Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Drew_2017]

Hakurei Reimu,

False. When we have a Naturedidit explanation, it doesn't end at "Naturedidit." There is a coherent outlining of the mechanism of action. The explanation is sustained with physical evidence and a logical argument of how the physical evidence supports the mechanism proposed. Additionally, there also tend to be models and simulations showing how the physical mechanism leads to the physical observations. There is also usually connections of demonstrated phenomena to other demonstrated phenomena.

What naturalistic mechanism are you proposing caused and created the universe? Not that your analysis isn't mistaken. Are you saying we can't propose how something was intelligently designed like the pyramids? I recall seeing quite a few proposed models of how the pyramids were constructed.

With Goddidit, we just have "Goddidit." The end. At best, the furtherst you get with Goddidit is "God wanted it this way." That's not an explanation. The puzzle of why there should be anything at all is not solved by "Goddidit" because God is a thing, and you must presuppose his existence (which is a something) in order to explain the existence of any something. It's circular.

So the Egyptians caused and created the pyramids isn't an explanation? Should we pretend natural forces caused the pyramids (whether true or not) to avoid this self-manufactured problem? Do I have to explain how the  Egyptians came about before I can propose they created the pyramids? I don't claim to know how God came about any more than you know how natural forces came into existence. By the way what explanation are you hoping natural forces will have? Only if our existence was caused by a personal rational agent can there be any answer, mindless natural forces have no answer, no rhyme or reason.

False. Our explanation takes the known properties of matter and constructs models of solar system formation that actually exclude a large number of them from consideration. It also connects models of solar system formation with observations such as the isotopic distribution of elements in comets and asteroids. Your "explanation" ends at "God wanted it this way." With his power, the solar system could appear any way he fucking well pleased, therefore, it fails to be an explanation at all.

Indeed scientists, engineers and programmers have created virtual universes...
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10

They used the theistic method to cause a virtual universe to exist and indeed they do have god like power over the universe they created. The theistic model of how a universe came into existence is already developed. I don't think anyone knows how to get naturalistic forces to cause the universe to exist...do you? I'm curious where do you get this notion there should or has to be an explanation? And again what explanation can mindless forces give?

False. Again, your "explanation" ends at "God wanted it this way." Life could be formed in any manner whatsoever, therefore, it fails to be any explanation at all. Our explanation involves observation of the properties of chemical compounds, formulating pathways by which DNA and the rest of the major biomolecules can form to generate life. There is also a clear path of descent from early, nonsentient life forms to sentient life, with specified signposts based on what we have already observed.

I'm not proposing God personally caused life I'm proposing a transcendent Creator caused the universe to exist with laws of physics that allow planets, stars, galaxies and ultimately sentient life to occur. In the future with far more powerful computers we may not only be able to simulate a universe, but also simulate sentient life that one day like us would wonder how they came about. In that case the theists would be correct.

False, false, false. Your "explanation" for why the laws of physics are knowable and amenable for research is that "God wanted it that way." Our explanation involves the observed symmetries of the universe and how they constrain the kinds of laws that can exist. The viral theorem, for instance, excludes all but two kinds of laws in forming coherent orbits. All that is required is that physics does adhere to some simple regularities, and the laws of physics falls out by way of detailed analysis of these observed regularities.

Your counter explanation is that naturalistic forces wanted it that way. For some reason mindless forces that didn't intend their own existence or the existence of the universe or life decided to create a universe that was knowable, uniform amenable to scientific research and mathematically explicable such as in your viral theorem and also apparently wanted sentient life to exist so it could marvel at how smart mindless forces are.

In no case does "Goddidit" ever form a satisfactory explanation as required by the scientific method. It generates no model, no mechanism, no testable predictisons, and as such fails to be an explanation because you can't USE "Goddidit" to tell you how something is going to function given what you know about it. Naturalistic explanations can and do.

False...

You never heard of reverse engineering? Did the allies give up on cracking the engima machine because 'intelligent forces' did it? If an advanced race from another planet dropped off some 'alien' technology would we shrug our shoulders and say it can't be figured out? In the case of scientists, engineers and programmers who caused a virtual universe to exist have (unintentionally I assume) created the theistic model of how a universe came into existence.

[Drew_2017]

Mike,

Good question.  I don't know who decided it had to be a competition.  Theists, I think.  Science just plays its own game by its own rules, not to be distracted by the mystics who want science to advance using different rules that are not compatible with scientific inquiry.  Science cannot change the rules of its inquiry, because then it wouldn't be science.  It would become dogma, Biblical authority and the rest of the misguided beliefs that sustained the long lasting success of the Dark Ages and gave all the power to kings and clergy.  Religions don't want there to be another way.  It doesn't support religions' monopoly on explaining the universe.

Science if its worth anything is a truth seeking process. It doesn't care if the truth suits theists or atheists in fact the whole idea of the scientific method is to eliminate personal bias of how one thinks things ought to be. The prevailing scientific data strongly suggests the universe began to exist about 14 billion years ago from a phenomenon known as a singularity in which the laws of nature as we know it don't exist. Many scientists having been seeking alternate explanations because frankly big bang cosmology reeks of theism. They came to this conclusion via the scientific method...but they don't care for the implications and have been struggling to find new models ever since.

I hope science does put this question of theism or naturalism to rest regardless of which way it turns out. I'd rather know the truth either way.

So for science to continue as science, it ignores religion, and does not enter into competition.

It may ignore religion but it hasn't abandoned philosophy. One of the philosophies of science is it must explain via natural causes even though that principal hasn't been scientifically established that all things have naturalistic causes.

[Drew_2017]

aitm,

You still apparently cannot grasp how incredulous we view your belief.

I agree but I don't understand why you don't find your own counter belief 'incredulous'. Your counter belief is that unguided natural forces somehow came into existence and without plan or intent caused a universe with the conditions and laws of physics that allow for stars, planets galaxies and sentient life to exist all by sheer happenstance. I admit I can't comprehend how you don't look at that as a tall order for forces that didn't care about their own existence never mind our existence. How is that not an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence? On the other hand we do know that scientists can cause virtual universe to exist via the theistic method of planning and intent.

You wish us to consider that this universe was created by a spectacular wizard of unfathomable power and intellect, and in the same breath expect us to remain incredulous and humbled by its various -omni's while it itself stumbles about unable to defeat human armies, demanding one not eat a shrimp, denouncing haircuts, the wearing of mixed clothing, for demanding a woman be shunned during her time of the month as if he forgot he did it himself for the very reason to shun her, demanding a woman should have body parts cut off should she fight to ave the life of her husband

Once again you're stooping to a theological argument. You're beef is with religion and theology. Theism isn't a religious belief or a theological one. I have all kinds of problems with theological thinking myself.

[aitm]

as opposed to being insignificant and not cared about by said creative force.

and you have such evidence that said creative force "cares"? How interesting, or are you simply suggesting that because things exist that something must therefore have "cared" about its being "created" otherwise it would not have allowed it? Or is this simply an "no-daddy" issue that finds resolution by imagining the unknown cares about you?

[aitm]

On the other hand we do know that scientists can cause virtual universe to exist via the theistic method of planning and intent.

So simply because "we" have created an interactive movie, this is your evidence that somewhere out there something decided a long time ago, to create stuff that never existed, with knowledge of things that never existed and how they can be created despite not having the intellect to understand as things didn't exist? as opposed to the very believable scenario that given infinity at some time x will happen simply because the variables involved demand that given an infinity it must?

[aitm]

I'm not proposing God personally caused life I'm proposing a transcendent Creator caused the universe to exist

okay, so what use is this to us? Should such a creator exist, so what?

[Baruch]

okay, so what use is this to us? Should such a creator exist, so what?

The cult following of Elon Musk, believe this reality is a computer simulation by aliens, and want to take control and reboot reality (this was what the holodeck Moriarity character was trying to do on an old Star Trek-Next Gen episode).  As usual, the Caligulas want to be a god.

[Ananta Shesha]

The cult following of Elon Musk, believe this reality is a computer simulation by aliens, and want to take control and reboot reality (this was what the holodeck Moriarity character was trying to do on an old Star Trek-Next Gen episode).  As usual, the Caligulas want to be a god.

Mind virus, that one.

[Drew_2017]

So simply because "we" have created an interactive movie, this is your evidence that somewhere out there something decided a long time ago, to create stuff that never existed, with knowledge of things that never existed and how they can be created despite not having the intellect to understand as things didn't exist? as opposed to the very believable scenario that given infinity at some time x will happen simply because the variables involved demand that given an infinity it must?

If scientists created a naturalistic model of how the universe came into existence wouldn't that be evidence it was naturalistic causes? Of course it would. It seems your suggesting that intelligence couldn't cause the universe because its too difficult but naturalistic forces given enough time and chance could. 

If events go back infinitely we'd never get to the events that caused the universe to exist. Even if it did, I don't buy your premise that anything can happen given enough time and chance. In theory given an infinitude of chances and an infinitude of time a coin should be flipped to heads a 1000 times in a row. Think of how strange it would be if it did happen. For a trillion trillion years the coin flipping produces a top run of 43 times it flipped heads but then one day suddenly a coin flips heads a thousand times...

According to this theory though if it could happen 1000 times in a row given and infinitude of attempts and coins it would eventually flip a coin a million times heads or a billion or a trillion. Probably why the notion of infinitude's are avoided by scientists and statisticians.

[Ananta Shesha]

They'll have better luck when they treat infinity as a quality rather than quantity.

[Baruch]

If scientists created a naturalistic model of how the universe came into existence wouldn't that be evidence it was naturalistic causes? Of course it would. It seems your suggesting that intelligence couldn't cause the universe because its too difficult but naturalistic forces given enough time and chance could. 

If events go back infinitely we'd never get to the events that caused the universe to exist. Even if it did, I don't buy your premise that anything can happen given enough time and chance. In theory given an infinitude of chances and an infinitude of time a coin should be flipped to heads a 1000 times in a row. Think of how strange it would be if it did happen. For a trillion trillion years the coin flipping produces a top run of 43 times it flipped heads but then one day suddenly a coin flips heads a thousand times...

According to this theory though if it could happen 1000 times in a row given and infinitude of attempts and coins it would eventually flip a coin a million times heads or a billion or a trillion. Probably why the notion of infinitude's are avoided by scientists and statisticians.

Dividing by zero is dangerous.  Divide any number other than zero, by zero, you get infinity.  Divide zero by zero and you get a non-number non-answer ... a paradox like an infinite force meeting an infinitely heavy rock.

[Ananta Shesha]

In all my exploration of an infinite God and calculating the logistics of a finite suprasymmetric universe… I've never once needed a zero.

I've never seen a zero, I'm inclined to believe they don't exist. ;-)

[Baruch]

In all my exploration of an infinite God and calculating the logistics of a finite suprasymmetric universe… I've never once needed a zero.

I've never seen a zero, I'm inclined to believe they don't exist. ;-)

Nobody has ever seen a number, except in their own psychological projection.  They are figments of Pythagoras' delusion.

[Ananta Shesha]

Nobody has ever seen a number, except in their own psychological projection.  They are figments of Pythagoras' delusion.

"I see holons within holons. I did not say this...I was not here."

[Hakurei Reimu]

Hakurei Reimu,

What naturalistic mechanism are you proposing caused and created the universe? Not that your analysis isn't mistaken. Are you saying we can't propose how something was intelligently designed like the pyramids? I recall seeing quite a few proposed models of how the pyramids were constructed.

We know that the pyramids were constructed partially because we have the writings of egyptian workers scribbling on the blocks making it up. Not metaphorical writing, but actual fucking writing saying, "Yep, we did this!" For various reasons, the pyramids are quite clearly constructions. They look exactly like the kind of things we humans build. We can descern actual purpose to the various constructions inside the pyramid.

The same thing cannot be said of the universe. To anyone who looks closely in on how the universe works, it doesn't look like anyone purposefully designed anything. What it looks like is a bunch of symmetries piled into it, and the laws of the universe are simply how these symmetries play out. Even using the terms "caused" and "created" in discussion of the universe as an entire object is not kosher, because both of these words imply some sort of time applying outside the universe, and the only time we know of is part and parcel with the universe.

The universe is not a "creation" in the sense where it makes sense to talk about the design of the universe in the same way we talk about the design of buildings, nor can you talk about the "cause" of the universe the same way we talk about the cause of a building's construction. It's simply the wrong language. You are extrapolating far beyond the realm where these two terms are useful in the sense that you use them.

So the Egyptians caused and created the pyramids isn't an explanation?

Well, the explanation doesn't stop there, does it? We have the quarries where the good limestone casing stones came from. We have good guesses about the construction techniques, and we have preserved tools and simple machines that were used in the construction. Furthermore, the fact that these things were built indicates the presence of an immense empire, with accompanying bureaucracy, military, and tax/labor base â€" a small little podunk village isn't going to be building one of these things, and we know that the Egyptians existed not only because of history, but because they left their things behind. They wrote down their funiary practices and their beliefs, which also corroborates the presence of the pyramids.

When has anyone who has proposed "Goddidit" ever gone further than "God wanted it to be that way and God had the power to put it that way"? I honestly can't think of one.

By the way what explanation are you hoping natural forces will have?

Have you ever cracked open a science book? Ever? When you consider the principle of relativity (that the laws of the universe don't change when you are moving as opposed to you standing still) and the constancy of the speed of light, then you are forced to conclude that something like special relativity is true for the universe. No one needed to force the universe to be relativistic; it's simply the only way it could work given those two observations. Add in that frames in free fall work the same as those in free space, then you are forced to something like general relativity. The fact that particles have something like a wavelength forces you to quantum mechanics. No one needed to tell the electron to work according to quantum mechanics â€" the nature of the electron means that it will work according to quantum mechanics, regardless of what anyone says. The explanation for the laws of nature come from the fact that things in nature and nature itself display particular properties.

I think you're looking at properties as if they have to be bestowed onto things from an outside source. This is in my opinion philosophical nonsense. A thing wintout properties is simply absurd, because a thing without properties is indistinguishable from nothing at all.

Only if our existence was caused by a personal rational agent can there be any answer, mindless natural forces have no answer, no rhyme or reason.

You talk about "answers" as if they are necessary for existence. Same with "rhyme" and "reason." In my experience, there are lots of things that don't have answers, and have no rhyme or reason for what has happened. I'm fine with it. The universe simply is a mess sometimes. It seems that you don't. You are so afraid that there isn't an answer, a rhyme and reason to the way the universe works that you have to invent one.

Physical laws aren't enforced as such. They are simply always observed to be true. We never observe photons being given a ticket for traveling faster than the speed of light. The nature of the way nature and things in it behave means that some things will happens and others will not. There's no cosmic cop to enforce the laws.

Indeed scientists, engineers and programmers have created virtual universes...
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10

They used the theistic method to cause a virtual universe to exist and indeed they do have god like power over the universe they created. The theistic model of how a universe came into existence is already developed. I don't think anyone knows how to get naturalistic forces to cause the universe to exist...do you? I'm curious where do you get this notion there should or has to be an explanation? And again what explanation can mindless forces give?

Now you've just gone off the deep end. What these scientists you talk about have power over is the manipulation of a bunch of numbers. That's all these "virtual unverses" are. That's why they're "virtual;" they don't exist in reality by definition. It is hoped that these virtual universes replicate the dynamics of the real universe closely enough so that they can be used as tools for understanding, but no one is fooling themselves into believing they are manipulating a real universe.

You have demonstrated the ability for intelligent beings to create something other than a real universe. I don't know how this demonstrates the ability for any intelligent being to create a real universe. Nor is it a "theistic model" of the universe any more than sculpting a copy of a rock proves that the rock itself was purposefully designed.

I'm not proposing God personally caused life I'm proposing a transcendent Creator caused the universe to exist with laws of physics that allow planets, stars, galaxies and ultimately sentient life to occur.

You speak of laws as if they need anyone's permission to exist or act.

In the future with far more powerful computers we may not only be able to simulate a universe, but also simulate sentient life that one day like us would wonder how they came about. In that case the theists would be correct.

Only the theists who happen to be living in that simulated universe, and without being given some sort of evidence from us that that is the case, they won't be reasonable for thinking that no matter how correct they may actually be.

Your counter explanation is that naturalistic forces wanted it that way.

Is that what you got out of that passage? No, the universe has the forces it has because of the way it is, not because of what it "wants." Eventually, you reach a point where you are forced to conclude that some things "just are" and furthermore, God does not do anything to solve this issue. It simply displaces the "just is" to God: "Why is the universe the way it is?" "God wanted it that way." "Why did God want it that way?" "He just does."

God doesn't solve any of the philosophical problems that theists have pointed out in the naturalistic explanations. If there is a design to the universe, proposing God doesn't solve the problem of where that design comes from. God is inscrutable, with completely unguessable motives, patterns of thinking, quirks, and preferences â€" the origin of the design remains unknown. Humans, on the other hand, are quite scrutable. Heck, given half a chance, they will tell you at length their motives, ways of thinking, quirks and preferences. Their designs are quite easy to deciper. This is why humans are quite a viable explanation for things like pyramids and other buildings, and God isn't one for the universe and its laws. You can get inside the head of a human; God, not so much.

False...

You never heard of reverse engineering? Did the allies give up on cracking the engima machine because 'intelligent forces' did it?

What a weak argument.

You do realize that reverse engineering is performed on things that are designed by humans, right? Who not only verifiably exist, but also whose motives, patterns of thinking, and whatnot are not only wholey scrutable but more often than not volunteered? As opposed to a God whose motives and means are often described as permanent, impenetratable mysteries.

Absolutely no one is saying that nobody can decipher 'intelligent forces'. It's just that the forces of the universe do not seem to operate as intelligent forces, but are in fact mindless. They uniformly operate without prejudice or preference, and cannot even be violated. A mindful force would have descernable motive, which would show up as some irregularity in its operation, and we don't see that. Furthermore, these laws come from symmetries that the universe seems to just have. They have coherency, and are a clear pattern in how the universe works. However, the only way that would imply design is if you have decided as a premise that only design can generate coherency and patterns. I do not believe that this premise is well-founded, given the many patterns that have come up in the physical world, whose patterns are demonstrably created by mindless forces. It also crops up in mathematics; there are statements true about systems that nobody has ever purposefully designed into the system, yet there they are.

What we see in the universe are not "purposes," but exploits. Life exploits the laws of the universe to exist and thrive. Stars exploit the laws of the universe to shine. We exploit the laws of the universe to build buildings. Exploits exist in rules purposefully designed, but not intended; what makes you think that they won't exist in rules not designed?

If an advanced race from another planet dropped off some 'alien' technology would we shrug our shoulders and say it can't be figured out?

No, we'll try, but that doesn't mean we'll succeed. Their ways of thinking may be too alien to decipher.

In the case of scientists, engineers and programmers who caused a virtual universe to exist have (unintentionally I assume) created the theistic model of how a universe came into existence.

Again, no. It doesn't imply a theistic model of a universe any more than sculpting a copy of a rock proves the rock was purposefully designed.