Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Baruch]

Never thought it'd have to use this:



The idea that only a small portion of the universe is composed of matter, compared to (relatively, not absolutely) empty space is unrelated to materialism in the sense of the philosophical position that everything in the universe, including mental phenomena, are the products of material interactions (as opposed to the idea of souls)

Descartes ... would beg to differ.  Also Einstein.  Materialism is 17th century science .. decisively disproved by the vacuum experiments done in Germany back then.  Originally materialism ... basically posited that "nature abhors a vacuum" ... when in fact it is almost entirely vacuum.  Equivocation?  Like using two different definitions of materialism?  Hmmm?

Drew ... "a observable simulation of such" ... a simulation isn't an emulation.  If you could produce an emulation, I would believe you.

[Baruch]

Claim? What is it you want me to claim.

I confess; all names for GOD are simply that; names. The human mind cannot fully comprehend the attributes or qualities or fullness of GOD. It is impossible it seems. If you must know; I generally refer to IT as Lord, GOD, or both in my mind. I believe any name is sort of okay as long as it is sincerely meant as a respectful reference to the One Creator GOD. I believe the writings of the Jew to show signs of power hunger and war mongering, and have found the things of GOD in my personal life to be compassionate, loving, giving, forbearing, and nurturing, for these reasons among others, if I had to assign a name to IT i would say Eloha, but it would be ELOHA, but even that is just a reference to the same One Creator GOD.

To be clear; when I was given my faith, a name was not mentioned. As in it seems of little importance. I will admit that when I had prayed out of desperation sometime before being given faith that I had called upon God, Jesus, Lord, whatever was there that I was oblivious to; I asked to help.

What is it you want to know. I will tell you what I can.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Atheists have faith in nature, forgetting she is a pagan goddess called Gaia (Mother Nature).  She will not hear their cries, if for no other reason, that they don't believe that she can hear them.  In olden times such people were called mockers and blasphemers ... they have been with us always (probably Autism Spectrum).  But they are more interesting than the believers.  Those who believe, yet do wrong .. yeah they have a heavy punishment (sarc).

[Drew_2017]

This thread, if I understand correctly (which Drew will deny), is that atheists claim that it's naturalistic forces all the way down.  This is a straw man, as anyone who has been in this forum for very long has heard over and over again that if it were somehow proven that a god did it, they would believe in a god.  Atheists, do believe in naturalistic causes, no question about it, and I do too, and for good reason, because natural things can be observed.  They do exist, and they interact with other natural things, and their causal effects can be observed.  The wind blows and the trees bend.

To the best of my knowledge it is the belief of atheists at the very least that whatever explanation they offer it will be a non-God explanation that doesn't involve planning or design or intent to cause what we now observe except things made by humans. I believe in naturalistic causes also. A computer, car nuclear power plant can all be explained via natural causes but that doesn't mean natural causes caused them to exist. In fact we know natural causes (defined as unplanned unintended circumstances) didn't cause such to exist. Suppose we came across a laptop and had no idea where it came from or how it came into existence. According to naturalism we should believe it came about as an unintended by product of naturalistic forces since it:

A. Can be explained naturally.
B. We know natural forces exist.

 

This does not eliminate a God, but it hardly requires an unseen hand to be injected into the process either.  If a god were proven to exist, then it would be included in the list of natural and real things, and it would be added to our scientific knowledge base, but would Drew accept that then?  Or would he demand more?  Would he say we still don't see the big picture?

You still don't see that is circular reasoning on your part. Because you believe natural forces could have accomplished all we observe apart from God of course it follows you see no need for a Creator. You eliminate God by assuming the truth of your position when in reality you have no idea what caused the natural forces we observe to exist to have come into existence. Moreover the natural forces we do observe don't appear to have taken any part in the cause of their own existence. That said I don't deny its possible all we observe was in fact caused by natural forces, only because I have the humility to admit I could be wrong.

If God is proven to exist...or proven not to exist it would definitely be the fulfillment of a bucket list wish.

[SGOS]

According to naturalism we should believe it came about as an unintended by product of naturalistic forces since it:

A. Can be explained naturally.
B. We know natural forces exist.

You're only believing what you want to believe about me, because if I don't believe exactly what you need me to believe, your whole line of bullshit becomes pointless.  You see, the point I'm trying to stress which you can't grasp is that we know natural forces exist.  So it's not unreasonable that they may be the cause of creation.  You, on the other hand, are unable to produce any measureable evidence for your god, but you claim he created everything.  You have no evidence for either God, or what he has actually done, which, makes your claim much more suspect that naturalism.  But having clarified that for you, it's still unlikely that you understand that point, because you are obsessed with minimizing everyone else's thoughts. 
 

You still don't see that is circular reasoning on your part.

You see circular reasoning because it's a big fat projection on your part.  You certainly should have a vague realization of the circularity of your own position, and you desperately need to put that onto the people who have been throwing it in your face, probably for your entire life, because every time you get your a priori assumption handed back to you, you have to do something to make yourself believe you have the logical high ground.

Because you believe natural forces could have accomplished all we observe apart from God of course it follows you see no need for a Creator.

Wrong again.  I have seen no proof of a creator.

That said I don't deny its possible all we observe was in fact caused by natural forces, only because I have the humility to admit I could be wrong.

You're only saying that because you know skeptics have the logical high ground there.  So you say it to them, because that's their position and you know it's the more solid position. 

But you "Don't deny it's possible?"  That's a laugh.  I'm calling bullshit on that one.  This entire thread has been one repetitive denial of natural causes on your part.

Oh, and also, you're hardly a washtub full of the humility you think you are.  You're in denial about that too.  It's just the typical Christian "more humble than thou" bullshit that they like to pat themselves on the back with.  And before you protest that you're actually some unaffiliated new fangled and self styled theist, remember that you don't have to be a Christian to spout their bullshit, be it their fake humility, or the whole supernatural intelligent design thing.

[Ananta Shesha]

well of course we would because, science is so.....ancient.

But to the point..when are you going to actually describe this "god" of yours? This force that sounds so very much like star wars because how romantic is that eh?

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.

[trdsf]

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.

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.

[Baruch]

To the best of my knowledge it is the belief of atheists at the very least that whatever explanation they offer it will be a non-God explanation that doesn't involve planning or design or intent to cause what we now observe except things made by humans. I believe in naturalistic causes also. A computer, car nuclear power plant can all be explained via natural causes but that doesn't mean natural causes caused them to exist. In fact we know natural causes (defined as unplanned unintended circumstances) didn't cause such to exist. Suppose we came across a laptop and had no idea where it came from or how it came into existence. According to naturalism we should believe it came about as an unintended by product of naturalistic forces since it:

A. Can be explained naturally.
B. We know natural forces exist.

 

You still don't see that is circular reasoning on your part. Because you believe natural forces could have accomplished all we observe apart from God of course it follows you see no need for a Creator. You eliminate God by assuming the truth of your position when in reality you have no idea what caused the natural forces we observe to exist to have come into existence. Moreover the natural forces we do observe don't appear to have taken any part in the cause of their own existence. That said I don't deny its possible all we observe was in fact caused by natural forces, only because I have the humility to admit I could be wrong.

If God is proven to exist...or proven not to exist it would definitely be the fulfillment of a bucket list wish.

Naturalists want to claim that humans are natural (and nature has no agency), yet include human agency whenever convenient.  This is called casuistry, not logic.

SGOS - "natural forces exist" ... Einstein says that all forces are fictitious (as is coriolis force).  The forces are apparent, not substantial, because they the result of the chosen reference frame.  Got Fig Newton?  Enlightenment types have their science stuck in the 1700s.  Even in QM, forces are not like Newton, but the result of nudging of more virtual particles to one side than the other ... and movement is statistical ... the average moves ... and we all know that the average anything .... doesn't exist.

[Baruch]

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.

There, I demonstrated my deity (and no oxygen molecule can type) ... by typing this.  Fortunately for you, I don't require worship ;-)

[SGOS]

Einstein says that all forces are fictitious.

If we play that semantic game, the thread becomes more absurd than it already is.  Fictitious things would not require any cause. 

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-myth-of-fictitious-force.417610/

Fictitious is a label that is used for convenience in analyzing the dynamics of bodies in non-inertial frames, the problem is, people start "really" believing they are fictitious.

[SGOS]

Naturalists want to claim that humans are natural (and nature has no agency)

You are overreaching with "(and nature has no agency)".  The agency of nature remains unknown.  Theists posit such an agency, but cannot substantiate it.

[sdelsolray]

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.

Mr. "I Merely Assert...That's All I Do" speaks yet again.

[Drew_2017]

SGOS,

You see, the point I'm trying to stress which you can't grasp is that we know natural forces exist.

You have no need to stress something no one disputes. The question isn't whether natural forces exist, the question is whether such forces without any assistance could cause themselves to exist and minus any plan, design or intent cause the conditions that allow life and sentient life to exist. By the same token we know that mind, sentience, planning, designing and engineering exists as well and we know those forces can cause virtual universes to exist. The four fundamental forces we are familiar with...

1. The Strong Force
2. The Electromagnetic Force
3. The Weak Force
4. The Gravitational Force

appear to be the result of the universe coming into existence not the cause of the universe. It also appears that time is the result of the universe coming into existence. Whatever caused the universe to exist appears to have done so without the existence of time and not as a result of forces or laws of nature. Telling us that natural forces exist only describes the problem it doesn't offer any solutions.

You, on the other hand, are unable to produce any measureable evidence for your god, but you claim he created everything.  You have no evidence for either God, or what he has actually done, which, makes your claim much more suspect that naturalism.  But having clarified that for you, it's still unlikely that you understand that point, because you are obsessed with minimizing everyone else's thoughts. 

I use the same evidence you use and I clearly grasp the thinking of naturalists. In a nutshell it goes like this.

What causes earthquakes? It can be traced to natural causes and the laws of physics.
What causes rain to fall?    Gravity and natural forces and the laws of physics.
What causes planets to form?  Gravity an natural forces and the laws of physics.
What causes lightening to exist?    Not a personal agent but unguided naturalistic forces and the laws of physics.

All of that phenomena and all phenomena within the universe can be attributed to natural forces and the laws of physics leading to the conclusion this pattern holds all the way down to however far all the way down is. However this train seems to come to a screeching halt because to the best of scientific knowledge the universe and the laws of nature we observe didn't always exist, secondly none of the laws of nature have the property to cause themselves to exist. Even if we don't owe our existence to a Creator, it does appear we owe our existence to some other naturalistic forces we aren't familiar with, ones that operate outside of time and cause a universe to exist.

I've made a case for theism citing evidence on several occasions. I also made a case for naturalism citing evidence but no one cares to respond to it and find the same fault they found with my case for theism.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gP5KBek7ULrStudhV4HmuCUTDeZnVc0ym8_3ydsN3jI

You're only saying that because you know skeptics have the logical high ground there.  So you say it to them, because that's their position and you know it's the more solid position. 

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 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? 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. In fact the evidence is that the naturalistic forces we are familiar with couldn't be the cause of their own existence...but you believe it anyway. But I'd happy to have you prove me wrong! 

[Baruch]

If we play that semantic game, the thread becomes more absurd than it already is.  Fictitious things would not require any cause. 

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-myth-of-fictitious-force.417610/

So imaginary numbers aren't imaginary?  Pretty soon you will tell us that irrational numbers are crazy ;-)

So, force is real ... Newton is G-d ... Einstein burned at stake.  Galileo said that force at a distance was witchcraft (when discussing the effect of the moon on tides) ... aka it was lunacy ;-)

Cause/effect is pre-scientific.  Freewill vs Determinism is pre-scientific.  Fictitious things (like physics and math) are the creations of real people.  If you like, we are their cause.  The observer is crucial at all scales.

[Baruch]

You are overreaching with "(and nature has no agency)".  The agency of nature remains unknown.  Theists posit such an agency, but cannot substantiate it.

And you posit an unknown, that you can't substantiate either ... but as the "rationalist" you claim superiority.  Nature has no agency, because teleology is false ... that was brought in by Aristotle.  Are you still following teleology ... aka Aristotle?

The actual nature of spacetime is unknown.  The actual nature of mass-energy is unknown.  We know the two domains are connected, but not exactly how (only GM, no QM).  Want to list more?

Bring in more Popular Science ... and I will show you my George Jetson car ... any day now ;-)  Powered by Cold Fusion of course!

[SGOS]

And you posit an unknown, that you can't substantiate either ...

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

but as the "rationalist" you claim superiority.  Nature has no agency, because teleology is false.

I never said that.  You said that. 

The actual nature of spacetime is unknown.  The actual nature of mass-energy is unknown.  Want to list more?

Yeah, so?  Who are you arguing with?

So imaginary numbers aren't imaginary?  Pretty soon you will tell us that irrational numbers are crazy ;-)

So, force is real ... Newton is G-d ... Einstein burned at stake.  Galileo said that force at a distance was witchcraft (when discussing the effect of the moon on tides) ... aka it was lunacy ;-)

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.