Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Drew_2017]

Faith is a funny thing. My brother-in-law has a phd in nuclear physics. Travels to all the reactors around the world to work on these experiments and still has enough faith to be a pastor and a teacher in a Bible college.

Just out of curiousity Drew, you have faith that the universe was created by a creator. What do you think happened to the creator after the creation? Did the creator use himself up in the creation? Did the creator die of old age or some other reason? Is the creator still around today? My own personal observation and experience lead me to believe that either god doesnt givaf of god isn't real.

I don't have faith in the existence of a Creator, I have a belief. I have the same information available to me as atheists and I believe a Creator is a better explanation that accounts for the situation we find ourselves in. Most folks on this board refuse to engage in a real conversation. They are so convinced of naturalism, they have little need to defend it, most of the time they feel scoffing and ridiculing theism and denying there is any legitimate reason to think we owe our existence to a creator is all the answer they need give. As a result in spite of declining religious belief, atheism hasn't grown much. If someone comes to this forum because they're having doubts about the existence of God they're not going to find any reasonable answer here to the basic questions we all have why is there a universe? Why are there laws of physics? How is it that intelligent autonomous humans came about? I have listed legitimate facts that lead me to believe we are the result of a creator. The typical response is to deny those facts point to the existence of a Creator and I'm ridiculous for thinking they do. That plays to the base but hardly brings new folks inside the tent.

Your brother in law probably has more scientific cred then most of us here. You say he must have great faith because you assume he knows things that make his belief silly. I suspect the thought never occurred that its because of what he knows that he remains convinced.

I really don't know if the Creator is extant or no longer involved in creation. I know religions claim God is still involved in the affairs of the earth I don't deny its possible I just don't know.   

[Drew_2017]

Creating a universe from nothing, big bang or not, is one spectacular mind blowing accomplishment, a demonstration of ultimate power greater than one can imagine.

That's right if a sentient being of great power caused the universe to exist with laws of physics to cause the existence of stars, planets and ultimately sentient life we'd hail such a person as a super genius, engineer and architect. However since it was actually caused by unintelligent naturalistic forces apparently a blubbering idiot could have done it without any planning or know how or for that matter even an intent to do it. These things obviously just happen by themselves.

[Mike Cl]

Well, creating a universe is no small task.  I takes a lot out of a guy.  You need time to regain your strength.  There were only 4000 years between creation and iron chariot era, so there may have been some long naps while the enemy was upgrading chariots.  Sometimes these things creep up on you, but being devastated and then making a victorious comeback makes for a good story.  An all powerful god, would by definition, be all powerfully dramatic.  So it's probably the way it happened, which is why it most likely wasn't naturalistic causes.

Naturally

[aitm]

I believe a Creator is a better explanation that accounts for the situation we find ourselves in.

correction, it is an easier explanation for you.

The typical response is to deny those facts point to the existence of a Creator and I'm ridiculous for thinking they do

yep.

don't deny its possible I just don't know. 

Facts are funny things. We tend to bend them to suit not just our way of thinking but to fit in with the society we live in as well. Muslim children don't wake up with dreams of Jesus...christian kids don't wake up with dreams of Buddha. Tens of thousand of "false" gods has humanity worshipped and yet you dismiss this very real fact that humans make up gods...as proof that indeed a god must exist, despite all the facts that all the other gods are made up. How does your brain dismiss the obvious in favor of the outright incredible?

[SGOS]

I just don't know.   

This is the correct answer no matter what perspective you're coming from.  Not knowing supports nothing, be it a creator, aliens, or natural causes.  It does not tilt anything in favor of one thing or the other.  Nor does it give equal footing to all possibilities.  It doesn't do anything.  It represents a gap in knowledge.  To put anything in that gap, requires a "something" of the gaps. 

You place too much emphasis on something you call "naturalistic", as if there were a philosophy of "naturalistism" to which atheists subscribe.  Some might.  It is an error to label all atheists as subscribing to such a philosophy.  All we know is that natural causes exist.  You may define natural in some idiosyncratic way as "not something natural at all" in order to marginalize it, yet natural causes do exist. 

Perhaps you could support a belief that God is the natural, and some theists, the Pantheists, do exactly that, even while some of them imbue that god with no supernatural powers.  Most here reject the Pantheist God, as just another word for natural.  Still, many Pantheists hold that by deifying the natural, such a god becomes real, and according to some dictionaries, deification is all that is needed to establish a god, but then that could apply to anything, including a door knob.  So most atheists disregard it as an unnecessary reclassification of a commonly understood quantity.

[Drew_2017]

I believe a Creator is a better explanation that accounts for the situation we find ourselves in.

correction, it is an easier explanation for you.

That's actually a bit scary that you think you can know what is an easier explanation to me. I've been told by the faithful repeatedly that God is an unnecessary complication. The easier explanation by far is the explanation that it just happened to happen by chance for no reason just accept it and be grateful to forces that never intended you to exist. Don't ever...ever question how it happened. Accept it believe it, live by it can I hear and AMEN brother!                       

[aitm]

The easier explanation by far is the explanation that it just happened to happen by chance for no reason just accept it and be grateful to forces that never intended you to exist.

It angers you that a natural causation, something without conscience or knowledge, is responsible for the eventual rise of life, and you demand it must therefore "never intend you exist" as if it suddenly now has conscience and knowledge. You seem to suffer some insult that a natural occurrence cannot acknowledge your magnificence and thus demand you pay by piety and acquiescence.


and also:  Tens of thousand of "false" gods has humanity worshipped and yet you dismiss this very real fact that humans make up gods...as proof that indeed a god must exist, despite all the facts that all the other gods are made up. How does your brain dismiss the obvious in favor of the outright incredible?

[Drew_2017]

This [I just don't know] is the correct answer no matter what perspective you're coming from.  Not knowing supports nothing, be it a creator, aliens, or natural causes.  It does not tilt anything in favor of one thing or the other.  Nor does it give equal footing to all possibilities.  It doesn't do anything.  It represents a gap in knowledge.  To put anything in that gap, requires a "something" of the gaps. 

I responded I don't know to specific religious beliefs. I don't think its a false dichotomy to say we owe the existence of the universe and humans solely to naturalistic causes that acted without intent or purpose and caused all we observe or we owe all we observe to a transcendent being who intentionally caused the universe and our existence. Since I know it could be one or the other I'm not closed minded to either possibility.

When I ask questions like what's the naturalistic explanation for how the universe came into existence I don't get some reasonable scientific answer I get is we don't know yet but it wasn't a magical sky daddy that did it. Whats the explanation for why there are laws of physics that allow for planets, stars and ultimately sentient life to exist? Same answer we don't know how or why that happened but we know it wasn't intentionally caused by a magical sky daddy. Only someone whose already concluded the notion of a Creator is absurd would accept that answer.

Is the answer 'Goddidit' an answer? Yeah it is. I can say the reason we have precisely the laws of physics necessary to cause sentient life is because it was intentionally caused by a transcendent being kind of like what scientists do in virtual universes.   

You place too much emphasis on something you call "naturalistic", as if there were a philosophy of "naturalistism" to which atheists subscribe.  Some might.  It is an error to label all atheists as subscribing to such a philosophy.  All we know is that natural causes exist.  You may define natural in some idiosyncratic way as "not something natural at all" in order to marginalize it, yet natural causes do exist. 

I'm more concerned there is a cult of naturalism that has complete total confidence (faith if you will) we owe our existence solely to natural causes. I say faith in because there isn't an abundance or even a preponderance of evidence that naturalistic forces alone could or did cause all we observe. Imagine if I said gravity doesn't exist. If you didn't just dismiss me as a crack pot you could crush me with one scientific proof after another and if I still didn't accept it be totally justified in questioning my sanity. How could anyone mock and ridicule the only competing explanation barring absolute certainty. This is the only explanation for how a group of at most 15% of the population can come to believe the other 85% of the population are idiots who believe we owe our existence to God with (according to them) no evidence or facts to support the belief.   

Perhaps you could support a belief that God is the natural, and some theists, the Pantheists, do exactly that, even while some of them imbue that god with no supernatural powers.  Most here reject the Pantheist God, as just another word for natural.  Still, many Pantheists hold that by deifying the natural, such a god becomes real, and according to some dictionaries, deification is all that is needed to establish a god, but then that could apply to anything, including a door knob.  So most atheists disregard it as an unnecessary reclassification of a commonly understood quantity.

In my opinion if it turned out we owe our existence to a scientist from an alternate universe that caused this universe to exist that would be closer to theism than atheism.

[Baruch]

That's right if a sentient being of great power caused the universe to exist with laws of physics to cause the existence of stars, planets and ultimately sentient life we'd hail such a person as a super genius, engineer and architect. However since it was actually caused by unintelligent naturalistic forces apparently a blubbering idiot could have done it without any planning or know how or for that matter even an intent to do it. These things obviously just happen by themselves.

in Daoism, they have deities, yet ... "things obviously just happen by themselves".  This isn't a contradiction, except in your Western mind.

[Drew_2017]

It angers you that a natural causation, something without conscience or knowledge, is responsible for the eventual rise of life, and you demand it must therefore "never intend you exist" as if it suddenly now has conscience and knowledge.

Oh has that been proven to be true [a natural causation, something without conscience or knowledge, is responsible for the eventual rise of life]? Or are you just repeating an article of faith?

and also:  Tens of thousand of "false" gods has humanity worshipped and yet you dismiss this very real fact that humans make up gods...as proof that indeed a god must exist, despite all the facts that all the other gods are made up. How does your brain dismiss the obvious in favor of the outright incredible?

Is that your argument? That humans believed in false gods therefore non-god forces must have somehow came into existence and caused a universe with the characteristics to cause life and sentience to exist by accident? Remind me which is obvious and which is incredible.

[trdsf]

This thread should simply be retitled "Religion vs. Science".

That wouldn't be much of a challenge, though.  Simply put, religion requires you to believe things without, or even in spite of, evidence.  Science permits believing things on incomplete evidence, but not on contradicting evidence.  Religion occupies an ever smaller field over time, finding itself in a position to explain less and less and less as our observations of the universe around us progress, and lays claim to an ever smaller area of "knowledge".  Science occupies an ever growing area as insights and discoveries build on those already made and and pushes its boundaries ever outwards.  Religion divides -- not only faith against faith, but even sect against sect within individual faiths.  Science unites -- all it asks is that you respect reality; it doesn't care about your color, gender, orientation, financial background, ancestry, or anything else including positions of faith, so long as in the lab you don't let it pre-decide conclusions for you.

I'd call that game, set and match for science.  There's just no competition.

[sdelsolray]

This one is turning out to be full of himself, and full of shit - a typical pairing with hints of "poor me".  Fancy that.

[aitm]

Is that your argument? .......... Remind me which is obvious and which is incredible.

There is no need to point out the obvious when it is obvious. YOU are the one arguing the incredible when the obvious is ....obvious. The fault lay in your argument, not mine. YOU seek the incredible, Sherlock would tell you so, should you be wise enough to listen.

[Baruch]

"Remind me which is obvious and which is incredible."

The here and now is obvious.  Logical deduction, backward in time, to a period when there may or may not be any physical law ... is not obvious.  But reality, whatever you may think of it, is incredible.

[sdelsolray]

And all three examples are demonstrated (the first two) or are reasonable inferences based on actual DNA examination.  Darwin couldn't examine DNA directly, we can.  He made a reasonable inference, based on current animals/plants in the Galapagos.  He didn't base it on particular theories of dinosaurs (none of which are currently living).

Some may think it a reasonable inference, to hypothesize what happened before the 3.5 K radiation ... but I don't buy it.  We simply don't know, and as best I can see, we will never know (physics has reasons why we can't see earlier).  Similarly, we can make reasonable inference regarding alien life forms on planets we haven't explored ... but I doubt we can ... though in that case, we may yet get empirical evidence.

I don't quite understand why Big Bang cosmology is qualified to be a scientific theory.  Sure, there is some evidence which supports it, and some math.  But it seems rather sparse, at least when compared to common (and robust) scientific theories such as germ theory, atomic theory, accretion theory or biological evolution theory.  It seems to be a scientific hypothesis at best.