Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Hydra009]

And there it is. Argument from incredulity. Otherwise known as I'm so fucking awesome it can only be the result of divine intervention.

I prefer to call it the I Can't Believe It's Not Butter fallacy.  :P

[Drew_2017]

Hi Baruch,

Excellent ... 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.

I could consider it a thought experiment. I think the discussion of Goddidit Vs Naturedidit is more a philosophical debate even though many of the materialists on this board think naturalism (all the way down) is a scientific fact.

If 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.

I perceive your a very intelligent man except for the goofy theism you subscribe too : )

[Drew_2017]

And there it is. Argument from incredulity. Otherwise known as I'm so fucking awesome it can only be the result of divine intervention.

Aren't you incredulous of theistic claims?

[doorknob]

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.

[PopeyesPappy]

Aren't you incredulous of theistic claims?

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.   

[Hydra009]

Also, expressing incredulity =/= argument from incredulity.  One is simply an expression of disbelief (which can change with new information) while the other is a logical fallacy.

"That sounds made up" =/= "I doubt ancient Egyptians could've build the pyramids, therefore space aliens built them instead"

[fencerider]

Premise #1. The universe exists
Premise #2. ************
Premise #3. ************
Premise #4. ************
Premise #5. ************
____________________________
Conclusion : God exists

[Cavebear]

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.

You can't even type "GOD"?  Wow. that shows how religious you truly are even though you try to disguise it most posts.

[Baruch]

Premise #1. The universe exists
Premise #2. ************
Premise #3. ************
Premise #4. ************
Premise #5. ************
____________________________
Conclusion : God exists

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.

[Baruch]

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.

Naturalistic causation is ancient ... we saw animals mating, and offspring produced.  We planted seeds, and reaped a harvest.  Those Neolithic people, who couldn't read or write, made us possible.  Such losers.  And they invented culture, including religion.  Back then, people who didn't fit in, were exiled to the desert, eventually becoming Arabs.

[Baruch]

Aren't you incredulous of theistic claims?

Rhetorical question or "that word doesn't mean what you think it does"?  You are saying he is credulous ... because of his own explanation of his own experiences.  A real skeptic would believe nothing, be a nihilist.  Are you claiming to be a real skeptic, who believes nothing?

[Baruch]

"I perceive your a very intelligent man except for the goofy theism you subscribe too : )" ... I am an old man, and I haven't let moss grow on me.  I am not sold on science, it is useful in some circumstances (I have used it as an aerospace engineer), but unlike the man with only a hammer ... I don't think everything is a nail.  Back when I was an aerospace engineer, I didn't think everything was a rocket.  I have been doing medical computer support for a long time now ... but just to prove I still have "the knack" ... I self taught myself cryptology two years ago, made my own system that is as good as AES.  Not that I need it for anything.  The origin of progress lies in curiosity and play.  Necessity as a mother of invention, is a bitch.  And yes, my theism is anthropic, not materialism.

[Baruch]

And there it is. Argument from incredulity. Otherwise known as I'm so fucking awesome it can only be the result of divine intervention.

Many people here are jaded, but aren't from China.

[Drew_2017]

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.

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.

[Cavebear]

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.

Better you repeating yourself once than Baruch doing it over and over and over...