Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[aitm]

If you deny that the different names that refer to the same One Creator GOD

They don't Pop, they do not refer to the same clown. If you for one instant think that of the tens of thousands of gods man has created refer to the same clown, then you are the one that needs some serious self-reflection, because you have deluded yourself. You have lied to yourself. Better research your self much better my friend, you are lying to you.

[Drew_2017]

Hakurei Reimu

Drew, 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.

All you're telling me is your an atheist and that's what you believe even though you state it as fact. Is it your belief the universe came into existence uncaused out of nothing? I don't think anyone has footing to say categorically what or how the universe came into existence.

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.

I agree there is no material reason to think mindless forces would intentionally or unintentionally cause the conditions and properties necessary for planets, stars and people. The problem is they did! Which is why I suspect design.

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

Yes its a property of the laws of physics in spite of the fact by your own admission there is no material reason to suppose that the laws of chemistry were specially formulated for our existence. Yet those very laws not only allow our existence they caused our existence.

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.

I have to question your knowledge because no one knows what those favorable conditions are or how exactly non-living substance turned into living organism. Its supposed if we find an earth like planet with water life will arise but no one knows that.

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.

Of course because you accept the premise that unguided naturalist forces could have caused themselves and all else we observe without any plan or intent to do so. You admit there is no material reason why such forces would care one iota if we existed and yet the conditions that allowed our existence obtained. If the universe was designed to cause life it would explain why the conditions necessary obtained.

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.

I won't comment I'll just paste the following excerpt.

Some of the six numbers should already be familiar to anyone who reads about cosmology, though one is a complete surprise, not because the number is new, but because it is so familiar it had never occurred to me that it was a property that could be any different.

One can marvel, almost indefinitely, at the balance between the nuclear forces and the astoundingly feeble but ultimately inexorable power of gravity, giving us N, a huge number involving 36 zeroes, and nod gratefully each time one is told that were gravity not almost exactly 1036 times weaker then we wouldn't be here. One can gasp at the implications of the density parameter Ω (omega), which one second after the big bang could not have varied from unity by more than one part in a million billion or the universe would not still be expanding, 13.7bn years on.

But who'd have thought that we also needed D for dimension to equal three, because without that value the show would never have got on the road? We go up the stairs, down the hall or across the living room so often that we tend to imagine that those are the only imaginable dimensions, but there could have been just two, for instance, or perhaps four.

Had there been four dimensions, gravitational and other forces would have varied inversely as the cube of the distance rather than the square, and the inverse cube law would be an unforgiving one. Any orbiting planet that slowed for whatever reason in its orbit would swiftly plunge into the heart of its parent star; any planet that increased its speed ever so slightly would spiral madly into the cold and the dark.


Under the inverse square law, however, a planet that speeds up ever so slightly â€" or slows down â€" simply shifts to a very slightly different orbit. That is, we owe the stability of the solar system to the fact that spacetime has, on the macroscale, only three physical dimensions.

All six values featured in this book permit something significant to happen, and to go on happening. Take for instance Q, the one part in 100,000 ratio between the rest mass energy of matter and the force of gravity. Were this ratio a lot smaller, gas would never condense into galaxies. Were it only a bit smaller, star formation would be slow and the raw material for future planets would not survive to form planetary systems. Were it much bigger, stars would collapse swiftly into black holes and the surviving gas would blister the universe with gamma rays.

The measure of nuclear efficiency, ε for epsilon, has a value of 0.007. If it had a value of 0.006 there would be no other elements: hydrogen could not fuse into helium and the stars could not have cooked up carbon, iron, complex chemistry and, ultimately, us. Had it been a smidgen higher, at 0.008, protons would have fused in the big bang, leaving no hydrogen to fuel future stars or deliver the Evian water.

Einstein's supposed "biggest blunder", the cosmological constant λ for lambda, is a number not only smaller than first expected; it is a number so small that the puzzle is that it is not zero. But this weakest and most mysterious of forces â€" think of a value with 120 zeroes after the decimal point â€" seems to dictate the whole future of the universe. It seems just strong enough to push the most distant galaxies away from us at an unexpected rate. Were it much stronger, there might be no galaxies to accelerate anywhere.

Interestingly, Just Six Numbers was written in 1999, before we got used to the idea of "dark energy" as the dominant force in the cosmos. The concept is there, all the same. The strength of this book is that it addresses the single most profound mystery of the universe â€" how is it that we are here to ask these questions? â€" in a neat series of brief chapters, but also gives Rees room to discuss all the associated puzzles of antimatter, quantum effects, cosmic string, magnetic monopoles, cosmic inflation, dark matter, Planck time, mini black holes and so on in the same questioning context.

[Sorginak]

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.

We are not referring to the multiple names that Judeo-Christian god goes by in the bible.

Here is something you need to see:

Problems with counting gods
There are a lot of issues in determining N.

Where do we draw the line? Views on god can be very different, even from people nominally of the same religion.

N will be considerably greater than the number of religions, because a lot of religions are polytheistic.

In the 150,000 years of human history there would probably have been religions that were never documented and have left no trace.

There is some evidence that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons ritualistically buried their dead. Do we include an estimate of possible cavemen gods?

Gods sometimes moved between religions. For example, do we count Zeus and Jupiter as one or two gods?

Do you take into account gods that no human has ever believed in? (Or imagined?)

What about gods that aren't "real" (Saradomin from Runescape, the Tooth God from Wayside School gets a little stranger, don't forget the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster)

Estimating N from population

It is estimated that there are 6,700,000,000 people currently living on the Earth and the total number of people who ever lived is 102,000,000,000 (102 billion or 102 thousand million depending on where you come from). It could be argued that everyone's idea of god is different, so this is N. Or, at least, this could be used as an upper bound for N, except that many people were (or are) polytheists. However, if we accept there would be (sometimes quite large) groupings of people with essentially the same religious beliefs, this would lower the estimate for N.

If these two effects roughly cancel each other out, then N = 102,000,000,000 may be a good starting estimate.

That's a lot of gods.

Incidentally there's also a lot of different and mutually contradictory Personal revelations of the divine.

Estimating N from religions

Adherents.com claims to have figures for 4,200 religious groups currently existing on Earth.

Using the ratio of current population to the total number of people who have ever lived, we get an estimate of 63,000 religious groups throughout human history. (Only Homo sapiens' religions are being considered. It may well be that other hominids believed in god or gods, but it would be pure guesswork to estimate the number of gods they believed in.)

The modern dominant (that is, have the most adherents) religions are monotheistic, but they are few in number. Wikipedia lists 309 Hindu deities. The ancient Hittites claimed to have 1000 deities in their pantheon. So for a rough estimate of the average number of deities per religion, we'll take the average of these 3 figures, giving 440 deities per religion.

This gives an estimate of N = 28,000,000.

http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/How_many_gods%3F

[popsthebuilder]

They don't Pop, they do not refer to the same clown. If you for one instant think that of the tens of thousands of gods man has created refer to the same clown, then you are the one that needs some serious self-reflection, because you have deluded yourself. You have lied to yourself. Better research your self much better my friend, you are lying to you.

I didn't say all gods man has named are a reference to the same One Creator GOD. But it is apparent by comparing the core sacred texts of many religions, that they mostly do reference the same GOD.

I could post page upon page of evidence of this, but it most likely would do little good. One must find these things out for themselves in most cases in order to give it it's​ due credit in my opinion.

I used to lie to myself about many things. Things that nearly destroyed me and others. Once you break that barrier you generally are able to spot self deception very easily. Of course seeing or knowing a thing and changing from it are two different things.

I strive to be honest on all levels generally, and reflect on my own processes and motives almost continually. 

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Hydra009]

I could post page upon page of evidence of this

You seem to have the same definition of evidence as drew.

[Sorginak]

I could post page upon page of evidence of this.

Go for it anyway.  I guarantee, however, that your definition of evidence is not that of the dictionary's. 

I used to lie to myself about many things. Things that nearly destroyed me and others. Once you break that barrier you generally are able to spot self deception very easily.

Clearly not, especially considering that you believe in that which has a three letter word written all over it.  God = lie. 

[popsthebuilder]

We are not referring to the multiple names that Judeo-Christian god goes by in the bible.

Here is something you need to see:

http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/How_many_gods%3F

Ridiculous

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Sorginak]

Ridiculous

With that kind of argument, it is no wonder that we are still atheists. 

[popsthebuilder]

You seem to have the same definition of evidence as drew.

No...I mean actual evidence in the form of excerpts from core sacred texts spanning time, geology, and faith or religious affiliation. peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Sorginak]

No...I mean actual evidence in the form of excerpts from core sacred texts spanning time, geology, and faith or religious affiliation. peace

That is not evidence of anything except theistic gullibility. 

[popsthebuilder]

Go for it anyway.  I guarantee, however, that your definition of evidence is not that of the dictionary's. 

Clearly not, especially considering that you believe in that which has a three letter word written all over it.  God = lie.

Opinion much?

ev·i·dence

ˈevədəns/

noun

1.

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

synonyms:proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation

"they found evidence of his plotting"

This is the definition I would be using. I can draw lines from the fire of God referenced in the upinashads, to the anointed of GOD referenced in the bible. And anything in between. You are talking about an exponential amount of work and time for it to just be denied though. Perhaps one day I will actually write it out.

If you are genuinely curious then I would say to seek it out for yourself. You wouldn't take my word for it; inside, you know that.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Sorginak]

This is the definition I would be using. I can draw lines from the fire of God referenced in the upinashads, to the anointed of GOD referenced in the bible. And anything in between. You are talking about an exponential amount of work and time for it to just be denied though. Perhaps one day I will actually write it out.

If you are genuinely curious then I would say to seek it out for yourself. You wouldn't take my word for it; inside, you know that.

Can you provide evidence that is not subjectively personal or from a book that was clearly written by fallible men?

[popsthebuilder]

With that kind of argument, it is no wonder that we are still atheists.

All Abrahamic religions refer to same merciful benevolent GOD. Hinduism​ at it's core is monotheistic as they believe all things, including gods came from a singular creative force. Buddhism even believes in an ultimate causal GOD. Zoroastrianism, Jainism, many other schools of thought; they all reference the same things for the same reasons. Those things are the will of GOD towards IT's creation (mankind specifically), and the reason for them is the sake of existence, and not self.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[popsthebuilder]

Can you provide evidence that is not subjectively personal or from a book that was clearly written by fallible men?

We aren't talking about evidence for GOD. We are talking about evidence that many religious texts(and as such; many religions) actually reference the same things; namely the attributes of GOD, and the will of GOD as it pertains to man. I'm pretty sure everything ever written that we know of was written by man. There really isn't too much I can do about that. But I cam show how they were inspired by the same Spirit.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Sorginak]

All Abrahamic religions refer to same merciful benevolent GOD. Hinduism​ at it's core is monotheistic as they believe all things, including gods came from a singular creative force. Buddhism even believes in an ultimate causal GOD. Zoroastrianism, Jainism, many other schools of thought; they all reference the same things for the same reasons. Those things are the will of GOD towards IT's creation (mankind specifically), and the reason for them is the sake of existence, and not self.

If all Judeo-Christian religions refer to the same god, then there should not be multiple denominations due to people not being able to agree on interpretation of what god is.

As far as Hinduisim:

Hinduism is a religion which incorporates diverse views on the concept of God. Different traditions of Hinduism have different theistic views, and these views have been described by scholars as polytheism, monotheism, henotheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, agnostic, humanism, atheism or non-theism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_monotheism

Buddhism:

No, we do not [believe in god]. There are several reasons for this.

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm

You should seriously brush up on your religions before posting crap.