Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Drew_2017]

Doorknob,

I'm sorry but why would we dispute naturalism? We support naturalism. Obviously we are not going to dispute something that is true and or fact.

Hopefully by this point you understand we're not discussing whether naturalistic forces exist. The discussion is whether unguided mechanistic forces came first, caused the universe then caused sentient beings later. You believe this is true but it's not a scientific belief, it's a philosophical one. If it is a scientific fact by all means show me the experiments and we can call this debate done.   

Theism is not based on facts.

Actually it is, I offered the facts that support it. You don't dispute the facts you only dispute the the contention they comport agree with or favor theism. I'm not going to argue as I said the axiom 'there is no evidence of theism' is a mental construct that is impervious to facts or data.

The laws of nature do not point to a divine creator no many how many times you repeat it or insist.

Whether they do or don't is really up to impartial people not committed to either point of view. Its not up to an advocate of naturalism to pretend they are impartial.

Besides what makes you so sure that the creator supposing one exists is your god? The theoretic creator could be any number of things let alone whether that thing is even a god. Pretty arrogant to assume that it is your god.

The arrogance is all yours...I never identified any particular god only a Creator. It could turn out the Creator is a scientist from another universe in which case theism would still be correct. 

[Drew_2017]

And that is where philosophy gets you.  Not that it is a bad thing, but there are few philosophers here ... it is considered too threatening by most.

The irony is whether they like it or not, philosophy provides the foundation for scientific inquiry. The following are assumptions that haven't been proved scientifically, they're just taken for granted.

(1) The existence of a theory-independent, external world; (2) the orderly nature of the external world; (3) the knowability of the external world; (4) the existence of truth; (5) the laws of logic; (6) the reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified true beliefs in our intellectual environment; (7) the adequacy of language to describe the world; (8) the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”); (9) the uniformity of nature and induction; (10) the existence of numbers.

[Cavebear]

I'd just like to take this moment to point out that no one will give me unicorns because I borrowed so many unicorns that I couldn't feed them all and they died. The tragic death of unicorns there for made the unicorn brokers not interested in giving me more unicorns. I probably will never have another unicorn for the rest of my life.


moral of the story is don't borrow unicorns if you can't feed them.

baruch is correct that quantum mechanics for the life of me hasn't convinced unicorn brokers that I'm not going to just kill more unicorns. Quantum mechanics doesn't perform miracles.

2nd moral of the story there is no quantum mechanics god.

PS if you didn't understand any of that see the burachs post above.

Wow!  Best sarcasm I've seen for a week, and well done!

[Baruch]

Ah, but did you get it.  Doorknob gets my point about abuse of Heisenberg's Principle.  Realizes it is reasonable, even if an unreasonable person talks about it.

[Cavebear]

Ah, but did you get it.  Doorknob gets my point about abuse of Heisenberg's Principle.  Realizes it is reasonable, even if an unreasonable person talks about it.

Sadly, you don't even get that.

[Baruch]

Sadly, you don't even get that.

He said several things.  I took your response in the most positive way I could.  I assumed you were talking about unicorns, not QM.

[Solomon Zorn]

Hopefully by this point you understand we're not discussing whether naturalistic forces exist. The discussion is whether unguided mechanistic forces came first, caused the universe then caused sentient beings later. You believe this is true but it's not a scientific belief, it's a philosophical one. If it is a scientific fact by all means show me the experiments and we can call this debate done.

It is not a fact, but rather a prediction, based on all available facts. 

...I offered the facts that support it. You don't dispute the facts you only dispute the the contention they comport agree with or favor theism.

You have offered a handful of facts. What you have not offered is any logical reason that those facts should be taken as supporting theism. Only your elaborate assertions.

I'm not going to argue...

You have, and you will.

...as I said the axiom 'there is no evidence of theism' is a mental construct that is impervious to facts or data.

It's not a mental construct â€" it's the hardness of our hearts, that has blinded us to the truth.

Whether they do or don't is really up to impartial people not committed to either point of view. Its not up to an advocate of naturalism to pretend they are impartial.

Religious rationalizers are committed to a point of view. The rest of us are trying to see where the evidence actually leads.

...I never identified any particular god only a Creator. It could turn out the Creator is a scientist from another universe in which case theism would still be correct. 

No. A scientist-creator would still be naturalism, only taken to an absurd level of unnecessary additional complexity.

[Drew_2017]

It is not a fact, but rather a prediction [that we owe our existence to naturalistic causes], based on all available facts. 

I accept those facts as evidence in favor of you're 'prediction' just as I accept the facts I have listed as evidence in favor of theism.

You have offered a handful of facts. What you have not offered is any logical reason that those facts should be taken as supporting theism. Only your elaborate assertions.

I argued from the facts just as you do.

Religious rationalizers are committed to a point of view. The rest of us are trying to see where the evidence actually leads.

There are many people who are impartial and have no strong conviction about it one way or another. Religious rationalizers aren't impartial.

...I never identified any particular god only a Creator. It could turn out the Creator is a scientist from another universe in which case theism would still be correct. 

No. A scientist-creator would still be naturalism, only taken to an absurd level of unnecessary additional complexity.

You're declaration its an absurd level of unnecessary complexity is based on your assuming naturalism is true...circular reasoning at best. Do you think they're are things humans create that are so complex (like a virtual universe for example) that naturalistic forces couldn't be the cause and thus such things would require greater complexity to be caused to exist? 

[Baruch]

Lurianic Kabbalah, and Nation of Islam mythology, both have mad scientists.  In the first, the mad scientist is G-d ... in the second it is just some African guy.

Drew ... your denial that you are a theist ... has long worn thin.

[Drew_2017]

Lurianic Kabbalah, and Nation of Islam mythology, both have mad scientists.  In the first, the mad scientist is G-d ... in the second it is just some African guy.

Drew ... your denial hat you are a theist ... has long worn thin.

The upshot of theistic belief is that we owe our existence to an intelligent personal cause as opposed to unguided mechanistic causes. Who that intelligent personal cause is, is another subject and thread. Solomon said 'No. A scientist-creator would still be naturalism, only taken to an absurd level of unnecessary additional complexity.' I thought the notion of theism would be more palatable if they could still say it was a naturalistic cause. A naturalistic theism?

[Cavebear]

The upshot of theistic belief is that we owe our existence to an intelligent personal cause as opposed to unguided mechanistic causes. Who that intelligent personal cause is, is another subject and thread. Solomon said 'No. A scientist-creator would still be naturalism, only taken to an absurd level of unnecessary additional complexity.' I thought the notion of theism would be more palatable if they could still say it was a naturalistic cause. A naturalistic theism?

Your statement that theistic belief claims a deliberate cause is certainly true.  But what supports that claim?  All you are saying is that theism is theism!

[Drew_2017]

Your statement that theistic belief claims a deliberate cause is certainly true.  But what supports that claim?  All you are saying is that theism is theism!

If I were to repeat the case again I'm confident I will be banned but this link should be acceptable.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

[Drew_2017]

Solomon wrote:

It is not a fact, but rather a prediction [that we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic causes , based on all available facts. 

Assuming its true we owe the existence of the universe to naturalistic unguided forces that had no intent, plan or desire to create anything (not even there own existence) would we predict such forces would cause:

The conditions for life to exist?
The conditions for sentient life to exist?
A universe dominated by laws of physics?
A universe in which mathematics is applicable?

If I believed naturalistic forces caused the universe to exist I would predict we'd observe a lifeless chaotic universe. Why would I expect otherwise? 

[Mr.Obvious]

Solomon wrote:

Assuming its true we owe the existence of the universe to naturalistic unguided forces that had no intent, plan or desire to create anything (not even there own existence) would we predict such forces would cause:

The conditions for life to exist?
The conditions for sentient life to exist?
A universe dominated by laws of physics?
A universe in which mathematics is applicable?

If I believed naturalistic forces caused the universe to exist I would predict we'd observe a lifeless chaotic universe. Why would I expect otherwise?

Math is how we "map" reality. If reality were different, math might be different. This shows we created math to understand things, not that things exist to be described by math.
If The laws of physics were different but allowed Some other form of being to exist, they'd very likely see that system of physics as orderly, where for us it'd be labeled chaotic. Like before, laws of physics are how we describe The system that is, but in no way, shape or form implies were meant to be such. And important to keep in mind is that order, chaos and even life in alternative models are relative concepts.
If you look for intent, you may find it anywhere. We are biased Like that. Interpreting proof to befit our standpoint and looking for patterns is one of the reasons our species has thrived. But that does lead us to things that at first glance seem more telling or important than they are.
It all seems to boil down to this for you: The universe was created for sentient life  (and by extension us), because otherwise we wouldn't expected to be here. Yet in truth you've not provided proof for anything other than we managed to come into being in the universe as it is. I know you think you've supplied evidence that our surroundings are created for us, but there is no prof of that. We can't say anything beyond the fact that we've grown to fill a mold. And we don't have grounds to claim The mold was created for us.

[Solomon Zorn]

Assuming its true we owe the existence of the universe to naturalistic unguided forces that had no intent, plan or desire to create anything (not even there own existence) would we predict such forces would cause:

The conditions for life to exist?
The conditions for sentient life to exist?
A universe dominated by laws of physics?
A universe in which mathematics is applicable?

If I believed naturalistic forces caused the universe to exist I would predict we'd observe a lifeless chaotic universe. Why would I expect otherwise? 

Because naturalistic forces ARE order. They could not produce a "chaotic universe," where mathematics and physical laws don't apply. This has been explained to you already, but you keep repeating the same ridiculous crap, as though you're making a valid point.