Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[sdelsolray]

How do you explain how what is obvious to you is only obvious to 15% of the population. Among that 15% many call themselves weak atheists meaning even they don't deny God exists they simply don't subscribe to that belief. If its so obvious how can there be any 'weak' atheists. Its obvious to most people a Creator was involved. If there was any conclusive evidence in favor of naturalistic causes only people would slowly abandon belief in God. As of now its just a faith claim. Why should they abandon one faith claim for another?

You say I seek the incredible yet scientists, engineers and computer programmers created a realistic virtual universe using the theistic method to cause it to exist.

This one adds yet another common fallacy to his proselytizing - an argument from popularity.  That recipe I posted a while back needs updating.

And note his incessant push to promote this intelligently designed computer virtual universe fantasy.  For some, when you work with computers for a living, everything must necessarily revolve around that mundane occupation.

[Baruch]

This one adds yet another common fallacy to his proselytizing - an argument from popularity.  That recipe I posted a while back needs updating.

And note his incessant push to promote this intelligently designed computer virtual universe fantasy.  For some, when you work with computers for a living, everything must necessarily revolve around that mundane occupation.

Successful programming may induce fits of grandeur.  But it is after all, just moving 0s and 1s around.  You have a set of them, the input.  You apply a different set, the program.  And you get a new set, the output.  A bit like a game of Go.  It is very simple in detail, but enormous in complexity when seen at a high altitude.

[Drew_2017]

How do you explain how what is obvious to you is only obvious to 15% of the population

What the hell are you yapping about? The question is very simple and the answer very obvious. Humanity has had tens of thousands of god they have worshipped.

I suppose in your mind that explains it? I'm not defending anyone's version of theism other than my own, the belief a transcendent agent is responsible for the existence of the universe and sentient life. I don't have to believe we are the result of a creator, I could just say I'm an a-naturalist, a person who doubts or disbelieves the belief we owe our existence to unguided mindless forces that didn't care if they existed, or if the universe existed and certainly wouldn't care of life or sentience existed. Not only is that an incredible claim what direct evidence do you offer in favor of such an outrageous hypothesis?

Question one. Where did they come from?

I have no idea where they come from or where the Creator I believe in came from. Where did the forces that caused and created the universe come from?

Question two.  Humanity has shown the propensity to invent thousands of gods, why does the god your parents convinced you to believe in...be a real god when there is not one iota of evidence your god has been better than any of the other thousands?

I have listed repeated facts that support my contention. I also made a case for naturalism but no one challenged that case.

Not hard kiddo.

Do you really think you said something original?

[TrueStory]

Except there is no fallacy to be had. I'm not making an argument God exists because more people believe we owe our existence to God. The argument was about which is obvious that we owe our existence to naturalistic causes or we owe our existence to a Creator and it appears to more people the former is more obvious. This is because regardless of how much trust and belief some have in naturalism there is no smoking gun evidence its true. If there was you'd be blasting me out of the water with facts and data instead of argumentums.

Then stop making bad philosophical arguments.  Sure it's not like you are replying to a detailed argument but when you reply with rubbish it's too easy to point out.  If you're actually serious maybe you could summarize your point better from all your posts and condense it in the OP so it's easier to read.  Or not, it could be a waste of time.

[Baruch]

1. Drew thinks that man-made cellular automata experiments (a post he didn't respond to) are god-like.
2. Drew doesn't understand computer science (it is moving 1s and 0s around).
3. Drew doesn't understand religion.  Like Randy, he doesn't know G-d ... just lame arguments.  When I point this out, he ignores that too.

[Mike Cl]

1. Drew thinks that man-made cellular automata experiments (a post he didn't respond to) are god-like.
2. Drew doesn't understand computer science (it is moving 1s and 0s around).
3. Drew doesn't understand religion.  Like Randy, he doesn't know G-d ... just lame arguments.  When I point this out, he ignores that too.

Ignoring.  This is not really all that surprising, is it Baruch?  Theists excel in that area.  Facts--ignore them or make up your own; the name of the theist game.

[trdsf]

"weak" atheism exists primarily because of the reluctance of atheists (including myself) to put forward the positive claim that no gods exist because they're immediately dogpiled by theists demanding that they substantiate their claim.  And yes, the irony of theists of all people playing the skeptic is downright hilarious.

The further irony being, it's not a positive claim about non-existence, it's just an acceptance of the universe the way it is observed without tacking on unnecessary and unobserved extras.

And of course, shuffling of who's got the burden of proof by theists, who otherwise are perfectly happy without rigorous proof.

The default position, logically and scientifically, is not even "no god".  The existence of any deity doesn't even warrant consideration until there is some reliable and repeatable observation indicating there could be one.

So, barring some sort of actual evidence, I am entitled to say that there is no god for exactly the same reasons I can say there is no phlogiston or luminiferous æther -- and surely no one expects me to give those theories credence.  Show me some concrete data to the contrary, that's another matter entirely; until then, I have no responsibility to substantiate anything since I'm not the one making the claim.

[Hydra009]

But theirs plenty of evidence!

Fine-tuning!
Watchmaker analogy!
Manmade, virtual worlds! (World of Warcraft proves the existence of God)
Betcha can't prove a negative!
Plenty of famous scientists were theists!  (back when atheism was illegal and/or severely discouraged)
Also, do you know that theists vastly outnumber atheists!  That means...something, I think.

Dunb atheists no nothing about scientce.  I project my blind faith onto them and assert that they just have blind faith in materialism.  Victory is mine!

[aitm]

Do you really think you said something original?

Of course not, but neither have you. You tie bullshit up in a nice bow and prance it around as if you stumbled upon something grand and magnificent. It is still superstitious nitwitting but you fancy it as intelligent discourse because you favor this idea that  the naturalistic universe "doesn't care" and therefore something that "does" care is a much better belief system....despite the very fact that "it" doesn't care either.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Wow, that was a slog. Here's the thing:

For thousands and thousands of years, theist clowns have been claiming up and down that Goddidit for everything from the motions of planets to thunderbolts to the vagaries of fate. Every time that serious scientific investigation has been undertaken for the study of these phenomena, whenever we've ever been able to ascertain that Anythingdidit, it's always been Naturedidit, and never Goddidit.

The theistic track record for claims of Goddidit is so poor that the a priori response to any such claim is always "Bullshit!" and rightly so.

Is Goddidit possible? Certainly. But in view of that claim's past performance, I'm not holding my breath.

[fencerider]

I had phlogiston for breakfast; and that is why I can shoot thunderbolts from me arse

[Drew_2017]

I must be really stirring up a hornets nest even the resident theist is pissed off at me!

I keep saying this issue is a disagreement over a matter of opinion not a matter of conclusive fact no matter how much one side of the debate frames the issue in that manner. Quite a few pages back to show I have thought this out from both sides I made a case for naturalism based on known facts (just as I did for theism though much maligned and ridiculed).

1. The fact a naturalistic universe exists
Although its not known how the universe came into existence the universe itself is a naturalistic phenomenon which can be explained naturalistically.
2. The fact of evolution
The appearance of advanced life forms including sentient life can be explained by observed evolutionary process a completely naturalistic process.
3. All phenomenon within the universe can be explained naturalistically.
This fact supports the contention its naturalistic forces all the way down.
4. The fact the overwhelming majority of the universe is lifeless and chaotic.
This fact indicates life wasn't intentional but caused by naturalistic forces
5. The fact there are millions of planets and solar systems.
Given the # of planets available the existence of life is inevitable.

Is this more Drew BS or is this good? If it is good why isn't the case I made for theism any good? I'm not asking anyone to become a theist, just get out of denial that its a ludicrous preposterous idea with no reason, evidence or facts to think its true or pretend there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence in favor of naturalism.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gP5KBek7ULrStudhV4HmuCUTDeZnVc0ym8_3ydsN3jI

[Drew_2017]

"weak" atheism exists primarily because of the reluctance of atheists (including myself) to put forward the positive claim that no gods exist because they're immediately dogpiled by theists demanding that they substantiate their claim.  And yes, the irony of theists of all people playing the skeptic is downright hilarious.

Rest assured that "weak" atheists are every bit as dismissive of theistic ravings as any other sane person.

I appreciate your candor because you're admitting what I've always suggested that weak atheism is just a dodge to avoid making a positive claim. I called this thread Goddidit Vs Naturedidit so we could avoid that silliness. I've made my case from facts not ravings...

You say I seek the incredible yet scientists, engineers and computer programmers created a realistic virtual universe using the theistic method to cause it to exist.

"the theistic method"  LOL!

Is it the 'naturalistic method' in your opinion?

[Drew_2017]

But theirs plenty of evidence!

Fine-tuning!
Watchmaker analogy!
Manmade, virtual worlds! (World of Warcraft proves the existence of God)
Betcha can't prove a negative!
Plenty of famous scientists were theists!  (back when atheism was illegal and/or severely discouraged)
Also, do you know that theists vastly outnumber atheists!  That means...something, I think.

Dunb atheists no nothing about scientce.  I project my blind faith onto them and assert that they just have blind faith in materialism.  Victory is mine!

Hydra...you've been sniffing too much bug spray.

[Drew_2017]

The further irony being, it's not a positive claim about non-existence, it's just an acceptance of the universe the way it is observed without tacking on unnecessary and unobserved extras.

If we assume a creator isn't necessary then we can call it unnecessary. If we assumed engineers and creators aren't necessary for cars then we can call then unnecessary as long as we believe without knowing its true. You can call it a faith proposition or circular reasoning.

The default position, logically and scientifically, is not even "no god".  The existence of any deity doesn't even warrant consideration until there is some reliable and repeatable observation indicating there could be one.

When did your position become the default one? Do you demand repeatable reliable observation for any counter theory of how the universe came into existence? Do you know of any natural causes that cause universes to occur? 

Show me some concrete data to the contrary, that's another matter entirely; until then, I have no responsibility to substantiate anything since I'm not the one making the claim.

You've made several claims, the claim a Creator is unnecessary and the claim your position is a default position.