Atheistforums.com

Quote from: Sorginak on February 19, 2017, 05:34:11 PM
As an atheist, so long as real evidence is provided I can easily admit that a god exists.  Whether that god is still worth worshiping, however, is a different matter.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 19, 2017, 06:24:15 PMOr whether any writing ascribed to God is actually from God as well.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 19, 2017, 05:17:23 PM
This is the real crux of the matter and it seems to me there is a serious aversion among atheists and naturalists to the notion Goddidit. What if years down the road insurmountable evidence comes forth that in fact Goddidit. Are peoples teeth going to turn blue? Will there be rioting in the streets? Will the stock market crash and people's underwear explode? Will scientists run around in circles and pull their hair out? On the other hand if there is conclusive evidence Naturedidit it wouldn't be the end of the world for me. After all if God didn't do it then its the only game in town.

Quote from: Cavebear on February 20, 2017, 12:42:05 AM
If fiery letters appeared in the sky, in all languages, saying "I am God and I exist", I would have to pay some attention.  IF!  Actually, that would answer a lot of questions. 

But I notice that keeps not happening.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 20, 2017, 10:32:51 AM
Until there is actual proof that a god exists, this argument is moot. In the absence of an outside force, "nature" is the only possible mechanism for the shape our world has taken.

Quote from: Cavebear on February 20, 2017, 12:42:05 AM
If fiery letters appeared in the sky, in all languages, saying "I am God and I exist", I would have to pay some attention.  IF!  Actually, that would answer a lot of questions. 

But I notice that keeps not happening.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 19, 2017, 06:24:15 PM
Or whether any writing ascribed to God is actually from God as well.
...

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 19, 2017, 06:24:15 PM
...
There is evidence Goddidit and there is evidence Naturedidit. What we lack in either case is conclusive evidence. Goddidit or naturedidit are just opinions. However, given that they are opinions and no one really knows why is the belief Goddidit often held in ridicule as being absurd and preposterous? Wouldn't that only be true if there was overwhelming evidence in favor of naturalistic causes?

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 19, 2017, 07:59:31 PM
How would one go about proving that a written work was actually from a god and not from a human?  Just curious.

Quote from: doorknob on February 20, 2017, 09:50:26 AM
I think most here would have no problem believing in god if there actually was evidence to support that belief！it's funny when religious people fail to acknowledge the mountains of naturalistic evidence that nature did indeed do it. And then they think there's evidence of god when there's actually none.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 20, 2017, 01:57:51 PM
Evidence is simply facts that comport with a belief. Acceptable evidence has to have probative value meaning it makes a belief more likely than not. The belief among theists is that a transcendent personal agent caused the universe to exist. Exhibit 1 is the existence of the universe. However those who believe the universe was caused by mechanistic forces also cite the existence of the universe as evidence it was caused by natural forces.

Both sides cite facts then argue how that fact supports there belief while attacking their opponents arguments. I argue the existence of the universe better supports the theistic premise over the naturalistic premise. There is no model or theory of how naturalistic forces we are familiar with caused naturalistic forces to exist. Instead there is theory about how something known as a singularity (that somehow came into existence) suddenly turned into the universe dominated by laws of physics. We can't point to any laws of physics that caused the universe to exist because those laws didn't exist until the universe did. The singularity itself is described as a phenomenon in which the known laws of physics don't apply.

The contention of theists is that a transcendent being intentionally caused the universe to exist. It is fact the universe exists and there is no naturalistic explanation for how the universe came into existence. The belief there is no evidence to support theism is false. I have cited six lines of evidence in support of theism. You can argue those facts don't support belief in theism but that doesn't negate those facts are evidence.

Quoteauthor=sdelsolray link=topic=11330.msg1167527#msg1167527 date=1487610052]
Yes, please provide us with competent evidence if you claim your God wrote these writings.  I could use a good circular reasoning argument today.

QuoteStudy false equivalence.  That should answer your questions.

Quoteauthor=doorknob link=topic=11330.msg1167538#msg1167538 date=1487617638]
So your basically saying that because science doesn't have all the answers god must have done it.

QuoteAlso how are naturalistic explanations evidence for god?

Quote
It is not. That's just you claiming it is. You must not understand what evidence is.

QuoteThe universes existence is not evidence for a supreme being. It's evidence that something happened. We don't yet know what happened but you don't get to say god did it just because we don't yet know. That's not how science works.

Quote from: Baruch on February 20, 2017, 03:03:16 PM
Well I think we don't know what happens inside ultra-dense objects, or even inside stars, all that well .... aside from black holes and cosmic singularities.  Science is usually predictive ... and that implies you can take the current situation and run it forward or backward.  Extrapolation in either direction bites.  One can imagine that this universe is a bubble inside a large universe, where the universe was created by some being, as an experiment, in some laboratory.  But don't you think that is far fetched?  By just avoid over extrapolation.  There is plenty we don't understand without going full retard in cause/effect.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 20, 2017, 02:40:36 PM
I make no such claim.
...

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 20, 2017, 02:40:36 PM
...
I looked up what false equivalence. What argument do you make to assert this is a case of false equivalence?

Quote from: Baruch on February 20, 2017, 11:28:35 AM
In Biblical terms ... in Jesus' words ... no, people, including religious people, wouldn't believe.  And per Paul, belief is only possible with what is not seen.  But in both cases, the speakers are being tricky with words.  You will not see the G-d you expect, if you are looking with a closed mind.  Religious and non-religious have closed minds.  And if a deity did appear, it would be not the god that the religious expect, and that god would be identified as the Devil, as was Socrates and Jesus.

QuoteWhether that god is still worth worshiping, however, is a different matter.

QuoteYour false equivalence is your attempt to equate the evidence for Goddidit with the evidence for natural explanations.  The evidence is not equivalent at all.  Once you realize this your two questions are easily answered:

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 20, 2017, 04:41:48 PM
This is an argument/statement I've heard all my life.  This is stated better than most, but it boils down to----there is a god, but a closed mind will never see him, nor even if he were to appear, he'd not be recognized as such--maybe even thought the devil.  I know there is a god and you should too! 

And I have to admit, that is about as good an argument one can offer for god.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 20, 2017, 03:33:32 PM
No, that's basically what you are saying on my behalf. I'm saying there is no naturalistic model that accounts for how the universe or the laws of physics came into existence therefore the claim its naturalistic forces 'all the way down' isn't a fact its merely a belief and there is no evidence to support that belief. If the theory the universe came into existence from a singularity is true, it refutes the belief its naturalistic forces all the way down. 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 20, 2017, 03:33:32 PM
I don't cite naturalistic explanations as evidence of God. I argue that the laws of physics we have observed is better evidence of a Creator than unguided naturalistic forces. We don't have planets, solar systems stars and galaxies because the universe exists, we have these things because there are laws of physics that caused these things to occur. I contend this is by design not happenstance. If there were no laws of physics* there would be no stars or planets or life. Moreover not just any set of laws will produce planets stars and life. The force of gravity alone has a narrow band in which to cause stars and planets to exist. 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 20, 2017, 03:33:32 PM
*can you think of any reason there has to be laws of physics?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 20, 2017, 03:33:32 PM

I think you conflate evidence with proof. Evidence are facts that comport with a belief. For instance the fact Lee Harvey Oswald owned a rifle is evidence (not proof) he killed JFK. It is evidence because its a fact JFK was killed by a rifle shot. However, to prove Oswald killed JFK a lot more evidence besides just owning a rifle is needed. 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 20, 2017, 03:33:32 PM
I don't say God did it because we don't know how the universe and the laws of physics came into existence. That's you making a bogus argument on my behalf.  I will say that the laws of physics we are familiar with didn't cause the universe or the laws of physics we are familiar with to exist. The belief its natural forces all the way down is just a belief.

Quoteauthor=Baruch link=topic=11330.msg1167563#msg1167563 date=1487630892]
"The belief its natural forces all the way down is just a belief." ... but rationalists can't admit that.  They have to reject both philosophy and theology (metaphysics) in favor of physics.  But as you point out, physics only deals with observable post-Big Bang phenomena .... that and the dogma of Uniformitarianism ...

QuoteNo that was my interpretation of what you said. Now I know you're full of shit!

QuoteLOL what? Physics are naturalistic evidence! And physics in no way supports the idea that a god did it. And you basically just said " I contend this is by design not happenstance." Well with all your contention you still have no evidence to support your claim. And you can't claim to know what would or wouldn't exist with out the laws of physics. There is no place that exists like that. In other words we can't observe it. So your claim is unsubstantiated.

Quoteyou don't even know what you're talking about any more do you? Evidence are facts. Period! Belief has nothing to do with evidence.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 20, 2017, 04:52:47 PM




Before we lose site of it what I'm getting at is this. The existence of the universe and the existence of sentient life regardless of how you think such came about is an extraordinary event. It shouldn't be surprising an extraordinary explanation is forth coming. 

QuoteI was not going to reply to you any more since you drone on and on about your nonsense.  But this illustrates well how I think differently than you.  Life is not an extraordinary event.  It is to be expected; the when, where, how and shape it exactly takes is in question; not the if.  I will illustrate with rain.  Every day Earth has rain and has for millions (billions??) of years.  It is not extraordinary.  It is expected as part of the system of weather on Earth.  But the individual rain drop is another matter.  That first rain drop that hits me on the head when I go out to my car is extraordinary beyond words--and almost math.  Of all the rain drops that have fallen on the Earth from that storm, on Earth that day, or all the storms of history, for that one particular rain drop to hit me on the head is trillions, billions of trillions to one (or even more odds than that).  On the other hand, it is a certainty that if I walk out into a rain storm I will be hit by drops of rain.  The conditions on Earth is such that rain happens.  When and where is not known; which exact drops will fall is not known--but the rain will fall.  Rain is not extraordinary--it is totally ordinary and a product of the system.  The individual rain drops are extraordinary in the extreme when taken one at a time.  That is how I view this existence of this universe.  Life happens because it is the ordinary product of this universe.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 20, 2017, 07:59:05 PM

I believe we had this discussion before and you're just as mistaken now as you were then. Evidence is facts. Given enough facts you come to conclude Oswald did kill the president but it doesn't become a fact he killed the president. It may achieve to be a belief beyond reasonable doubt. Facts themselves are beliefs held to be true unless some new evidence usurps it. On the other hand truth is whats actually true whether anyone believes it, no one believes it or whether any facts support it.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 20, 2017, 09:29:23 PM
As far as we know only earth like planets can support life.

Quoteauthor=doorknob link=topic=11330.msg1167576#msg1167576 date=1487645017]

evidence:
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

See I think you are confused because belief is in the definition.

Quote from: aitm on February 20, 2017, 09:53:31 PM
eh.....a little presumptuous don't ya think? i mean...LIFE....as we know it, is not LIFE as the universe may know it. Grab yerself son, we may not be  ALL that is according to US. It may very well turn out that giant gas balls as Sagan suggested are the "end all" of "life". You elevate yourself based on a superstition among a "minor" life form on an insignificant speck of dust on a forgotten spittle of nothing. But you have that god thing going for you....where a god promises shit for those who believe with the same percentage of "luck" that cattle have crossing a river filler with crocodiles.....well boo-hah for you.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 20, 2017, 01:57:51 PM
Evidence is simply facts that comport with a belief. Acceptable evidence has to have probative value meaning it makes a belief more likely than not. The belief among theists is that a transcendent personal agent caused the universe to exist. Exhibit 1 is the existence of the universe. However those who believe the universe was caused by mechanistic forces also cite the existence of the universe as evidence it was caused by natural forces.

Both sides cite facts then argue how that fact supports there belief while attacking their opponents arguments. I argue the existence of the universe better supports the theistic premise over the naturalistic premise. There is no model or theory of how naturalistic forces we are familiar with caused naturalistic forces to exist. Instead there is theory about how something known as a singularity (that somehow came into existence) suddenly turned into the universe dominated by laws of physics. We can't point to any laws of physics that caused the universe to exist because those laws didn't exist until the universe did. The singularity itself is described as a phenomenon in which the known laws of physics don't apply.

The contention of theists is that a transcendent being intentionally caused the universe to exist. It is fact the universe exists and there is no naturalistic explanation for how the universe came into existence. The belief there is no evidence to support theism is false. I have cited six lines of evidence in support of theism. You can argue those facts don't support belief in theism but that doesn't negate those facts are evidence.

QuoteIn the late 1990s, observations of type Ia supernovae led to the astounding discovery that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. The explanation of this anomalous acceleration has been one of the great problems in physics since that discovery. We propose cosmological models that can simply and elegantly explain the cosmic acceleration via the geometric structure of the spacetime continuum, without introducing a cosmological constant into the standard Einstein field equation, negating the necessity for the existence of dark energy. In this geometry, the three fundamental physical dimensions length, time, and mass are related in new kind of relativity. There are four conspicuous features of these models: 1) the speed of light and the gravitational constant are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe, 2) time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity, 3) the spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere, and 4) in the process of evolution, the universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration. One of these models is selected and tested against current cosmological observations, and is found to fit the redshift- luminosity distance data quite well.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 20, 2017, 10:56:45 PM
You need to stop claiming there are no models that support a naturalistic cause for the universe, Drew. In another one of your threads you made a similar claim, and I posted a link to M Theory. It is a model for the naturalistic origin for our universe. There are other naturalistic models to explain the Big Bang. I also posted a link a new model that if correct means our universe had no beginning. According to that model our universe has always been here. Here is another one of the needs no cause models (https://arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750).

So please stop saying there are no naturalistic models to explain our universe because there are. Now that you've been told that at least twice now the next time you make that claim you are going to be lying,

[mod]and if you continue to insist on lying there are going to be consequences. [/mod]

Quote
Drew - some day humans could simulate a universe and that would make them the creator of that universe

Humans may simulate a universe inside a computer. Sure we could call them the god of that universe. But there isn't any backwards compatible corollary. It doesn't create any kind of proof of what happened in our universe

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 01:40:13 AM
How do you know its not a working model of the theistic premise?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 01:40:13 AM
If somehow you know there isn't any backward compatibility that means we can put this whole debate to rest. Uh exactly how do you know there is no backward compatibility? How do you know its not a working model of the theistic premise?

Quote from: fencerider on February 21, 2017, 10:26:24 AM
If I am understanding the argument presented in the last couple pages correctly, the basic premise is:If humans can create a computer simulation of the universe with god in it, that could be used as proof of a god in the real universe. That would be a leap of faith, not logic.

QuoteYou need to stop claiming there are no models that support a naturalistic cause for the universe, Drew. In another one of your threads you made a similar claim, and I posted a link to M Theory. It is a model for the naturalistic origin for our universe. There are other naturalistic models to explain the Big Bang. I also posted a link a new model that if correct means our universe had no beginning. According to that model our universe has always been here. Here is another one of the needs no cause models.

Quote from: fencerider on February 21, 2017, 10:26:24 AM
If I am understanding the argument presented in the last couple pages correctly, the basic premise is:If humans can create a computer simulation of the universe with god in it, that could be used as proof of a god in the real universe. That would be a leap of faith, not logic.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 12:12:32 PM
I looked further into the alternative model you cited...

(Phys.org) â€"The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately afterâ€"not at or beforeâ€"the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

It appears this alternative model was created because 'the math can explain only what happened immediately afterâ€"not at or beforeâ€"the singularity.'

I thought this would be a problem if it were false that the universe came into existence from a singularity not because the laws of physics break down at the singularity and math can't explain that. Its actually kind of odd that some scientists think the universe should explain itself mathematically. After all its not like the universe was created by a group of scientific engineers right? It was created by naturalistic forces that frankly don't give a rats ass if it can be explained mathematically.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 12:21:20 PM
The notion that the universe could have been caused and designed by a transcendent agent known as God is typically held in derision by naturalists and atheists alike.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 21, 2017, 12:45:12 PM
Drew, I don't believe in any of the models. I do believe that most of the people that understand this shit a lot better than I do think Big Bang theory as modified by inflation is the model of the development of our universe that best describes the current observations. I also believe (with a much lower level of confidence) that majority of those same people think M theory (one of the multiverse models) is also the best supported model for the origins of the Big Bang. Some are better supported than others. I've linked a few of the more recent ones. I have not claimed they are correct.

I'm only trying to get you to stop saying there are no naturalistic models for the origin of our universe in support of your argument because there are several of them.

Quote from: Baruch on February 21, 2017, 12:52:47 PM
"don't give a rats ass if it can be explained mathematically" ... yes Gaia isn't subordinate to Pythagoras or other ape men.

There is a subtle questionable shift in your argument.  In geometry, we assume the Euclidean axioms, and go from there.  But those axioms are in the same class as the theorems derived from them.  A transcendent thing and an immanent thing, are not in the same class.  It is like using Euclidean axioms to define what good cooking is.  What is that fallacy called? (asking for volunteers).

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 03:17:57 PM
I'm expounding upon my arguments in an hap hazard manner. Its not terribly surprising that the universe has laws of physics, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms. Its surprising that scientists expect it to be that way and demand it be that way if it isn't. If I told you I believe the universe was caused by mindless naturalistic forces I'd expect to find a universe in which no laws, logic, deduction or induction applies. Why would I expect otherwise? When we listen to radio waves the universe produces we don't expect to find a message in it or be able to decode it or find mathematical formulas. We expect it to be babble and that's what we get.

QuoteThat's your expectation! That's not science that's just an assumption you're making. Actually when listening to radio waves from the universe we don't have expectations that is why we are listening. We are looking and learning as we go. When you limit your self like that you can not learn. You already have the answers and you think you know so you're ready to stop looking for them.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 06:28:17 PM
I'm expounding upon my arguments in an hap hazard manner. Its not terribly surprising that the universe has laws of physics, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms. Its surprising that scientists expect it to be that way and demand it be that way if it isn't. If I told you I believe the universe was caused by mindless naturalistic forces I'd expect to find a universe in which no laws, logic, deduction or induction applies. Why would I expect otherwise? When we listen to radio waves the universe produces we don't expect to find a message in it or be able to decode it or find mathematical formulas. We expect it to be babble and that's what we get.

Its an expectation based on personal observation. If I drop a package of 200 toothpicks from 10 feet I expect to see a randomly tossed pile of toothpicks. I can only expect them not to operate outside of the laws of physics, not create a design or spell words or spit out mathematical formulas. I don't believe the old adage that if I spill it enough times it will create a paragraph with some intelligent message. If as you say we owe our existence to unguided forces minus any plan, intelligence or intent then we have no expectation to find such forces carefully controlled by the laws of physics doing great and wonderful things like causing life and intelligence to exist. No one would say to themselves I think the universe was caused by lifeless mindless forces therefor I expect to find life and sentience to arise in the universe. If its shocking to think it was caused by an intelligent designer how much more incredible it happened minus any plan or intent to do so.

Look, I'm not going to change your mind and probably no other atheist-naturalist on this board. What I resent is the notion that not only is theism wrong but its absurd and irrational to consider it a baseless claim with no evidence in its favor. . I asked you to say if you thought Naturedidit is a fact...you declined. So even you don't think there is enough evidence to declare naturedidit a fact. There have been thousands of false beliefs previously held that science and knowledge have shown us otherwise. Most people want to know the truth about something even if it goes against a previous belief. If the day comes science or knowledge shows a strong preponderance of evidence in favor of naturalism most people will come to believe that. For instance very few people think the universe is 6000 years old.

Quoteauthor=doorknob link=topic=11330.msg1167733#msg1167733 date=1487729023]
pg 1 "I think most here would have no problem believing in god if there actually was evidence to support that belief！it's funny when religious people fail to acknowledge the mountains of naturalistic evidence that nature did indeed do it. And then they think there's evidence of god when there's actually none."

Direct quote from myself on page one. I declined nothing!

QuoteThat's a riot! Naturalism a baseless claim? Did you understand nothing I've been saying this entire time? Naturalism is not like theism! Theism is a claim based on religious beliefs AKA fiction. Naturalism is based on scientific facts. Can scientific facts change? Sure we're always learning new things, But that doesn't make the theistic explanation any less ridiculous than the claim that Santa clause deposits 10$ in my bank account each night is! Both are irrational and wishful thinking. Naturalism is backed by science as science only uses naturalistic explanations.

QuoteWhen you can show me scientific evidence that a god even might exist I wouldn't ridicule your belief quite as much. You'd still have to sell me on it but I'd at the very least take it more seriously.

Quote from: SGOS on February 21, 2017, 01:43:18 PM
It sure comes out sounding that way, but the underlying problem held in derision is an assertion without evidence, be it gods, junior high science fair exhibits, or aliens from another dimension.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 11:52:13 PMA fact that supports a belief is evidence.

QuoteThe second degree of proof is in a criminal case where the burden of proof falls on the prosecutor to establish his claim beyond a reasonable doubt. This is lower than scientific fact. Its still a high bar.

QuoteI contend God caused the universe to exist and the universe exists exhibit one.

QuoteI have listed 5 other facts that support belief in theism.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 11:52:13 PM
Theism is what I believe is true, its an opinion. It could change it has, I could be wrong.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 11:52:13 PM
But the universe does exist!

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 11:52:13 PM
The universe not existing would favor your claim more than the fact it does exist.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 11:52:13 PM
The fact it does exist favors the theistic claim.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 11:52:13 PM
I contend God caused the universe to exist and the universe exists exhibit one. That single line of evidence won't convince anyone just as if the only evidence one had against Oswald was the fact he owned a rife wouldn't. That doesn't mean its not evidence. It would only mean its not enough to make a case. I have listed 5 other facts that support belief in theism.

QuoteEvidence is simply facts that comport with a belief. Acceptable evidence has to have probative value meaning it makes a belief more likely than not.

QuoteThe belief among theists is that a transcendent personal agent caused the universe to exist. Exhibit 1 is the existence of the universe.

QuoteHowever those who believe the universe was caused by mechanistic forces also cite the existence of the universe as evidence it was caused by natural forces.

QuoteI'm expounding upon my arguments in an hap hazard manner. Its not terribly surprising that the universe has laws of physics, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

QuoteIts surprising that scientists expect it to be that way and demand it be that way if it isn't.

QuoteIf I told you I believe the universe was caused by mindless naturalistic forces I'd expect to find a universe in which no laws, logic, deduction or induction applies. Why would I expect otherwise? When we listen to radio waves the universe produces we don't expect to find a message in it or be able to decode it or find mathematical formulas. We expect it to be babble and that's what we get.

QuoteIts an expectation based on personal observation. If I drop a package of 200 toothpicks from 10 feet I expect to see a randomly tossed pile of toothpicks. I can only expect them not to operate outside of the laws of physics, not create a design or spell words or spit out mathematical formulas. I don't believe the old adage that if I spill it enough times it will create a paragraph with some intelligent message.

QuoteIf as you say we owe our existence to unguided forces minus any plan, intelligence or intent then we have no expectation to find such forces carefully controlled by the laws of physics doing great and wonderful things like causing life and intelligence to exist.

QuoteNo one would say to themselves I think the universe was caused by lifeless mindless forces therefor I expect to find life and sentience to arise in the universe. If its shocking to think it was caused by an intelligent designer how much more incredible it happened minus any plan or intent to do so.

Quote...Most people want to know the truth about something even if it goes against a previous belief. If the day comes science or knowledge shows a strong preponderance of evidence in favor of naturalism most people will come to believe that...

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 10:14:13 PM
Perhaps we're just talking past each other. If by naturalism you mean there is a 'ton' of evidence that natural forces cause earthquakes, planets to form, stars to explode and so forth we have no disagreement. I'm happy to stipulate all phenomena and action inside the universe can be traced to natural causes (I'm not actually 100% that's true but I'm willing to stipulate). I'll also explain why that ton of evidence doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 10:14:13 PM
The premise is that all phenomena thus far has been traced back to a natural cause which in turn was caused by a natural cause and so forth. From this mountain of evidence we should infer that its natural causes all the way down. They're are competing models but big bang cosmology is still the dominant model. In that model the universe and the laws of physics began to exist. If true, it couldn't have been the kind of natural forces that caused the universe and the laws of physics. The laws of physics are naturalism! 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 10:14:13 PMThe other nuance of this premise is that if things can be explained completely by an appeal to the laws of physics (no God needed) it means it was caused unintentionally by naturalistic forces. Its not true! We can explain how laptops function and work from top to bottom by naturalistic causes. And no matter how close we examine the laptops we don't see any mysterious creator in there making it function. Therefore we can conclude that laptops came into existence by naturalistic forces that never intended a laptop to exist.   

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 10:14:13 PMI'm you wasted your righteous indignation. I didn't say naturalism is a baseless claim. I wrote What I resent is the notion that not only is theism wrong but its absurd and irrational to consider it a baseless claim with no evidence in its favor.
You seem to think that belief in theism means no belief in naturalism. I believe in theism as Isaac Newton did, that God caused the universe and the laws of physics and let the laws do the work.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 10:14:13 PMhave shown a working model of theism. When scientists cause virtual universes to exist they use the theistic method. They carefully program and plan to do it intentionally. Once created scientists with God like power can change the laws they created...

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 22, 2017, 01:24:25 AM
Correct.
Also correct.
This is a claim, and a pretty extraordinary one at that.  It is not a fact, and therefore cannot be evidence.
You have listed things that you think support theism but in actuality are just things you've attributed to God without actually showing that there's a causal connection.  There could be no connection whatsoever.  It's simply unknown.  This is why god-of-the-gaps reasoning isn't highly regarded.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 10:14:13 PM
You seem to think that belief in theism means no belief in naturalism. I believe in theism as Isaac Newton did, that God caused the universe and the laws of physics and let the laws do the work.

Quote from: Baruch on February 22, 2017, 07:24:17 AM
"It should be noted that the universe not existing is a silly hypothetical" ... worse it is philosophy, or even theology, not science.  Science doesn't use counterfactual hypotheses.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 22, 2017, 10:31:35 AM
I'm not listing the existence of God as evidence, I'm listing evidence (facts) that supports the existence of God. What claim being made isn't extraordinary? Is the idea that naturalistic forces without plan, intent or desire caused a universe and laws of physics that culminated in sentient beings existing an ordinary see it everyday claim?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 19, 2017, 05:17:23 PM
This is the real crux of the matter and it seems to me there is a serious aversion among atheists and naturalists to the notion Goddidit. What if years down the road insurmountable evidence comes forth that in fact Goddidit. Are peoples teeth going to turn blue? Will there be rioting in the streets? Will the stock market crash and people's underwear explode? Will scientists run around in circles and pull their hair out? On the other hand if there is conclusive evidence Naturedidit it wouldn't be the end of the world for me. After all if God didn't do it then its the only game in town.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 20, 2017, 01:57:51 PM
Evidence is simply facts that comport with a belief...

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 20, 2017, 01:57:51 PM
...Acceptable evidence has to have probative value meaning it makes a belief more likely than not. The belief among theists is that a transcendent personal agent caused the universe to exist. Exhibit 1 is the existence of the universe. However those who believe the universe was caused by mechanistic forces also cite the existence of the universe as evidence it was caused by natural forces.

QuoteWe're not in court.

QuoteI believe pink lighters are made by homosexuals. Exhibit 1 is the existence of pink lighters.

QuoteThe existence of the universe, is evidence that the universe can exist. Not it's cause. But it is the fact that mechanistic forces are responsible, for every observable action in the universe, that leads us to believe there is nothing else required.

Quote
If it's not surprising, then why do you insist that it suggests intelligent design?

Quote
If it is consistently observed to be that way, then it is perfectly logical for a scientist to expect it to be that way. As for demanding that it “be that way when it isn't,” I don't think you can give an example.

QuoteWhy do you equate mindless, with absolute chaos. Things that are mindless are not lacking order. They are in perfect order, in a complex universe. Radio waves are orderly. They behave precisely according to the laws of physics, like everything else. But they are completely without a mind, and therefore no pattern that indicates intelligence.

Quote
Once again you show how naive you are with this statement. People all over the world, are indoctrinated into their various faiths from an early age. Science can't compete with that.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 22, 2017, 02:26:08 PM
I was being facetious. It is surprising that the universe thus far can be reverse engineered and explained mathematically though alleged to have been caused by naturalistic forces that couldn't care less if the universe is understandable.

QuoteI am trying to understand what you are saying but the way you word things is just different than I'm use to. I have to really pick it apart to make sense of it. Sorry you feel that I'm trying to talk past you. I'm trying make you understand that you're claims are not based on science.

QuoteIf true it doesn't say anything in regard to what caused it. No one is saying that it's not a possibility that there is a creator it's just that at this time there is no evidence that points us in to your current claim.

QuoteWhat you are saying would be true if we found laptops in nature and we had no information on how it got there and so on. But we still can't make a conclusion we don't have that information yet.

QuoteHow ever the god model is not a competing model at this time due to the lack of evidence that  any creator exists. There is nothing in nature at all that indicates a designer was the cause.

QuoteSorry I miss read your quote. I apologize.

QuoteOne final note if a creator was discovered it would become a natural explanation. So everything has a natural explanation.

QuoteAh, but if the laws of physics actually do the work, then why does there need to be a god?

QuoteThe 'first cause' argument doesn't work because you still need a first cause for 'god'.  And if you exempt your god from needing a first cause, then you can also exempt the universe from needing one.

QuoteThe lack of a solid answer to the question of how the universe started only means we have more study to do, not that we should stop looking and accept "Fiat lux!" as an answer.  Resorting to 'goddidit' stops rational inquiry, and no progress can come of that.

QuoteThis is looking down the wrong end of the telescope.  The universe isn't here for the purpose of creating us.  We are an accidental but natural byproduct of the universe.  We're what hydrogen atoms can do with 13 billion years of physical, chemical and biological evolution, but we are not what hydrogen atoms must do.

QuoteThe proper interpretation of why the universe is suited to the existence of beings like us is not because the universe was tuned to allow us to exist, but because we are the product of the existing laws of physics.  Had the laws been different, we wouldn't be here.

QuoteI'm going to stop you right there and address just this.  You are confusing beliefs with science.  This statement is true for your beliefs.  For science, it is not.  The word "evidence" is really a misnomer for science.  Scientists don't collect "evidence" and they don't have scientific "beliefs".  Scientists collect data and they reach scientific conclusions.  But that's just the start of the process.  They then have to convince their peers that they are correct, something which often doesn't happen in their lifetime.  Science is a process of discovery.  A belief is pretending you already know.  The two are nothing alike.

QuoteThis could not be more wrong.  Let's start with the flaw in theistic reasoning.  "God created the universe.  You want evidence?  Let's see here...  Ah, there it is, right there!  I told you!"  That is so stupid.  Here's why.  "Elves created a car.  You want evidence?  Let's see here... Ah, there's my car, right there!  I told you!"  The existence of something is not evidence for a particular claim of how that thing came to be.  Your claim is essentially, "Y exists, therefore X created Y".  Replace X and Y with ANYTHING other than God and universe and see how much sense it makes.  This thought process is the pinnacle of ignorance.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 22, 2017, 10:34:37 AM
I'm using the hypothetical to make a point that if the universe didn't exist the claim there is no evidence that supports theism would actually be true. Are you suggesting the universe has to exist? Always existed?

Quote from: trdsf on February 22, 2017, 10:41:26 AM
We are in no way implicit in the universe.  We are merely possible.

QuoteWhy is that surprising?

QuoteThat should be expected in a universe that follows explicable laws of nature. 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 22, 2017, 04:40:16 PM
Evidence is simply facts that comport with a belief...

Are you claiming its a scientifically proven fact that God doesn't exist and its natural forces all the way down? I'm not claiming I can prove the existence of God scientifically. I don't think either of our respective beliefs pass scientific muster do you? I think you're mistaken about the scientific method, scientists propose theories about phenomenon. I'm not a scientist but I'm guessing they propose theories they believe are true. They don't know they're true, that's why they subject the belief to a test.

I've already explained this see my post with Solomon. The rest of your post is just a rant...I hope you feel better.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 22, 2017, 05:12:33 PM
I'm not so sure about this.

If we live in a Hubble volume embedded in an infinite expanse of space, then every possible combination of particles must, no matter how unlikely, necessarily come to be somewhere in that infinite expanse. And, because we and our world comprise a possible combination of particles, we were bound to come into existence in some volume of space. Actually, in an infinite universe, we would have to come into existence an infinite number of times throughout infinite space. Everything that is possible must come to pass. In which case we could all consider ourselves to be "necessary beings."

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 22, 2017, 05:13:16 PM
What would lead you to expect mindless natural forces minus any intelligence will or desire would cause explicable (explainable) laws of nature? Why wouldn't we expect meaningless babble from an unintelligent source?

Quote from: widdershins on February 22, 2017, 05:33:23 PM
Oh my god, you are so stupid!  The "laws of nature" are not a set of intelligent rules laid down in a book which everything has to follow or else.  It's the way we have observed everything in the universe to work.  The laws weren't written and then made to be so, they were written because they were so.  If they weren't so then they wouldn't have been written down.  Jesus, it's like talking to a retarded log.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 22, 2017, 05:13:16 PMIt is surprising that the universe thus far can be reverse engineered and explained mathematically

QuoteIt wouldn't be surprising at all if the universe was designed by a team of engineers.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 22, 2017, 05:31:11 PM
Yep, it would mean exactly that.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 22, 2017, 05:12:33 PM
I'm not so sure about this.

If we live in a Hubble volume embedded in an infinite expanse of space, then every possible combination of particles must, no matter how unlikely, necessarily come to be somewhere in that infinite expanse. And, because we and our world comprise a possible combination of particles, we were bound to come into existence in some volume of space. Actually, in an infinite universe, we would have to come into existence an infinite number of times throughout infinite space. Everything that is possible must come to pass. In which case we could all consider ourselves to be "necessary beings."

It's fun to consider how this idea applies to fictional characters and stories.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 22, 2017, 05:03:18 PM
The reason "something" exists is that there has to be either something, or nothing; there's only one way for there to be nothing, but an infinite number of ways for there to be something - so it's simply much, much more likely for there to be something than for there to be nothing.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 22, 2017, 10:34:37 AM
I'm using the hypothetical to make a point that if the universe didn't exist the claim there is no evidence that supports theism would actually be true. Are you suggesting the universe has to exist? Always existed?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 22, 2017, 04:02:01 PM
Because I don't believe nature haphazardly created these laws and by happenstance the laws just happened to cause stars, galaxies solar system planets and ultimately sentient beings to exist. I don't believe in such gratuitous serendipity...

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 22, 2017, 09:53:33 PMAnd there it is. Argument from incredulity. Otherwise known as I'm so fucking awesome it can only be the result of divine intervention.

QuoteExcellent ... if you use a hypothetical, that isn't a testable hypothesis, then you are engaged in philosophy, not science.  When Galileo or Newton had similar speculations, they were engaged in philosophy, not science.

QuoteIf you want to learn, you can be taught.  I am very familiar with Relativity theory, and two years ago took (for no credit) the Stanford on-line course in QM for engineers.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 22, 2017, 09:53:33 PM
And there it is. Argument from incredulity. Otherwise known as I'm so fucking awesome it can only be the result of divine intervention.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 22, 2017, 10:08:09 PM
Aren't you incredulous of theistic claims?

Quote from: Baruch on February 20, 2017, 11:28:35 AM
In Biblical terms ... in Jesus' words ... no, people, including religious people, wouldn't believe.  And per Paul, belief is only possible with what is not seen.  But in both cases, the speakers are being tricky with words.  You will not see the G-d you expect, if you are looking with a closed mind.  Religious and non-religious have closed minds.  And if a deity did appear, it would be not the god that the religious expect, and that god would be identified as the Devil, as was Socrates and Jesus.

Quote from: fencerider on February 23, 2017, 01:12:24 AM
Premise #1. The universe exists
Premise #2. ************
Premise #3. ************
Premise #4. ************
Premise #5. ************
____________________________
Conclusion : God exists

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 22, 2017, 10:31:19 PM
Yes, but unlike magical sky daddies we have observed instances of naturalistic causation. In fact of all things once attributed to magical sky daddies (which includes pretty much everything) the only ones we have determined the real cause of with any degree of certainty have been naturalistic. So believing a naturalistic cause is more likely than magical sky daddies without any verifiable evidence of magical sky daddies isn't that much of a stretch.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 22, 2017, 10:08:09 PM
Aren't you incredulous of theistic claims?

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 22, 2017, 09:53:33 PM
And there it is. Argument from incredulity. Otherwise known as I'm so fucking awesome it can only be the result of divine intervention.

Quote from: doorknob on February 22, 2017, 10:30:20 PM
Philosophy AH yes the most useless thing I can think of when presenting evidence. Especially observable evidence.

You keep claiming that there is evidence yet, you have shown no evidence.

Philosophy is just thought exercises. That is not evidence and we keep telling you that, then you just say the same things over and over again, Making a claim that there is evidence.

You're claiming the universe is evidence for god. I'm telling you that you need to elaborate on that. How ever did you come to that conclusion? I'm just curious.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 23, 2017, 10:14:36 AM
At the risk of being told I'm repeating myself (which I am) I will respond. If some how we could have this conversation in lieu of a universe existing and I said I believe the universe was intentionally caused by a Creator you might say maybe a creator of universes exists but since there is no universe (in this hypothetical) you'd would say there is nothing to attribute the existence of a Creator. If so the foundational claim of atheists there is no evidence of a Creator would actually be true. In fact there are several conditions that have to be true for theism to have any basis. The only fact or condition that has to be true for atheism to be true is God doesn't exist. If a universe did exist but it was utterly chaotic void of life, stars planets and so forth I might still claim it was caused by a creator (perhaps a test version) but you would point out (and rightly so) a universe like that one looks more like one created by unguided naturalistic forces with no rhyme or reason. Instead we exist in a universe that appears to be dominated by laws of physics that appear to compel naturalistic forces to cause stars, planets, solar systems and an earth like planet that supports life. I'll add the laws of physics as a second fact that favors theistic belief.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 22, 2017, 04:26:39 PM
I know that's what you think is true... considering the myriad of factors involved in allowing sentient life to exist I argue it was intentional.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 22, 2017, 04:26:39 PM
So we just got lucky....very very very lucky! How lucky can it be that forces that didn't intend us to exist, didn't plan for us to exist, didn't want us to exist stumbled upon the formula to cause our existence. Not to mention the forces that do exist didn't even intend their own existence never mind ours. If you are a skeptic why aren't you skeptical of those claims? I find that skeptics are usually only skeptical of claims they don't believe but swallow beliefs they do believe in hook line and sinker without even a burp.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 22, 2017, 10:31:19 PM
Yes, but unlike magical sky daddies we have observed instances of naturalistic causation. In fact of all things once attributed to magical sky daddies (which includes pretty much everything) the only ones we have determined the real cause of with any degree of certainty have been naturalistic. So believing a naturalistic cause is more likely than magical sky daddies without any verifiable evidence of magical sky daddies isn't that much of a stretch.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 22, 2017, 05:12:33 PM
I'm not so sure about this.

If we live in a Hubble volume embedded in an infinite expanse of space, then every possible combination of particles must, no matter how unlikely, necessarily come to be somewhere in that infinite expanse. And, because we and our world comprise a possible combination of particles, we were bound to come into existence in some volume of space. Actually, in an infinite universe, we would have to come into existence an infinite number of times throughout infinite space. Everything that is possible must come to pass. In which case we could all consider ourselves to be "necessary beings."

It's fun to consider how this idea applies to fictional characters and stories.

QuoteAgain, wrong end of the telescope.  It only looks lucky if you assume we specifically are inevitable, which you are clearly doing, and if you assume the universe has intent, which you are also clearly doing, and if you assume we are special, which you are unsurprisingly also doing.

QuoteIf intelligent life is a one in a billion chance, that means there are statistically several trillion sentient life forms out there in the universe, and probably at least one or two others in this galaxy, and the only way your argument here holds water is if they are all carbon-based DNA-coded hairless primates like us.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 23, 2017, 01:27:30 PM
When we say something is lucky what we mean is that a rare occurrence happened by chance as opposed to an intentional cause. You say it only looks lucky if we assume we are inevitable then you immediately proceed to make a case that states our existence is inevitable.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 23, 2017, 01:27:30 PM
Your one in a billion chance starts with a universe already existing in which the law of physics caused stars to exist, galaxies to exist, planets to exist and solar systems to exist. Do you have any facts or data that indicate if a universe exists it has to have the laws of physics we observe? Do you know of any reason gravity exists or has to exist? Do you agree if gravity didn't exist we wouldn't be here?  If you agree that gravity doesn't have to exist then it is (if not lucky) very fortunate for us it does...right? You're starting off at incredibly convenient starting point to make up odds.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 23, 2017, 12:54:00 PM
I'm happy to stipulate that actions and phenomena within the universe can be traced back to naturalistic causation. You will be happy to know I agree they're naturalistic models (theories) of how the universe always existed although you told me you don't believe those either apparently you share my incredulity in that regard. The problem appears to be the notion that if theism is true then the universe was caused by magical sky daddies who materialized the universe out of thin air or perhaps via some incantation. Suppose rather than magic sky daddies we owe the existence of this universe to a technologically advanced beings from another universe who used technology and intelligence to intentionally cause this universe? Would that be more palatable than the notion of sky daddies? Its my contention the universe was caused by a transcendent being using intelligence and design. Of course that would appear magical to us. 

What about these guys? Are they magical beings?

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10

Cambridge, MA -

Move over, Matrix - astronomers have done you one better. They have created the first realistic virtual universe using a computer simulation called "Illustris." Illustris can recreate 13 billion years of cosmic evolution in a cube 350 million light-years on a side with unprecedented resolution.

"Until now, no single simulation was able to reproduce the universe on both large and small scales simultaneously," says lead author Mark Vogelsberger (MIT/Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), who conducted the work in collaboration with researchers at several institutions, including the Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies in Germany.

Instead of wearing lab coats should they wear a tuxedo and a top hat with a cane? Instead of using intelligence, design, 100,000 lines of code and super computers should they just tap their magic wand and make a virtual universe exist? I might add these sky daddies...er I mean scientists used the theistic method to cause this virtual universe to exist. Suppose with many technological advances, they eventually cause a universe in which a planet like earth emerges and eventually sentient beings come into existence strictly by the laws of physics the scientists created (actually in this case it would be mimic). These sentient beings don't think they are in a virtual universe, the simulation is so real they can't tell the difference. No doubt some of those sentient beings would come to think a fix was in and there existence was caused by sky daddies while (much smarter people) would believe it was caused by naturalistic forces minus a plan, an engineering degree or the desire to do so. In that case the smarter people would be wrong.

For the record I'm not suggesting our existence is actually a computer simulation what I'm demonstrating is that the belief our universe was caused intentionally by a sentient being doesn't mean said being needs to employ magic to cause it to happen. Many of the thing we do today would appear magical to someone from 300 years ago...

Quote from: Baruch on February 22, 2017, 07:19:06 PM
The laws aren't just so ... we create toy situations to simplify things, then discount that effect (which is observable in quantum mechanics directly) that there is no Platonic objectivity.  Newton's laws are Newtons (and very useful).  Einstein's laws are Einstein's (not as useful).  Without man, there are no laws. our simplifications create the regularity, nature without that, is mostly chaotic.

Quote from: Baruch on February 22, 2017, 08:23:40 PM
Amazing, what materialists grasping at straws are willing to believe ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on February 22, 2017, 08:24:48 PM
Nietzsche had the idea of Infinite Return.

Quote from: Cavebear on February 23, 2017, 03:38:32 AM
You can't even type "GOD"?  Wow. that shows how religious you truly are even though you try to disguise it most posts.

Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 06:02:24 AM
The universe exists ... unjustifiable premise.  You don't know what a universe is, nor existence.  You claim without justification, that you know what those words mean.  Everything is a dream, after a bad night drinking down your sorrows at a bar.

Quote from: trdsf on February 23, 2017, 01:02:47 PM
Well, yes, in an infinite universe (in time and in space), anything that physically can happen must happen, and infinitely many times, as well as infinite variations thereon.

But in that case, all other possible forms of life are also necessary beings so there's still nothing special about us.

Quote from: widdershins on February 23, 2017, 05:09:16 PM
Not sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like you're simply saying that if there were no men they wouldn't be written down.  Okay.  If there were no men, the effects of said laws would still be the same, though.

QuoteYou're the one who said 'lucky', not me.  I made no such case.  We are not necessary to the universe, we are only a byproduct of it.  If you're referring to my comments with regard to a universe infinite in space and time, you'll please note that I clearly stated inevitability only in terms of a spatially and temporally infinite universe -- and the inevitability of all other possible life forms, as well.

QuoteMy one in a billion is simply  to illustrate the point about what the huge numbers of potential habitats in the universe does to even exceedingly small odds.  We do not know what the probability of life arising on a clement world is.  And we only have an outline idea of what constitutes clement.  Probes that explore the polar ice, permafrost, and frozen northern ocean of Mars and the subsurface oceans of Ceres, Europa, Titan, Enceladus and Ganymede will tell us something.

QuoteAnd we also do not know if the current set of laws of physics as observed are the only set that allows a universe sufficiently large in space and time to allow physical, chemical and biological evolution.  But there is no reason to suppose that this is the only possible spatiotemporally large universe.

QuoteAs for why gravity exists: it does because that's what you get when you have mass

Quote from: widdershins on February 23, 2017, 05:09:16 PM
Not sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like you're simply saying that if there were no men they wouldn't be written down.  Okay.  If there were no men, the effects of said laws would still be the same, though.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 05:17:00 PM
That's not the same as a level-one multiverse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_I:_An_extension_of_our_Universe). Though the "eternal return" seems plausible to me if the universe is repeated infinitely, as well as being spatially infinite.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 05:23:44 PM
Yeah, some people can't bring themselves to use the name of God for fear of...something or other. Even though the word "God" is not even a name, but only, at best, a title. How could the creator of all of infinite reality be so mundane as to have a name in the first place? But I guess we can let Baruch have his God-fear if it makes him comfortable...

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 05:25:43 PM
So, if no one knows what anything means, how do we even have a discussion at all? No one can say anything, because neither they nor anyone else knows what the hell they're talking about.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 05:38:27 PM

Nope, nothing in the least special about us. But not everything is possible - such as logically inconsistent things, like a square circle. I think what the universe is doing is bringing all potential conditions into actuality. Many of those can't come into actuality without beings like us being here to create them. We are the creators, not any God. We didn't create the universe, but we do create things that couldn't come into existence without us being here to make them.

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 23, 2017, 05:50:23 PM
That takes us back to the old ' if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody to hear it does it make a sound?' question.  Supposed to be sage and all that.  Of course the sound waves are produced whether there are people there or not.  The physical laws of physics function whether or not there are people to notice it and figure them out.

Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 08:08:04 PM
My fingers are typing, I am not doing it ... blame my fingers, there is no person behind them!

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 08:10:41 PM
Yes, we've suspected that for some time.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 08:22:27 PM
So you say. Prove it!

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 23, 2017, 05:38:27 PM

Nope, nothing in the least special about us. But not everything is possible - such as logically inconsistent things, like a square circle. I think what the universe is doing is bringing all potential conditions into actuality. Many of those can't come into actuality without beings like us being here to create them. We are the creators, not any God. We didn't create the universe, but we do create things that couldn't come into existence without us being here to make them.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 23, 2017, 06:04:43 PM
I also note you state everything as if its incontestably true. Are these statements you make fact or opinion?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 23, 2017, 06:04:43 PM
You pulled the one billion out of thin air and pretend its a scientific fact of some sort without calculating all the conditions for stars, galaxies and planets to occur. No one knows what the odds are that a universe exists in the first place do they?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 23, 2017, 06:04:43 PM
One crazy reason would be because we don't know other universes exist. It appears you are making up conditions that suit you as you go along.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 23, 2017, 06:04:43 PM
That sound you heard was my jaw dropping...

Quote from: fencerider on February 21, 2017, 02:43:21 AM
If you are observing simularities between a human created computer simulation and the real universe, you may create a hypothesis. But a hypothesis is not proof until proven. Hence, no backward compatible corollary.

Quote from: fencerider on February 23, 2017, 10:58:21 PM
Drew went back to the computer model again. This time claiming that the theological model matches reality. Still have to make the connection between the model and the real universe.

Quote from: Baruch on February 23, 2017, 08:09:09 PM
We think that is true.  However you can't prove it without someone there to record it, naturally or artificially.  See David Hume.

Quote from: trdsf on February 23, 2017, 10:15:46 PM
Whence my clarification re: physically possible things even in an infinite universe.  And, I should be very surprised if we do turn out to live in an infinite universe anyway.

I don't think I can even go that far, about what the universe is doing.  I don't think it needs to do anything, other than exist, and be sufficiently large and in space and in time for sentience to arise somewhere.  Everything else is gravy.

QuoteEvery sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 24, 2017, 04:30:47 PM
If you are observing simularities between a human created computer simulation and the real universe, you may create a hypothesis. But a hypothesis is not proof until proven. Hence, no backward compatible corollary.

I'm not attempting to prove theism or to make materialists or atheists believe in theism. The best I hoped to achieve was to disabuse atheists of the sound bite there is no evidence that supports theism and to make a good case in favor or theism. I have done so whether the adversaries in this forum agree is irrelevant.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 24, 2017, 04:30:47 PM
If you are observing simularities between a human created computer simulation and the real universe, you may create a hypothesis. But a hypothesis is not proof until proven. Hence, no backward compatible corollary.

I'm not attempting to prove theism or to make materialists or atheists believe in theism. The best I hoped to achieve was to disabuse atheists of the sound bite there is no evidence that supports theism and to make a good case in favor or theism. I have done so whether the adversaries in this forum agree is irrelevant.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 24, 2017, 04:30:47 PM
But a hypothesis is not proof until proven. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 24, 2017, 12:48:26 PM
That's not true.  We can leave instruments behind to record what happens.  People don't have to be there.

Quote from: Baruch on February 24, 2017, 06:33:39 PM
The instruments don't build themselves, they don't place themselves, they aren't played back .. without people.  Except materialists believe they do, if you wait long enough ;-)  There is always man-in-the-loop somewhere or there is no intelligence involved.

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 24, 2017, 09:14:44 PM
Wow!  Instruments don't build themselves?  Learn something new every day!!

There were no people in the area when the instruments took their readings.  People came back, retrieved the instruments and evaluated the data collected.  And what a wonder--the data was the same with or without people.  The universe exists with or without people.  And the physical laws are the same, with or without people.

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 24, 2017, 09:14:44 PM
Wow!  Instruments don't build themselves?  Learn something new every day!!

There were no people in the area when the instruments took their readings.  People came back, retrieved the instruments and evaluated the data collected.  And what a wonder--the data was the same with or without people.  The universe exists with or without people.  And the physical laws are the same, with or without people.

Quote from: Baruch on February 25, 2017, 02:34:12 AM
The point being ... prove something without any people involved, before, during or after.  Proof doesn't exist without people.  And without proof (without people) I don't believe your universe exists, Mr Plato ... nor are your laws legit.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 24, 2017, 03:11:41 PM
I see us as a bridge between the abstract realm and the physical realm. The only way certain abstract entities can be reified is to come through us, and only through us, through our minds. But, as Niels Bohr said,

Quote from: trdsf on February 25, 2017, 12:46:36 PM
Without a sentience being in place in the first place, there can't really be any such thing as 'the abstract'.  So I wouldn't say there's a realm to connect to, so much as there are abstract realms to be created.  And since they're the creations of natural products of physical reality, they're going to be related to that reality in one way or another.

QuoteIt is relevant whether we agree, we are the skeptics. If it doesn't convince us than it isn't convincing. Your evidence does not even meet the criteria of being evidence for what you are claiming. Sorry but it just doesn't so it seems you will continue hitting your head on a brick wall here. Other wise if you can honestly say you don't care that we reject your evidence as being evidence than why did you come here?

QuoteWhat was the point of all our conversations? Was it a failed attempt to prove to yourself that there is evidence for god? 

QuoteLook if you want to continue believing there is a god that's just fine. We didn't come to you, you came to us. So ask your self this. If you are determined to believe that there is evidence for god despite what the skeptics are saying then what was it you were looking for when you came here? And did you get it? Because if not then you wasted both your time, and my time.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 25, 2017, 08:14:59 PM
You don't get to choose whats evidence and what isn't.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 25, 2017, 08:14:59 PMFor you hopefully a moment of introspection. I defined evidence, listed facts that support theism and argued from those facts. Success!

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 25, 2017, 08:14:59 PM
I'm not attempting to prove theism or to make materialists or atheists believe in theism. The best I hoped to achieve was to disabuse atheists of the sound bite there is no evidence that supports theism and to make a good case in favor or theism. I have done so whether the adversaries in this forum agree is irrelevant.

You are skeptics most of whom are completely committed and devoted to a naturalistic worldview. From what I have observed you're selectively skeptic, theistic claims are scrutinized to the nth degree while naturalistic explanations only need be possible to be plausible. I didn't hit my head at all, I made an excellent case in favor of what I think is true, I provided lines of evidence.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 25, 2017, 08:14:59 PMThat my adversaries disagree is a foregone conclusion. If I were making this case before people skeptical of either claim I'm confident most would say I put on a better case because I did. It is evidence whether you reject it or not. I logged in to have fun, match wits, see if atheists have any new material. Sadly most are stuck on the same shop worn arguments that only convinces themselves atheism is true the most common one being the fabrication there is no evidence of a Creator or that the universe was caused intentionally by design. Its the counter belief that naturalistic forces some how always existed, or somehow boot strapped themselves into existence which lacks much in the way of evidence it did happen or could happen.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 25, 2017, 08:14:59 PM
I'm not 100% sold on theism, its a belief. Its what I think is true minus conclusive evidence it is true. There is evidence that supports naturalistic belief, but atheists and materialists should make their own case rather than relying on attacking theism. I know I'm going to be reminded I'm incredulous it is the claim we owe the existence of life and mind to mindless lifeless forces that didn't cause themselves to exist, didn't care if we existed but somehow still stumbled across the formula to create a universe, life and sentience. If it was done intentionally, by design its denoted as magic. If unguided naturalistic forces without plan or intent cause it to happen its called 'science'.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 25, 2017, 08:14:59 PM

For you hopefully a moment of introspection. I defined evidence, listed facts that support theism and argued from those facts. Success!

It wasn't a waste of my time I enjoyed our conversation. What I posted is evidence. You don't get to choose whats evidence and what isn't. The 'there is no evidence of theism' is a slogan you have bought into without a modicum of skepticism. It was before I came here and will be after. But it won't stop you from continuing to say it because to admit there is facts that support theism would be to admit its a rational possibility.

QuoteWell I'm glad you didn't waste your time. I don't mind talking to you either. If I did (mind) believe me I'd either be nasty or simply not respond. I'm just trying desperately to get you to understand why your evidence isn't evidence.

Quoteauthor=PopeyesPappy link=topic=11330.msg1168413#msg1168413 date=1488072971]
And you do? [get to select what is evidence]

Quote from: fencerider on February 26, 2017, 12:44:32 AM


Short story Drew is that a preponderance of evidence doesn't make god an actual fact; not that we have gotten anywhere near a preponderance of evidence. You can bring some evidence to the table and change all of our minds if you have some. Don't forget some of us have been in church and found the story full of holes.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 25, 2017, 10:58:29 PM
In a court of law a judge selects whats evidence and what isn't. In formal debates if you make a statement of fact you usually have something to back it up that it is an established fact. If you don't expect to be pounced on.

I don't think anyone disputes the universe exists or the laws of physics exist. If the universe didn't exist (besides the fact we wouldn't be here) my claim would be false. If the universe existed but instead of a universe where stars, planets, galaxies and sentient life emerged it was utter chaos with no discernible laws of physics wouldn't you site that as evidence it was caused by unguided mindless forces? Sure you get to site facts which support your contention. Wouldn't my case this is the intentional act of a designer fall flat on its face if such a universe obtained? Since there are laws of physics which allowed solar systems and life to exist under what rules of logic would that not be evidence it was caused intentionally?

You have just been so conditioned to except the axiom 'there is no evidence in favor of theism' you refuse to question its validity.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 25, 2017, 10:58:29 PM
In a court of law a judge selects whats evidence and what isn't. In formal debates if you make a statement of fact you usually have something to back it up that it is an established fact. If you don't expect to be pounced on.

I don't think anyone disputes the universe exists or the laws of physics exist. If the universe didn't exist (besides the fact we wouldn't be here) my claim would be false. If the universe existed but instead of a universe where stars, planets, galaxies and sentient life emerged it was utter chaos with no discernible laws of physics wouldn't you site that as evidence it was caused by unguided mindless forces? Sure you get to site facts which support your contention. Wouldn't my case this is the intentional act of a designer fall flat on its face if such a universe obtained? Since there are laws of physics which allowed solar systems and life to exist under what rules of logic would that not be evidence it was caused intentionally?

You have just been so conditioned to except the axiom 'there is no evidence in favor of theism' you refuse to question its validity.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 26, 2017, 09:29:58 AM
In a formal debate you can expect you argument to be to attacked, Drew. In this case your arguments are being attacked because they are  incomplete.

I've seen you argue two things on this forum.

1. The universe exists.
2. Therefore god created the universe.

and

1. The development of the universe since the Big Bang can be simulated on a computer.
2. Therefore god created the universe.

Both of those arguments are missing something important. A reason for 2 to follow from 1. i.e. evidence. If you are making a deductive argument the your argument needs a second premise that shows has to be true. If you are making an inductive argument you still need a second premise, i.e. evidence, that shows your conclusion is more likely than other possibilities. Without a valid second premise your argument is not sound because it is a non sequitur. You are simply affirming the consequent.

So you tell me are you attempting to make a deductive or an inductive argument? If the former why is god did it the only possibility? If the later then why is god did it more likely? Because if you can't produce another valid premise, i. e. evidence, that leads to that conclusion your argument fails.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 25, 2017, 10:35:40 PM
As desperately as I am trying to get you to understand it is. The word evidence is used primarily in two circumstances in the science world and in the legal world. In the science world its scientific evidence which means verification by experiment where as other scientists can get and verify the results. This is evidence that persuades other scientists to regard something as scientific fact.

Evidence in the legal world is any fact or material that has probative value.


One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence

Do you think there is evidence the world is flat? The answer is yes, there is evidence (facts) that to this day support the contention the world is flat. If I take you out to a prairie in Montana from what we can see the earth looks like it disappears way over the horizon. We know by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence the earth is round. That doesn't mean the facts that support the contention the earth is flat are no longer evidence. Its evidence in that case that leads to a false conclusion.

Quote

Yes the earth appears flat,yes but that's only an illusion aka not evidence. Just as god is an illusion. To you god appears real. How ever the evidence that naturalistic explanations are the way to explain the world is pretty much all of science. Science doesn't make claims about whether there is a god or not because there,s zero evidence (and physics is hardly evidence supporting god.) to even try to investigate. That doesn't mean no one ever attempted to investigate the "hypothesis" that god exists it's just they come up empty handed as there is at this time no way to test that hypothesis. Therefore science doesn't make any conclusions in regard to a creators existence. Most atheists aren't saying that god or a creator exists. What atheists do is not believing in god. Why? Because nothing in the natural world that points to a god and there's really no reason to think that there is one. Now I'm not making a claim I'm rejecting your claim. That's soft atheism which is what most of us here are. However there are hard atheists that do go a step further and make the claim there's no god.

At this time there is no evidence of a god. Actually there's more evidence of a big foot than god even if most of that evidence is fake. How do you fake evidence for god ? See the Catholics for that. 

But I'm getting off track here. Let me get this straight, you are claiming that the fact that physics exist and the universe follows laws that, that is evidence for god? Because that's what understanding.

Physics is not evidence of a creator. You're going to have to show how you made such a connection other than your word or your version of logic.

The fact that the universe follows laws also not evidence for a god. Or a creator. You will need to show a connection via the scientific method. If can't do that you're still just making a claim. I'm sorry but you're not getting away with just your word.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 25, 2017, 10:35:40 PM
If I was trying a murder case I would first establish a death took place. A corpse if available is very conclusive evidence a death has taken place. Otherwise I'd have to find some other means to prove someone has died. I would lose my case if I couldn't establish a death occurred. Would you deny a corpse is a fact that supports a murder charge? Of course many more facts would have to be presented to tie the death of someone to the accused. The defense may argue the death was caused by natural causes (sound familiar?) but they can't argue that a dead body isn't evidence. In the case of theism I claim the universe (laws of nature) were intentionally caused by a transcendent agent commonly referred to as God. I couldn't make my case if the universe and the laws of nature didn't exist. Atheism doesn't require a universe exist theism does.

I have proven there is evidence of the existence of God. If you refuse to agree its not because I haven't proven its evidence you're just being obstinate. You refuse to apply a shred of skepticism to the claim there is no evidence of God. Is the fact we can explain most phenomena (like rain, earthquakes, supernova's) by referring to the laws of physics valid evidence of your contention its naturalism all the way down? I agree, its a fact, it has probative value. Ask your self why are facts you provide in support of naturalism evidence but facts I present in favor of theism aren't?

The laws of physics are naturalistic explanations not supernatural. You have to show how physics is connected to supporting the existence of a god. I'm personally not seeing a connection and also doesn't make that connection either. If you're going to make that claim then you're going do more work to show that. Just you insisting is not cutting it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: doorknob on February 26, 2017, 11:23:44 AM
The laws of physics are naturalistic explanations not supernatural. You have to show how physics is connected to supporting the existence of a god. I'm personally not seeing a connection and also doesn't make that connection either. If you're going to make that claim then you're going do more work to show that. Just you insisting is not cutting it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Cavebear on February 26, 2017, 11:35:11 AM
I'm not sure I agree with some of your probative logic.  But maybe that's why I'm not a lawyer.  But I can say, having dealt with administrative judges, some of the logic you suggested would have been laughed out of court with prejudice.

Quote from: doorknob on February 26, 2017, 11:38:31 AM
Are you speaking to me? Not sure I understand how my comment relates to your response sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 12:17:55 PM
See, you do it to.  If my head wasn't connected to my body, I might forget it when I leave home in the morning.

QuoteIn a formal debate you can expect you argument to be to attacked, Drew. In this case your arguments are being attacked because they are  incomplete.

I've seen you argue two things on this forum.

1. The universe exists.
2. Therefore god created the universe.

and

1. The development of the universe since the Big Bang can be simulated on a computer.
2. Therefore god created the universe.

QuoteDrew - preponderance of evidence: A foreman at a construction site has added extra cables to the bridge. The assistant wants the engineer to check the specks, but the foreman says "Look at all the extra cables I put in it. There is a preponderance of evidence that the bridge will be able to handle the design weight." The day after the bridge is opened a maximum weight load is moved across the bridge and it collapses. The foreman should have had the engineer check the work instead of relying on a preponderance of evidence.

QuoteShort story Drew is that a preponderance of evidence doesn't make god an actual fact; not that we have gotten anywhere near a preponderance of evidence. You can bring some evidence to the table and change all of our minds if you have some. Don't forget some of us have been in church and found the story full of holes.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 26, 2017, 02:29:08 PM


Theism is the belief we owe our existence to a Creator...its a philosophical position, not a religious belief there is no church of theism.

QuoteYes we are completely committed to a naturalistic world view. We live in a natural world. No one here is selectively skeptical, nor do I scrutinize theism any more or less that I scrutinize any other claim. Naturalistic explanations are not merely possible and plausible, that's were you're going wrong. Naturalistic explanations ARE scrutinized to the Nth degree. They have to be, that's how science works and why atheists prefer it. Is science 100% fool proof? Of course not! But as of right now science is the most reliable method out there! If you can think of something more reliable I'll laugh but I'd love to here it.

QuoteSo a simulation does not prove anything. And even still an imitation of something does not prove that something is real! It is not evidence of that something! Especially a computer simulation.

QuoteWe don't have to make our cases we are not the one's making a claim, you are! Atheism is the default position. No one is born with the knowledge of god. It is a creation of man's imagination.

Quote
That statement has never been demonstrated.  As the proposer of the claim that a deity exists in any form, it is your responsibility to prove your claim.  Please provide evidence proving your claim.

Or quit making it.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 26, 2017, 02:18:20 PM
Correct those two lines of evidence alone would be inconclusive at best. However if they're not considered evidence the other lines won't be either...

1.   The fact the universe exists
2.   The fact life exists
3.   The fact intelligent life exists
4.   The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5.   The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.

You can state these same facts and argue it was the result of unguided natural forces that unintentionally caused a universe and the myriad of conditions that allow for life to exist. If it wasn't intentionally caused its the only explanation left. The real stick in the mud is sentient life. Its not just a matter of planetary conditions for sentient life to obtain, there are several universal conditions that have to obtain and several laws of physics for life to be a possibility. I'm skeptical of the notion Naturedidit. Nature didn't care if nature existed, if planets existed, if gravity existed if stars existed and it certainly didn't care if something unlike itself came into existence sentient life. It took a lot of designing, code and knowledge for scientists to create a virtual universe that looks something like the real universe. Natural forces got it right without plan, intent or desire to do and barring other universes it got the right conditions for life the first time! I believe in theism because at this time it explains better than naturalism (my opinion of course) but that could change. If we discovered life elsewhere under different circumstances that would be a line of evidence in favor of naturalism. If its proved this is one of many or an infinitude of universes that have different laws that would explain how the laws in this universe happened upon the conditions that allow life to obtain. Look at it this way only nutcases believe in a rain god, a personal agent that causes rain. Because in that case science actually has proved a negative that naturalistic forces can account for why it rains obviating the need for a rain god.

QuoteDrew, you not having read the preponderance of the posts here for the last say ... 2 years ... you are unaware that the folks here don't take argument as a court case argued before a judge or jury.

QuoteSimilarly the idea of controlled experiments that allow evidence of theism, are unthinkable.  You are simply a "natural theology" fan, born about 250 years too late.  That theology has long been out of fashion, with the authorities.

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 26, 2017, 04:44:08 PM
Santa exists because

1.  The fact children exist
2.  The fact Christmas exists
3.  The fact children receive presents on Christmas
4.  The fact mall santas exist
5.  The fact that MMO developers create virtual universes (MMOs) with xmas events are a working model of Christmas

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 26, 2017, 04:34:46 PM
Sorry Drew, but shit happens therefore god isn't an argument. It's a baseless assertion. Shit happens and god is the only possible cause because... is an argument. Shit happens and god is the most likely cause because... is an argument. Both of those need evidence behind the because, and you haven't presented any.

Quote from: Baruch on February 26, 2017, 07:52:31 PM
Drew ...

"they don't know what's acceptable evidence" ... they accept scientific evidence, not court evidence.  A Catholic arguing here, looking back on 2000 years of Christian church evidence, has a lot of circumstantial evidence in his favor, particularly for Catholicism ... if this were a court of secular law, let alone a court of canon (religious) law.  Scientific implies no gods at all.  You are being philosophical, and the folks here don't accept philosophy, any more than they accept theology.  I do, but then I am odd like that ;-)

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 26, 2017, 05:19:42 PMthe fact of children existing doesn't make the existence of Santa anymore likely.

QuoteIf you attributed the existence of children to Santa you might have something.

QuoteIf you can link the fact of Christmas to a person known as Santa you might have something.

QuoteIf I were making your case I'd just note that presents appear under the tree on Christmas morning and site that as evidence Santa delivered them. The problem is we have a far superior explanation for the gifts appearing. We can open the gifts and run the bar code and discover when and where it was purchased. We could set up hundreds of cameras peering into houses (legally from the street) and observe humans placing the gifts under the tree. We can question the parents and get them to confess they bought the gifts and placed them under the tree.

QuoteThere is a reason why sane lucid people who have been indoctrinated by their parents into believing in Santa no longer do. Because there is a far superior explanation not to mention they may play the Santa game themselves.

QuoteYou don't think natural forces without plan or intent caused the gifts to exist do you?

QuoteI know you think this argument is incredibly clever in reality its a silly argument that only underscores why folks haven't rejected belief in God as they have Santa. If there was in evidence a superior naturalistic explanation for how the universe and life came about that is as good as the alternate non-Santa explanation for gifts most of us would all be atheists...We'd probably argue about something more important, like football.

QuoteThere are a few reasons.  The Santa thing is manifestly untrue, easily falsifiable, no one's emotionally invested in Santa being real and no one's going to invoke the wrath of Santa-believers by rejecting Santa.  God is less falsifiable, but backed up by more social pressure and emotional investment.  God might even be said to make more intuitive sense in that the naturalistic explanations are complicated and difficult to understand and fraught with uncertainty, while goddidit provides a relatively simple and easy explanation.  But God, like Santa, relies heavily on childhood indoctrination and appeals more to what we wish was so rather than what is actually so.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 10:23:39 PM by Hydra009 »

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 27, 2017, 12:35:02 AMImagine how complicated it would be to figure out how natural forces operated if there were no laws of physics.

QuoteWhat makes you so certain, so confident that naturalistic forces minus any intent, knowledge or intellect would cause a universe to exist that would have the conditions to allow sentient humans to exist?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 26, 2017, 09:15:27 PM
Baruch,

I think you've been hanging around the folks in this forum too long.

Is the naturalistic explanation 'Shit happens' a scientific concept? There own positions aren't scientifically proven. We are arguing opinions neither side can conclusively prove. Is the reason they are naturalists or atheists is because those things have been scientifically proven? I have made clear from day one theism is an opinion, a belief. That said, the six lines of evidence are scientific facts. No one has disputed they are true.

Quote from: Baruch on February 27, 2017, 06:30:45 AM
These people are a nice challenge.  Any theist coming here has to be sharper than a broken spork.  Your arguments have been repetitive, so I think you just like restating your position, because you only have one argument, and you simply restate it.  This is no different than your typical Christian evangelist ... though you are more Popular Science than Watchtower.  If you want to impress anyone here, all of whom are very mature, very well read people (except the dog guy) you will have to up your game.  This may take years more effort on your part, something you aren't likely to pull out of your pocket.  Not saying you don't have it in you, but you have to earn respect here.  I only am kept around for amusement ... that and my theism is very irregular and unique.  You keep misreading people's responses ... they recognize you aren't dogmatic .. but you are ... a one tune CD.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 27, 2017, 06:34:59 AM
Small wonder

A one-trick pony
Performing in our circus
Drew crowds in tonight.

Quote from: Baruch on February 27, 2017, 06:30:45 AM
These people are a nice challenge.  Any theist coming here has to be sharper than a broken spork.  Your arguments have been repetitive, so I think you just like restating your position, because you only have one argument, and you simply restate it.  This is no different than your typical Christian evangelist ... though you are more Popular Science than Watchtower.  If you want to impress anyone here, all of whom are very mature, very well read people (except the dog guy) you will have to up your game.  This may take years more effort on your part, something you aren't likely to pull out of your pocket.  Not saying you don't have it in you, but you have to earn respect here.  I only am kept around for amusement ... that and my theism is very irregular and unique.  You keep misreading people's responses ... they recognize you aren't dogmatic .. but you are ... a one tune CD.

QuoteHere's how I know that.  If you actually had some idea what you were talking about, you'd know that the "laws of physics" are essentially mathematical descriptions of how natural forces operate.  You're describing one thing as if it were two separate things.

QuoteUnlike you, I'm willing to admit that I don't know what I don't know.  So I cannot say with any sort of certainty that I know what the absolute earliest moment of the universe was like.  The best I can do is rely on expert knowledge.  And a lot of lines of evidence (CMB, redshift, etc) discovered by people far more knowledgeable than me point to a sort of Big Bang (don't let the name fool you, it was coined by a detractor, but it stuck).

Quote from: fencerider on February 27, 2017, 11:40:21 PM
Neither side can use the existence of ETs as proof for or against the existence of a Christian god, because the Bible doesn't say one thing about them. Unless you want to make the argument that ETs are actually angels.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 27, 2017, 09:59:47 PM
I don't hold one standard for theistic evidence and a different standard for naturalistic evidence. 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 27, 2017, 09:27:23 PM
I'll have to really step up my game to refute scientific rebuttals like shit happens and comparisons of Santa Claus to theism. I have repeated myself frequently because I get asked the same question whats your evidence there is no evidence whats your evidence there is no evidence. Have you heard any new arguments from naturalists and atheists in the past 20 years?

There's no  evidence in favor of theism
Like a puddle fits a hole
you can't prove a negative
atheism is the default position
I don't believe in God or Santa...

Quote from: fencerider on February 27, 2017, 11:40:21 PM
This conversation has evolved so fast in the last few days that its hard to keep up.

I am glad I was never given the Santa Claus deception. First time I ever heard of Santa was in 7th grade. It sounded so ridiculous when I heard it for the first time.


There are at least 2 topics that are pointless to talk about in the quest to prove or disprove the existence of a god: Jonah, and Little Green Men.

The story of Jonah is not so incredible that you can say it is not natural. Nor is it so unique proving its truth would support the existence of a god. Someone gets swallowed by a fish and lives to tell about it once every 20-30 years. [The ridiculous part is that Jonah went to Ninevah (a major metropolitan city) and converted everyone all by himself in 30 days]

Neither side can use the existence of ETs as proof for or against the existence of a Christian god, because the Bible doesn't say one thing about them. Unless you want to make the argument that ETs are actually angels.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 26, 2017, 04:55:25 PM


I don't think the position a personal agent is responsible for the universe and life is a theological proposition. What would the theology be if it turns out we owe our existence to a scientist in another universe who caused this universe to exist?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 28, 2017, 02:15:57 PMThe case for naturalism...

Quote1) The fact of natural processes
2) The lack of evidence for supernatural events or beings

Unlike supernaturalism, naturalism is a tentative conclusion - it is not taken on faith, can be questioned, and can even falsified.  And all you have to do to falsify naturalism is demonstrate the existence of anything supernatural.  (Note: attributing something to a supernatural cause =/= demonstrating the existence of the supernatural)

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 28, 2017, 02:15:57 PM
The case for naturalism...

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.

Okay that's my case from known well scientifically established facts for naturalism. I expect everyone to be consistent and explain to me how this isn't evidence of naturalism and in fact there is no evidence which supports naturalism. It is a faith concept only...

QuoteUnlike supernaturalism, naturalism is a tentative conclusion - it is not taken on faith, can be questioned, and can even falsified.

QuoteI'm not even sure I follow you?

I can't be certain but It feels like you are saying that naturalism is faith based when it is not. Science isn't for naturalism it doesn't support naturalism. Science uses naturalistic explanations and derive evidence from the natural world. The only thing we have is the natural world as nothing supernatural can even be test at least at this time let alone proven. Aka no supernatural evidence.

I understand that you think that natural facts can support the existence of god. I agree that, that's possible however at this time that type of evidence doesn't exist. What you are presenting as evidence doesn't qualify as evidence as far as atheists are concerned.

I'm sorry to say this but the case you presented as evidence is flimsy at best. If you want more intellectual conversation then you are going to have to build on that. Just claiming that the universe and natural laws actually point to a creator is not going anywhere. You aren't the first to think of this and certainly not the last.

Quoteauthor=Hijiri Byakuren link=topic=11330.msg1168938#msg1168938 date=1488319777]
I can't really make the argument I want to make from my phone, but I will say that Drew is currently being the most reasonable person in the thread right now. Please take a step back and stop addressing him like he's one of the drive-by missionaries we often get.

Quote from: Sorginak on February 25, 2017, 08:25:00 PM
Yet......I still do not believe in a god despite how much drivel the theists spout as pseudo-truth.

Quote from: Sorginak on February 26, 2017, 09:28:30 PM
The major difference between a scientist and a theist is that the scientist is willing to state, "I don't know" and then proceed to seek the answer through scientific methodology whereas the theist will simply state, "It's god," even though there is no evidential backing to that answer because the theist would rather have that answer than a scientific one or no answer at all.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 28, 2017, 05:39:33 PM
I think you replied to hastily without actually reading what I wrote. In this last post I made a case in favor of naturalism but you said I made a poor case and better come up with something else...if I came up with something else I'd repeat my case for theism.

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 27, 2017, 02:35:57 AM
The fact that you thought to write down this sentence is proof positive that you really don't know anything about science and all your sciency talk was just an apologetics angle.

Here's how I know that.  If you actually had some idea what you were talking about, you'd know that the "laws of physics" are essentially mathematical descriptions of how natural forces operate.  You're describing one thing as if it were two separate things.

Quote from: Baruch on February 27, 2017, 06:46:59 AM
Not an Oscar performance, and that is even with a totally mis-managed Oscar night.

Quote from: SGOS on February 28, 2017, 04:19:52 AM
To apply a standard that applies to both science and religion, you would first need a standard.  One rub is that there is no such standard.  Science recognizes there is no standard that works for both.  Consequently, it does not deal with religious beliefs.  Theists often think science deals with religious beliefs because science offers explanations that negate Biblical explanations, but this is not done intentionally with malice or with an agenda to expand the boundaries of science into the supernatural.  Science simply ignores the supernatural.  Any contradiction is unintended.

Science is a process in box.  The box is a set of rules.  The rules have been borrowed from logic.  These rules are very restrictive.  This prevents scientists from thinking outside the box.  In Theology, thinking outside the box is encouraged.  Science forbids it, although scientists sometimes falter, and get carried away.  This is not a fault of science.  It's a lapse of logic.  It's a human error.

So when you say you apply the same standard to both science and religion, what is that standard?  What are the rules you apply to test religious beliefs?  How do you apply those rules to science?  Science disallows certain rules of religious methodology.  Faith being the most obvious.

The standards for religion are not the same as science.  If you have found a way to reconcile science and religion, you would be the first man to do it.  Religion would like to reconcile the two.  It would be a feather in religion's cap to point to science that actually verifies the existence of a god.  But once again, science recognizes and accepts that IF the supernatural domain exists at all, it lies outside the restrictive box of the scientific process [at this time].

Quote from: Baruch on February 28, 2017, 06:32:11 AM
I have no desire for reconciliation.  Nor am I at war.  Pluralism isn't a bad thing.  Consistency is a fetish.

Drew -
"These laws do exist though. Its not that we invented them or calculated them into existence we calculated and created formulas because they existed. But I'm sure I'm wrong..."

Yes, you are wrong.  You need to get past your Popular Mechanics understanding of science (which many atheists here share with you).  A few of us get "science" ... understand it, not just know some facts about it.  Properly taught in Jr High, one can learn real scientific method, not just indoctrination .. it isn't that hard.

There are very few hard scientific laws, and they keep getting knocked down over time .. conservation of energy and conservation of mass, are forced to be combined into the conservation of mass-energy for instance.  The two prior laws were 19th century, the unified law is 20th century, but I am sure the sci-fi fans will tell us that by overturning the conservation of mass-energy (how?) we will soon have free lunches and warp drives.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 28, 2017, 05:14:12 PM
When you say its a tentative conclusion (that naturalistic forces without plan or intent caused the universe and life) you mean its possible it was caused intentionally by a personal agent(s)? I suspect your tentative position means your only 99.9999 % convinced.

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 28, 2017, 06:09:40 PM
Haha! "and the winner is...hey, wait, that's not the winner!

:confuse:

Quote from: Unbeliever on February 28, 2017, 06:25:56 PM
And time travel! don't forget about time travel!

:bounce8:

Quote from: Baruch on March 01, 2017, 05:04:03 AM
What kind of naturalism, can be falsified ... but not naturalism itself, that is assumed.  And yes, for many, the naturalism/supernaturalism is a false dichotomy.  Rationalists decry logical fallacies, and they commit them ;-)  But Drew, you are still talking philosophy, not science.  Just say you are a philosopher, not a scientist ... and you have me.

QuoteTo apply a standard that applies to both science and religion, you would first need a standard.  One rub is that there is no such standard.  Science recognizes there is no standard that works for both.  Consequently, it does not deal with religious beliefs.  Theists often think science deals with religious beliefs because science offers explanations that negate Biblical explanations, but this is not done intentionally with malice or with an agenda to expand the boundaries of science into the supernatural.  Science simply ignores the supernatural.  Any contradiction is unintended.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 01, 2017, 09:43:08 AM
I wouldn't even go so far as to say I'm a philosopher...just an opinionated coffee house kibitzer.

Quote from: doorknob on March 01, 2017, 11:30:27 AM
isn't that the same thing?

Quote from: Baruch on March 01, 2017, 06:04:33 PM
There is no complexity, just simple minds baffled ;-)

Quote from: badger2 on March 01, 2017, 06:54:52 PM
Trillions of pornographic images of petroleum addiction are daily injected into the unconscious of the prisoners caught fast in the curare-resin of Jaba's Matrix, and there's no complexity. Precious.

'In Common Law, Holmes provides a charming, almost quaint, example of this temporality of law, this forgetting and inventing of sense that brings rules into existence: the "deodand."According to Holmes a common feature of ancient and superstitious societies was to punish and destroy objects that caused harm....As Holmes writes, "A ship is the most living of inanimate things." The ship was treated as if endowed with personality. Almost incredibly, the treatment of ships as a willful and responsible agent endured all the way to 1844 when Justice Story of the U.S. Supreme Court approvingly cites Chief Justice Marshall: "This is not a proceeding against the owner; it is a proceeding against the vessel for an offense committed by the vessel." Obviously the Court no longer thinks that an inanimate thing is capable of committing an offense. And yet, we see a renewal of the deodand rule under a different scheme of interests and reasons.'
(LeFebvre, The Image of Law: Deleuze, Bergson, Spinoza, Ch. 5 The Time of Law: Evolution in Holmes and Bergson)

Quote from: badger2 on March 01, 2017, 08:31:24 PM
We suggest Zizek's Absolute Recoil, which dialectical materialism is getting down to brass tacks: the concept of "less than nothing." Whooda thunkit.

Quote
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.

Quote from: doorknob on March 01, 2017, 10:16:39 PM
you're basically saying that the same evidence that applies to naturalistic explanations are also evidence that  supports god?

I just want to clear up what it is you are trying to say?

The facts you sited weren't facts! The evidence you provided wasn't evidence. I don't know how else to say it. You keep insisting it was but that doesn't change the fact that what you presented is not evidence supporting intelligent design.

Quote from: doorknob on March 01, 2017, 10:16:39 PM
you're basically saying that the same evidence that applies to naturalistic explanations are also evidence that  supports god?

I just want to clear up what it is you are trying to say?

The facts you sited weren't facts! The evidence you provided wasn't evidence. I don't know how else to say it. You keep insisting it was but that doesn't change the fact that what you presented is not evidence supporting intelligent design.

Could an generic intelligent designer exist. I admit it's possible there still isn't any evidence. Wishful thinking at best. I really can't say anything else at this point there are many demonstrations as to why there isn't evidence of a god. But you just refuse to accept any of them and keep restating the same thing over and over again. To be honest I think I'm running of explanations. I mean you can only explain naturalism and science so many times.

Quote from: Cavebear on March 02, 2017, 12:30:15 AM
I think the argument here is that "nothing is impossible".  That's true, but some situations are more likely than others and by magnitudes of likelihood. There might be unicorns, flargs, or stone-trolls, too.  Might.  But not worth considering.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 03, 2017, 08:30:22 AM
"Nothing is impossible," might be true, in the sense that it may be "impossible" for the universe to contain "nothing."

But "nothing is impossible," in the sense of "no event is impossible," I disagree with. I think it is possible, to conceive an impossible event.

QuoteDrew you didn't get through the first step in providing proof that the universe was created. So we never got to the second step; a reminder that proving that the universe was created makes an excellent premise for proving the existence of a god. But proving there was a creator does not prove the existence of a god aka supreme being.

1. prove the universe was created by a localized entity.
2. prove the act of creation didn't kill the entity.
3. prove that the entity hasn't died between then and now.
4. prove that the creator entity is qualified as a supreme being.
5. prove that the entity actually wants the title of a god.

of course after you can prove the existence of a creator god we're still gonna have to ask what that has to do with us. Just because you claim to be a god is not a good enough reason to expect or demand anything from us....

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 03, 2017, 10:17:37 PM
To wrap up on this thread the debate between Goddidit or Naturedidit is a philosophical different point of view. 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 03, 2017, 10:17:37 PM
...

I presented 5 known facts that support naturalism and not one single person disputed it was evidence. I presented known facts that support theism but no one accepted it as legitimate evidence. This is because one of the most revered hallowed axioms of atheism is there is no evidence in favor of theism.
...     

Quote from: Drew_2017 link=topic=11330.msg1169425#msg1169425 date =1488597457


I presented 5 known facts that support naturalism and not one single person disputed it was evidence. I presented known facts that support theism but no one accepted it as legitimate evidence. This is because one of the most revered hallowed axioms of atheism is there is no evidence in favor of theism. This is a preemptive mental construct that is impervious to any facts or data since the invariable response to facts that support theism is there is no evidence of theism.

 

Quote from: doorknob on March 04, 2017, 01:21:14 PM
That atheism is impervious to facts is a hoot. Every one has tried to reason with you and you refuse to be reasoned with. The only thing impervious to facts here seems to be you!  Philosophy is not fact nor data. All claims you made were claims not supported by anything but your insistence!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

QuoteThat atheism is impervious to facts is a hoot. Every one has tried to reason with you and you refuse to be reasoned with. The only thing impervious to facts here seems to be you!  Philosophy is not fact nor data. All claims you made were claims not supported by anything but your insistence!

Quote from: sdelsolray on March 04, 2017, 10:52:30 AM
No, it's because you do not understand the difference between the relevance of the five "facts" you presented in favor of theism and the relevance of the five "facts" you presented in favor of naturalism.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 04, 2017, 01:36:27 PM
The difference is the facts I listed in favor of naturalism favor naturalism, the facts I listed in favor of theism favor theism. You explain the relevance....

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 04, 2017, 01:31:59 PM
The mental construct there is no evidence in favor of theism is a slogan indelibly etched in the brains of most atheists and is impervious to facts to the contrary. No one objected or disputed facts that favor naturalism...only theism.

Quote from: Baruch on March 04, 2017, 01:03:11 AM
"defined as naturalism all they way down" ... not something that can be defended ... but it is naturalism "almost all the way down".  But it is a false dichotomy ... naturalism and supernaturalism aren't opposites, just different POV.  I prefer the supernaturalism (as I define it, is really is almost the same thing as naturalism) ... because for most folks here, the are reductionist or materialist or rationalist ... but I deny all three of those.

QuoteI'm sorry but why would we dispute naturalism? We support naturalism. Obviously we are not going to dispute something that is true and or fact.

QuoteTheism is not based on facts.

QuoteThe laws of nature do not point to a divine creator no many how many times you repeat it or insist.

QuoteBesides what makes you so sure that the creator supposing one exists is your god? The theoretic creator could be any number of things let alone whether that thing is even a god. Pretty arrogant to assume that it is your god.

Quote from: Baruch on March 04, 2017, 01:39:54 PM
And that is where philosophy gets you.  Not that it is a bad thing, but there are few philosophers here ... it is considered too threatening by most.

Quote from: doorknob on March 03, 2017, 06:49:24 AM
I'd just like to take this moment to point out that no one will give me unicorns because I borrowed so many unicorns that I couldn't feed them all and they died. The tragic death of unicorns there for made the unicorn brokers not interested in giving me more unicorns. I probably will never have another unicorn for the rest of my life.


moral of the story is don't borrow unicorns if you can't feed them.

baruch is correct that quantum mechanics for the life of me hasn't convinced unicorn brokers that I'm not going to just kill more unicorns. Quantum mechanics doesn't perform miracles.

2nd moral of the story there is no quantum mechanics god.

PS if you didn't understand any of that see the burachs post above.

Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2017, 07:11:09 AM
Ah, but did you get it.  Doorknob gets my point about abuse of Heisenberg's Principle.  Realizes it is reasonable, even if an unreasonable person talks about it.

Quote from: Cavebear on March 05, 2017, 07:51:34 AM
Sadly, you don't even get that.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 04, 2017, 06:50:12 PM
Hopefully by this point you understand we're not discussing whether naturalistic forces exist. The discussion is whether unguided mechanistic forces came first, caused the universe then caused sentient beings later. You believe this is true but it's not a scientific belief, it's a philosophical one. If it is a scientific fact by all means show me the experiments and we can call this debate done.

Quote from: Drew_2017...I offered the facts that support it. You don't dispute the facts you only dispute the the contention they comport agree with or favor theism.

Quote from: Drew_2017I'm not going to argue...

Quote from: Drew_2017...as I said the axiom 'there is no evidence of theism' is a mental construct that is impervious to facts or data.

Quote from: Drew_2017Whether they do or don't is really up to impartial people not committed to either point of view. Its not up to an advocate of naturalism to pretend they are impartial.

Quote from: Drew_2017...I never identified any particular god only a Creator. It could turn out the Creator is a scientist from another universe in which case theism would still be correct. 

QuoteIt is not a fact, but rather a prediction [that we owe our existence to naturalistic causes], based on all available facts. 

QuoteYou have offered a handful of facts. What you have not offered is any logical reason that those facts should be taken as supporting theism. Only your elaborate assertions.

QuoteReligious rationalizers are committed to a point of view. The rest of us are trying to see where the evidence actually leads.

QuoteNo. A scientist-creator would still be naturalism, only taken to an absurd level of unnecessary additional complexity.

Quote from: Baruch on March 05, 2017, 02:21:42 PM
Lurianic Kabbalah, and Nation of Islam mythology, both have mad scientists.  In the first, the mad scientist is G-d ... in the second it is just some African guy.

Drew ... your denial hat you are a theist ... has long worn thin.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 05, 2017, 03:36:54 PM
The upshot of theistic belief is that we owe our existence to an intelligent personal cause as opposed to unguided mechanistic causes. Who that intelligent personal cause is, is another subject and thread. Solomon said 'No. A scientist-creator would still be naturalism, only taken to an absurd level of unnecessary additional complexity.' I thought the notion of theism would be more palatable if they could still say it was a naturalistic cause. A naturalistic theism?

Quote from: Cavebear on March 05, 2017, 04:38:37 PM
Your statement that theistic belief claims a deliberate cause is certainly true.  But what supports that claim?  All you are saying is that theism is theism!

QuoteIt is not a fact, but rather a prediction [that we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic causes , based on all available facts. 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 05, 2017, 05:47:11 PM
Solomon wrote:

Assuming its true we owe the existence of the universe to naturalistic unguided forces that had no intent, plan or desire to create anything (not even there own existence) would we predict such forces would cause:

The conditions for life to exist?
The conditions for sentient life to exist?
A universe dominated by laws of physics?
A universe in which mathematics is applicable?

If I believed naturalistic forces caused the universe to exist I would predict we'd observe a lifeless chaotic universe. Why would I expect otherwise?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 05, 2017, 05:47:11 PM
Assuming its true we owe the existence of the universe to naturalistic unguided forces that had no intent, plan or desire to create anything (not even there own existence) would we predict such forces would cause:

The conditions for life to exist?
The conditions for sentient life to exist?
A universe dominated by laws of physics?
A universe in which mathematics is applicable?

If I believed naturalistic forces caused the universe to exist I would predict we'd observe a lifeless chaotic universe. Why would I expect otherwise? 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 05, 2017, 03:36:54 PM
The upshot of theistic belief is that we owe our existence to an intelligent personal cause as opposed to unguided mechanistic causes. Who that intelligent personal cause is, is another subject and thread. Solomon said 'No. A scientist-creator would still be naturalism, only taken to an absurd level of unnecessary additional complexity.' I thought the notion of theism would be more palatable if they could still say it was a naturalistic cause. A naturalistic theism?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 05, 2017, 05:47:11 PM
Solomon wrote:

Assuming its true we owe the existence of the universe to naturalistic unguided forces that had no intent, plan or desire to create anything (not even there own existence) would we predict such forces would cause:

The conditions for life to exist?
The conditions for sentient life to exist?
A universe dominated by laws of physics?
A universe in which mathematics is applicable?

If I believed naturalistic forces caused the universe to exist I would predict we'd observe a lifeless chaotic universe. Why would I expect otherwise?

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 06, 2017, 03:04:04 AM
Math is how we "map" reality. If reality were different, math might be different. This shows we created math to understand things, not that things exist to be described by math.
If The laws of physics were different but allowed Some other form of being to exist, they'd very likely see that system of physics as orderly, where for us it'd be labeled chaotic. Like before, laws of physics are how we describe The system that is, but in no way, shape or form implies were meant to be such. And important to keep in mind is that order, chaos and even life in alternative models are relative concepts.
If you look for intent, you may find it anywhere. We are biased Like that. Interpreting proof to befit our standpoint and looking for patterns is one of the reasons our species has thrived. But that does lead us to things that at first glance seem more telling or important than they are.
It all seems to boil down to this for you: The universe was created for sentient life  (and by extension us), because otherwise we wouldn't expected to be here. Yet in truth you've not provided proof for anything other than we managed to come into being in the universe as it is. I know you think you've supplied evidence that our surroundings are created for us, but there is no prof of that. We can't say anything beyond the fact that we've grown to fill a mold. And we don't have grounds to claim The mold was created for us.

Quoteauthor=Solomon Zorn link=topic=11330.msg1169674#msg1169674 date=1488790331]
Because naturalistic forces ARE order. They could not produce a "chaotic universe," where mathematics and physical laws don't apply.

Quote
This has been explained to you already, but you keep repeating the same ridiculous crap, as though you're making a valid point. :banghead:

Quote from: Baruch on March 06, 2017, 06:36:55 AM
Relying on unknowable details of the Big Bang, for theism or atheism ... is ignostic, not even agnostic.  If it isn't here and now, you know nothing.

Quote from: Baruch on March 06, 2017, 06:38:17 AM
Most of reality is chaotic.  Life and consciousness only exist on the margins where it isn't.

QuoteMath is how we "map" reality. If reality were different, math might be different. This shows we created math to understand things, not that things exist to be described by math.

QuoteIt all seems to boil down to this for you: The universe was created for sentient life  (and by extension us), because otherwise we wouldn't expected to be here. Yet in truth you've not provided proof for anything other than we managed to come into being in the universe as it is. I know you think you've supplied evidence that our surroundings are created for us, but there is no prof of that. We can't say anything beyond the fact that we've grown to fill a mold. And we don't have grounds to claim The mold was created for us.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 06, 2017, 02:30:55 PM
Agreed. I rely on what we do know to infer the existence of an intelligent creator.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 06, 2017, 02:38:49 PM
It appears that way. On what epistemological basis should I think naturalistic forces would cause any life or consciousness to exist? Sir Martin Rees a highly respected astronomer believes this is one of an infinitude of universes based on his knowledge of how unlikely conditions would obtain for any life at all to exist or for that matter, planets and stars. Its interesting that he takes information that appears to make the case for design and instead argues its evidence this is one of an infinitude of universes or varying types. The overwhelming majority being sterile.

Quote from: Baruch on March 06, 2017, 07:11:28 PM
Yes, multiverse theory is rather sterile, it isn't even science.  You know what a Taylor's series is, such as one used to approximate the exponential function of "e"?  There are an infinite number of terms in it, yet it sums to a finite value.  Can we then assume that each term in the series (and it isn't the only infinite series we can use, we can also use trig functions rather than polynomials) is a separate universe?  That is what the wags are doing in Quantum Field Theory.  The Larmor shift is a finite value, to calculate it, we can used an infinite series of Feynman diagrams (each of which represents some term in the sum).  From that they deduce that there an infinity of universes, one for each term.  But none of those terms by themselves ... allows life, only the finite sum does.  So really multiverse theory is an infinity of sterile universes, that sum to our non-sterile one.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 06, 2017, 09:36:50 PM
Its kind of like the idea of a infinitude of monkey's banging away at an infinitude of type writers...blah, blah, blah.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 06, 2017, 03:26:44 PM
I think you're mistaken about that. Suppose other advanced sentient beings existed on another planet. Do you think they would describe reality in a different way and come up with different math since we wrote our math into the universe? I believe if advanced they would discover the same laws formula's and equations we have. How could we apply this knowledge to the real world if we just 'wrote' into it?

I see an article in Scientific American ( I hope that's a notch above Popular Mechanics Baruch) about this very topic. Below are some excerpts from the article.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/deep-in-thought-what-is-a-law-of-physics-anyway/

Deep in thought: What is a "law of physics," anyway?

Why should nature be governed by laws? Why should those laws be expressible in terms of mathematics? Why should they be formulated within space and time? These were the questions posed at a fascinating workshop two weeks ago at the Perimeter Institute, the sequel to a workshop held at Arizona State University in December 2008. One of the participants, Sabine Hossenfelder, talked about it yesterday at Backreaction, one of the most consistently thoughtful of all physics blogs. The bottom line is that the organizers had better start planning on more sequels, because the questions seem as intractable as ever.

Roberts reviewed some leading philosophical schools of thought, found them wanting, and argued that the concept of a law is inseparable from the way that physicists discover laws. Their main tool is a controlled experiment, which, by its very nature, looks for patterns that hold whatever the specific conditions might be. I confess that I didn't understand how Roberts's approach helps with the questions we most care about: Why is nature is patterned rather than chaotic? Why does a law gleaned from one situation (say, falling apples) works in unrelated situations (orbiting planets)? But it does seem useful to acknowledge that our laws, even if they capture some objective reality, are conditioned by our process of discovery.

The real fireworks at the workshop came from disagreements over time -- not over whether the speakers were running behind schedule and cutting into the coffee breaks, but over whether time itself is a derived concept or a fundamental one. Does time emerge from something deeper or is it an irreducible part of the natural world? In our current issue, philosopher Craig Callender of U.C. San Diego lays out the case for the first option, based partly on Barbour's ideas.

The main trouble I had with the talk was that I didn't see how the abstract ideas related to the world we experience. Time seems so real. How did it arise? Why is the world structured in the very special way that is needed to give rise to time? In short, what do we really gain by saying that time isn't real?

That's true, to be a naturalist or an atheist of necessity you have to conclude we owe our existence (and the universe, laws of nature, time and matter) all to happenstance since no volitional planning could be involved. Its true if we didn't exist we'd have no reason to think we were intentionally caused to exist. I'm always tasked with providing proof of something...if either of us could prove our respective positions we'd relegate anyone denying it to nutcase status like folks who claim the USA never landed on the moon. You declare its a fact we've grown to fill a mold. Are you sure that isn't an opinion you're expressing? I've only provided evidence I feel is strong enough to merit a belief in theism, I've never started it as a fact. If it truly is a fact (a scientific fact or otherwise) that we've grown to fill a mold (and your not just saying that because it has to be that way if naturalism is true) the show me the evidence that makes it a fact? Just think we can put this whole debate to bed right here and now!!

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 06, 2017, 09:36:50 PM
Its kind of like the idea of a infinitude of monkey's banging away at an infinitude of type writers and the belief given enough time and chances one of the monkey's would produce a copy of War and Peace. The problem is after watching an infinitude of monkey's pounding out gibberish would we be any less astonished to see one without error pound out a copy of war and peace? It leads me to believe there are somethings that time and chance alone won't create no matter how many chances given.

Quoteauthor=Mr.Obvious link=topic=11330.msg1169747#msg1169747 date=1488871545]
(Edited:)

I'm sorry, but could you try rereading my first part about math and physics? English isn't my first language. So maybe the fault is mine, but your reply is completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to get across. We can discuss if our math is a 'pure language' or not all day. But that's not the point. It doesn't matter. So for sake of argument: I'm willing to give you that a different sentient being in our universe would develop the same 'language' as it's  a pure one. I'm willing to say they find the same grasp on the laws of physics and find them to be the same as we find them. But i'm not talking about other beings in this universe. I'm saying if the universe were different with different laws then sentience, life itself, math and the working physics and the laws describing them might be completely different. But if anything 'living' and 'sentient' would ever come into being in such a different universe, (and those concepts could be relative and perhaps even inconceivable to us,) could see their working of physics, which might appear as chaos to us as it would be uninhabitable for us, as perfectly orderly. Such beings that could not exist in our universe might themselves think physics as found in our universe would never lead to 'life' and would be chaos.

QuoteRegarding the fact of the mold; my bad on misuse of the word 'fact' as in regards to Growing to fit it. I'll be the first to admit it. I usually use that more in line with people who claim evolution does not exist. Though the principle remains tge same at the core. What I should've said is that all you've shown with the fact that our sentient existence could come into being in this universe is that we 'fit the mold'. That we fit the mold is something you'd probably agree with, I imagine.
What I means to get at is, in simple terms, that our existance as (sentient) life forms is not evidence for a creator at all. We fit in this universe, this reality, that's all you've been justified to claim so far. If you understand my above point about math and the laws of physics, you might understand why you need to detach that from your evidence for creation.

QuoteIs us existing evidence against creation? Is our universe being the way it is evidence against creation? No. And it's not evidence in favor of 'naturalism' either. But your interpretation of it being in favor of your assumptions is unwarrented. And from that imaginary stepping stone you seem to be demanding we surpass you. But you are not higher than us, simply overreaching.
I also think you need to learn the difference between criticising a claim and being forced to make one. I'm not claiming 'naturalism' must be true, I'm simply not buying into the notion that there must be something beyond that natural world untill you back up your claim. Likewise, as an atheist, I am not claiming there can't be a god. There simply just isn't any evidence, ever presented to support the god claim.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 07, 2017, 11:21:54 PM
You realize though everything you you say in bold is just speculation. I agree if life somehow obtained on the moon, or Venus even Mars it would be significantly different from ours and our planet would be lethal to such beings. The problem is we don't know of any other life or any other universe. We don't know if another universe existed it would have different laws of nature or no discernible laws at all. Your point here though interesting is by your own account something that might happen.

Quote
As a person convinced of naturalism and the ability of natural forces to cause life and you go as far to suggest even in a totally different universe that sentient life would invariably arise as if this is something we should expect natural forces without plan or intent would do. This is the core belief of naturalists (and it is just a belief) that life and sentience arose from non living non-sentient forces that didn't care if life or sentience came about. The problem I have with this is in avoiding what you would call a miracle (a transcendent sentient being planned the universe, life and sentience to exist) you call for a greater miracle to occur. You call for these mindless naturalistic forces to come into existence somehow then by sheer happenstance cause the conditions for life and sentience to obtain. Isn't that as at least as miraculous? You have simply substituted a miracle you prefer. So I won't be detaching the existence of sentient life from my list of evidence in favor of theism any time soon.

Quote
I have made the case in favor of theism from 6 lines of evidence. You and many others think that if facts I cite in favor of theism don't personally persuade you can say its not evidence as if the case I make is to be decided only by the atheists and naturalists on this board. I don't deny there is evidence in favor of naturalism. I could be as stubborn as a mule and every fact you site in favor of naturalism I can still say but that's not evidence can you please provide some?

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 08, 2017, 06:18:02 AM

And once again. Read what I'm saying. I'm not out to prove there is no supernatural realm. I'm not out to prove there is no creator. I'm not out to prove 'naturalism'. I'm not out to prove there is no intent.
I make no such claims. All I do, is see you make a claim and back it up with nothing of substance. I explain to you why it's not proving what you think it proves.
I need not back up a claim I don't make. Is this much at least sinking in? I'm not claiming there is no creator of the universe, you just fail to back up your claim that there is. And as long as you can't give some evidence, I can't be persuaded.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 07, 2017, 11:21:54 PM...
I have made the case in favor of theism from 6 lines of evidence.
...

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 06, 2017, 09:36:50 PM
Its kind of like the idea of a infinitude of monkey's banging away at an infinitude of type writers and the belief given enough time and chances one of the monkey's would produce a copy of War and Peace. The problem is after watching an infinitude of monkey's pounding out gibberish would we be any less astonished to see one without error pound out a copy of war and peace? It leads me to believe there are somethings that time and chance alone won't create no matter how many chances given.

Quote from: Hydra009 on March 08, 2017, 11:11:00 AM
Improbable things happen (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Improbable_things_happen) all the time.  If there's even a small chance of something happening, it's definitely going to happen on an infinite timeline.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 06, 2017, 10:51:19 PM
My cock is kind of like, a banana...

Quote from: trdsf on March 08, 2017, 06:56:42 PM
Exactly that.  There's a very small chance of any particular thing happening, but there are billions of things happening all the time.  We hear about (and remember) the weird coincidences -- but not the non-coincidences.  Witness my test of a lesser version here (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=11302.msg1168190#msg1168190) -- it's confirmation bias, essentially, and that's why observation and measurement is important.

Quote from: trdsf on March 08, 2017, 06:56:42 PM
Exactly that.  There's a very small chance of any particular thing happening, but there are billions of things happening all the time.  We hear about (and remember) the weird coincidences -- but not the non-coincidences.  Witness my test of a lesser version here (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=11302.msg1168190#msg1168190) -- it's confirmation bias, essentially, and that's why observation and measurement is important.

Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2017, 07:13:46 PM
All so-called physical laws are confirmation bias.  They only work under human contrived conditions.  Other than human contrived conditions, it is chaos.

Quote from: sdelsolray on March 08, 2017, 07:56:52 PM
Moreover, many events which occur in the Universe are much more likely to occur than over events.  For example, a methane molecule (CH4) is more likely to form than an identical molecule with gold replacing the carbon (i.e., AuH4).  Not surprisingly, events in the Universe that do occur do so because the underlying rules of physics, chemistry and biology make them easier and more likely to occur.

Quote from: sdelsolray on March 08, 2017, 07:59:42 PM
Just not in any way you can demonstrate, using empirical evidence and the physical laws, of course.

You can start by demonstrating how the physical laws did not work when humans did not exist.  Easy peasy.

QuoteMy cock is kind of like, a banana...or then again, maybe it's nothing like that at all. Analogies are for moral tales, not science.

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 08, 2017, 07:12:59 PM
You have a rooster? Is it a Rhode Island Red? How is a rooster like a banana?

Quote from: Baruch on March 09, 2017, 06:05:00 AM
Analogy is matching two things that are not alike?

Quote from: BaruchNo two things are alike.

Quote from: BaruchOn the basis of your analogy...

Quote from: Baruch...each human is its own species.

Quote from: BaruchI get that you are trying to avoid over-generalizing...

Quote from: Baruchbut under-generalizing is a thing too.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 09, 2017, 06:32:39 AM
Is my sperm analogy correctly used?

Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2017, 11:31:14 PM
Just get in your time machine and prove me wrong ;-)
...

Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2017, 11:31:14 PM
...
What may or may not have happened before humans, isn't very relevant to daily life.
...

Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2017, 11:31:14 PM
...
Mostly what we know of physics is unconscious, the motion of the body etc ... consciousness is just a little narcissism that rides on top of the sea of unconsciousness.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 09, 2017, 06:32:39 AM
Is my sperm analogy correctly used?

Quote from: Baruch on March 09, 2017, 06:39:39 AM
Can it be used to predict the value of the basis of the natural logarithms (e)?  Otherwise per Solomon, it is irrelevant.

Quote from: BaruchPeople who are against analogies, use them all the time.  Humans are inconsistent, by nature.

Quote from: BaruchAll conversation is empty rhetoric ... which is useful.

Quote from: BaruchAll conversation is empty rhetoric ... which is useful.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn
All your conversation seems to be, at least.

Quote from: Baruch
As I pointed out before, it is useful to at least one person, me.  If it is useful to anyone else, that is on them.  People pontificate on an atheist web site ... my stars!

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on March 09, 2017, 06:32:39 AM
Is my sperm analogy correctly used?

Quote from: Baruch on March 09, 2017, 07:08:27 PM
So when atheists make claims

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 09, 2017, 06:20:55 AM
That is pedantic and irrelevant, but also correct.

QuoteWell, seeing as I don't have a secret universe stashed away somewhere, yes, I'm aware this is 'speculation'. But seeing as some form of life can happen in our universe which happens to have the certain combined set of laws of nature and physics that it does, doesn't imply that no other combination would be viable to bring forth 'something else'. However relative and different that may be. 

Quote
Basically, all it's just trying to do is explain to you that saying: if the laws of physics in our universe were any different, there couldn't be anything, is not a viable conclusion.

Quote
You need to learn to read what I say if we're to have a decent convesation. I'm not claiming something will arise invariably. I'm saying it could in a number of combinations, not just the one that allowed us specifically to come into existance.

QuoteAnd seeing as a miracle is by definition a supernatural phenomenon.

QuoteYou can keep saying existance of sentience is proof of divinity. But we'll keep trying to explain to you why you're wrong about that. It's proof of sentience. You're looking for purpose and that's why you tag it on. I'm not looking to disprove purpose or meaning or intent. But I don't find anything to back it up either.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 10, 2017, 09:29:21 PM
None of what you posted lends any weight, to the notion that any other set of natural laws is actually possible. And some awestruck physicist, marveling over their intricate balance, does not make them divine.

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 10, 2017, 03:36:15 PM
No two things are alike? What about two electrons? Aren't they indistinguishable?

Quote from: Drew_2017
You guys are hysterical. You use the word science to be synonymous with your beliefs about naturalism and atheism unless scientific facts don't suit your fancy in which case he's an awestruck physicist.

Quote from: Drew_2017I have no idea if a universe comes into existence it (for some non-design reason) has to be like the one we exist in. It doesn't make any difference it would be no less odd that if a universe comes into existence by some naturalistic unguided process it 'has to' for some unknown reason have the same characteristics as the one we observe which just happen to allow for planets and life to exist.

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 10, 2017, 03:36:15 PM
No two things are alike? What about two electrons? Aren't they indistinguishable?

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 10, 2017, 03:36:15 PM
No two things are alike? What about two electrons? Aren't they indistinguishable?

Quote from: fencerider on March 10, 2017, 12:38:21 AM
how do you go from monkeys typing to bull shit? Shouldn't that be monkeys typing to monkey shit?

If you need a lesson in pontification just watch Trump for a couple hours.
Sounds like a butterfly on the opposite side of the earth changing the outcome of a thunderstorm on this side of the earth. I think it is correct, but you're gonna need a supercomputer to model the compound effects of all those small changes.

Quote from: Sorginak on March 10, 2017, 12:52:45 AM
The difference between an atheist making a claim and a theist making a claim is that at least the atheist has the benefit of the doubt considering there is no actual evidence of god's existence.

If a man approaches you and makes claims to something existing that is apparently supernatural where there is no evidence of its existence, it is more logical to consider that individual of being mentally ill than to follow his faith merely because he has faith.

If any actual evidence of god's existence was ever provided, any logical individual would believe (which is not to be confused with worship) in that god.  There is no question of that.  Yet faith is not evidence, and it never will be.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 10, 2017, 09:40:40 PM
You guys are hysterical. You use the word science to be synonymous with your beliefs about naturalism and atheism unless scientific facts don't suit your fancy in which case he's an awestruck physicist. I have no idea if a universe comes into existence it (for some non-design reason) has to be like the one we exist in. It doesn't make any difference it would be no less odd that if a universe comes into existence by some naturalistic unguided process it 'has to' for some unknown reason have the same characteristics as the one we observe which just happen to allow for planets and life to exist.   

QuoteFirstly, I never used the word, "science," and if I did, it wouldn't be about anybody's "belief."

QuoteSecondly, I have no question of the of the scientific facts the man stated, only your implication that his fascination with them, in any way indicates they are divine in nature. His awe is meaningless to the equation.

QuoteSaying that any characteristic of the universe is "odd," is nothing more than a bald assertion. You have no other universes for comparison, to create a statistical model, of what is common, and what is odd.

Quote from: Drew_2017Not in this specific missive but in other responses you have invoked the name of science like a rubber stamp to validate your beliefs...

Quote from: Drew_2017Just so you know Sir Martin Rees is damn near the Newton and Einstein of our era hence he was knighted Sir.

Quote from: Drew_2017He's also an atheist and naturalist like yourself.

Quote from: Drew_2017I didn't cite his awe only the facts which is the source of my implication we owe our existence to planning an design.

Quote from: Drew_2017Its meaningless to you as any evidence of design and intent is because your position is un-falsifiable.

Quote from: Drew_2017If we could observe a universe with no planets, stars or life that was utter chaos you'd claim that was evidence of natural unguided causes also.

Quote from: Drew_2017Like many on this board you pretend to be open to facts and data of an intelligent designer when in fact any such facts are by your own admission meaningless.

Quote from: Drew_2017Rees as a result the facts of how narrow the parameters are (not just for life but for a universe to produce stars and planets) that he concludes this is one of an infinitude of universes.

Quote from: Drew_2017Unlike you he thinks the naturalist solution to this problem is multiple universes with variable laws of physics and we'd find ourselves in the one that supports our existence.

Quote from: Drew_2017Of course you don't notice this is a naturalism in the gaps argument...

Quote from: Drew_2017At the moment we only know of one universe with mindbogglingly narrow parameters for stars planets galaxies and solar systems and obviously sentient life to develop. If you offer the notion (I won't say belief because frankly I don't think you actually believe it either) this universe for some unknown reason 'had to' come out as it did if true would favor theistic belief. Theists believe the universe was intentionally designed and when you intentionally cause something you attempt to make it come out a certain way. Like fine printed circuit boards come out identical because they are designed that way. Either event the notion the universe (for some unknown but not by design) reason had to come out like this one is just another naturalism in the gaps argument you raise but I suspect don't actually believe yourself and of course offer no evidence.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 11, 2017, 01:45:33 PM
Not in this specific missive but in other responses you have invoked the name of science like a rubber stamp to validate your beliefs...

Just so you know Sir Martin Rees is damn near the Newton and Einstein of our era hence he was knighted Sir.

Quote from: Cavebear on March 14, 2017, 08:31:13 AM
Being knighted a "Sir" confers no specific acknowledgment of intelligence.  Just so you know.

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 14, 2017, 07:01:29 PM
Yeah, after all, I doubt anyone thinks Sir Sean Connery (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=83263) is exactly a genius - though a pretty good actor.

Quote
It seems like Drew has been trying to break the ice in this whole thread by trying to get people to admit that sentience is can be considered proof of god or that the universe appears to have intelligent design. I suppose Drew was planning to pile on other evidence after getting through with the first one. This one aint workin Drew. maybe you should try presenting another kind of evidence. You're not gonna break any ice by arguing intelligent design or sentience. Don't forget that if you can prove intelligent design you would only be providing evidence of a creator. ... neither the existence of a creator nor the existence of an evil being provides proof of the existence of a god

QuoteI AM DONE WITH YOU SIR! You have restated the same simple-minded assertion, over and over and over. I have wasted a lot of time, explaining to you why this assertion is unsupported, by the facts you offer as "evidence." And yet you're back again, insisting that your non-squitur leap-of-faith, is valid.

I used to work in a very large stable, but your posts contain far more horseshit, than I am willing to shovel. You are an imbecile. Our conversation is over.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 14, 2017, 11:50:00 PM
FenceRider,

Most responded it would be no big deal. Yet they fight tooth and nail to deny there is a shred of evidence in favor of theism. Also when pressed most admit they don't know how the universe came into existence and they won't say atheism or naturalism is a fact.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 16, 2017, 12:14:03 AM
Just as well your mind is closed...

Quote from: Cavebear on March 16, 2017, 07:53:14 AM
If you have a shred of evidence, I'd like to hear it...

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 17, 2017, 12:11:14 AM
You've already heard it numerous times.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 17, 2017, 12:11:14 AM
You've already heard it numerous times.

Quote from: Baruch on March 17, 2017, 06:59:24 AM
Life isn't a court room ... but denial of the validity of evidence presented in court ... is a standard legal tactic.  And for atheists, is the primary one.  I understand why they do it ... epistemological prejudice is what led them to atheism in many cases.  Carl Sagan is god!, all down down and worship The Carl.  So I have an Amen?

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 17, 2017, 06:10:50 PM
Baruch, are you actually going to sit here, and imply that I have overlooked some value, in what Drew posted?

Quote from: Baruch on March 17, 2017, 07:09:36 PM
You are over interpreting me ... not over interpreting Drew.  He was pretty much done, the first week.  I am trying to exhaust Etienne as hard as I can ;-))

Quote from: fencerider on March 18, 2017, 03:16:11 AM
I went back to the beginning and read it all again to find the six pieces of evidence of the existence of god presented by Drew. I wasnt finding any so I stopped at pg11

Drew started out by saying we were talking about a god or nature creating the universe then switched to saying he was only talking about a creator not the existence of a god. I think Drew caused some confusion with that switch...

On the bottom of the first page Drew says he has presented 6 pieces of evidence of a creator's existence, but there aren't any pieces of evidence in the OP. Maybe you presented evidence in another thread but you didn't start by presenting any evidence in this thread. You added them one piece at a time.

Drew - The laws of physics are evidence of a creator.
unproven assertion not fact

Then Drew starts using the words god and creator interchangable but still arguing that he is only talking about a creator not a god.

Drew - If we found life under vastly different conditions on another planet, we would have proof that a god doesn't exist.
haha I wish that was true but that is also an unproven assertion not a fact

Drew - If we could create a theistic computer model that accurately represents the universe, then the model could be used as proof of a creator
leap of faith

Drew - The universe is too complicated to not be made by intelligent design
personal belief and unproven assertion

Drew - Suppose the universe didn't exist yet I hypothetically said I believe in the existence of God and that God caused a universe to exist. You'd say there is no universe or any evidence (facts) that support your claim. Your claim there is no evidence in favor of God existing would actually be true, but the universe does exist! The universe not existing would favor your claim more than the fact it does exist. If the universe didn't exist you wouldn't have to explain how natural forces came into existence. The fact it does exist favors the theistic claim.
amazingly illogical I guess saying that the universe existing is proof of a creator fits under the category of personal belief.

Drew doesn't believe that the universe, and stars, and sentient life can be the result of natural causes. Somehow this translates into proof of god.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 18, 2017, 06:24:43 AM
Just because I'm eating french fries, doesn't mean I just ate a hamburger. It doesn't contradict the notion, but it does not, in any way, constitute evidence of a hamburger.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 18, 2017, 06:24:43 AM
Just because I'm eating french fries, doesn't mean I just ate a hamburger. It doesn't contradict the notion, but it does not, in any way, constitute evidence of a hamburger.

Quote from: fencerider on March 18, 2017, 03:16:11 AM
I went back to the beginning and read it all again to find the six pieces of evidence of the existence of god presented by Drew. I wasnt finding any so I stopped at pg11

Drew started out by saying we were talking about a god or nature creating the universe then switched to saying he was only talking about a creator not the existence of a god. I think Drew caused some confusion with that switch...

On the bottom of the first page Drew says he has presented 6 pieces of evidence of a creator's existence, but there aren't any pieces of evidence in the OP. Maybe you presented evidence in another thread but you didn't start by presenting any evidence in this thread. You added them one piece at a time.

Drew - The laws of physics are evidence of a creator.
unproven assertion not fact

Then Drew starts using the words god and creator interchangable but still arguing that he is only talking about a creator not a god.

Drew - If we found life under vastly different conditions on another planet, we would have proof that a god doesn't exist.
haha I wish that was true but that is also an unproven assertion not a fact

Drew - If we could create a theistic computer model that accurately represents the universe, then the model could be used as proof of a creator
leap of faith

Drew - The universe is too complicated to not be made by intelligent design
personal belief and unproven assertion

Drew - Suppose the universe didn't exist yet I hypothetically said I believe in the existence of God and that God caused a universe to exist. You'd say there is no universe or any evidence (facts) that support your claim. Your claim there is no evidence in favor of God existing would actually be true, but the universe does exist! The universe not existing would favor your claim more than the fact it does exist. If the universe didn't exist you wouldn't have to explain how natural forces came into existence. The fact it does exist favors the theistic claim.
amazingly illogical... I guess saying that the universe existing is proof of a creator fits under the category of personal belief.

Drew doesn't believe that the universe, and stars, and sentient life can be the result of natural causes. Somehow this translates into proof of god.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 28, 2017, 06:03:38 PM
This is the evidence that persuades me of theism.

We all have the same evidence for or against the existence of God defined here as a personal intelligent agent capable of causing a universe with the conditions for life to exist. Evidence is merely facts that comport with a belief.
The following indisputable facts lead me to believe we owe our existence to an intelligent agent commonly referred to as God as opposed to the counter belief that mindless unguided forces are responsible for all we observe.

1.   The fact the universe exists
2.   The fact life exists
3.   The fact intelligent life exists
4.   The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5.   The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.

These are the primary facts of our existence and one can believe these facts came into existence minus any plan, intent or designer or doubt that claim and believe it was the intentional result of a personal agent. I subscribe to the former belief. I don't care if anyone else does everyone can decide for themselves...

Quote from: sdelsolray on March 18, 2017, 12:38:37 PM
Mix well, bake for 3 hours at 350, serves one.

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 18, 2017, 06:24:43 AM
Just because I'm eating french fries, doesn't mean I just ate a hamburger. It doesn't contradict the notion, but it does not, in any way, constitute evidence of a hamburger.

Quote from: sdelsolray on March 18, 2017, 12:38:37 PM
Drew's original post containing his claim of 'six evidences for theism' was in a different thread.  Here it is:
In essence, Drew is peddling the following recipe:

2 lbs argument from incredulity
1 lb fine tuning argument/argument from design
12 oz essence of non-sequitur/irrelevancy
12 oz begging the question
6 oz burden of proof shifting (substitute: "Hey, look over there')
Liberal dashes of false equivalence and secret definitions

Mix well, bake for 3 hours at 350, serves one.

Quote from: Baruch on March 18, 2017, 09:22:00 AM
I know someone who likes french fries and ketchup for breakfast.  No hamburger.

Quote from: fencerider on March 20, 2017, 05:01:34 AM
Drew could get me to believe in the existence of Drew's god, if he actually brought something to the table.

Quote from: fencerider on March 20, 2017, 05:01:34 AM
the elephants are pink because someone who couldnt believe what they were seeing was rubbing their eyes too much.

a puddle fits a hole because the hole is there first and then the liquid runs into it. they are implying that the conditions of earth came first and then life adapted to the conditions.

the facts make the truth of belief more likely than not? hasnt been presented yet. fyi the name should give you a clue fencerider. That means Drew could get me to believe in the existence of Drew's god, if he actually brought something to the table.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 20, 2017, 12:58:11 PM
My opponents will always claim my evidence isn't evidence. You and others are the loyal opposition philosophically committed to naturalistic explanations. You are in fact advocates of such a position. If I made this case in a live debate or in a court room its not my goal to persuade the opposing counsel of my contention nor are the merits of my case are determined by that opposition. Of course your response is always going to be I'm full of shit, I haven't made a case, my case is baseless and there is no evidence in favor of it. That doesn't mean impartial people won't see it otherwise.

Did I bring anything to the table in regards to the case for naturalism I made? Or like your opinion of theism is there no evidence in favor of naturalism either and you are actually an a-naturalist as well?

Quote from: Baruch on March 20, 2017, 01:21:51 PM
1. People who speak of things they don't know ... are bloviating
2. Judges and attorneys bloviate a lot too.

Unless you were there, standing next to G-d, when G-d started the Big Bang in his mad scientist lab ... then you have nothing.  Naturalists who claim to know what happened before the 3.5K radiation ... are also bloviating.  We don't know.

Quote from: Baruch on March 20, 2017, 05:59:06 PM
Some people only accept epistemology, when it works for them, and not when it doesn't.  If the evidence is against you, deny the evidence.  If the evidence is for you, accept that evidence.  So isn't this kind of pointless, without empirical facts?  We don't know where the physical universe came from ... and I am fine with that.  Occam's razor says ... assume as little as possible ... theistic explanation is always more complicated than natural explanation.  As long as your evidence is denied, Drew ... and Occam's razor is applied, you aren't getting anywhere.  I accept purely psychological evidence ... because even empirical evidence has to be interpreted by a human psyche to have any meaning.  Without people assigning meaning ... there is none.  For some, that is reason to deny humanity ... that there is no meaning from nature, and that if humans want to apply meaning, they are just stupid apes.  For me, that is reason to take empirical evidence with a pinch of salt, and rationalism with a salt lick ... humans are primary to me, not "inferred" atoms of Democritus, that aren't even "uncuttable".  When the philosophers fail, they apply New Speak.  When the physicists fail, they apply philosophy.

Quote from: Baruch on March 20, 2017, 01:21:51 PM
Unless you were there, standing next to G-d, when G-d started the Big Bang in his mad scientist lab ... then you have nothing.  Naturalists who claim to know what happened before the 3.5K radiation ... are also bloviating.  We don't know.

Quote from: Cavebear on March 21, 2017, 04:02:19 AM
You assume there is a deity that started things.  There is no evidence for that.  All else from your argument fails.

Quote from: Baruch on March 20, 2017, 11:13:02 PM
Not trying to send you away, but why do you persist on this one subject for say ... the last month.  We are both theists, though perhaps not for the same reasons.  You want to blame the Big Bang on G-d, I just want to blame G-d.  I could care less about inferred fantasies about the Big Bang.  It is not an experimental subject ... the 3.5K radiation is an observational subject, so it isn't totally worthless as evidence, but what can be inferred from it, is not empirical, it is rational, but so is the Ontological Argument for G-d.  If we are going to stop "infinite regression" at some point, I am fine stopping it at the 3.5K radiation, that leaves almost the entire known universe.  I would be fine stopping particle physics at the LHC (after its next upgrade).  Big Science is done, along with the totalitarian civilization that promotes it.  Star Trek, Star Wars etc are fascist fantasies, like Iron Sky.

Quote from: Cavebear on March 21, 2017, 04:02:19 AM
You assume there is a deity that started things.  There is no evidence for that.  All else from your argument fails.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 21, 2017, 10:49:54 AM
Its a profound mystery to me how atheist-naturalists continually deny there is any evidence, any fact, any reason whatsoever to support the belief we owe our existence to a Creator.

Quote from: Sorginak on March 21, 2017, 11:46:02 AM
If there was evidence for the existence of a creator, there would be no need for theistic Faith.

That people do not believe in a creator should be reasonably informative enough to convey the fact that theistic Faith is not evidence of a creator.

Quote from: Sorginak on March 21, 2017, 11:46:02 AM
If there was evidence for the existence of a creator, there would be no need for theistic Faith.

That people do not believe in a creator should be reasonably informative enough to convey the fact that theistic Faith is not evidence of a creator.

Quote from: Baruch on March 21, 2017, 06:37:52 PM
If there was evidence for the existence of American Exceptionalism, there would be no need for patriotism ;-)

Quote from: Sorginak on March 21, 2017, 05:23:00 PM
At this point you are just a broken record.

Science has evidence at its disposal to prove that life came into existence via a particular order, which has absolutely nothing to do with a creator.  You can ignore science all you want for your faith-based delusion, but in the end science is more credible than a ridiculous magical sky daddy claim.

Quote from: Baruch on March 21, 2017, 11:55:17 PM
Yes, it is a belief.  They cannot prove or demonstrate it ... nobody knows what happened in the early universe, they only suppose.  They do rationally extrapolate back in time, to a small fraction of a second of the Big Bang, because of particle physics.  To presuppose a Creator, is to irrationally extrapolate back in time.  But that is like extrapolating from a folded newspaper boat to a giant ship.  Their belief is rational, but they also deny it is a belief.  You agree that they are rational, but in denial.  I deny both rationality and belief, I cast ridicule upon extrapolation back in time.  If you can't demonstrate something, here and now, you have nothing.  There is nothing to believe and nothing to rationalize.  The Big Bang itself, cannot be demonstrated .. though they always hope that super science will prove them right, eventually.  Like the ugly girl who thinks every year, she will be invited to the Prom ;-)  It will never happen, physics knows now, to have ultimate knowledge ... infinite power is required.  This is unobtainable, forever.  Seeing before the 3.5 K radiation is also probably impossible, the constitution of the universe at that time was uniformly chaotic.  If a naturalist moves far enough, he becomes a theist and vice versa.

Quote from: Baruch on March 22, 2017, 01:06:13 PM
Sorry, you need to take Cosmos original or Cosmos remake ... with a little more skepticism.  Or do you really believe in Popular Mechanics?

I know that Ohm's law works ...  have used it as an electrical engineer.  I also know that it is semi-empirical ... it isn't "G-d's Truth" (TM).  That is a far cry from claiming to know, know ... what happens inside a black hole, or what happened in the first few seconds of the Big Bang.  Yes, scientists do know the difference between hypothesis and demonstrated theory ... but not at grant time ... they are paid by being on the bleeding, unconfirmed edge.  Life by the grant, die by the grant.  Publish or perish.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 22, 2017, 03:07:21 PM
Ah yes, of course.  The grant.  What is worse--living by the grant--or living by the tithe basket?  Which supports more lies and fairy tales?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 21, 2017, 10:54:37 PM
Its not a scientific fact that unguided naturalistic forces could cause a universe to exist or did cause a universe to exist. Its not a scientific fact time always existed, its not a scientifically established fact its naturalistic forces all the way down.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 22, 2017, 03:07:21 PM
Ah yes, of course.  The grant.  What is worse--living by the grant--or living by the tithe basket?  Which supports more lies and fairy tales?

Quote from: trdsf on March 22, 2017, 03:37:10 PM
I might also add that the 'bleeding, unconfirmed edge' is where all the interesting science is done.  No one's going to give out grant money for re-demonstrating that water is composed of H₂O.  There's a reason scientific research goes to the edges of knowledge: to push back those edges, and uncover new and yet-unexplained phenomena.

No amount of money thrown in a collection plate can compete with that.

Quote from: Baruch on March 21, 2017, 06:37:52 PM
If there was evidence for the existence of American Exceptionalism, there would be no need for patriotism ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on March 21, 2017, 11:55:17 PM
Yes, it is a belief.  They cannot prove or demonstrate it ... nobody knows what happened in the early universe, they only suppose.  They do rationally extrapolate back in time, to a small fraction of a second of the Big Bang, because of particle physics.  To presuppose a Creator, is to irrationally extrapolate back in time.  But that is like extrapolating from a folded newspaper boat to a giant ship.  Their belief is rational, but they also deny it is a belief.  You agree that they are rational, but in denial.  I deny both rationality and belief, I cast ridicule upon extrapolation back in time.  If you can't demonstrate something, here and now, you have nothing.  There is nothing to believe and nothing to rationalize.  The Big Bang itself, cannot be demonstrated .. though they always hope that super science will prove them right, eventually.  Like the ugly girl who thinks every year, she will be invited to the Prom ;-)  It will never happen, physics knows now, to have ultimate knowledge ... infinite power is required.  This is unobtainable, forever.  Seeing before the 3.5 K radiation is also probably impossible, the constitution of the universe at that time was uniformly chaotic.  If a naturalist moves far enough, he becomes a theist and vice versa.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 24, 2017, 11:27:48 PM
I agree any extrapolation or circumstantial evidence is to draw an inference that its natural forces all the way down or we are the result of a Creator. Regardless of what value you assign to the available facts its all we have to go on and it what leads to our respective opinions. One factor to consider either theism or naturalism is true.

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 22, 2017, 09:25:45 AM
Baloney.  A scientist can tell the difference between a theory and an hypothesis.  But both are based on rational thinking; thinking that can be demonstrated.  And scientists using hypothesis to describe as best they can the early universe know that it is an hypothesis.  Some day that working hypothesis may become a theory, but it is still a hypothesis until then.  There is no indication that a belief in any god will ever go beyond that--just a belief with no foundation.   Just because we don't know something right now does not mean it will remain unknown in the future.  Considering theists have had thousands of years head start and all they can come up with is just a set of beliefs with no foundation and science has only just started and has a set of theories and working hypothesis based upon reason and critical thinking is amazing.  Yet theists such as yourself just don't want to see it.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 24, 2017, 11:45:18 PM
I can just as well say there is no indication that naturalistic that forces could or did cause themselves to exist and then proceeded to cause a universe with the right conditions for us to debate this subject. I can say the theistic method of causing a universe to exist works in the case of virtual universes. Whats the naturalistic method? Can it be reproduced?

Theism hasn't been detrimental to scientific investigation. Arguably the greatest scientist of his time Isaac Newton was motivated by the belief the universe was knowable and logical because he believed it was caused by God. Since according to you he was tragically wrong his thinking should have led to a dead end...but it didn't. Can you explain how someone with such backwards false thinking could have been such great scientist?

Quote from: Cavebear on March 25, 2017, 01:59:54 AM
Just noting that you did not respond to the main question about theory and hypothesis...

Quote from: Sorginak on March 25, 2017, 08:10:08 PM
Except that there is no reason to assume life on this planet Earth was created by an intelligent design.

Quoteauthor=Sorginak link=topic=11330.msg1171940#msg1171940 date=1490220146]
Theistic Faith believed that the earth was flat.
Science proved that it is not.

QuoteTheistic Faith believed that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Science proved that it is not.

Quote
Is it so far fetched that one should trust science over theistic Faith?
Hardly.

Quote
Since the spherical shape was the most widely supported during the Greek Era, efforts to determine its size followed. Plato determined the circumference of the Earth (which is slightly over 40,000 km) to be 400,000 stadia (between 62,800 and 74,000 km or 46,250 and 39,250 mi) while Archimedes estimated 300,000 stadia (48,300 km or 30,000 mi), using the Hellenic stadion which scholars generally take to be 185 meters or  1â,,10 of a geographical mile. Plato's figure was a guess and Archimedes' a more conservative approximation.[/i]


Copernicus first proposed the earth wasn't the center of the solar system and he did buck the religious orthodoxy of the time but he was hardly and atheist. Not long ago big bang cosmology offended the orthodoxy in our time. 

I do trust the scientific method of truth and fact finding. Its not a scientific fact that:
Its naturalistic forces all the way down
That naturalistic forces did cause themselves to exist
That naturalistic forces could cause themselves to exist.
That naturalistic forces alone could cause a universe with laws of physics that would ultimately allow sentient life.
That time always existed.
That there are other universes.

The reality is neither science nor human knowledge knows the big ticket answers to the most basic philosophical questions we can ask. Why are we here? How did our existence come about? Why is there something rather than nothing? Was it planned or happenstance? Opinions abound among us in this forum buts facts are hard to come by. Do I agree we should continue to pursue those answers employing the scientific method? Absolutely. Let the chips fall where they will.

Quote from: Sorginak on March 25, 2017, 08:10:08 PM
Except that there is no reason to assume life on this planet Earth was created by an intelligent design.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 25, 2017, 04:49:59 PM
A slang term for hypothesis would be wagging (wild ass guessing) but it gives a basis for testing and falsifying a supposition. A hypothesis can graduate to a theory if some testing with positive results occurs. I would say these two elements form the basis for the scientific method of obtaining knowledge. What's interesting to note is the same method of inquiry works whether the phenomenon in question is a designed object or something believed to have been caused by natural forces. If aliens from an advanced race dropped off an alien contraption we would use the same method to figure out how it works and functions. It just seems odd that the same method works for phenomenon known to have been intelligently created as things believed to have been created by happenstance.

QuoteOf your other questions, we can't know the answers but can make some better guesses than theisms.  We are here because we have preceeding simpler forms that became more complex.

QuoteTime exists beyond our mere perception.

QuoteNatural forces don't need  cause, intent, or direction.

Quote from: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 09:07:36 AM
Science is still controlled by Platonic academics, both before Galileo and after Galileo.  Simple repetitive observation is all you can do for most of astronomy.  It isn't an experimental science, nor is geology.  Physics and chemistry are experimental sciences.  Materialism simply assumes that experiment here and now, would work the same, everywhere, every time, an assumption called Uniformitarianism.  It is what had to be assumed to justify modern Geology.  And it does seem more or less true, in astronomy and geology.  Of course the academics, who are paid to be expert know-it-alls, same as the people Galileo was tried by, are a constant corruption.  The academics in subjects other than science (say economics or history) are still fighting a successful regard action against falsification ;-)

It is ultimately a philosophical question, not a science question, what happens where there are no physical laws (origin of Big Bang, or inside a black hole).  But then believing in science, a not unreasonable belief, is itself a philosophical choice, made by ape people.  it doesn't exist out in Fact land.  Observations and measurements are facts, their interpretation is editorial.

Quote from: Baruch on March 26, 2017, 02:36:02 PM
Forensic science was invented by the Scottish doctor who inspired Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.



This made criminology more scientific, but not a science.  The court determines guilt, with the aid of evidence presented in an adversarial and political environment.  Basically created an SME (Subject Matter Expert) who is called to testify in court.  But the context is a court.  Truth is not what the court is after, they are after guilt.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 26, 2017, 03:11:16 PM
Forensic science is more scientific than some sciences...and it often exonerates as much as convicts because it seeks the truth of a matter not a apriori conviction. The courtroom isn't perfect but isn't out just to convict...you're too cynical.

Quote from: Baruch on March 21, 2017, 11:55:17 PM
If you can't demonstrate something, here and now, you have nothing.

Quote from: fencerider on March 27, 2017, 01:54:18 AM
That's a good place to start. No point going back in history to an event that nobody witnessed to prove a god exists

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 27, 2017, 07:57:40 PM
Neither side of the debate should use naturalism in the gaps or God in the gaps arguments. Respective arguments in favor of a proposition should only list known facts that comport with such a belief.

Quoteauthor=Baruch link=topic=11330.msg1172600#msg1172600 date=1490578892]
Supposedly, British courts are supposed to simply establish the facts of the case.  They don't go thru the shenanigans of hiding exculpatory or damning evidence, depending on which side of the bench you are on.  I don't know if that is true, or just bragging rights.  Unfortunately in my state, much scientific evidence was simply handled incompetently by the chief state lab officer ... not as a result of trying to frame or free anyone.  Just a big mess.  Competent medical analysis is quite good, if used properly.  Unfortunately that isn't the only weapon in the criminology arsenal ... we still falsely convict, based on mistaken identity, and forced confessions.  The DA office is political, as are most of the judges.  They are required to get a certain number of convictions, particularly in prominent cases (O J Simpson trial) .. just like patrolmen who have to put out more speeding and parking tickets at the end of the month.

Quote from: Sorginak on March 27, 2017, 08:06:51 PM
I am perfectly comfortable with stating that I am not entirely certain how life is possible, including using god as a possibility, yet are you?

Quote from: Sorginak on March 27, 2017, 08:06:51 PM
I am perfectly comfortable with stating that I am not entirely certain how life is possible, including using god as a possibility, yet are you?

Quote from: Cavebear on March 28, 2017, 02:47:26 AM
'
God is not necessary.  Just a "and then a miracle happens" in the theistic equation.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 27, 2017, 10:35:10 PM
I never stated how life came to exist as a fact in favor of the existence of God, only that life does exist. I don't know whether life started by direct intervention or because the existence of the universe and the laws of physics allowed life to happen. The thinking among scientists is if a planet has water and is in the 'Goldilocks' zone life will occur. However using intelligence we haven't yet figured out how natural forces caused life without trying to do so. I'm excited about the possibility we may discover other life in my life time. They think a planet like ours gives off a unique signature we might find in other solar systems.

It is weird to think either way... are we alone in the universe or is their life elsewhere?

Quote from: SorginakI am perfectly comfortable with stating that I am not entirely certain how life is possible, including using god as a possibility, yet are you?

Quote from: Cavebear on March 28, 2017, 02:47:26 AM
'
God is not necessary.  Just a "and then a miracle happens" in the theistic equation.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 28, 2017, 04:08:29 PM
For a laptop to come into existence is it necessary for intelligence to create and design it or given enough time and chances could naturalistic forces accomplish such? Of course it could of you believe mindless unguided forces can cause the universe, the laws of physics and sentient beings to exist a laptop should be child's play. But even if naturalistic forces could cause a functioning laptop to exist it would still be more miraculous than if intelligent agents caused it.

Quote from: TrueStory on March 28, 2017, 04:43:16 PM
  Useless example.   A laptop is not biological life.

Quote from: Cavebear on March 28, 2017, 02:47:26 AM
'
God is not necessary.  Just a "and then a miracle happens" in the theistic equation.

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 28, 2017, 05:29:38 PM
Yeah, like this:


(http://cafehayek.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/miracle_cartoon.jpg)

Quote from: Sorginak on March 28, 2017, 04:49:38 PM
Correct.  It is as useless an example as that silly Watchmaker analogy.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 28, 2017, 04:08:29 PM
You're only kidding yourself if you think eliminating God eliminates the miracle of our existence. How do you reason that its less miraculous if naturalistic forces we observe somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence and then without plan or intent caused a universe to exist with the right conditions to cause something unlike itself to exist, life and mind. That would be like a blind man driving a car from NJ to CA without getting into an accident. Secondly how do you know God isn't necessary? For a laptop to come into existence is it necessary for intelligence to create and design it or given enough time and chances could naturalistic forces accomplish such? Of course it could of you believe mindless unguided forces can cause the universe, the laws of physics and sentient beings to exist a laptop should be child's play. But even if naturalistic forces could cause a functioning laptop to exist it would still be more miraculous than if intelligent agents caused it.

Quote from: TrueStory on March 28, 2017, 04:43:16 PM
  Useless example.   A laptop is not biological life.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 28, 2017, 07:35:06 PM
A computer has to be turned on and fed information and a program to do anything.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 28, 2017, 07:35:06 PMOf course it might take natural forces millions of years to accidentally cause a laptop to exist.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 28, 2017, 07:35:06 PM
Natural forces somehow came into existence, caused a universe with the right conditions to cause life which eventually became sentient life which had the intelligence to cause laptops to exist.

Quote from: Sorginak on March 28, 2017, 07:11:25 PM
I never could make myself like or respect Buddhism.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 28, 2017, 04:08:29 PM
How do you reason that its less miraculous if naturalistic forces we observe somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence and then without plan or intent caused a universe to exist with the right conditions to cause something unlike itself to exist, life and mind.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 28, 2017, 07:35:06 PM
Correct biological life especially sentient life is light years more complex than a laptop. A computer has to be turned on and fed information and a program to do anything. Humans act like nothing else in the universe they act autonomously. Of course it might take natural forces millions of years to accidentally cause a laptop to exist. But if you believe such forces caused a universe and humans to exist you can't deny they might cause a laptop to exist. If you really believe what you say, natural forces did in fact cause a laptop to exist. Natural forces somehow came into existence, caused a universe with the right conditions to cause life which eventually became sentient life which had the intelligence to cause laptops to exist.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 28, 2017, 04:08:29 PM
You're only kidding yourself if you think eliminating God eliminates the miracle of our existence. How do you reason that its less miraculous if naturalistic forces we observe somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence and then without plan or intent caused a universe to exist with the right conditions to cause something unlike itself to exist, life and mind. That would be like a blind man driving a car from NJ to CA without getting into an accident. Secondly how do you know God isn't necessary? For a laptop to come into existence is it necessary for intelligence to create and design it or given enough time and chances could naturalistic forces accomplish such? Of course it could of you believe mindless unguided forces can cause the universe, the laws of physics and sentient beings to exist a laptop should be child's play. But even if naturalistic forces could cause a functioning laptop to exist it would still be more miraculous than if intelligent agents caused it.

QuoteA question that has no answer does not support a god.  But you equivocate the existence of God with natural forces and things that exist.  This is an error.  There is a difference between things that can be shown to exist, and those which cannot. These are not things that reside in the same metaphorical ballpark.

QuoteSorry, but complexity is not the hallmark of design.

We recognize design by contrasting it to what occurs naturally.

QuoteThe problem with 'the watchmaker' argument (which is what you are using here), is that, you believe that EVERYTHING is designed, yet you ignore all the things that are obviously naturally occurring, and mention something that is obviously designed to use as an example for your argument.

Quote from: Unbeliever on March 28, 2017, 05:29:38 PM
Yeah, like this:


(http://cafehayek.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/miracle_cartoon.jpg)

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 30, 2017, 08:38:24 PM
I agree it [God of the gaps] doesn't support a god.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 30, 2017, 08:38:24 PM
I don't use God in the gaps arguments

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 30, 2017, 08:38:24 PM
They [gods of the gaps] are as fallacious as naturalism in the gaps arguments are.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 30, 2017, 08:38:24 PM
In your case in other posts its worse, you employ assertion of naturalism in the gaps.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 30, 2017, 08:38:24 PM
Including your assertion here that the existence of God cannot be shown to exist. You don't know that.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 30, 2017, 08:38:24 PM
Secondly no one disputes naturalistic forces exist I assume even you concede the naturalistic forces now existing didn't cause themselves to exist. What property of observed naturalistic forces would cause themselves to exist?  There is no real delineation between what is and what isn't a miracle it all relative. Three hundred years ago it would be miraculous to speak to someone on the other side of the world using a device held in your palm. For the sake of argument some phenomenon are more or less miraculous depending on whether intelligence was used. For instance it would be quite miraculous if drift wood washed up on the beach and spelled out distinctly 'Hello world how are you today?'. If it turns out someone caused it, it would just be a hoax. If a 1000 printed circuit boards turn out perfect its not miraculous if it was planned and designed to be that way. That's why our existence if due to unguided naturalistic forces that didn't' give a damn about our existence is more incredible then if we are the result of intent and design.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 30, 2017, 08:38:24 PMHow do you reason that its less miraculous if naturalistic forces we observe somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence and then without plan or intent caused a universe to exist with the right conditions to cause something unlike itself to exist, life and mind.

Quote from: Hydra009 on March 31, 2017, 12:03:17 PM
The idea that natural things somehow "decided" to create themselves is a creationist talking point betraying an intentional stance towards non-living matter, an incorrect and childish misapprehension.  Garbage in, garbage out.

The universe simply consists of simple materials that interact with each other in ways we're often able to predict.

From the accretion of simple materials we get more complex structures - stars and planets forming from gravitationally-bound particles.  On geologically active planets, there's a tremendous amount of chemical activity.  You get polymers (like RNA).  You get amino acids.  You get phospholipid bilayers.  Potentially, you also get extremely simple life.  And due the cumulative process of evolution, you can also get much more complex life over vast amounts of time.

And yes, we live in a universe that can support life (on a very small rock).  Obviously, if the situation were otherwise, we wouldn't be around to talk about it.

QuoteYes you do.  You present it as logical alternative explanation for existence.  You may not use the words "Goddidit,"  but it's presented as an explanation for existence.  It's the god of the gaps whether it's presented as an ultimate divine truth, as many theists do, or as a theistic hypothesis, as you seem to be doing.

QuoteIntellectually, you seem to grasp this, [that naturalism in the gaps are as fallacious as God in the gaps] but you can't quite turn it into a logical defense.  Gaps in naturalist explanations are not filled in with "naturalism."  They are gaps, nothing more.  They are blots of ignorance.  They are gaps in knowledge.

QuoteThen show me that he exists.  Don't bother showing me that he might exist.  I already understand this.  I would agree with you.  Show me that he does exist.

QuoteI can't respond to this.  I have no idea what you are going on about.  It's just a morass of assumptions, anecdotes, and hypotheticals.  I hope it's not important to your position.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 31, 2017, 10:18:24 PM
I thought it might be possible to show why the majority of people continue to believe we owe our existence to a Creator and its not because they are indoctrinated, brainwashed, ignorant or stupid. Many believe it because it makes more sense from their experience.

QuoteYou are starting to glimpse the problem in drawing conclusions from nonsense.  I can't do it, and you can't do it and remain on logical ground.  See:  "Tongue in cheek"

QuoteYes, and their claims of the existence of unalienable rights has always perplexed me, especially for a group trying to establish a secular government, while defying the divine birthright of a king.

QuoteI'm well aware that some atheistic governments have had abysmal human rights records.  I'm also aware of he human rights abuses of Theocratic governments, including countries that are Christian, Islamic, and Hindu.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 31, 2017, 10:18:24 PM
I can't show you God exists anymore than you can 'show me' its naturalistic forces all the way down. Neither of us can prove or demonstrate our respective beliefs but only one of us acts like their belief is a fact and not an opinion.

QuotePersonal experience in no way correlates with evidential reality due to the lack of objectivity as well as the lack of evidence to support an existence in correlation with the belief.

QuoteAn individual can claim to believe in the existence of anything.

QuotePersistence in the belief when faced with the underwhelming evidence in favor of stated belief merely defies logic. 

QuoteMan has the capability to create anything with his mind, many things which clearly do not exist in reality yet have been created by the mind to exist on paper and in film through the popular form we understand to be mythology and fiction.

QuoteTheism is no different despite the number of people who willfully and ignorantly adhere to belief systems that require faith rather than evidence to support them.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 01, 2017, 07:00:28 PM

Anytime you want to debate Goddidit Vs Naturedidit in the debate forum let me know...

Quote from: Baruch on April 01, 2017, 07:10:42 PM
actually "naturalism" and "supernaturalism" is a way in which people make a false dichotomy

Quote from: Sorginak on April 01, 2017, 07:04:57 PM
By all means, I will keep an eye out for when you have anything of actual substance to provide.  As it stands, your debate tactics are poorly constructed due to the fact that you are precisely the same as every other theist who cannot properly discern the difference between delusion and reality.

Quote from: Sorginak on April 01, 2017, 07:23:48 PM
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.

Quote from: Baruch on April 01, 2017, 07:35:09 PM
Monism ... the idea that there is only one idea, and that it conveniently happens to be the one you hold.  Hence ... nature, there is no alternative.  Democrat ... there is no alternative.  Sorry, there are an infinity of alternatives.

Quote from: Sorginak on April 01, 2017, 07:36:38 PM
How many of those infinity of alternatives provide evidence toward our reality?

Quote from: Baruch on April 01, 2017, 07:41:12 PM
My reality isn't your reality

Quote from: Baruch on April 01, 2017, 07:50:19 PM
Only if I am you, and you are me and we are both everyone, and every creature.  But then .. that would be the Buddhism you don't care for.

Objectivity is useful, but like a hammer ...

Quote from: Sorginak on April 01, 2017, 07:23:48 PM
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.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 01, 2017, 08:16:21 PM
Is there any known phenomena you would say is supernatural? Of course not because you define reality as natural only.

Quote from: Sorginak on April 01, 2017, 08:19:29 PM
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.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 01, 2017, 08:35:02 PM
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...

Quote from: Sorginak on April 01, 2017, 07:56:35 PM
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.

Quote from: Sorginak on April 01, 2017, 08:19:29 PM
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.

Quote from: Sorginak on April 01, 2017, 08:40:19 PM
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.

Quote
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.

QuoteNatural 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.

QuoteGod 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.

QuoteFurthermore, you are starting to bore.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 01, 2017, 11:29:06 PM
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. 

Quote from: Baruch on April 01, 2017, 07:10:42 PM
"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.

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 02, 2017, 09:45:26 AM
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.

Quote from: Baruch on April 02, 2017, 09:50:58 AM
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 ;-)

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 02, 2017, 09:58:56 AM
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.

Quote from: Baruch on April 02, 2017, 10:09:34 AM
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".

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 02, 2017, 11:04:32 AM
If the above is true, why are you on any forum????  It would be pointless according to your 'definition'.

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

QuoteMy 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)

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 01, 2017, 10:51:06 PM
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...

QuoteIf 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.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 01, 2017, 10:51:06 PM
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...

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 02, 2017, 01:30:02 PM
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.

Quote from: sdelsolray on April 02, 2017, 02:35:14 PM
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.

Quote from: SGOS on April 02, 2017, 02:53:22 PM
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.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 02, 2017, 02:55:25 PM
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.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 02, 2017, 02:47:42 PM
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?

QuoteMore 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteIf 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.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 02, 2017, 05:58:17 PM
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? 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 02, 2017, 04:30:10 PM
My belief we owe our existence to a creator is a reasonable belief due to facts that support it

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 02, 2017, 04:30:10 PM
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?

Quote from: fencerider on April 02, 2017, 04:48:49 PM
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.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 02, 2017, 02:55:25 PM
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.

Quote from: Cavebear on April 03, 2017, 02:16:52 AMIf all theists ceased to exist, think of all the contentions that would cease to exist without them.

Quote from: Hydra009 on April 03, 2017, 02:59:10 AM
Desert property values would certainly drop. :razz:

Al in all, it would probably resolve a lot of wearisome disputes and set mankind on a more forward trajectory.  But there's a ton of bullshit floating around, and not all of it is holy fertilizer.  Without solving the fundamental problem of magical thinking, we'd just be at loggerheads with swelling ranks of non-religious believers in New World Order plots and ancient aliens.

Also, I wonder if hateful people - the sort of people who of course don't personally hate, but simply communicate God's disapproval and perpetually imminent retribution - I wonder if those people would even change in the slightest.  Religion gone all over the world in an instant and they probably don't even skip a beat.  Maybe religion's just the most socially-approved venue for that sort of thing - a pretty blanket hiding a rabid critter.  I'm not saying we shouldn't lift the blanket - I'm just saying we shouldn't left the blanket without a shovel in the other hand.