Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Baruch]

I vaguely heard something about it. I have spent 25 years in IT, programming, creating websites, setting up networks, installing servers administering servers, creating scripts databases fixing laptops making gaming machines. Whatever was needed. A jack of all trades master of a few. About the only simulation was dice and card games. To paraphrase a line in A Beautiful Mind, you'll never come to know greater truth with computer programming because its boring...really boring.

You just gave personal evidence against your own proposal.  Ever hear of the program, Life?  How about Genetic programming?  How could it be boring, to be the deity of your own universe?  Be Archimedes.

You are a talker, who mostly talks about talking.  Go empirically demonstrate your claim, or be in the dustbin of history with Plato (not Aristotle, Aristotle was cool).

[Drew_2017]

You just gave personal evidence against your own proposal.  Ever hear of the program, Life?  How about Genetic programming?  How could it be boring, to be the deity of your own universe?  Be Archimedes.

You are a talker, who mostly talks about talking.  Go empirically demonstrate your claim, or be in the dustbin of history with Plato (not Aristotle, Aristotle was cool).

I'm confident we'll all wind up in the dust bin of history. From here to obscurity.

[Unbeliever]

That was a good Sid Caesar move.

[Baruch]

That was a good Sid Caesar move.

Mine or his?  He simply doesn't care to back up his words, with anything more substantial.  Claims to program, but cellular automata (directly relevant to his hypothesis) is... too hard.  Do I smell a rat?

[Unbeliever]

Mine or his?  He simply doesn't care to back up his words, with anything more substantial.  Claims to program, but cellular automata (directly relevant to his hypothesis) is... too hard.  Do I smell a rat?

From Here to Obscurity. Lotsa fun!

[Drew_2017]

Hakurei Reimu

You can claim to expect a universe caused by lifeless, mindless naturalistic forces without plan, intent or an engineering degree would cause a life permitting universe. No one else is compelled to believe that such forces could or did apart from any help accomplish that.

It is true that in our experience we have always observed the universe appears to have 'rules' (your word) of conduct. Since its always been observed its easy to over look the question why are there laws of physics? Are they actual laws or rules or merely consistent observations of how matter behaves? If (it were possible) and we could observe a universe without laws of nature or predictable behavior I argue that would be far more consistent with what we would expect of a universe caused by mindless naturalistic forces that could care less if planets or stars or galaxies and least of all if life comes to exist. The fact of the laws of nature is an observation more consistent with the belief we owe our existence to a Creator. Of course you'll disagree and go through your usual gyrations to explain how this is consistent with what you believe and that's fine. I believe impartial people with no axe to grind will find the existence of laws of nature (especially since our lives are dependent upon them) to be more consistent with belief in a Creator who intentionally caused the conditions to prevail.

You're mistaken about entangled particles. The 'spooky' action is instantaneous regardless of distance. If we can force one particle to spin one way we know the entangled particle will spin the opposite direction instantly. Spin direction can be used as a single bit. Scientists are looking at the potential this has for instant communication with astronauts on Mars. Of course you claim this is naturalistic. Anything that happens, no matter how unexpected, no matter how bizarre or anti-intuitive no matter how much we claim it can't happen if it does happen its natural. This just shows anyone else that there is no delineation between natural and supernatural. Of course the so called supernatural will shrink because anything that can happen is declared natural. Apparently you're unaware you are supporting my contention.

I have no reason to expect naturalistic forces to exist in the first place. From what I have observed of naturalistic forces they don't self initiate an action like humans do. Naturalistic forces don't decide to cause an earthquake. It occurs due to series of events or prior events that caused it to happen. What then caused the first event? You'll probably respond there was no first event and we owe our existence to an endless recession of events. If we owe our existence to an endless recession of events we'd never reach the events we're now experiencing because we'd have to cross an infinitude of previous events.

I see you called me a liar...if you want to call me a liar don't be rude get in back of the line and wait your turn like everyone else.

Understand something when I make various arguments its not because I think they will persuade you of anything, you are the loyal opposition. There is nothing I say you won't have a rebuttal for and that's fine. To impartial people not convinced one way or another the fact the same scientific technique for understanding and explaining objects or phenomena known to be caused intentionally by design by beings works equally as well for things believed to have been caused unintentionally by happenstance would suggest to them its because in reality naturalistic phenomenon was also caused intentionally by design.

You're mistaken as usual. I see no reason at all why mindless naturalistic forces should have any laws of nature (or rules as you referred to them). A chaotic universe of no rules or predictable behavior would be what one would expect of forces that didn't care if the universe was knowable, or amenable to scientific research or one that had the right 'rules' to cause stars and planets and ultimately life. You have simply come to expect that's what nature does because that's what we observe. If a Creator caused a universe for the purpose of life, we'd expect to find a universe with the conditions and laws of nature to support that purpose. Just like if a creator causes a radio to exist we expect the radio to have the conditions that allow us to hear radio waves.

Humans are gods in the sense we can self initiate actions. We don't depend on some other prior event to decide to do something. If rain occurs its because it has to. If we decide to water our grass its because we decided to. We have yet to observe nature deciding to do something presumably it can't.   

The fact is whether you agree or not we are arguing our respective beliefs. If you claim its a verifiable fact we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that never intended any of the things we observe all you do is raise the bar for the level of proof required to state its a fact. I don't claim theism is a fact, its a belief with facts that support the belief but I don't know for sure its true. If I only argue and make my case to you its not going to go anywhere. The question is who could make a more persuasive case before impartial people?






 

[Drew_2017]

Mine or his?  He simply doesn't care to back up his words, with anything more substantial.  Claims to program, but cellular automata (directly relevant to his hypothesis) is... too hard.  Do I smell a rat?

Check your under arms...

[Baruch]

Check your under arms...

Smells like Ratatouille?

[fencerider]

I am curious why Drew would want to believe in a god based on a preponderance of evidence and not some solid facts ( is your belief based on circumstancial evidence? you know circumstancial evidence can be thrown out of court). Maybe you have something in your psyche that causes you to want or need for god to exist. Don't forget not everyone has such desire or need.... (yes Drew said a few times on this thread that he was only talking about a creator and not a god, but he linked the two together a few pages ago by saying god is the creator)

Drew says humans are gods. I guess that supports Baruch's claim to be a demi-god.... hmmm why not full-blooded.

Baruch that wasn't a rat that you smelled it was an immoral malevolent spirit.

[Baruch]

I am curious why Drew would want to believe in a god based on a preponderance of evidence and not some solid facts ( is your belief based on circumstancial evidence? you know circumstancial evidence can be thrown out of court). Maybe you have something in your psyche that causes you to want or need for god to exist. Don't forget not everyone has such desire or need.... (yes Drew said a few times on this thread that he was only talking about a creator and not a god, but he linked the two together a few pages ago by saying god is the creator)

Drew says humans are gods. I guess that supports Baruch's claim to be a demi-god.... hmmm why not full-blooded.

Baruch that wasn't a rat that you smelled it was an immoral malevolent spirit.

Perhaps.  But now that I am Kekistani, I can be triggered by just about anything!

Drew isn't willing to demonstrate his deity to us, because he is yet another controlled opposition, a poser.  He probably is Stalin's grand-kid, third generation Left-atheist, pretending to be something he isn't.  I demonstrate deity, but it goes over people's heads ;-)  Angels are like that.

[Hakurei Reimu]

You can claim to expect a universe caused by lifeless, mindless naturalistic forces without plan, intent or an engineering degree would cause a life permitting universe. No one else is compelled to believe that such forces could or did apart from any help accomplish that.

And similarly, no one else is compelled to believe that such forces could not and did not apart from any help accomplish this, either. You have not presented any argument explaining why matter is incapable of following rules without the intervention of what amounts to a god.

Furthermore, I pointed out a while back in this very thread that complex behavior tends to manifest without help in the natural world, mathematics, and in the world of our simulations. In short, I have plenty of experience that shows me that your notion that lifeless, mindless laws cannot generate things as complex as life is wrong â€" they can, and do, and it is apparent that not only can lifeless, mindless laws can create life and intelligence, but that is what actually happened. The only way out is to assume that everything was part of some grand design, which you have no evidence for either.

It is true that in our experience we have always observed the universe appears to have 'rules' (your word) of conduct. Since its always been observed its easy to over look the question why are there laws of physics?

You seem to not realize that a mind capable of such design would be at least as much governed by rules as the laws of physics would be. We know that minds can be disordered; we see disordered minds all the time, so it's not that much of a stretch to imagine that a mind can be completely random in and of itself. Furthermore, our minds are a response to an environment that, while oft hostile, is nonetheless rule governed and rewards to an extent goal-oriented thinking.

A mind that a god would be absent such environmental shaping. Unless you are proposing that this god of yours has its own problems to deal with (which would be an additional assumption on your part), then you have to either assume or explain why a godly mind would have a plan, or intent, or an "engineering degree" to be able to form a universe like ours, instead of one where chaos rules. A chaotic or stupid god doesn't strike me as one that could successfully pull off a universe with even the right kind of rules able to support life.

Are they actual laws or rules or merely consistent observations of how matter behaves?

It's a distinction without a difference.

If (it were possible) and we could observe a universe without laws of nature or predictable behavior I argue that would be far more consistent with what we would expect of a universe caused by mindless naturalistic forces that could care less if planets or stars or galaxies and least of all if life comes to exist.

Yes, you can argue for that, but I have yet to see any math from you explaining why such a universe would be "far more consistent" with what we see than one caused by mindless naturalistic forces. You haven't even characterized how improbable a universe governed by mindless naturalistic forces with life in it is, as a baseline. I think it's because you can't. We have theory to get a handle on how improbable an outcome is. It's called the probability calculus.

Hell, I'll give you a hint that will help you get a handle on it, assuming you have any background in probability. Assume that the formation of life on this planet is a poisson process. Data suggests that life formed within 700 million years of the earth forming. What is the distribution of life forming on this planet, and what are the best values for its parameters, given that datum?

The fact of the laws of nature is an observation more consistent with the belief we owe our existence to a Creator.

Again, this is something that you claim, but fail to support.

Of course you'll disagree and go through your usual gyrations to explain how this is consistent with what you believe and that's fine.

Quite frankly, you haven't even given me a good reason why you should believe it, let alone me. (And of course, my conclusion is based on the math, which is again something that is conspicuously lacking on your part.)

I believe impartial people with no axe to grind will find the existence of laws of nature (especially since our lives are dependent upon them) to be more consistent with belief in a Creator who intentionally caused the conditions to prevail.

What is an "impartial person" here? People who are swayed by your rhetoric, who are consistently ignoring the fact that you have yet to produce a single figure to support your claim? I don't know how swinging that kind of person could be considered a victory.

You're mistaken about entangled particles. The 'spooky' action is instantaneous regardless of distance.

In which reference frame? In special relativity, simultaneity is relative â€"dependent on your state of motion. Two events considered instantaneous in one reference frame would not be considered to be such in another.

If we can force one particle to spin one way we know the entangled particle will spin the opposite direction instantly. Spin direction can be used as a single bit. Scientists are looking at the potential this has for instant communication with astronauts on Mars.

Forcing one particle to spin a particular way disrupts the entanglement, which makes it useless for the task. Even as simple a communication scheme as observing one partner to represent 1 and not observing it to represent 0 is doomed to fail, because in order for the receiver to decide whether a bit has been observed, they'd have to observe it, which spoils the bit.

Quantum entanglement is extremely useful for encryption, however, because there are ways to detect whether a third party has spoiled a particular quantum pair by observing it, and quantum events are great at producing good random numbers, which is key in strong encryption. If any competent scientists are looking at quantum entanglement for communication with Mars, it's this that they're probably referring to.

PS, which "scientists" are taking a look at the potential to use quantum entanglement as an ansible? Or is it just encryption?

Of course you claim this is naturalistic.

Naturalism doesn't require reality to be local.

Anything that happens, no matter how unexpected, no matter how bizarre or anti-intuitive no matter how much we claim it can't happen if it does happen its natural. This just shows anyone else that there is no delineation between natural and supernatural.

Again, you repeat this lie. Naturalism would not be able to explain why a universe with laws consistent with time could violate conservation of energy â€" those two principles are intimately linked, and a violation of this would be a serious breech of naturalism. It would not be able to explain how life could exist in a set of universal laws that do not allow for its existence. Again, this is a serious breech of naturalism, as I explained to you in my last set of posts.

A real impartial person would look at that and come down on my side. If you have to lie to support your position, then I don't see why anyone should support it.

Of course the so called supernatural will shrink because anything that can happen is declared natural. Apparently you're unaware you are supporting my contention.

Of course you would think that. The only reason why supernaturalism is shrinking is because it is based on ignorance of what is there, not on any knowledge of what is there. You don't know that any phenomenon at all is supernatural; you simply point to the fact that we don't know (yet) that a phenomenon is natural, therefore it's supernatural. When your position is based on a lack of knowledge for the opposing side instead of knowledge for your own side, of course your domain will only shrink.

The only people who would be fooled by your argument are people who are entranced by your pretty rhetoric, because any deep analysis of your position proves it to be empty. Of course, you don't know what you're talking about either, which explains not only why you are failing to convince me or any cosmologist on this matter, but also why you don't seem to realize this: you are a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I have no reason to expect naturalistic forces to exist in the first place.

You also have no reason to expect that a god would have it together enough to create naturalistic forces, either. You simply assume this to be true.

From what I have observed of naturalistic forces they don't self initiate an action like humans do. Naturalistic forces don't decide to cause an earthquake. It occurs due to series of events or prior events that caused it to happen.

Hate to break it to you, but given that humans are governed by naturalistic forces, they are just as capable of "self initiating" as naturalistic forces are. That is to say, if naturalistic forces can't self intiate, then neither can humans.

What then caused the first event? You'll probably respond there was no first event and we owe our existence to an endless recession of events. If we owe our existence to an endless recession of events we'd never reach the events we're now experiencing because we'd have to cross an infinitude of previous events.

An infinite set of durations can add up to a finite amount of time. The classic geometric series, 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ..., converges to 2. If the units are seconds, counting in opposite order than they appear above, the entire infinite series concludes in two seconds. Every single point in that series is accounted for, all infinite number of them. It may not have a distinct start point, but it certainly wasn't in progress three seconds before it concluded.

You've also proven that you don't know about infinities and how they work. And no, I don't care if you find this convincing. You have claimed something that I showed to be wrong in one paragraph.

I see you called me a liar...if you want to call me a liar don't be rude get in back of the line and wait your turn like everyone else.

Well, you are. I provide you with a concrete example of something that shouldn't happen if naturalism is true (life existing in laws that don't allow for them), and yet you continue to claim that I portray naturalism as unfalsifiable. When you stated that mono-theism leads you away from nature god thinking, I proved you wrong with relevant biblical passages (thus proving that mono-theism doesn't lead you away from such thinking), you then tried to evade by denying that you were defending biblical theism. It's a dishonest tactic. How can you called anything but a liar?

Understand something when I make various arguments its not because I think they will persuade you of anything, you are the loyal opposition. There is nothing I say you won't have a rebuttal for and that's fine. To impartial people not convinced one way or another the fact the same scientific technique for understanding and explaining objects or phenomena known to be caused intentionally by design by beings works equally as well for things believed to have been caused unintentionally by happenstance would suggest to them its because in reality naturalistic phenomenon was also caused intentionally by design.

Excuses. You tried your darndest to convince me that your view had a point, only I demolished every one of your arguments, and there was no rebuttal from you showing how my rebuttals were wrong. Not one figure. Not one equation. The fact of the matter is that I did have a rebuttal for every one of your points, whereas the reverse was not true. A real impartial observer would come down squarely in my favor that I have at least supported my position, whereas you have merely asserted yours.

Of course, Dunning-Kruger ensures that you think that the only way I could remain unconvinced of your rhetoric is because I'm "loyal to the opposition," rather than the continued failure of you and your ilk to present a cojent argument in your favor.

You're mistaken as usual. I see no reason at all why mindless naturalistic forces should have any laws of nature (or rules as you referred to them). A chaotic universe of no rules or predictable behavior would be what one would expect of forces that didn't care if the universe was knowable, or amenable to scientific research or one that had the right 'rules' to cause stars and planets and ultimately life. You have simply come to expect that's what nature does because that's what we observe. If a Creator caused a universe for the purpose of life, we'd expect to find a universe with the conditions and laws of nature to support that purpose. Just like if a creator causes a radio to exist we expect the radio to have the conditions that allow us to hear radio waves.

And again, you have simply devolved to rhetoric instead of argumentation. You have provided no argument why a sufficiently stupid or chaotic god would not create a universe as chaotic as you suppose mindless naturalism would. No god that I am aware of has passed an engineering exam to earn an engineering degree. You simply skip over a whole bunch of background assumptions at least as unsupported as mindless naturalistic forces creating a universe where life is supported.

And in case you haven't noticed, much of the universe is ruled by chaos. The weather is chaotic. The motion of molecules in all atomic matter is chaotic (even in crystals). The action of quantum mechanics is governed chiefly by randomness. In fact, the molecular pumps that drive our thoughts and action depend on this chaos to function properly. At the right scales, the chaos clears up enough to allow for things like life, society and galactic motion. But make no mistake, you live in a fairly chaotic universe.

Humans are gods in the sense we can self initiate actions. We don't depend on some other prior event to decide to do something. If rain occurs its because it has to. If we decide to water our grass its because we decided to. We have yet to observe nature deciding to do something presumably it can't.   

I can look into your brain and see that you will make a decision before you're consciously aware of it.
https://www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/
http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
Oops, looks like your decisions are caused by your brain after all, and you are in fact not "self initiating" anything. You water your grass because your brain compells you to do so. So, yeah. Nature may not self initiate, but neither do you. You are not a god. Furthermore, you have no examples of anything that "self initiates." The closest you will come to is in quantum processes, which are characterized by a probability amplitude, which sets the probability of a certain event within a given duration of time, but no other discernable causes. Of course, this is just random to you, so...

The fact is whether you agree or not we are arguing our respective beliefs. If you claim its a verifiable fact we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that never intended any of the things we observe all you do is raise the bar for the level of proof required to state its a fact.

If I claimed this as a verifiable fact, I wouldn't be arguing relative probabilities or philosophy, smarty pants. The fact that I have to appeal to Occam's razor to cut out your god, and appeal to the past very poor performance of the Goddidit hypothesis is proof that I cannot verify that naturalistic laws can self-generate.

I don't claim theism is a fact, its a belief with facts that support the belief but I don't know for sure its true. If I only argue and make my case to you its not going to go anywhere. The question is who could make a more persuasive case before impartial people?

I did. Because the only "impartial people" who would decide the case for you exist only in your head.

I do look elsewhere and I see exactly the kind of emergence of complexity spontaneously that we would need from naturalistic laws. Deceptively simple systems in mathematics produce huge fields of complex structure. Same with computer science. I point out (as Ikeda and Jefferys have proven), that a universe that has naturalistically-possible life in it favors the naturalism hypothesis over the theistic hypotheses. I have therefore explained why I think that naturalistic forces are sufficient to explain our existence.

You, on the other hand, continue to not expain why you think that naturalistic forces that can't create life without intelligent intervention, except by way of unconvincing bare assertion, unsupported by any cojent argument. You continue to shy away from the Ikeda-Jefferys theorem to explain why their conclusion is wrong or does not apply, and instead simply repeat the same rhetoric that is directly countered by the theorem.

Furthermore, I have stated no less than four observations that would seriously cause me to question my belief that life exists in this universe naturalistically. You haven't to my knowledge even stated one observation that would cause you to question yours (If you have, I'd like a reference).

And let's not forget that you posit a being that somehow exists without explanation, that somehow has the power to create and specify a universe like yours without explanation, that somehow has the skill and mental capacity to figure out the appropriate kind of universe without explanation, and that somehow has the will to do so without explanation, and somehow has designed the universe according to some logic without explanation.

The bare truth is that yours are what amounts to statements of faith. It is you who actually has all apperanace of being "the loyal opposition" to myself. It is you who the impartial, rational people are going to decide against.

Good day, sir.

[Cavebear]

The model comports with theism not science. If scientists created a model to demonstrate how the universe and the laws of nature came into existence by some naturalistic method and the model worked in computer simulations you would submit that fact as evidence in favor of naturalism. Of course because it would be a fact that comports with naturalism.

From what I have heard from many atheists is the notion the universe could have been caused by a transcendent agent is a ridiculous belief on the face of it. The notion a being might be responsible for the laws of physics absurd. Yet in virtual universes that is exactly the scenario... transcendent beings cause the universe to exist, lay down the 'laws of physics for that universe and exert God like power over it. The real question isn't whether this line of evidence means anything to you or other atheists on this board. I believe it would have a big impact on impartial folks not committed to either view point.

So you are proposing that imagined virtual universes might have a deity and therefore we must?

Separately, you are suggesting that laws of physics must be established by a deity.  Why must there be a deity involved?  It is just an unnecessary step.

[SGOS]

So you are proposing that imagined virtual universes might have a deity and therefore we must?

Separately, you are suggesting that laws of physics must be established by a deity.  Why must there be a deity involved?  It is just an unnecessary step.

I'd like to see one of these virtual universes created by a computer.  We've been talking about them for weeks as if they do exist in laboratories.  So if I went to see one of them, would I be blown away?  Or would I just see a data base that does things like count exponentially and render fascinating numbers.  Would I see ants crawling around or dinosaurs that disappear and mammals that spring forth afterwards?

[Baruch]

I'd like to see one of these virtual universes created by a computer.  We've been talking about them for weeks as if they do exist in laboratories.  So if I went to see one of them, would I be blown away?  Or would I just see a data base that does things like count exponentially and render fascinating numbers.  Would I see ants crawling around or dinosaurs that disappear and mammals that spring forth afterwards?

Sometimes thought experiments are just masturbation.

[Mike Cl]

Sometimes thought experiments are just masturbation.

And what is wrong with masturbation???  You are anti pleasure?