News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

Started by Drew_2017, February 19, 2017, 05:17:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sorginak

Yet......I still do not believe in a god despite how much drivel the theists spout as pseudo-truth.

PopeyesPappy

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

And you do?

There is a universe. You have a hypothesis that it was intentionally created in order to result in us, but you haven't supplied any evidence in support of your hypothesis.
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.

Hydra009

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!

doorknob

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.


Yes 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.

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.

What case? the case that scientists are able to simulate a universe on a computer? Do you even know what simulate is?

Simulate
"imitation of a situation or process."

Well guess what we've even imitated things that aren't real on computers as well. From unicorns to creepers. From beauty to war where no one ever dies.

So 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. 

Does that make sense to you yet?

We don't accept your brand of evidence because as I said earlier it is not evidence of a god or even the universe really. The only reason a simulated universe is important is to test our mathematical equations. That's really it. And it's only as good as our math because anything can happen in a simulation. I could simulate the world of tron does that make it real?

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'.

We 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.

Putting that aside, we don't believe that nothing popped it's self into existence. We don't know what happened but that doesn't mean you get to say god did it! A simulation that humans created is not evidence! You don't get to redefine evidence and then claim you have evidence. Evidence has criteria to meet before it is accepted. What do you not get about that? Your evidence does not meet that criteria.

The reason that theism is believed to be magic is because it makes fantastical claims and then expects you to just take it's word for it.

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.

Well 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.

Baruch

"selectively skeptic" ... hard not to be, if one is neither gullible nor a nihilist.

Y'all got to the crux of the problem ... what is evidence.  Good.

I don't believe in G-d either, any more than I believe in Santa Claus.  But then I have played Santa Claus at a retirement home, and for my infant daughter.  So I guess in some sense I am Santa Claus, when I am playing that role.  Just as I am Baruch, when playing that role.  And when I am a demigod, playing that role, then I can grok what the ancient Greeks and Romans were going on about.  Theater of evidence is always open for new players and audience and playwrights.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Drew_2017

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.

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.

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?

 



Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Drew_2017

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

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.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

fencerider

#157
Baruch If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound? If we place a microphone in the forest does it record a real sound?

I think it would be a much more interesting question to ask If no one sees the ghost in the asylum but the microphone records it, is it really there?


Baruch one man measures a pile of silver coins and says it is 5.0grams. another man measure the same pile of silver coins and says it is 5.1grams. Who is correct?

We would all be in the same situation, if there wasn't "the gram" locked up in a European vault.


Drew - 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.

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.
"Do you believe in god?", is not a proper English sentence. Unless you believe that, "Do you believe in apple?", is a proper English sentence.

Cavebear

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.

What bothers me here, is the suggestion that there is "a preponderance of evidence" about the existence of a deity.  There is none.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

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.

Drew, 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.  This sometimes happens in scholarship, and is roundly mocked (see Jesus Seminar).  In religion in particular, argument is by authority.  In science, in theory arguments, it is by authority (hence the Venus fly trap of String theory).  In science, in experiment, it is by reproducibility of observation or reproducibility of controlled experiment.  There are no observations, that fit within the authoritative theory (atheist theology), by definition, that can allow any gods.  Similarly 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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

PopeyesPappy

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.

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.



Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.

Cavebear

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.

Thank you for the well-reasoned post.  It gets to the heart of the argument.  Either there is evidence for a deity creating the universe, or the idea has to be set aside in favor of more natural causes not involving "the middleman".
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

doorknob

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

Cavebear

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

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.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

doorknob

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.
Are you speaking to me? Not sure I understand how my comment relates to your response sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk