Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Drew_2017]

Well, it should be pretty obvious to most people that strengthening the scientific case for abiogenesis would undermine alternative views, like the super scientific view that god magicked life into existence one day.
And nothing will.
Strange how you can view pretty much anything as justifying your preconceived religious beliefs.  Did I say strange?  I meant pitiable.

There is no point in me responding to someone who is willfully misrepresenting my responses. But I get it you have to stay within the confines of your intelligence and intellectual honesty.

[sdelsolray]

Drew is now in the sour grapes phase.  Typical for an empty and frustrated theist.

[Ananta Shesha]

Drew is now in the sour grapes phase.  Typical for an empty and frustrated theist.

Hopefully wine cheese and crackers comes next.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Compared to the nature did by sheer happenstance minus any plan intent or engineering degree it explains a great deal.

Its an explanation why there is a universe.

False. When we have a Naturedidit explanation, it doesn't end at "Naturedidit." There is a coherent outlining of the mechanism of action. The explanation is sustained with physical evidence and a logical argument of how the physical evidence supports the mechanism proposed. Additionally, there also tend to be models and simulations showing how the physical mechanism leads to the physical observations. There is also usually connections of demonstrated phenomena to other demonstrated phenomena.

With Goddidit, we just have "Goddidit." The end. At best, the furtherst you get with Goddidit is "God wanted it this way." That's not an explanation. The puzzle of why there should be anything at all is not solved by "Goddidit" because God is a thing, and you must presuppose his existence (which is a something) in order to explain the existence of any something. It's circular.

Even if you restrict this to the universe, you are using an unknown to explain another unknown. It's a lazy patch over your ignorance masquerading as knowledge.

Its an explanation why the exacting conditions for stars and planets obtained.

False. Our explanation takes the known properties of matter and constructs models of solar system formation that actually exclude a large number of them from consideration. It also connects models of solar system formation with observations such as the isotopic distribution of elements in comets and asteroids. Your "explanation" ends at "God wanted it this way." With his power, the solar system could appear any way he fucking well pleased, therefore, it fails to be an explanation at all.

Its an explanation why there is not only life but sentient life.

False. Again, your "explanation" ends at "God wanted it this way." Life could be formed in any manner whatsoever, therefore, it fails to be any explanation at all. Our explanation involves observation of the properties of chemical compounds, formulating pathways by which DNA and the rest of the major biomolecules can form to generate life. There is also a clear path of descent from early, nonsentient life forms to sentient life, with specified signposts based on what we have already observed.

Its an explanation why there are laws of physics that are knowable and amenable to scientific research.

False, false, false. Your "explanation" for why the laws of physics are knowable and amenable for research is that "God wanted it that way." Our explanation involves the observed symmetries of the universe and how they constrain the kinds of laws that can exist. The viral theorem, for instance, excludes all but two kinds of laws in forming coherent orbits. All that is required is that physics does adhere to some simple regularities, and the laws of physics falls out by way of detailed analysis of these observed regularities.

In no case does "Goddidit" ever form a satisfactory explanation as required by the scientific method. It generates no model, no mechanism, no testable predictisons, and as such fails to be an explanation because you can't USE "Goddidit" to tell you how something is going to function given what you know about it. Naturalistic explanations can and do.

Yet another belief statement spoken as incontrovertible fact.

False. It's simply the observation that "mindless" and "random" aren't synonyms. They don't mean the same thing, therefore you cannot derive from the fact that some process is mindless that it will act randomly.

[popsthebuilder]

What? Nature vs GOD?

Why are they supposedly against one another? What sense does that even make?

As if natural causes negate an ultimate cause, or nature is observable chaos.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Drew_2017]

Drew is now in the sour grapes phase.  Typical for an empty and frustrated theist.

Sure you just keep telling yourself that...:)

[Drew_2017]

Hopefully wine cheese and crackers comes next.

And some perfectly cooked Salmon freshly caught...

[SGOS]

What? Nature vs GOD?

It is for some people, especially those who have a vested interest in one or the other

Why are they supposedly against one another? What sense does that even make?

Good question.  I don't know who decided it had to be a competition.  Theists, I think.  Science just plays its own game by its own rules, not to be distracted by the mystics who want science to advance using different rules that are not compatible with scientific inquiry.  Science cannot change the rules of its inquiry, because then it wouldn't be science.  It would become dogma, Biblical authority and the rest of the misguided beliefs that sustained the long lasting success of the Dark Ages and gave all the power to kings and clergy.  Religions don't want there to be another way.  It doesn't support religions' monopoly on explaining the universe.

Not that people can't live in the darkness.  They can and do.  People lived and populations grew even during the thousands of years of medieval witchcraft and sorcery.  People survived, much to the testimony of evolutionary adaptation.  Science just says there is another way to understand the universe.  Religion says there is not.  It can only accept science when it does not conflict with religious dogma.  So for science to continue as science, it ignores religion, and does not enter into competition.

As if natural causes negate an ultimate cause.

They don't, nor is that the intention.  In fact, natural cases do not appear to even have intentions.  Any beef theists have with natural causes is misdirected.  Science is your problem, not natural causes.  Scientific inquiry obviously negated much of religious doctrine over the years, but it's not like science goes out of it's way to do that.  By staying its own course, it just arrives at wildly different conclusions. 

An ultimate cause has not been observed or detected; Not a natural one or a mystical one.  It's hardly the competition theists make it out to be.  Science just attempts to explain what little it can.  An "ultimate cause", be it mystical or natural, is like the mythical holy grail of knowledge.  Everybody, including many scientists lust after understanding the "ultimate cause."  It would win the Nobel Prize.  But like all the other holy grails, the chances of finding it are infinitesimally tiny, and that would be an understatement.  Sure it's tantalizing, and even pursued by theoretical physicists. 

Personally, I'm interested in the search, but I'm not confident of ever finding the first cause's cause, but that doesn't negate science or Drew's "naturalistism."  Science can and will do many other very useful things.  Religion's attempts to compete are misguided.  And it only embarrasses itself when it tries to compete.  It would be less embarrassing to the Pope and the clergy if it just stayed out of the way and pursued its own paths, rather than waste energy, as Drew does, desperately trying to minimalize someone else's methods of inquiry.

The beef is not with nature.  It's with science, and it's a waste of a beef.

[popsthebuilder]

I agree that there should be no issue whatsoever. Religion doesn't compete with nature or science. Seems to me hay it is atheists who like to throw out the word supernatural when we cannot claim to know what is natural and outside of the natural as out scientific equipment, data, and actual knowledge are way too limited to think we can declare what is real vs what isn't wholly explainable given current limited capacity.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

I agree that there should be no issue whatsoever. Religion doesn't compete with nature or science. Seems to me hay it is atheists who like to throw out the word supernatural when we cannot claim to know what is natural and outside of the natural as out scientific equipment, data, and actual knowledge are way too limited to think we can declare what is real vs what isn't wholly explainable given current limited capacity.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Atheists and materialists love ... TINOC ... there is no other choice.  Their politics is like that too ;-)  But what happened before the 3.5k radiation really doesn't matter to me ... I don't think it is going to happen again, it only happened once.

[Mike Cl]

I agree that there should be no issue whatsoever. Religion doesn't compete with nature or science. Seems to me hay it is atheists who like to throw out the word supernatural when we cannot claim to know what is natural and outside of the natural as out scientific equipment, data, and actual knowledge are way too limited to think we can declare what is real vs what isn't wholly explainable given current limited capacity.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Wisdom out of the mouth of Pops again.  You do love your pronouncements of Truth don't you?!  I am an atheist--I think we both know that.  (Actually, I prefer 'non-believer' in theism.)  I don't insist we throw out the word 'supernatural' or 'god'.  I do think we should simply understand them as fictions.  But if you, or anybody else--including your god--or any god--can give me evidence they actually exist, then I will accept them as being real and accurate words and concepts. 

[aitm]

  it is atheists who like to throw out the word supernatural when we cannot claim to know what is natural and outside of the natural

You still apparently cannot grasp how incredulous we view your belief. The universe is so vast that if it were a human it could not differentiate between a atom and our planet. Both would be relatively the same size. We understand this is an incredible claim as well, but to most of us a single speck of dust and a photon are relatively the same. Relative scale.

You wish us to consider that this universe was created by a spectacular wizard of unfathomable power and intellect, and in the same breath expect us to remain incredulous and humbled by its various -omni's while it itself stumbles about unable to defeat human armies, demanding one not eat a shrimp, denouncing haircuts, the wearing of mixed clothing, for demanding a woman be shunned during her time of the month as if he forgot he did it himself for the very reason to shun her, demanding a woman should have body parts cut off should she fight to ave the life of her husband, hails a man who allows his daughter to be raped and butchered so he can protect angels who are provided as proof of gods almighty power but more than the angels themselves would allow it, thus god allows it while his own angels sit around drinking wine laughing about it, and then of course, the most preposterous of all.....has the audacity to judge those whom, against fear and certain death will fight anyway to protect total strangers, knowing that they will die....when the judge cannot understand what fear is like, nor the idea that "he" could die, or the emotion and horror of the losing your child.

No, your "god" does not have the right to judge humans. But it is a moot point. Science has given us far and away enough information to understand that the gods that humanity has created are not gods, but grand visions of what a king of kings would be like, if he existed. Science has proven that the gods are images that man has created to help them face death.

We see the natural, the super natural may exist, but it is nothing but supposition and elaborate mental gymnastics to continue to suggest it is real enough to the point we should actually consider it as an entity that interacts and intervenes for a handful of humans while the vast seem to be completely ignored.

[Baruch]

Wisdom out of the mouth of Pops again.  You do love your pronouncements of Truth don't you?!  I am an atheist--I think we both know that.  (Actually, I prefer 'non-believer' in theism.)  I don't insist we throw out the word 'supernatural' or 'god'.  I do think we should simply understand them as fictions.  But if you, or anybody else--including your god--or any god--can give me evidence they actually exist, then I will accept them as being real and accurate words and concepts.

As long as you don't worship Star Trek, Star Wars or Dr Who ... you are consistent.  The official Jedi religion in GB .. not so much ;-)  If you think Harry Potter is real, then OK then, at least that respects magic.

People naturally divide things, we are usually not monist nor monotheist.  We divide natural from supernatural (notice who is doing the dividing ... not nature, not G-d).  We divide the material from the immaterial.  We divide the rational from the irrational.  We divide the factual from the fictional.  We divide the credulous from the sophisticates.  We divide the knowledgable from the ignorant.  All false dichotomies ... all rhetorical ... all monkey business.  Have another banana?

[Mike Cl]

As long as you don't worship Star Trek, Star Wars or Dr Who ... you are consistent.  The official Jedi religion in GB .. not so much ;-)  If you think Harry Potter is real, then OK then, at least that respects magic.

People naturally divide things, we are usually not monist nor monotheist.  We divide natural from supernatural (notice who is doing the dividing ... not nature, not G-d).  We divide the material from the immaterial.  We divide the rational from the irrational.  We divide the factual from the fictional.  We divide the credulous from the sophisticates.  We divide the knowledgable from the ignorant.  All false dichotomies ... all rhetorical ... all monkey business.  Have another banana?

I don't worship anything---well, I must fess up--I do worship the Yankees and Ice Cream!!  Of course we label and categorize and compartmentalize--helps us make sense of our world.  Very real and very helpful--and as you point out, not fully accurate and it can become downright inaccurate.  But then, nothing is really one sided.  But that does not detract from the usefulness or using categories at times.  And I would suggest that nature ends up dividing all the time.  But not god, since that is fictional and exists only in your head.  Yeah, I will most likely have a banana or two today--went to Costco the other day and bought a bunch.   

[popsthebuilder]

You still apparently cannot grasp how incredulous we view your belief. The universe is so vast that if it were a human it could not differentiate between a atom and our planet. Both would be relatively the same size. We understand this is an incredible claim as well, but to most of us a single speck of dust and a photon are relatively the same. Relative scale.

You wish us to consider that this universe was created by a spectacular wizard of unfathomable power and intellect, and in the same breath expect us to remain incredulous and humbled by its various -omni's while it itself stumbles about unable to defeat human armies, demanding one not eat a shrimp, denouncing haircuts, the wearing of mixed clothing, for demanding a woman be shunned during her time of the month as if he forgot he did it himself for the very reason to shun her, demanding a woman should have body parts cut off should she fight to ave the life of her husband, hails a man who allows his daughter to be raped and butchered so he can protect angels who are provided as proof of gods almighty power but more than the angels themselves would allow it, thus god allows it while his own angels sit around drinking wine laughing about it, and then of course, the most preposterous of all.....has the audacity to judge those whom, against fear and certain death will fight anyway to protect total strangers, knowing that they will die....when the judge cannot understand what fear is like, nor the idea that "he" could die, or the emotion and horror of the losing your child.

No, your "god" does not have the right to judge humans. But it is a moot point. Science has given us far and away enough information to understand that the gods that humanity has created are not gods, but grand visions of what a king of kings would be like, if he existed. Science has proven that the gods are images that man has created to help them face death.

We see the natural, the super natural may exist, but it is nothing but supposition and elaborate mental gymnastics to continue to suggest it is real enough to the point we should actually consider it as an entity that interacts and intervenes for a handful of humans while the vast seem to be completely ignored.

No, actually I believe the old testament is to be taken metaphorically, making your own attempted points about GOD false.

I don't claim a wizard did anything, but that life and existence was formed and started and as such is relevant and has potential, as opposed to being insignificant and not cared about by said creative force.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk