Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Drew_2017]

You might want to brush up on what a false dichotomy is, unless you believe there is something other than naturalism or supernaturalism by which we can use to describe our reality.

However reality isn't described in those terms at all. Is there any known phenomena you would say is supernatural? Of course not because you define reality as natural only.

[Sorginak]

Is there any known phenomena you would say is supernatural? Of course not because you define reality as natural only.

God is described as supernatural, and there is no realistic evidence to support god's existence.

I define reality as that we can all experience via the five senses.  Theists seem to have a sixth sense for god. 

[Drew_2017]

God is described as supernatural, and there is no realistic evidence to support god's existence.

I define reality as that we can all experience via the five senses.  Theists seem to have a sixth sense for god.

Why should reality care about our 5 senses? There is evidence to support the belief we owe our existence to a Creator let me know when you're willing to debate it one on one...   

[Sorginak]

There is evidence to support the belief we owe our existence to a Creator let me know when you're willing to debate it one on one...

Theists who bandy around the word "evidence" never truly understand what it means.  After all, any individual who believes in god has nothing more to offer than faith.  And faith is not evidence.  There is a reason that theists are fond of stating that everyone must have faith.  To have faith is to suspend all doubt, to forgo with reality in order to accept that which has zero evidence to support it.

I can debate reality and facts. 

All you can debate is faith and that which is unrealistic due to ill logic.

Check mate.

[Baruch]

No, we are not connected via some hive mind akin to the Borg. 

We are certainly different in the ways that matter, those ways that lead to war and fighting, because our personalities are our own.

The reality in which we all live is as a community on the same planet, breathing the same air, bleeding the same blood, yet somewhere along the line we stopped caring about community and created strife. 

I suppose it is only natural for strife to exist when there are so many differing personalities wanting to decide how best to control that which cannot be controlled.

I am not part of your community except trivially.  A hive mind would just be an echo chamber, led by a Queen.  I happen to agree with your biological/ecological POV.  But I would hesitate to apply "realty" to it.  It is a perfectly good reality (but not in a moral sense) to destroy the biosphere.

[Baruch]

God is described as supernatural, and there is no realistic evidence to support god's existence.

I define reality as that we can all experience via the five senses.  Theists seem to have a sixth sense for god.

You define G-d as supernatural.  Many theists do also.  Drew is trying to define G-d as natural.  I deny natural in all things, and affirm supernatural in all things .. so for me G-d is supernatural, but that is because I am the opposite monist.  There is nothing natural ... that is an idea by Thales, Pythagoras etc.  A rhetorical gambit of ... how much can we explain using maths and observation (it wasn't quantitative until Archimedes).  Geeks couldn't do poetry, so they had to find something else to do.

The senses are deceptive, Plato knew that.  Archimedes told him to STFU.  I love Archimedes too, but he couldn't cook dolmades worth a darn.  Ran around naked too much.  And no, I don't have a sixth sense.  To experience reality, I have to see the back side of the tapestry of life, not the front side.

[Drew_2017]

Theists who bandy around the word "evidence" never truly understand what it means.  After all, any individual who believes in god has nothing more to offer than faith.  And faith is not evidence.  There is a reason that theists are fond of stating that everyone must have faith.  To have faith is to suspend all doubt, to forgo with reality in order to accept that which has zero evidence to support it.

I can debate reality and facts. 

All you can debate is faith and that which is unrealistic due to ill logic.

Check mate.

Then you should be able to mop the floor with me...I think you're chicken shit, full of bluster but shooting only blanks. Let me know if you decide to man up...

[Drew_2017]

I presume you intend that you are not the one claiming facts.  Thanks, but I already know this, in spite of the fact that you claim to have 6 facts supporting the existence of God.

The belief God caused and created the universe is supported by facts. That doesn't make the belief a fact it does provide reason for belief. 

Natural forces are well known to exist.  Many have been reduced to mathematical formulas, and act repeatedly according to those formulas, and with such precision, they have been used to send space vehicles to the Moon, Mars, and the outer reaches of the solar system.

I agree...if these laws didn't really exist if they were just something we wrote into reality our predictions would fail miserably. The question is why is that? Why would reality alleged to be caused by unguided mindless forces be reducible to mathematical formulas that we can figure out? Secondly the laws we observe allow our existence. Would anyone say to themselves the universe was caused by mindless naturalistic forces therefore I predict it will be explicable in mathematical terms. You'd expect that as much as you would expect driftwood to wash up on the shore and distinctly write a sophisticated mathematical formula.   

God cannot be shown to exist "all the way down", and not even just a little bit.  OK, now is when you say, "You can't know this," to which I would reply, "You just said, you can't prove God exists."  What's that?  "Just not all the way down," you say?  I'm not impressed.

I offer evidence in favor of the existence of God based on what we do know not based on our inability to know 'all the way down'. That applies equally to either position. I'm not impressed either it would be nice if either of us knew then we'd find something else to debate. You might take comfort in pretending to know. 

Furthermore, you are starting to bore.

Take a nap : )

[SGOS]

The belief God caused and created the universe is supported by facts. That doesn't make the belief a fact it does provide reason for belief. 

Let me summarize your facts and the subsequent conclusion:

My belief may not be accurate. (fact)
But it is a fact that I have a belief. (fact)
Therefore, my conclusion must be valid. (non sequitur)

[Mike Cl]

"Folks in here define evidence as something only naturalism has and theism can't have."

That is the general scholastic standard, not just someone's prejudicial view.  Has to do with their definition of "naturalism" and "theism".  I don't accept their definitions, I make up my own, based on my own experience, not based on rhetorical need.  In my definition, those aren't different things, they are the same things ... actually "naturalism" and "supernaturalism" is a way in which people make a false dichotomy (Black/White argument).  Almost everything people say, is backed by false dichotomy.

False Dilemma/Dichotomy .. see http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-fallacies.html ... people use them all the time, or accuse others of doing so.  Monkey sounds mostly meaningless.

The important point you make is this---I don't accept their definitions, I make up my own, based on my own experience, .....".  Which means you are only talking to yourself and only convincing yourself.  If one define facts as science does, then theism has not come up with one 'fact' in it's entire history.  And it cannot, for there is nothing scientific about it's views.  And I don't want theists or theism coming whining about the fact science isn't 'fair' or 'unbiased' when theism cannot produce any facts.   No, there are not 'two sides to every story!"!!  Theism has not a single factual story to tell.  Like Trump, theism lives in an alternate world with alternate facts.  Where theism is concerned, Baruch, you seem to live in an alternate world of one.

[Baruch]

The important point you make is this---I don't accept their definitions, I make up my own, based on my own experience, .....".  Which means you are only talking to yourself and only convincing yourself.  If one define facts as science does, then theism has not come up with one 'fact' in it's entire history.  And it cannot, for there is nothing scientific about it's views.  And I don't want theists or theism coming whining about the fact science isn't 'fair' or 'unbiased' when theism cannot produce any facts.   No, there are not 'two sides to every story!"!!  Theism has not a single factual story to tell.  Like Trump, theism lives in an alternate world with alternate facts.  Where theism is concerned, Baruch, you seem to live in an alternate world of one.

You read a dictionary, every time you speak, write or think?  Are you aware that you are mentalizing without a license?  Who gave the dictionary writers the right?  I don't accept the Pope, so I have no reason why to accept Noah Webster.  Yes, we have to have some commonality or we can't communicate.  But falling back on Noah Webster for truth ... is lame.  There are nuances to every word, and discussion is what brings that out.  Grammar Nazis are still Nazis.  And if you are black/white ... that is on you.  I won't be sending the SJW grammar team down to re-educate you ;-)

[Mike Cl]

You read a dictionary, every time you speak, write or think?  Are you aware that you are mentalizing without a license?  Who gave the dictionary writers the right?  I don't accept the Pope, so I have no reason why to accept Noah Webster.  Yes, we have to have some commonality or we can't communicate.  But falling back on Noah Webster for truth ... is lame.  There are nuances to every word, and discussion is what brings that out.  Grammar Nazis are still Nazis.  And if you are black/white ... that is on you.  I won't be sending the SJW grammar team down to re-educate you ;-)

No re-education team?  Shoot, I could use a plain old education team...................send a couple of them my way; I prefer my coeds to be pleasantly plump, but of any color or background.

I don't especially accept Webster or any other dictionary as 'the' final word.  But it is a good starting place to begin the process of defining terms to be used in any real discussion.  If I used the dictionary (and which one) definition and you use your definition, then we will not really be communicating; talking, but not communicating.  That is my point--we need to be doing a real discussion using agreed upon definitions.

[Baruch]

No re-education team?  Shoot, I could use a plain old education team...................send a couple of them my way; I prefer my coeds to be pleasantly plump, but of any color or background.

I don't especially accept Webster or any other dictionary as 'the' final word.  But it is a good starting place to begin the process of defining terms to be used in any real discussion.  If I used the dictionary (and which one) definition and you use your definition, then we will not really be communicating; talking, but not communicating.  That is my point--we need to be doing a real discussion using agreed upon definitions.

What definition agrees with you ... depends.  Agreed upon definitions (between people) is the same thing as being defeated before you start.  In Nazi debate, if I can force you to accept my stilted definition, then you are half defeated before you start.  Is rhetoric some ethical process?  No, it is waterboarding by words.  There is no real discussion between predators, just dominance games.  Like me, sniff my ass.

The dictionary definition, when done right, isn't based on truth, it is based on usage, by ape people.  As ape people we can start there, but we can't end there ... my usage is different than yours (and we are both right).  This is why truth isn't about facts, but sincerity.  We don't have to be clones, we just have to be honest to each other, and self aware with ourselves.  This is psychology, not epistemology.  And at our age, we are both way beyond "starting points".

[Mike Cl]

What definition agrees with you ... depends.  Agreed upon definitions (between people) is the same thing as being defeated before you start.  In Nazi debate, if I can force you to accept my stilted definition, then you are half defeated before you start.  Is rhetoric some ethical process?  No, it is waterboarding by words.  There is no real discussion between predators, just dominance games.  Like me, sniff my ass.

The dictionary definition, when done right, isn't based on truth, it is based on usage, by ape people.  As ape people we can start there, but we can't end there ... my usage is different than yours (and we are both right).  This is why truth isn't about facts, but sincerity.  We don't have to be clones, we just have to be honest to each other, and self aware with ourselves.  This is psychology, not epistemology.  And at our age, we are both way beyond "starting points".

If the above is true, why are you on any forum????  It would be pointless according to your 'definition'.

[Baruch]

If the above is true, why are you on any forum????  It would be pointless according to your 'definition'.

Life is pointless, not just forums, if your point is getting a brass ring while going round and round on the wooden (trojan) horse.  My goal is accomplished at the moment I act, I am not acting as part of an agenda for future benefit.  I the future I am dead, so are you ... is that a benefit?

The point of a forum IMHO ... isn't so that us brainiacs can establish Platonic truth.  It is to have a chat and a laugh ... sometimes a cry.  We are social animals.  With the Internet I get to "meet" with many people I would never have a chance meeting face to face.  That is awesome, not that my co-workers or family are chopped liver.  And now that I am back at synagogue ... my social circle is expanding after a long contraction.