Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Sorginak]

This thread should simply be retitled "Religion vs. Science". 

[Mike Cl]

Still dissing all the species we already have here?  The dolphins ... sad!  Is there even intelligent life on the Internet? ;-)

What???  I sometimes wonder what your 'humor' does to your mind.  When did I diss any life on this planet?  Is there even intelligent life on the internet???  No much.

Don't know what any of that has to do with life on other bodies--and I did not mean intelligent life--just any life.

[Drew_2017]

This thread should simply be retitled "Religion vs. Science".

This thread is about the philosophical (not religious or scientific) question about whether we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves solely to unguided naturalistic forces or if a personal agent (commonly referred to as God) was responsible. The actual answer is we don't know either scientifically, philosophically or even religiously. I know the naturalists and atheists have complete faith in the belief it was naturalistic forces and most religious people have complete faith it was God who caused the universe and life but what neither have are conclusive facts to prove it. I realize you may feel far more comfortable beating up on religious belief and that's your prerogative but you can start your own thread.

[sdelsolray]

This thread is about the philosophical (not religious or scientific) question about whether we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves solely to unguided naturalistic forces or if a personal agent (commonly referred to as God) was responsible. The actual answer is we don't know either scientifically, philosophically or even religiously. I know the naturalists and atheists have complete faith in the belief it was naturalistic forces and most religious people have complete faith it was God who caused the universe and life but what neither have are conclusive facts to prove it. I realize you may feel far more comfortable beating up on religious belief and that's your prerogative but you can start your own thread.

So, according to you, most people are either gnostic theists or gnostic atheists, and few are agnostic theists or agnostic atheists.

You (apparently) claim to be an agnostic theist.  Does that make you special?

[Drew_2017]

This thread is about the philosophical (not religious or scientific) question about whether we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves solely to unguided naturalistic forces or if a personal agent (commonly referred to as God) was responsible. The actual answer is we don't know either scientifically, philosophically or even religiously. I know the naturalists and atheists have complete faith in the belief it was naturalistic forces and most religious people have complete faith it was God who caused the universe and life but what neither have are conclusive facts to prove it. I realize you may feel far more comfortable beating up on religious belief and that's your prerogative but you can start your own thread.

author=sdelsolray link=topic=11330.msg1174066#msg1174066 date=1491616665]
So, according to you, most people are either gnostic theists or gnostic atheists, and few are agnostic theists or agnostic atheists.
You (apparently) claim to be an agnostic theist.  Does that make you special?

First, there are host of things that make me special not just this. I claim to believe we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator commonly referred to as God. I don't claim its a fact, I don't claim to know its true, I don't claim other theories of how we came about are absurd.

[Baruch]

This thread is about the philosophical (not religious or scientific) question about whether we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves solely to unguided naturalistic forces or if a personal agent (commonly referred to as God) was responsible. The actual answer is we don't know either scientifically, philosophically or even religiously. I know the naturalists and atheists have complete faith in the belief it was naturalistic forces and most religious people have complete faith it was God who caused the universe and life but what neither have are conclusive facts to prove it. I realize you may feel far more comfortable beating up on religious belief and that's your prerogative but you can start your own thread.

First, there are host of things that make me special not just this. I claim to believe we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator commonly referred to as God. I don't claim its a fact, I don't claim to know its true, I don't claim other theories of how we came about are absurd.

You claim now to be rather agnostic ... but on previous posts you let out your full classic theist POV.  You unmasked yourself, and now come across as wishy-washy or deceptive.  And now as always, making an argument depend on un-resolveable physics ... is weak for either party.

[sdelsolray]

This thread is about the philosophical (not religious or scientific) question about whether we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves solely to unguided naturalistic forces or if a personal agent (commonly referred to as God) was responsible. The actual answer is we don't know either scientifically, philosophically or even religiously. I know the naturalists and atheists have complete faith in the belief it was naturalistic forces and most religious people have complete faith it was God who caused the universe and life but what neither have are conclusive facts to prove it. I realize you may feel far more comfortable beating up on religious belief and that's your prerogative but you can start your own thread.

First, there are host of things that make me special not just this. I claim to believe we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator commonly referred to as God. I don't claim its a fact, I don't claim to know its true, I don't claim other theories of how we came about are absurd.

Thus, by your own words, you are an agnostic theist.

[Drew_2017]

You claim now to be rather agnostic ... but on previous posts you let out your full classic theist POV.  You unmasked yourself, and now come across as wishy-washy or deceptive.  And now as always, making an argument depend on un-resolveable physics ... is weak for either party.

You guys have a label fetish. I've never stated differently then I'm a theist because the preponderance of evidence leads me to that conclusion particularly when compared to the naturalistic alternative. I've always stated this is an opinion, a belief something I think is true but can't be sure is true. The evidence that leads me to this belief, opinion, conclusion doesn't hinge on un-resolvable physics it hinges on the case I made in favor of theism a while back.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwPQv_SuHNwrZkh2XzUtSDB0OWM/view?usp=sharing

Here' s a very early post from my introduction several months ago..

I'm a philosophical, not a religious theist. Given the facts of the existence of life and the universe I believe we owe our existence to a Creator commonly referred to as God. I have no opinion about the nature of God other than it would take God to cause the universe and life to exist.

The only thing that's changed is the obsession with attaching some label to me.

[sdelsolray]

You guys have a label fetish. I've never stated differently then I'm a theist because the preponderance of evidence leads me to that conclusion particularly when compared to the naturalistic alternative. I've always stated this is an opinion, a belief something I think is true but can't be sure is true. The evidence that leads me to this belief, opinion, conclusion doesn't hinge on un-resolvable physics it hinges on the case I made in favor of theism a while back.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwPQv_SuHNwrZkh2XzUtSDB0OWM/view?usp=sharing

Here' s a very early post from my introduction several months ago..

I'm a philosophical, not a religious theist. Given the facts of the existence of life and the universe I believe we owe our existence to a Creator commonly referred to as God. I have no opinion about the nature of God other than it would take God to cause the universe and life to exist.

The only thing that's changed is the obsession with attaching some label to me.

I really don't care why you are an agnostic theist, other than to observe that you rely on spurious reasoning calculated to support your a priori conclusion.  Such confirmation bias is empty, shallow and myopic.

[Drew_2017]

I really don't care why you are an agnostic theist, other than to observe that you rely on spurious reasoning calculated to support your a priori conclusion.  Such confirmation bias is empty, shallow and myopic.

Baloney I rely on facts and data to render an opinion. What do you rely on?

[Baruch]

Baloney I rely on facts and data to render an opinion. What do you rely on?

If your facts aren't immediately verifiable, right here, right now (no matter who you are) ... then your argument is weak ... even flaccid ;-)  But people here argue past tense or future tense or somewhere in the universe hypotheticals, all the time.  Jerking off.

[Drew_2017]

If your facts aren't immediately verifiable, right here, right now (no matter who you are) ... then your argument is weak ... even flaccid ;-)  But people here argue past tense or future tense or somewhere in the universe hypotheticals, all the time.  Jerking off.

Facts are already verified. I list 6 facts in favor of theism not six beliefs...

[sdelsolray]

Baloney I rely on facts and data to render an opinion.
...

Sure thing, Sparky.  You rely on four facts (the remainder of your 6 "facts" are not facts at all just mere assertions) and then run them through some standard common logical fallacies and PRATTs, in a feeble and quite transparent attempt to pretend those facts are relevant to and probative of your illusory inquiry, all to come up with your "opinion".  Again, I observe that all you are doing is applying confirmation bias to an a priori conclusion.

You're not a very good chew toy.  Try harder.

...
What do you rely on?

"Hey look over there!"  What I rely on, if anything, is not relevant.

[aitm]

I list 6 facts in favor of theism...

oh my...6 facts that favor theism....why....that's like 6 facts that favor orange pudding

[sdelsolray]

Here are Drew's 6 "facts" from his earlier post:

...
1.   The fact the universe exists
2.   The fact life exists
3.   The fact intelligent life exists
4.   The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5.   The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.
...

Here is Drew's "analysis" in a nutshell:

1.    The universe exists therefore God created it because [fill in the blank].
2.    Carbon-based life exists therefore God created it because [fill in the blank].
3.    Intelligent carbon-based life exists therefore God created it because [fill in the blank].
4.    The universe is ordered and understandable by that intelligent carbon-based life therefore God created both because [fill in the blank].
5.    Carbon-based life cannot exist everywhere in the universe therefore God was involved somehow because [fill in the blank].
6.    Intelligent carbon-based life has created computers which can do wonderful things therefore GOD created the intelligent carbon-based life because [fill in the blank].