Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Hakurei Reimu]

Hakurei Reimu,

At the moment the preponderance of evidence is that the universe began to exist in its present form about 14 billion years ago. There have been various theories (very theoretical in nature) that attempt to avoid the beginning of the universe or the proposal of a singularity but they are far from being proven or even agreed upon. Unless such theories are proven (a daunting task) we are stuck with a universe that didn't always exist to have begun to exist. Suggesting it didn't have a cause seems to be special pleading since in nature most things have a cause...why should the universe be the exception? In the case I made for theism I don't use a cosmological argument, I merely cite the fact the universe exists.

Dave, you must have some sort of time before you can even talk about causation at all. Thing is, preponderance of evidence (and I don't think you have the background to tell me what the preponderence of evidence is) states that at all points where we can realistically ascribe time, the universe already exists. You have no footing for saying that the universe has any efficient cause, or that it has some creative agent to instigate that cause.

I guess design must be in the eye of the beholder. I'm looking out at my office on a nice day where I don't need a coat. The temperature is just about right for a human.

If the temperature is just right for a human, why do you need clothes? If you lived at the poles, the cold alone will eventually kill you. How is this "just right for a human?"

Day will turn to night right on time and night will turn today. The moon sun earth system is very precise. Not a 100% precise its running down also but humans have developed a system due to a handy law to have a good grasp on where the sun, moon and earth will all be in relationship to each other.

You have a strange definition of precise. The day does not evenly divide the year and never has. This is why you have leap years. Finding the leap years is an exercise in ad hoc rules that were obviously never designed for a year and day that precisely matched each other, but trying to keep the calender from falling too badly out of synch with either.

I know the counter argument is that I'm looking at this through the wrong end of the binoculars. That life and humans adapted to the prevailing situation, not the other way around. But until or unless we actually find other life that adapted to prevailing conditions you are projecting your preconceived notions.

What makes you think that MINE are the preconcieved notions? We've looked and investigated, and found that there is absolutely no material reason why the year and day should be the length they are. There is absolutely no material reason why we would necessarily be the dominant life form on the planet (indeed, for most of Earth's history, we weren't). There's absolutely no material reason to suppose that the laws of chemistry were specially formulated for our existence, and no material reason why the physical laws of the universe were specially formulated to allow for stars and planets and people.

In order for our system of life to exist we need a star like the sun to provide heat and a myriad of other conditions.

Stars like our sun are not uncommon in our universe.

However, with the sun also comes blasting solar winds that would be the kiss of death for us were it not for how incredibly fortunate we are that earth comes with its own magnetic field that deflects those harmful rays.

Magnetic fields are not uncommon in our solar system, let alone the universe.

However the solar wind is beneficial because it deflects cosmic rays from outer space from destroying life on earth.

This is absolutely false. The solar magnetic field shields us from those cosmic rays, the Earth's magnetic field shields us from most of the remainder, and the atmosphere shields us from most of what's left. Even so, a few sneak through.

The biggest break is the existence of the magnetic field around the earth that allows our existence.

Six of the eight planets in our solar system have magnetic fields. Our sun, a big ball of gas, has a magnetic field. They're not uncommon.

I know the response is well if it wasn't so then we wouldn't be here.

No, the response is that you aren't even pointing to anything unusual. They're obviously not there for our benefit.

The problem is there are dozens of 'if it wasn't so' we wouldn't be here. How many times does someone have to beat you at a game of cards before it dawns on you there is a reason they are winning so much.

You seem to imagine that the conditions you state are somehow rare. Sorry, that just isn't the case. They're quite common. You are in no position, with your complete ignorance of the life that you currently are an instance of, to say that life is rare, or is unusual. The proponderance of evidence suggests that simple life began not long after the oceans formed. Life, contrary to your presuppositions, is actually easy to form given favorable conditions.

Furthermore, as a life form, you don't seem to realize that finding yourself in a place where life would be impossible would actually be devestating to naturalism, and as such finding yourself in a place that is amicable to life can only support naturalism.

If the universe was rigged to support life then its not a surprise that life occurred. In contrast why would unguided life mindless naturalistic forces cause the conditions to allow sentient life to exist?

Again, you seem to think that "mindless" implies "there should be no pattern", and as such, any pattern at all, including the formation of sentience, must have been the result of purpose. I do not accept this premise, and so far you haven't given any good reason why anyone should accept this premise. You do not even give a coherent reason to suppose why this would be likely. You haven't even demonstrated that our evolution is in any way anomalous given mindless forces. None whatsoever.

The only response can be we got goddamned lucky.

Given that you cannot even distinguish between common (therefore, likely) conditions in the universe and uncommon ones, I don't think you're in any position to comment on how "lucky" we were.

How is that different from then a miracle happened? To me the existence of sentient life, the number of exacting conditions at the universal level, the existence of laws of physics to accommodate life are the proverbial fly in the ointment.

And if you had any standing in the sciences, any of them, that might win you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Unfortunately, you're not. You are in no position to comment how "exacting" the conditions must be at the universal level to allow life, or how the existence of the laws of physics is somehow some "fly in the ointment."

In all your ramblings, you have not given any good reason to suppose that unguided forces cannot produce patterns, cannot produce complexity. You point to the fact that the physical laws do allow for things like life and sentience and their existence as if they in and of themselves prove the existence of your God; the closest you come is to say that if they were mindless, they couldn't produce that stuff. You, who obviously have no background in biology, physics, statistics, mathematics, classical and quantum mechanics, and a multitude of technical fields besids, would make grand pronouncements about the limits of unguided forces in nature. Sure, Dave, tell another one.

We find patterns everywhere in nature, even in things we don't initially perceive as patterns. Even in the invented fields of mathematics, we find surprising structure everywhere, even when we don't explicitly build such structure in â€" indeed, in these fields, we try to avoid specifying too much intially, and instead letting it play out. Who could imagine that the equation a^n + b^n = c^n would have no whole number solutions for n < 2, given only the Peano arithmetic? Who could imagine that such an equation would have deep connections to such esoteric algebraic structures as eliptic curves and modular forms? When Fermat's Last Theorem was proposed, the above fields didn't even exist yet, yet there the structure was, hidden in a deceptively simple statement of algebra.

If one does not take as a premise that the presence of structure as proof of intent and intelligence, then one would conclude, without fear of serious contradiction, that the patterns and structure we see everywhere in nature and mathematics is actually quite common â€" that structure will appear with only the slightest provocation. As such, the appearance of structure even as complex as life doesn't surprise me, and I see no reason why it should. Structure is natural to the univese, and does not need any intent to come into being. Laws don't need any intent either, because they are simply a manifestation of that structure.

In my experience, unguided forces readily produce patterns and complexity, sometimes even more complex than humans can understand themselves. This is completely contrary to your thesis. The insistance that patterns can only come from thought is merely our own hubris projected onto a perfect reflection of ourselves. Your insistence otherwise simply rings hollow.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Cont'd Hakurei Reimu

There are all kinds of theologies regarding the nature of God that go into great depth about the nature and character of God. God's expectations and all that sort of thing.

A bunch of guesses doesn't constitute a coherent theory.

By the way what explanation are you hoping natural forces will have?

If you're somehow expecting that natural forces will talk and explain themselves, you'll be waiting a long time. We come up with the actual explanations. It is we who draw the connections between disparate forces to come up with natural consequences of same. But the natural forces in play do very tightly constrain what can happen in this universe, and as such, we have leveraged this knowledge to great effect in making our lives easier, longer, more comfortable, and more satisfying.

If you're wanting for the forces to answer with the purpose of your existence, again, you will be waiting for a long time. Natural law has no purpose or intent, as only thinking beings can have or ascribe either. So congrats, it's up to you to come up with your purpose in life. I personally wouldn't have it any other way.

I think we're referring to two different types of explanations there are how type explanations and why type explanations. Only a personal agent could possibly have the former type. But either type of explanation allows for how type explanations. If God did cause the universe to exist we are discovering how it works. Whats interesting is that the method of scientific investigation doesn't change depending on whether the phenomenon is believed to be naturally occurring or known to have been designed by sentient beings such as codes and pyramids.

And your hoping to find God in the laws of the universe, yes. The problem is that you have no idea (or more likely, won't acknowledge) how common pattern is in the universe, even produced by unfeeling, unthinking forces. From my previous post, I outlined that even in the mathematical fields, where we do not purposefully build in such structure, structure appears regardless, and as such, supposing that structure can only appear through purpose rings very, very hollow.

As such, seeing any pattern and immediately leaping to, "GODDIDIT!" seems to me extremely premature.

I agree if something exists it makes sense it has properties. I don't know if they have to be bestowed from an outside source.

Let me put it this way: does the God you suppose have his properties bestowed upon him from an outside source? If yes, then who is that? If no, then why does anything need their properties bestowed from an outside source?

Hell, even we don't really bestow properties. When we make an object, that object has those properties because we've purposefully arranged matter such that the object will have those properties by virtue of its material and construction. We never wave our hands over an object and command, "YOU WILL HAVE SUCH AND SUCH PROPERTIES!" â€" even if we did, I very much doubt it would work.

Let me make something clear I'm not suggesting it would be impossible for everything we observe to have been caused by naturalistic forces I just think its unlikely. My mouth (not my money I don't have that much faith) is on theism.

I don't really care what you think is unlikely. You've obviously not studied anything, even the basics, of what you boldy comment about. People have done exactly what you have done on more investigatable phenomena and have always lost â€" it's NEVER come down on your side. It's time to put that hypothesis to rest.

Ironically its because we have been able to deduce so much primarily because of the laws of nature and is explicable in mathematical terms that it looks more like reverse engineering to me.

That and a nickel will get you a peppermint at Cosco's. "Reverse engineering" is another form of discovery, only we know in that case that there was some form of engineering in the first place. To call it 'reverse engineering' without an assurance of 'engineering' is to very much jump to a preconceived conclusion.

There is no terrestrial cop inside electronics that enforces the flow of electricity, the amount of resistance or capacitance. PCB's were intentionally created to run at certain tolerances per design.

Yeah, so? PCB's are designed. I can point at the history of electronics to tell you when the PCB was developed, and who developed it, and the various iterations of the same. There's no problem with supposing intent and purpose for PCB's. However, it is still an exploit of the laws of the universe. The materials and form of the PCB's were chosen because they did have certain properties and thus electrons in them do obey certain observed laws.

I understand as mortal humans we're not able to create a real universe. Nonetheless if one were to consider the plausibility of whether we owe our existence to a creator who caused the universe to exist virtual universes created by scientists, engineers and programmers are a observable simulation of such. Do you think naturalistic forces could given enough time and chance create a virtual universe?

Virtual universes are start to finish abstractions. Naturalistic laws don't do abstractions, only actualities.

You better say yes they could otherwise I'd ask then how could they have created the real universe?

A real universe is, by definition, not an abstraction, but an actual reality. Naturalistic laws deal in actual reality.

You are equating directly two objects that differ in very many key properties. Not the least of which is "virtual" vs. "real." Reasoning by analogy remains a fallacy.

I would say you have no better idea how naturalistic forces without plan or intent could create a virtual universe anymore than you have any idea how such could have caused the real universe. You simply short circuit the process by believing that's how it happened.   

As opposed to you short-circuiting actual education about what is known about the universe and the laws it operates under before commenting upon what is and what is not possible? You have a lot of gall, my friend.

[Ananta Shesha]

Regardless of what you want to call it, any sort of deity needs to be demonstrated, not assumed.  All you've really said here is 'god of the gaps' and that a) doesn't demonstrate anything and b) is known to be an ever-shrinking hole to stick a god in.

I don't come even close to stopping there. And nothing will ever be scientifically observed beyond the light bubble of our observable universe.  That doesn't stop scientists from reasonably speculating what came before and what will happen far into the future of the universe. But academia says it so science of the gaps is cool I guess.... ;)

I'm more interested in a comprehensive and logical model that accounts for all known and unknown observations like dark matter and dark energy. Also neatly solves the asymmetry of the CMB background, and provides for the six flavors of quarks the three densities of matter quarks and the three antiquarks.

Does any scientific model of universal formation predict these things?

[SGOS]

I would respect the 'skeptics' a lot more if they ever dared to have the integrity to be skeptical of there own beliefs and reasoning they use. Are you the least skeptical of the claim that natural forces without plan or intent some how caused themselves to exist.

Skepticism is applied to claims that are made, not about things which involve processes that are yet unknown. Until someone attempts explain how natural forces came about, or until I am exposed to such explanations, skepticism doesn't enter the picture. 

I AM skeptical about your comment that atheists claim it's naturalistic all the way down.  I'm not making that claim, and I don't see others jumping in to heartily defend it either.  I'm sure that out of a multitude of people you will find some that do, but there doesn't seem to be an abundance of folks around here that are jumping in claiming knowledge that it's naturalistic forces all the way down.  Your assertion that this is the norm strikes me as oddly bold and rather all inclusive, and I'd like to know how your arrived at that.

then proceeded to cause the universe with the laws of physics and properties to inadvertently cause something completely unlike itself to exist such as life and mind?

Here you are getting into and area where skepticism is warranted with sentience and how the mind works, that is if someone ever does explain it.  But here again it's generally understood that our knowledge of how the brain forms thoughts and becomes aware is still an enigma.  We do know some things, like what parts of the brain perform what functions, and that it involves electro chemical reactions and excites combinations of neurons, but it's poorly understood, so it's hard to be skeptical about a lot of information that science doesn't explain.

You say you don't believe things unless there is evidence. What evidence is there that the naturalistic forces we are familiar with caused themselves to exist? The answer is none...but you believe it anyway. But I'd happy to have you prove me wrong! 

It's not my responsibility to prove to you a claim I'm not making, or to prove to you something I don't claim to know.

In fact the evidence is that the naturalistic forces we are familiar with couldn't be the cause of their own existence...

I am not familiar with any compelling evidence like that, so I can only be skeptical that you have some at this point.

[aitm]

All life is special

There is nothing that suggests any "life" is special. To claim it is "special"....special over what?  Really, you just flail away and whack one of the elder gods of the babble in Ehola or  Ebola or whatever as if this god does something. If anything every "god" has proven with absolute certainty is their complete indifference to life in general and humanity particularly.

[aitm]

I have several times. Not force, pure being. The God before the unfolding of a universe is infinite absolute undifferentiated substance occupying all available space.....which still exists outside and between all the voided spacel universes.

oh....I get it, special crystals....being one with the universe as it is god.....ahhhhh. It doesn't actually DO anything, but its there...and its nice that its there and you feel good because it is nice that it is there....but....it doesn't DO anything. How comfortable.

[aitm]

I would respect the 'skeptics' a lot more if they ever dared to have the integrity to be stop being skeptical there own beliefs and reasoning they use. and just accept that the only way shit can happen if is a god that has always existed and has always known everything there is to know even about shit that it hasn't thought of or invented yet because that is what gods do, invented everything.....sheeesh.

[Ananta Shesha]

oh....I get it, special crystals....being one with the universe as it is god.....ahhhhh. It doesn't actually DO anything, but its there...and its nice that its there and you feel good because it is nice that it is there....but....it doesn't DO anything. How comfortable.

Spatial plasma crystals! Lol

BTW did you watch the plasma crystal experiment aboard the ISS where they rapidly cooled a plasma crystal cloud in micro G and it contracted into a double helix with rungs? Pretty cool for inert dust...

If you want to know what God is doing, he's making quantum foam in a cappuccino aka "the universe" ;p

[Baruch]

I don't come even close to stopping there. And nothing will ever be scientifically observed beyond the light bubble of our observable universe.  That doesn't stop scientists from reasonably speculating what came before and what will happen far into the future of the universe. But academia says it so science of the gaps is cool I guess.... ;)

I'm more interested in a comprehensive and logical model that accounts for all known and unknown observations like dark matter and dark energy. Also neatly solves the asymmetry of the CMB background, and provides for the six flavors of quarks the three densities of matter quarks and the three antiquarks.

Does any scientific model of universal formation predict these things?

Steven Hawking can pull it out of his ass.  Unfortunately there is no predictive property in any system that is too general.  The ultimate theory of everything is ... "Shit happens" ... and the only practical response is "Duh".

Hakurei Reimu ... "They're obviously not there for our benefit" ... exactly, no teleology.  There is no purpose to anything ... hence no will ... if humans are natural the same way a mud slide is.  Mud responds to gravity ... people respond to more subtle causes ... which all go back to gravity (etc) ... is the claim (and random stuff from QM, but again no more purpose than dice (except living people are involved with dice, with a purpose)).  But you can't draw me a picture to that ... just a claim that some future genius materialist/rationalist will do so.  Science of the gaps.

[Baruch]

Yes, that's what I've said, and it's not rocket science that you can't substantiate an unknown.

I never said that.  You said that. 

Yeah, so?  Who are you arguing with?

You have a tendency to get carried away sometimes.  You need to read more and take a break from pressing the buttons on your keyboard.

Rationalists need to stop using logical fallacies, that are simply more sophisticated (sophist) than the theists (casuist) are using.  Both you and Drew are using "cause to be discovered later" ... a bit like a D and an R arguing over who gets to start the nuclear war.

So if we can't substantiate an unknown, and since spacetime and mass-energy are unknowns (cause wise) as both Drew and you agree ... then they are illogical too.  Counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Put it in front of anyone, and demonstrate the creation of a universe (by any method) ... and I will believe either of you.  I can demonstrate putting cream cheese on my cracker ... I don't need GR or QM to do that.  I believe in cream cheeses and crackers.  GR and QM curve fitting of observational or experimental data is marginally useful, if I need to do that.  But both are much less important than my supper.

[popsthebuilder]

There is nothing that suggests any "life" is special. To claim it is "special"....special over what?  Really, you just flail away and whack one of the elder gods of the babble in Ehola or  Ebola or whatever as if this god does something. If anything every "god" has proven with absolute certainty is their complete indifference to life in general and humanity particularly.

Sure buddy...Is that your way of saying you believe in GOD?

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Sure buddy...Is that your way of saying you believe in GOD?

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

That dog is man's worst friend ... but I sympathize.

[aitm]

If you want to know what God is doing, he's making quantum foam in a cappuccino aka "the universe" ;p

well....that is certainly a comfortable thought. At least it isn't asking us to splay ourselves along with an ego maniacal laugh....so I like your version of a creator over the traditional whack-a-doo god. Although, if such a creator exists, it is still pretty obvious it is a disinterested creator in its "creations"...or just the accidental creator...or even the bumbling creator. In either event it does not fit the role of a "god", so I can live with a "creator of stuff".

[aitm]

Sure buddy...Is that your way of saying you believe in GOD?

Oh but I do believe in god. I believe that man has created hundreds of thousands of gods. None of them real of course, because if ten thousand are made up....the idea that the 10,001st is real...is the stuff of mental gymnastics of which you seem to excel.

[popsthebuilder]

Oh but I do believe in god. I believe that man has created hundreds of thousands of gods. None of them real of course, because if ten thousand are made up....the idea that the 10,001st is real...is the stuff of mental gymnastics of which you seem to excel.

If you deny a singular causal force behind all existence then that is your business.  If you deny that the different names that refer to the same One Creator GOD then I would suggest you don't research yourself and display some intellectual honesty afterwards. But that to is your business.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk