Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Baruch]

This conversation has evolved so fast in the last few days that its hard to keep up.

I am glad I was never given the Santa Claus deception. First time I ever heard of Santa was in 7th grade. It sounded so ridiculous when I heard it for the first time.


There are at least 2 topics that are pointless to talk about in the quest to prove or disprove the existence of a god: Jonah, and Little Green Men.

The story of Jonah is not so incredible that you can say it is not natural. Nor is it so unique proving its truth would support the existence of a god. Someone gets swallowed by a fish and lives to tell about it once every 20-30 years. [The ridiculous part is that Jonah went to Ninevah (a major metropolitan city) and converted everyone all by himself in 30 days]

Neither side can use the existence of ETs as proof for or against the existence of a Christian god, because the Bible doesn't say one thing about them. Unless you want to make the argument that ETs are actually angels.

So you understood sophisticated ancient Jewish midrash by the time you were seven?  You are such a chacham!  I bet you read and understood all of Shakespeare by the time you were eight.

[doorknob]

I don't think the position a personal agent is responsible for the universe and life is a theological proposition. What would the theology be if it turns out we owe our existence to a scientist in another universe who caused this universe to exist?

Drew that is quite possible. Probably more likely even. The difference between us is that you are taking something that does not count as evidence for god because it has zero scientific connection to a divine being and equating it to some 'KIND' (since now you may not be claiming it as scientific) of evidence and we do not accept that! Now you are basically insulting us all because we do not accept that as evidence. While I admit you make me frustrated and want to accuse you of being stupid too, I don't because I do understand your argument, I use to use it when I was a christian, and just like you I didn't understand why that argument doesn't sway people.

Sorry if I used "atheist" sound bites but no offense your claim isn't new either! It's basically the cosmological argument! You can deny that, but it is. "Oh the universe is so complicated there for it couldn't possibly be caused by nothing it HAS to have a creator!" not literally nothing (because that's not even an atheist sound bite that is how Christians are misunderstanding the naturalistic argument) we are saying that the universe has naturalistic causes and can be explained by naturalistic means (AKA with out a god) we just haven't got there yet. So no one is denying that a creator simply isn't possible we just don't know yet and until we know for sure we aren't going to take that 'god did it' leap!

So far science has explained many things and been far more reliable than religious claims ever have been. Which has caused many of us here to leave our religion behind. Beside the fact that science has yet to support the existence of a creator, which may or may not even be a deity for all we know! there are mountains of evidence that Christianity and most other religions are not true! You want evidence that the christian god didn't do it? Well then lets start talking about christian teachings and your holy book. It's rife with problems! Easy to reject.

And if you aren't trying to prove a specific god, then once you do prove a generic god won't the world explode when it isn't even your god?

So yes your evidence is evidence it just isn't scientific nor is it acceptable! The santa clause argument was an analogy to  your own argument so that you might understand what your argument looks like to us because it is basically the same argument as that of the analogy. Which I think you realize but chose to ignore it because you are determined to prove to atheists that there, is evidence for god.

What did you come here for Drew? Be honest with your self. Didn't you just want to affirm your own beliefs by trying to sell your brand of evidence to us?

If your belief is really that weak then maybe you should consider abandoning it and becoming one of us. Just saying...

It's not like we haven't thought about our reasons for rejecting your antiquated religion, we have thought things through, carefully, and for a long time. It isn't us just willy nilly believing all the atheist sound bites as you say. Many of us were religious before and got here on our own journey. I was just as adamant as you! I really believed all the way down to my heart! But at the end of the day my religious teachings did not match my reality nor what science had to say on the matters. I found out lots of things I was taught were lies. And I got to a point were I couldn't hold on to those beliefs any longer.

So keep on your journey Drew, maybe someday you will get here. If not that's fine too as long as you took a journey.

[Drew_2017]

The case for naturalism...

1. The fact a naturalistic universe exists
Although its not known how the universe came into existence the universe itself is a naturalistic phenomenon which can be explained naturalistically.
2. The fact of evolution
The appearance of advanced life forms including sentient life can be explained by observed evolutionary process a completely naturalistic process.
3. All phenomenon within the universe can be explained naturalistically.
This fact supports the contention its naturalistic forces all the way down.
4. The fact the overwhelming majority of the universe is lifeless and chaotic.
This fact indicates life wasn't intentional but caused by naturalistic forces
5. The fact there are millions of planets and solar systems.
Given the # of planets available the existence of life is inevitable.

Okay that's my case from known well scientifically established facts for naturalism. I expect everyone to be consistent and explain to me how this isn't evidence of naturalism and in fact there is no evidence which supports naturalism. It is a faith concept only...



 

[Hydra009]

The case for naturalism...

1) The fact of natural processes
2) The lack of evidence for supernatural events or beings

Unlike supernaturalism, naturalism is a tentative conclusion - it is not taken on faith, can be questioned, and can even falsified.  And all you have to do to falsify naturalism is demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural.  (Note: attributing something to a supernatural cause =/= demonstrating the existence of the supernatural)

[Drew_2017]

1) The fact of natural processes
2) The lack of evidence for supernatural events or beings

Unlike supernaturalism, naturalism is a tentative conclusion - it is not taken on faith, can be questioned, and can even falsified.  And all you have to do to falsify naturalism is demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural.  (Note: attributing something to a supernatural cause =/= demonstrating the existence of the supernatural)

My belief in theism is tentative. I've even listed some facts that if they became true would change my opinion about theism I won't repeat them though you'll have to look them up. 

If I was able to demonstrate something supernatural...wouldn't it then be natural? But I digress. When scientists and engineers create virtual universes they're not doing anything supernatural. If they figured out how to create a real universe it still wouldn't be supernatural. If that universe wound up creating sentient beings their Creator wouldn't be a supernatural god either. The point I'm getting at is the natural-supernatural distinction is a canard. Its only supernatural if it can't happen.

[doorknob]

The case for naturalism...

1. The fact a naturalistic universe exists
Although its not known how the universe came into existence the universe itself is a naturalistic phenomenon which can be explained naturalistically.
2. The fact of evolution
The appearance of advanced life forms including sentient life can be explained by observed evolutionary process a completely naturalistic process.
3. All phenomenon within the universe can be explained naturalistically.
This fact supports the contention its naturalistic forces all the way down.
4. The fact the overwhelming majority of the universe is lifeless and chaotic.
This fact indicates life wasn't intentional but caused by naturalistic forces
5. The fact there are millions of planets and solar systems.
Given the # of planets available the existence of life is inevitable.

Okay that's my case from known well scientifically established facts for naturalism. I expect everyone to be consistent and explain to me how this isn't evidence of naturalism and in fact there is no evidence which supports naturalism. It is a faith concept only...

I'm not even sure I follow you?

I can't be certain but It feels like you are saying that naturalism is faith based when it is not. Science isn't for naturalism it doesn't support naturalism. Science uses naturalistic explanations and derive evidence from the natural world. The only thing we have is the natural world as nothing supernatural can even be test at least at this time let alone proven. Aka no supernatural evidence.

I understand that you think that natural facts can support the existence of god. I agree that, that's possible however at this time that type of evidence doesn't exist. What you are presenting as evidence doesn't qualify as evidence as far as atheists are concerned.

I'm sorry to say this but the case you presented as evidence is flimsy at best. If you want more intellectual conversation then you are going to have to build on that. Just claiming that the universe and natural laws actually point to a creator is not going anywhere. You aren't the first to think of this and certainly not the last.

Maybe for you that is reason to believe but that does not meet our stringent requirements as evidence.

If you are expecting something new on our side then you'd better have a new argument.

Also most of us have already viewed, and attended numerous debates already. It redundant and it's old news now.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I can't really make the argument I want to make from my phone, but I will say that Drew is currently being the most reasonable person in the thread right now. Please take a step back and stop addressing him like he's one of the drive-by missionaries we often get.


Equal opportunity butt-stabber.

[Drew_2017]

Unlike supernaturalism, naturalism is a tentative conclusion - it is not taken on faith, can be questioned, and can even falsified.

When you say its a tentative conclusion (that naturalistic forces without plan or intent caused the universe and life) you mean its possible it was caused intentionally by a personal agent(s)? I suspect your tentative position means your only 99.9999 % convinced.

[Drew_2017]

I'm not even sure I follow you?

I can't be certain but It feels like you are saying that naturalism is faith based when it is not. Science isn't for naturalism it doesn't support naturalism. Science uses naturalistic explanations and derive evidence from the natural world. The only thing we have is the natural world as nothing supernatural can even be test at least at this time let alone proven. Aka no supernatural evidence.

I understand that you think that natural facts can support the existence of god. I agree that, that's possible however at this time that type of evidence doesn't exist. What you are presenting as evidence doesn't qualify as evidence as far as atheists are concerned.

I'm sorry to say this but the case you presented as evidence is flimsy at best. If you want more intellectual conversation then you are going to have to build on that. Just claiming that the universe and natural laws actually point to a creator is not going anywhere. You aren't the first to think of this and certainly not the last.

I think you replied to hastily without actually reading what I wrote. In this last post I made a case in favor of naturalism but you said I made a poor case and better come up with something else...if I came up with something else I'd repeat my case for theism.

[Drew_2017]

author=Hijiri Byakuren link=topic=11330.msg1168938#msg1168938 date=1488319777]
I can't really make the argument I want to make from my phone, but I will say that Drew is currently being the most reasonable person in the thread right now. Please take a step back and stop addressing him like he's one of the drive-by missionaries we often get.

Thanks for the street cred...

[Unbeliever]

Yet......I still do not believe in a god despite how much drivel the theists spout as pseudo-truth.

Hmm...pseudo-truth...sounds a bit like "alternative facts," doesn't it? But they need their pseudo-truths in order to continue bilking the flock, just as Chump and his measly minions need their alternative facts in order to keep bilking America.

[Unbeliever]

The major difference between a scientist and a theist is that the scientist is willing to state, "I don't know" and then proceed to seek the answer through scientific methodology whereas the theist will simply state, "It's god," even though there is no evidential backing to that answer because the theist would rather have that answer than a scientific one or no answer at all.

Yeah, with science, some questions may never be answered, and with theism, some answers may never be questioned...

[doorknob]

I think you replied to hastily without actually reading what I wrote. In this last post I made a case in favor of naturalism but you said I made a poor case and better come up with something else...if I came up with something else I'd repeat my case for theism.

I figured that I didn't understand your previous post (I even said that) sorry.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Unbeliever]

The fact that you thought to write down this sentence is proof positive that you really don't know anything about science and all your sciency talk was just an apologetics angle.

Here's how I know that.  If you actually had some idea what you were talking about, you'd know that the "laws of physics" are essentially mathematical descriptions of how natural forces operate.  You're describing one thing as if it were two separate things.

Yeah, the "laws of nature" are descriptive, not proscriptive, like human laws.

[Unbeliever]

Not an Oscar performance, and that is even with a totally mis-managed Oscar night.

Haha! "and the winner is...hey, wait, that's not the winner!