Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Cavebear]

Are you speaking to me? Not sure I understand how my comment relates to your response sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh heck, I meant to quote and address Drew.  Sorry.

[Baruch]

See, you do it to.  If my head wasn't connected to my body, I might forget it when I leave home in the morning.

[Cavebear]

See, you do it to.  If my head wasn't connected to my body, I might forget it when I leave home in the morning.

You weren't involved in that.  So shaddup.

[Drew_2017]

In a formal debate you can expect you argument to be to attacked, Drew. In this case your arguments are being attacked because they are  incomplete.

I've seen you argue two things on this forum.

1. The universe exists.
2. Therefore god created the universe.

and

1. The development of the universe since the Big Bang can be simulated on a computer.
2. Therefore god created the universe.

Correct those two lines of evidence alone would be inconclusive at best. However if they're not considered evidence the other lines won't be either...

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.

You can state these same facts and argue it was the result of unguided natural forces that unintentionally caused a universe and the myriad of conditions that allow for life to exist. If it wasn't intentionally caused its the only explanation left. The real stick in the mud is sentient life. Its not just a matter of planetary conditions for sentient life to obtain, there are several universal conditions that have to obtain and several laws of physics for life to be a possibility. I'm skeptical of the notion Naturedidit. Nature didn't care if nature existed, if planets existed, if gravity existed if stars existed and it certainly didn't care if something unlike itself came into existence sentient life. It took a lot of designing, code and knowledge for scientists to create a virtual universe that looks something like the real universe. Natural forces got it right without plan, intent or desire to do and barring other universes it got the right conditions for life the first time! I believe in theism because at this time it explains better than naturalism (my opinion of course) but that could change. If we discovered life elsewhere under different circumstances that would be a line of evidence in favor of naturalism. If its proved this is one of many or an infinitude of universes that have different laws that would explain how the laws in this universe happened upon the conditions that allow life to obtain. Look at it this way only nutcases believe in a rain god, a personal agent that causes rain. Because in that case science actually has proved a negative that naturalistic forces can account for why it rains obviating the need for a rain god.

[Drew_2017]

Fence Rider

Drew - preponderance of evidence: A foreman at a construction site has added extra cables to the bridge. The assistant wants the engineer to check the specks, but the foreman says "Look at all the extra cables I put in it. There is a preponderance of evidence that the bridge will be able to handle the design weight." The day after the bridge is opened a maximum weight load is moved across the bridge and it collapses. The foreman should have had the engineer check the work instead of relying on a preponderance of evidence.

A preponderance is simply more than against and whether a preponderance is arrived at is in the eye of the beholder. You are correct a preponderance of evidence, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and even scientifically established fact can be wrong. As mere mortals our ability to know the truth is a best effort endeavor. The real truth is what's true regardless of evidence or belief. Its only my opinion there is a preponderance of evidence which favors a theistic explanation. Of course I could be out to lunch.

Short story Drew is that a preponderance of evidence doesn't make god an actual fact; not that we have gotten anywhere near a preponderance of evidence. You can bring some evidence to the table and change all of our minds if you have some. Don't forget some of us have been in church and found the story full of holes.

Theism is the belief we owe our existence to a Creator...its a philosophical position, not a religious belief there is no church of theism.

[Cavebear]

Theism is the belief we owe our existence to a Creator...its a philosophical position, not a religious belief there is no church of theism.

The quotes became difficult to follow, but I can make a comment at the end to Drew (I think).  Theism, (and thank you for using the terms accurately), is any non-deity belief in a deity.  You say theism is what we owe to our deity.  Your statement pre-supposes that there IS a deity.

That statement has never been demonstrated.  As the proposer of the claim that a deity exists in any form, it is your responsibility to prove your claim.  Please provide evidence proving your claim.

Or quit making it.

[Drew_2017]

Greetings Doorknob,

Yes we are completely committed to a naturalistic world view. We live in a natural world. No one here is selectively skeptical, nor do I scrutinize theism any more or less that I scrutinize any other claim. Naturalistic explanations are not merely possible and plausible, that's were you're going wrong. Naturalistic explanations ARE scrutinized to the Nth degree. They have to be, that's how science works and why atheists prefer it. Is science 100% fool proof? Of course not! But as of right now science is the most reliable method out there! If you can think of something more reliable I'll laugh but I'd love to here it.

No one disputes we live in a natural world, that we can attribute the existence of stars, galaxies and planets to naturalistic causes. What isn't scrutinized is the belief naturalistic forces caused their own existence, the existence of the universe and the laws of physics. Science is philosophically committed to naturalistic explanations and I don't have an issue with that but bear in mind if the only thing you are willing to accept is naturalistic explanations that's all you will get. However, it doesn't really work that way. Scientists have for years been attempting to explain how the pyramids were created. If something is intentionally caused to occur it may not be classified as supernatural, but you can't classify as completely natural if intelligent design was involved. If scientists weren't allowed to say engineering was involved in the existence of the pyramids they'd have to come up with some explanation about how natural forces, wind rain perhaps earthquakes by happenstance caused the pyramids to exist. They can also employ the old stand by given enough time and chance pyramids are bound to appear by happenstance. Its not a scientific fact that its natural forces all the way down. It hasn't been scientifically established no Creator of the universe exists. If that day comes we'll find something better to argue about : )

So a simulation does not prove anything. And even still an imitation of something does not prove that something is real! It is not evidence of that something! Especially a computer simulation.

I didn't offer the fact sentient beings (using knowledge engineering and code) to cause a virtual universe to exist as 'proof' God exists. I said folks often conflate evidence of something as proof of something. It does show the theistic model of causing a universe (virtual in this case) to exist works. The reason they didn't use the naturalistic process to create a virtual universe is because I don't think anyone knows how you get naturalistic forces to do something.

We don't have to make our cases we are not the one's making a claim, you are! Atheism is the default position. No one is born with the knowledge of god. It is a creation of man's imagination.

Popular atheist sound bite one and two.

1. Atheists don't make claims.

The claim of atheism is not or without God. Just as asexual means reproduction with out sex. If you say a species procreates asexually you are making a claim. This is another example of your refusal to scrutinize or critically assess popular slogans atheists make you just accept them because they agree with your premise. You may hide under the dodge of being a weak atheist, weak atheists don't deny God exists they just don't subscribe to it. That could just as well make you a weak theist! Theists don't deny God exists either.

2. Atheism is the default position.

This is an insult to atheists that its the no thought required proposition. This means people born brain dead are atheists but it takes a thinking person to be a theist. By the way no one is born thinking its natural causes all the way down either. I'm afraid you've bought into another atheist sound bite without applying an iota of critical thinking...just blind acceptance.

   

[Drew_2017]

That statement has never been demonstrated.  As the proposer of the claim that a deity exists in any form, it is your responsibility to prove your claim.  Please provide evidence proving your claim.

Or quit making it.

I have listed lines of evidence (facts) that support belief in a Creator. I can't make you read them...or prevent from claiming its not evidence. Lastly my claim is an opinion. An opinion is what you believe is true minus conclusive evidence that would make it a fact.

[PopeyesPappy]

Correct those two lines of evidence alone would be inconclusive at best. However if they're not considered evidence the other lines won't be either...

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.

You can state these same facts and argue it was the result of unguided natural forces that unintentionally caused a universe and the myriad of conditions that allow for life to exist. If it wasn't intentionally caused its the only explanation left. The real stick in the mud is sentient life. Its not just a matter of planetary conditions for sentient life to obtain, there are several universal conditions that have to obtain and several laws of physics for life to be a possibility. I'm skeptical of the notion Naturedidit. Nature didn't care if nature existed, if planets existed, if gravity existed if stars existed and it certainly didn't care if something unlike itself came into existence sentient life. It took a lot of designing, code and knowledge for scientists to create a virtual universe that looks something like the real universe. Natural forces got it right without plan, intent or desire to do and barring other universes it got the right conditions for life the first time! I believe in theism because at this time it explains better than naturalism (my opinion of course) but that could change. If we discovered life elsewhere under different circumstances that would be a line of evidence in favor of naturalism. If its proved this is one of many or an infinitude of universes that have different laws that would explain how the laws in this universe happened upon the conditions that allow life to obtain. Look at it this way only nutcases believe in a rain god, a personal agent that causes rain. Because in that case science actually has proved a negative that naturalistic forces can account for why it rains obviating the need for a rain god.

Sorry Drew, but shit happens therefore god isn't an argument. It's a baseless assertion. Shit happens and god is the only possible cause because... is an argument. Shit happens and god is the most likely cause because... is an argument. Both of those need evidence behind the because, and you haven't presented any.

[Hydra009]

Santa exists because

1.  The fact children exist
2.  The fact Christmas exists
3.  The fact children receive presents on Christmas
4.  The fact mall santas exist
5.  The fact that MMO developers create virtual universes (MMOs) with xmas events are a working model of Christmas

[Drew_2017]

Hello Baruch,

Drew, you not having read the preponderance of the posts here for the last say ... 2 years ... you are unaware that the folks here don't take argument as a court case argued before a judge or jury.

No but they are demanding evidence while at the same time insisting there is no evidence in support of theism. I pretend they say no evidence of theism is because they don't know what's acceptable evidence so I have explained what is acceptable evidence ad nausuem . In reality I suspect they say no evidence because they can marginalize theism as a faith proposition only or they have just come to accept atheist slogans without applying any critical thinking.

Similarly the idea of controlled experiments that allow evidence of theism, are unthinkable.  You are simply a "natural theology" fan, born about 250 years too late.  That theology has long been out of fashion, with the authorities.

When it comes to any local phenomena UFO sightings, reports of miraculous healing, ghosts or whatever I suspect either a naturalistic explanation will come forth or it might be a hoax. If a hoax that is closer to a theistic cause since its caused intentionally. 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_2017]

Santa exists because

1.  The fact children exist
2.  The fact Christmas exists
3.  The fact children receive presents on Christmas
4.  The fact mall santas exist
5.  The fact that MMO developers create virtual universes (MMOs) with xmas events are a working model of Christmas

I'm happy you're making this case...

Fact 1 isn't probative evidence...the fact of children existing doesn't make the existence of Santa anymore likely. If you attributed the existence of children to Santa you might have something. This is why the existence of the universe is evidence because I attribute its existence to God.

Fact 2. If you can link the fact of Christmas to a person known as Santa you might have something.

Fact 3. If I were making your case I'd just note that presents appear under the tree on Christmas morning and site that as evidence Santa delivered them. The problem is we have a far superior explanation for the gifts appearing. We can open the gifts and run the bar code and discover when and where it was purchased. We could set up hundreds of cameras peering into houses (legally from the street) and observe humans placing the gifts under the tree. We can question the parents and get them to confess they bought the gifts and placed them under the tree.

There is a reason why sane lucid people who have been indoctrinated by their parents into believing in Santa no longer do. Because there is a far superior explanation not to mention they may play the Santa game themselves. I may add that although Santa didn't place the gifts under the tree we can trace it back to a sentient cause just the same. You don't think natural forces without plan or intent caused the gifts to exist do you? I know you think this argument is incredibly clever in reality its a silly argument that only underscores why folks haven't rejected belief in God as they have Santa. If there was in evidence a superior naturalistic explanation for how the universe and life came about that is as good as the alternate non-Santa explanation for gifts most of us would all be atheists...We'd probably argue about something more important, like football.

[Drew_2017]

Sorry Drew, but shit happens therefore god isn't an argument. It's a baseless assertion. Shit happens and god is the only possible cause because... is an argument. Shit happens and god is the most likely cause because... is an argument. Both of those need evidence behind the because, and you haven't presented any.

Glad we finally got to the bottom of this problem and found a naturalistic scientific explanation for why the universe and sentient beings exist...because shit happens.

[Baruch]

Drew ...

"they don't know what's acceptable evidence" ... they accept scientific evidence, not court evidence.  A Catholic arguing here, looking back on 2000 years of Christian church evidence, has a lot of circumstantial evidence in his favor, particularly for Catholicism ... if this were a court of secular law, let alone a court of canon (religious) law.  Scientific implies no gods at all.  You are being philosophical, and the folks here don't accept philosophy, any more than they accept theology.  I do, but then I am odd like that ;-)

[trdsf]

I have photographic evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  That's more proof for his existence than there is for any other god's.