Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Drew_2017]

Baruch,

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 ;-)

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.

[Sorginak]

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.

[Hydra009]

the fact of children existing doesn't make the existence of Santa anymore likely.

That's kinda the point.  Also, I see you are acquainted with skepticism.

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

Nevermind.

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

Wrong.  It still wouldn't matter.  If Christmas was linked to a real person (and it is - Saint Nicolas), it wouldn't be evidence of the kind of Santa with flying reindeer and elves.

If 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.

It's almost as if magical explanations invariably don't hold water compared to more mundane explanations.  Who'd have thunk it?

There 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.

You're so close, now all you have to do is take that logic and apply it to your own argument.

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

I 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.

There 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.

[Drew_2017]

There 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 »

Imagine how complicated it would be to figure out how natural forces operated if there were no laws of physics. It sure is a lucky break for us, not only does it make the universe understandable (at least to some degree) but they also are why we exist. I agree its easy to falsify santaism. So why make the comparison if you admit its bogus? Your silly argument was supposed to demonstrate how difficult it would be to disprove Santa's existence and how theistic belief is the same. All you did was demonstrate the opposite then make excuses for why people believe in theism.

What 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?

[Hydra009]

Imagine how complicated it would be to figure out how natural forces operated if there were no laws of physics.

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.

What 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?

Unlike 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).

The Big Bang theory, like every scientific theory, makes no mention of a God.  If that's what you want to believe - if it gives you a nice warm fuzzy feeling (and more importantly, helps ease death-fear), then by all means believe to your heart's content, but I have no need of that hypothesis.

[Baruch]

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.

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.

[Mr.Obvious]

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.

Small wonder

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

[Baruch]

Small wonder

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

Not an Oscar performance, and that is even with a totally mis-managed Oscar night.

[Drew_2017]

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.

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...

[Drew_2017]

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.

The laws of science, scientific laws, or scientific principles are statements that describe or predict a range of phenomena behave as they appear to in nature.[1] The term "law" has diverse usage in many cases: approximate, accurate, broad or narrow theories, in all natural scientific disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy etc.). Scientific laws summarize and explain a large collection of facts determined by experiment, and are tested based on their ability to predict the results of future experiments. They are developed either from facts or through mathematics, and are strongly supported by empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they reflect causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.[2]

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...

Unlike 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).

Clearly you haven't been reading what I wrote. I've admitted theism is a belief, I don't know for sure its true, it could be wrong, I could be mistaken, it could be something else is true and  unlike most in here I concede there is evidence that supports naturalism which equates to atheism. I don't hold one standard for theistic evidence and a different standard for naturalistic evidence. I've also stated facts that would lead me to change my mind and agree with naturalism...but I won't repeat them. You'll just have to guess or look up other posts so I don't repeat myself. 

[fencerider]

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.

[trdsf]

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.

My point about ETs is about the difference between knowledge and belief.  A plausibility argument is not the same as an evidentiary one.

I'm also not sure how one might differentiate a self-proclaimed god from a very highly advanced alien in the first place.  Clarke's Law applies.

[SGOS]

I don't hold one standard for theistic evidence and a different standard for naturalistic evidence. 

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].

[Baruch]

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.

[Baruch]

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...

No .. so I had to come up with my own.  Thanks for asking ;-)  The seculars and religious won't talk to each other, just past each other.  Both have closed minds.  Waste of time.  I use a screw driver when I need one, I use a saw when I need one.  I use secularism when I need it, I uses religion when I need it.