Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Drew_2017]

author=SGOS link=topic=11330.msg1173376#msg1173376 date=1491137665]
Let me summarize your facts and the subsequent conclusion:

By all means that's what people do when they can't respond to what I actually wrote. They make up what I wrote so they can shoot it down.

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)

All beliefs (including yours) are opinions of what we think is true minus enough evidence to state it as a fact. You opine we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves to unguided naturalistic forces that caused the conditions for our existence through happenstance. You don't know for a fact that's true but I assume you know facts that lead you to that conclusion. Whether my opinion or your opinion is true remains to be seen. I think you're smarter than to resort to creating a straw man argument. Maybe you're just lazy and this was an easy response.   

[sdelsolray]

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...

Projection wannabe.

Poor Drew.  His imaginary sky fairy has been chased somewhere behind the Big Bang and behind the laws of physics.  Nevertheless, he assumes an a priori conclusion that it exists.  He convinces himself with certain data which he pretends is "evidence".  Then he gets mad when folks refuse to play his game.

[Baruch]

Drew is maybe Kantian.  A priori and a posteriori are both open to him.  With empiricism, it is a posteriori ... necessarily.  And if we limit interpretation of evidence to a posteriori .. then you are quite correct.  As a free thinker, while I am empirical, I am free to interpret the evidence any way I want, I am not limited by dogma (which is Drew's point, y'all have a dogma).  Ironically, atheists here are pretty Scholastic, as in Aquinas and the Catholic Church.  Anti-ontological argument though.

[Drew_2017]

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.

In one sense you're correct because science is philosophically committed to naturalistic explanations. You're mistaken when you say there are no scientifically established facts that support the belief we owe our existence to a Creator. The possible answer God is to the questions:

Why are we here?
How did the universe come about?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
How did sentient life come about?
Do we owe our existence to happenstance or design?

Do you deny these questions are valid? These questions are raised due to facts. If these facts (the existence of the universe and sentient life) didn't happen of course we wouldn't be here but even if somehow we did exist no one would raise the question did a Creator cause these conditions. Secondly the existence of sentient humans beings isn't an expectation of naturalism. No one would expect or predict mindless, lifeless naturalistic forces minus plan or intent would cause sentient humans to exist. The fact of our existence is one of the chief reasons people subscribe to theism.

What's your explanation for why forces that didn't care if they existed or if we existed somehow came into existence and then caused the conditions for our existence? Apart from design or intent the only answer is we got unbelievably lucky. With more information I may come to the same conclusion but as of right now...it is unbelievably lucky.

[Hydra009]

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...

Not being able to tell good arguments from bad ones makes it difficult to tell whether or not you've lost the argument.

[SGOS]

By all means that's what people do when they can't respond to what I actually wrote. They make up what I wrote so they can shoot it down.

I wrote what you wrote.  I just put it in syllogism form so that you could more easily identify the contradiction between what you wrote and what you thought you wrote.  Actually, I don't know what you thought you wrote.  So I responded to what you wrote.



My belief may not be accurate. (fact)   [From:  "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." (your words)]

But it is a fact that I have a belief. (fact)  [Self evident]

Therefore, my conclusion must be valid. (non sequitur) [From:  ["it does provide reason for belief." (your words)]



But your most egregious error is flip flopping in out of separating belief from fact.  When you need a belief to be a fact, you use the words interchangeably.  From: "God caused and created the universe is supported by facts."  This is your belief, not fact.  No one has ever provided an unchallenged argument for "God creating the universe" starting with the classical philosophers to present day.  You have only claimed such beliefs as facts. 

This is why I added the second line of the syllogism.  I recognize that it is a fact that you believe this, but your error is that you attempt to strengthen the value of your belief based on other beliefs, and that goes beyond the pale.  If indeed there are facts that support God creating the universe, you could have just stated them and rested your case.  Alternatively, you could just state that you believe God created the universe, and let it go.  No one would question that you believe what you believe, even if it's irrational.  Instead you create a morass of pseudointellectual dance steps to hide the weakness of your reasoning.

[Drew_2017]

Projection wannabe.

Poor Drew.  His imaginary sky fairy has been chased somewhere behind the Big Bang and behind the laws of physics.  Nevertheless, he assumes an a priori conclusion that it exists.  He convinces himself with certain data which he pretends is "evidence".  Then he gets mad when folks refuse to play his game.

I'm just trying to goad Sorginak into a debate but he won't...he know's he'll have his lunch handed to him.

[Drew_2017]

I wrote what you wrote.  I just put it in syllogism form so that you could more easily identify the contradiction between what you wrote and what you thought you wrote.  Actually, I don't know what you thought you wrote.  So I responded to what you wrote.



My belief may not be accurate. (fact)   [From:  "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." (your words)]

But it is a fact that I have a belief. (fact)  [Self evident]

Therefore, my conclusion must be valid. (non sequitur) [From:  ["it does provide reason for belief." (your words)]



But your most egregious error is flip flopping in out of separating belief from fact.  When you need a belief to be a fact, you use the words interchangeably.  From: "God caused and created the universe is supported by facts."  This is your belief, not fact.  No one has ever provided an unchallenged argument for "God creating the universe" starting with the classical philosophers to present day.  You have only claimed such beliefs as facts. 

This is why I added the second line of the syllogism.  I recognize that it is a fact that you believe this, but your error is that you attempt to strengthen the value of your belief based on other beliefs, and that goes beyond the pale.  If indeed there are facts that support God creating the universe, you could have just stated them and rested your case.  Alternatively, you could just state that you believe God created the universe, and let it go.  No one would question that you believe what you believe, even if it's irrational.  Instead you create a morass of pseudointellectual dance steps to hide the weakness of your reasoning.

All is well until you get to the point where you say my conclusion must be valid or that I'm attempting to validate my belief in this manner. If a belief is validated its no longer a belief or an opinion, it becomes a fact. My belief we owe our existence to a creator is a reasonable belief due to facts that support it though all the opposition in this forum, including yourself deny any fact favors theism. Its been the contention of all who oppose my point of view that my belief should be rejected because not one single known fact supports it. I'll create my own syllogism.

We deny any fact or evidence in favor of theism exists (an axiom)
A belief minus any facts or evidence is baseless.
Therefore we owe the existence of the universe to naturalistic causes because no evidence supports belief in theism.

Very rare atheists defend their position by listing facts, evidence and data that supports it. Instead they preemptively impugn theism and claim naturalism wins by default.

Lets try this with a benign belief.

I believe in big bang theory but it is only a belief, I can't prove it. However I can list facts that support that belief.

1. The fact background radiation exists every where we point receivers in the sky. 
2. The fact all galaxies are moving away from each other.

Neither of these facts validates or proves big bang theory is correct but my opinion and belief isn't baseless is it?

If this was theism I was arguing for you'd deny the two facts I listed are evidence and claim my belief is baseless and therefore some other theory you hold near and dear is correct by default.

[fencerider]

I'm just trying to goad Sorginak into a debate but he won't...he know's he'll have his lunch handed to him.

Sometimes you are funny Drew... Sorginak doesn't say much but his logic is good when he does talk.

More than a couple times in this thread you have said that no one believes the universe can exist without a cause, and a couple times you said no one believes the laws of physics necessary for our existence could not be so exact without a creator... all the while talking to a group of people that do believe these things.

The possible answer God is to the questions:

Why are we here?
How did the universe come about?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
How did sentient life come about?
Do we owe our existence to happenstance or design?

I could just as easily say the answer to your questions is Baruch, but I would have to provide proof that he has such abilities before anyone would believe me. If you think someone named God created the universe, then bring the proof. If you think this person named God is still around today bring proof of that as well. Dont expect anyone to believe because of some mythical power called faith.

[Drew_2017]

Hi Fencerider,

More than a couple times in this thread you have said that no one believes the universe can exist without a cause, and a couple times you said no one believes the laws of physics necessary for our existence could not be so exact without a creator... all the while talking to a group of people that do believe these things.

Actually I have been very fair in my analysis. For comparison sake I made a similar case for naturalism that I did for theism. No one objected to the the facts I listed in favor of naturalism, no one cried foul those aren't facts or they don't support naturalism or claimed they weren't evidence. In fact it was eerily silent after I made that post. I have stated if theism isn't true then naturalism is the only game in town. Unlike my detractors I never claimed there is no evidence that supports naturalism because then I'd be using the same bogus tactic they use. Clearly most of the people in this forum do believe naturalistic forces could have stumbled upon the formula or conditions to cause all we observe including sentient life. I don't know if that's actually possible never mind whether it actually occurred. I do have reason to believe a Creator is possible because that's exactly what scientists, engineers and programmers do to create a virtual universe. They intentionally cause and design a universe and they in fact are the gods of that universe.They cause a universe that previously didn't exist to exist. According to atheist dogma, supernatural feats can't or don't happen. You agree a scientist could alter whatever laws of physics they impose on a virtual universe right? From the perspective of the virtual universe that would be a supernatural act right? I have ample reason to believe my hypothesis is doable.

The possible answer God is to the questions:

Why are we here?
How did the universe come about?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
How did sentient life come about?
Do we owe our existence to happenstance or design? 

I could just as easily say the answer to your questions is Baruch, but I would have to provide proof that he has such abilities before anyone would believe me.

You could but why would a mere mortal (I assume) be somehow equivalent to a transcendent being? Do you agree in the case of a virtual universe the scientists are transcendent to that universe? 

If you think someone named God created the universe, then bring the proof. If you think this person named God is still around today bring proof of that as well. Dont expect anyone to believe because of some mythical power called faith.

Again neither side of this debate has proof. Do you think we'd be wasting our time discussing this if either side had what amounted to proof? Have you asked the opposition for proof?I have submitted evidence on several occasions that supports my belief...its still an opinion. I don't know for certain its true. Opinions are just what you think is true. 

[Mr.Obvious]

You could but why would a mere mortal (I assume) be somehow equivalent to a transcendent being? Do you agree in the case of a virtual universe the scientists are transcendent to that universe? 

You assume too much, young grasshopper.
@Baruch  is a demi-god, he's shared as much with us on many an occasion.

[SGOS]

My belief we owe our existence to a creator is a reasonable belief due to facts that support it

I'm thinking you would find a lot of support for this in a Bible study group.

I believe in big bang theory but it is only a belief, I can't prove it. However I can list facts that support that belief.

1. The fact background radiation exists every where we point receivers in the sky. 
2. The fact all galaxies are moving away from each other.

Neither of these facts validates or proves big bang theory is correct but my opinion and belief isn't baseless is it?

I'm sure there is more than just microwaves and an expansionary universe involved in the theory, although those two facts tend to support it, but either of those things could have been caused by something else, although it's looking like they weren't.  As for the expansionary universe, this only happens when gravity is a precise constant.  A deflationary universe, although shorter lived, could have also been derived from the Big Bang that generated a universe with a just slightly stronger gravity, so expansion isn't some end all be all for the Big Bang to have occurred, at least not the Bang we live in.

As fate would have it, the background radiation was predicted early in the formation of the theory by some Russian scientist, but no one could find it, which didn't bode well for the Big Bang, because for the theory to be correct, for reasons beyond me, the background radiation had to be there.  Many years later,  a couple of radio telescope guys ran into an annoying interference with their antenna.  They worked for a year trying to get rid of it, and could not proceed with their experiment because of all the noise.  When they asked scientists from Princeton (just down the road) for help in getting rid of the noise, they accidently ended up talking to some guy in the very lab that had been searching for the predicted radiation for years.  Long story short, they won the Nobel Prize for discovering something they thought was caused by bird shit on the dish of their antenna.  They didn't even guess what the noise was until they read what they had discovered it in the news paper.

The point is that the theory called for background radiation, and low and behold, someone found it, albeit totally by accident.  Now your theory about creation, I'm guessing you mean the Big Bang by that, a god of some sort is predicted, but no one has been able to discover one except for something Christians claim is a personal experience, which can't be tested or verified.  If a god created the universe, it is critical that for starters that we discover a god, or something like a god.  This doesn't bode well for your theory.  This applies to everything that a god has alleged to be personally responsible for, be it evolution, sentience, remission from cancer, whatever.  You need to be able to verify a god.  If you don't think you need to do that, we might as well throw in the towel, because we live in two different worlds, so to speak.

As for the Big Bang, you probably have more faith in that being the correct way it happened than I do, but I'm not an expert.  At best, I would call the theory encouraging and maybe a good possibility, maybe even a very strong possibility.  At least some predicted necessities have been verified.

[Baruch]

"by some Russian scientist" ... George Gamow.  Very smart guy, couldn't accept the steady state theory which implies continuous spontaneous creation of hydrogen in deep space.  It is pretty hard to believe that conservation of mass-energy is violated routinely, but only in deep space.  The following includes the computer simulation universe originally posted by Drew:

http://www.space.com/24781-big-bang-theory-alternatives-infographic.html

[Baruch]

Sometimes you are funny Drew... Sorginak doesn't say much but his logic is good when he does talk.

More than a couple times in this thread you have said that no one believes the universe can exist without a cause, and a couple times you said no one believes the laws of physics necessary for our existence could not be so exact without a creator... all the while talking to a group of people that do believe these things.

I could just as easily say the answer to your questions is Baruch, but I would have to provide proof that he has such abilities before anyone would believe me. If you think someone named God created the universe, then bring the proof. If you think this person named God is still around today bring proof of that as well. Dont expect anyone to believe because of some mythical power called faith.

What abilities do I have?  Nothing transcendent, if you define it that way.  And as a demigod I don't have to create universes, just type posts.  Pretty much the same powers everyone has ... I can take my hand, pick up my water bottle, and drink from it.  Why isn't that a demigod?  Because of how people rhetorically define "demigod" to reach the conclusion, they already decided on .. and that is a fallacy, not logic.

Of course if I am a demigod, and everyone else is ... that pretty much makes theism a fact, not a conjecture.  As I was stating to Mike CL earlier ... if you allow someone who is biased, to define terms ... you might as well give up.  And finding a discussion without bias ... is harder than rationalists think it is.  People have tons of unconscious bias, let alone the bias they know about.

Here is why it is non-trivial to define one's terms ...

"Diogenes was a Greek philosopher and one of the founders of Cynic philosophy. Also known .... When Plato gave Socrates's definition of man as "featherless bipeds" and was much praised for the definition, Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, "Behold! I've brought you a man.""  Our esteemed posters are like Plato in their conventional definitions, that are free of all problems.

Drew - why do you want to arm wrestle Sorginak?  Ego much?

[Sorginak]

I'm just trying to goad Sorginak into a debate but he won't...he know's he'll have his lunch handed to him.

Well, I do have a life.

Also, I am one of those individuals who must have time to reflect on something before I comment. 

What I do understand from viewing your responses in this thread and other threads is that you repeat the same ill logic without deviating.  If the reason I employ is not working to make you think rather than merely repeat apologist arguments verbatim, then it does not bode well for me to continue along a path of debate. 

When you can bring something new to the table, I would be more than willing to continue.  As it is, your old and tired arguments are just that; useless.