scientist in another universe it would still be a far cry from the belief we owe our existence to unintended consequences.

[Drew_2017]

I believe in big bang theory but it is only a belief, I can't prove it. However I can list facts that support that belief.

1. The fact background radiation exists every where we point receivers in the sky. 
2. The fact all galaxies are moving away from each other.

Neither of these facts validates or proves big bang theory is correct but my opinion and belief isn't baseless is it?

I'm sure there is more than just microwaves and an expansionary universe involved in the theory, although those two facts tend to support it, but either of those things could have been caused by something else, although it's looking like they weren't.  As for the expansionary universe, this only happens when gravity is a precise constant.  A deflationary universe, although shorter lived, could have also been derived from the Big Bang that generated a universe with a just slightly stronger gravity, so expansion isn't some end all be all for the Big Bang to have occurred, at least not the Bang we live in.

You realize I used this merely as an example of how you come to an opinion about something you can't prove conclusively. You do so by citing evidence (facts) that have probabtive value. Those are facts that comport or agree with a hypothesis. I could have listed many more reasons but I've never sited the big bang as evidence of Gods existence.

Many years later,  a couple of radio telescope guys ran into an annoying interference with their antenna.  They worked for a year trying to get rid of it, and could not proceed with their experiment because of all the noise.

They thought bird poop was the source of interference. Who'd of thought it would lead to a Nobel Peace prize?

The point is that the theory called for background radiation, and low and behold, someone found it, albeit totally by accident.  Now your theory about creation, I'm guessing you mean the Big Bang by that, a god of some sort is predicted, but no one has been able to discover one except for something Christians claim is a personal experience, which can't be tested or verified.  If a god created the universe, it is critical that for starters that we discover a god, or something like a god.  This doesn't bode well for your theory.  This applies to everything that a god has alleged to be personally responsible for, be it evolution, sentience, remission from cancer, whatever.  You need to be able to verify a god.  If you don't think you need to do that, we might as well throw in the towel, because we live in two different worlds, so to speak.

Have you verified its naturalistic forces all the way down? Did the set of naturalistic forces we now observe also cause the universe to exist or did the existence of the universe cause the laws of physics we observe? Did time begin with the onset of the universe or did time always exist?  From what we have observed of naturalistic forces they only react unlike volitional sentient beings who can act autonomously. How did forces observed to only react begin to exist? They didn't will themselves into existence right? True or false as of right now do we know that unguided naturalistic forces alone caused the universe to exist? Do we know such forces could cause the universe? There is a good reason atheists main argument is to impugn, mock and ridicule theism for supposedly having no evidence to obscure the fact the King has no clothes. The truth is you infer its naturalistic forces all the way down there is no direct evidence. I infer it was intentionally caused and designed but I have no direct evidence either, that's why its an opinion. There are some facts that could come about that would change the landscape. If we find life elsewhere in the universe, especially sentient life or life of a different form though not conclusive would be a feather in naturalists cap. If we actually knew how life started. Theories abound but actually duplication...not yet. Or if we were to discover this is one of many or an infinitude of universes of varying properties. That would seal the deal in my opinion. That would be a very good naturalistic explanation that could account for how unguided forces could by happenstance stumble upon the formula to cause sentient life.   

[trdsf]

The idea that natural things somehow "decided" to create themselves is a creationist talking point betraying an intentional stance towards non-living matter, an incorrect and childish misapprehension.  Garbage in, garbage out.

The universe simply consists of simple materials that interact with each other in ways we're often able to predict.

From the accretion of simple materials we get more complex structures - stars and planets forming from gravitationally-bound particles.  On geologically active planets, there's a tremendous amount of chemical activity.  You get polymers (like RNA).  You get amino acids.  You get phospholipid bilayers.  Potentially, you also get extremely simple life.  And due to the cumulative process of evolution, you can also get much more complex life over vast amounts of time.

And yes, we live in a universe that can support life (on a very small rock).  Obviously, if the situation were otherwise, we wouldn't be around to talk about it.

And I would add to this that we are the product of the laws the universe happens to follow.  They weren't "fine tuned" to permit us; we are just a natural but not inevitable product of them.

It seems pretty clear to me that creationism, whether biblical or trying to hide behind the label 'intelligent design', is nothing more than a desperate attempt to force some sort of meaning onto our existence -- mainly by those unable for whatever reason to make their own meaning for themselves.

I am put in mind of a local fundamentalist minister who debated evolution vs. creationism with the head of the bio department at my college -- must've been in '80 or '81, maybe '82.  And in the discussions afterwards, I overheard him say that the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere would "destroy" -- his exact word -- his faith in his god, as if the mere idea that we're not the whole point of the universe was complete anathema to him.

I cannot say that was the moment I ceased being religious, but as I look back, I think that is probably the moment I ceased being Christian.  I couldn't believe the utter fear and arrogance both in his statement.  Fear of being just another biological cog in the universe's machinery, responsible for his own behavior and his own happiness (and unhappiness).

And arrogance, of course.  I have to wonder what the creationist/ID (same thing, really) response would be if researchers did prove there was an intelligent designer... and it was Brahma, or Izanagi and Izanami, or Viracocha, or anyone other than their Western Judeochristoislamic concept.  Or that the world was created only about 6,000 years ago -- but by very advanced aliens as a sociological experiment, carefully setting up the world to appear as though it had been there for 4.5 billion years and humans evolved from earlier forms.

I have to think the reaction would be what it always is: reject anything that disagrees with their preconceived notions.

[Baruch]

I've been debating atheists (formally and informally) for over 15 years. I haven't seen a new argument in the past 10 years. You seem to use the same play book. Impugn theism as a baseless belief, deny any evidence exists (whether it does or not) then just hold up naturalism as a default position. But who knows maybe you'd surprise since you claim to reject theism on philosophical grounds...

Just stated yourself, your own problem.  Debating atheists.  Why?  In many cases, it isn't worth discussing, let alone arguing, with some people.

[SGOS]

You realize I used this merely as an example of how you come to an opinion about something you can't prove conclusively. You do so by citing evidence (facts) that have probabtive value. Those are facts that comport or agree with a hypothesis. I could have listed many more reasons but I've never sited the big bang as evidence of Gods existence.

I did not realize that because (your words):

I believe in big bang theory but it is only a belief, I can't prove it. However I can list facts that support that belief.

1. The fact background radiation exists every where we point receivers in the sky. 
2. The fact all galaxies are moving away from each other.

Neither of these facts validates or proves big bang theory is correct but my opinion and belief isn't baseless is it?

As an approximation of my words, that implies way more confidence than I actually have, especially given the facts you sited.  The Big Bang Theory is fun to try to understand, and I like seeing how methodically the experts derive conclusions from the available facts, but it's much too involved, requiring a much larger knowledge base than I have to comprehend with a level of confidence you seem to have about your own theory with even less relevant information at your disposal.

But to keep the debate stimulating, I'd put more money on the guys from Cal Tech than the cheese heads at Liberty University.

[SGOS]

I am put in mind of a local fundamentalist minister who debated evolution vs. creationism with the head of the bio department at my college -- must've been in '80 or '81, maybe '82.  And in the discussions afterwards, I overheard him say that the discovery of intelligent life elsewhere would "destroy" -- his exact word -- his faith in his god, as if the mere idea that we're not the whole point of the universe was complete anathema to him.

LOL Since it's not likely to happen in his lifetime, it's a rather hollow braggadocio.  And I'd even match him with one of my own:  "If Godzilla really does attack Tokyo sometime, I'll eat my hat!  So whatdayathink of that banana, Hot Shot?"  Furthermore, I wouldn't believe him anyway.  If life is discovered somewhere else, he will claim it as proof of his God, or perhaps reject it on the grounds that it doesn't breath oxygen, or act all unimpressed because it can't speak English. 

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I've been debating atheists (formally and informally) for over 15 years. I haven't seen a new argument in the past 10 years. You seem to use the same play book. Impugn theism as a baseless belief, deny any evidence exists (whether it does or not) then just hold up naturalism as a default position. But who knows maybe you'd surprise since you claim to reject theism on philosophical grounds...

To be fair, debating with a bunch of Joe Schmoes like us isn't likely to net you the most thought-out arguments. Same reason I don't tend to bother "debating" most theists I come across. The same arguments get trotted out by both sides time and again, and we get so hung up on our respective points that no progress is ever made.

[trdsf]

LOL Since it's not likely to happen in his lifetime, it's a rather hollow braggadocio.  And I'd even match him with one of my own:  "If Godzilla really does attack Tokyo sometime, I'll eat my hat!  So whatdayathink of that banana, Hot Shot?"  Furthermore, I wouldn't believe him anyway.  If life is discovered somewhere else, he will claim it as proof of his God, or perhaps reject it on the grounds that it doesn't breath oxygen, or act all unimpressed because it can't speak English.

The idea that his faith was so weak that the mere existence of another sentience in the universe would wreck it (or at least that he asserted it would) is what floored me.  I mean, that's just pathetic.

The only thing that might give me a moment's pause is if we were to discover DNA-based human life fully compatible with us elsewhere, because the odds against that evolving independently are so long that it's genuinely more reasonable to assume interference by an older species and interplanetary seeding, long enough that I would almost credit an argument for divine intervention being more likely than independent evolutions.

Almost.  Interference by another sentience is still vastly more likely than divine intervention because it doesn't include a call to the supernatural.

[Drew_2017]

And I would add to this that we are the product of the laws the universe happens to follow.  They weren't "fine tuned" to permit us; we are just a natural but not inevitable product of them.

Of course you'd respond this way because you start with the axiom 'we are the result of naturalistic forces' then wrap any facts, evidence or data around that flag pole. You reject data an honest inquirer seeking evidence of design would look for. Atheism doesn't offer an explanation for the evidence, it attempts to explain it away.

I have to think the reaction would be what it always is: reject anything that disagrees with their preconceived notions.

I see that reaction a great deal.

[Drew_2017]

I did not realize that because (your words):

As an approximation of my words, that implies way more confidence than I actually have, especially given the facts you sited.  The Big Bang Theory is fun to try to understand, and I like seeing how methodically the experts derive conclusions from the available facts, but it's much too involved, requiring a much larger knowledge base than I have to comprehend with a level of confidence you seem to have about your own theory with even less relevant information at your disposal.

But to keep the debate stimulating, I'd put more money on the guys from Cal Tech than the cheese heads at Liberty University.

Those were two facts right off the top of my head. I said only the claim wouldn't be baseless...Just like the claim theism isn't baseless.