Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Unbeliever]

we can't include edge results, even though they do happen).

No they don't. I've never seen it happen, so it doesn't.







OK, maybe it does...

[Baruch]

No they don't. I've never seen it happen, so it doesn't.

OK, maybe it does...

Then you simply aren't that lucky ;-)

[Drew_2017]

Hakurei Reimu

"Impartial" and "indifferent" are not synonyms. Sometimes, the only impartial answer is to come down on the side of one position. The flat earth is an example of this. The flat earth hypothesis is soundly defeated by any rational measure, and any impartial assessment, the round earth wins. Insisting on false equivalency is intellectually dishonest, and should not be applauded.

This simply reveals the level of unquestioned devotion you have to your point of view to suggest in the case of Goddidit Vs Naturedidit is comparable to round earth vs flat earth. If there were any where near the overwhelming preponderance of facts, data and evidence that confirms round earth and rules out flat earth we'd all be atheists except a small portion of kooks. You'd also present that irrefutable, reproducible evidence that once and for all seals the case. I'm sure in your own mind you have but you're a born again believer...

But it's going to take a long time, precisely because naturalism has been vindicated so many times in the past.

We should expect naturalistic explanations for events and phenomena within our universe. Its when we attempt to explain the cause of fact of the universes existence the best theory at the moment is it came forth from a singularity a phenomena in which our laws of physics break down. Whether that's true no one knows for sure. I realize this is one of the better arguments from evidence naturalists have but an impartial person listening in on us would realize its far from conclusive. But you have raised the bar astronomically by claiming the evidence in favor of naturalism is equivalent to the evidence that favors a round earth. I assume at the very least you have a working model of how the universe came into existence. Right? I believe we have ample working models of the earth being round right? Just remember I'm making these arguments for the sake of anyone who is impartial you personally are a lost cause.

We do have a working model of theism in the existence of virtual universes using plan and intelligence to cause them to exist.

I asked...

Lets take this thought further. What expectation would we have from forces that have no intelligence, no plan, no blueprint was caused by mindless irrational forces produce a universe that is explicable in mathematical terms?

You responded with long winded drivel about how math is a tool humans developed while dodging the question. Humans could develop all the math they wanted to but it wouldn't help explain the universe if the universe wasn't explicable in mathematical terms. We didn't read into the universe the equations and formula's that have been derived, we investigated and derived them from the 'dumb' universe. If there is another advanced race somewhere in the universe that is as or more developed they will have extracted the same laws of physics and equations we have.

Just as you admitted if the universe was utter chaos with no laws of physics that would strengthen your hand. Of course it would because its exactly what you would expect to find as the result of mindless irrational forces that don't care if its amenable to scientific research, is explicable in mathematical terms or if it causes thinking humans to exist. It's what we do know and is a fact that raises the question if we owe our existence to naturalistic forces alone. 

So, yeah. The law in operation is a natural thing, but the expression of the law as a message is not. Gravitating bodies do not need any understanding of gravitation to gravitate, any more than a mechanism needs understanding of gear ratios to operate.

You obviously don't see your own gaffe here. True the gear ratios don't require an understanding of gear ratios to operate...they due require an engineer to create those gear ratios in the first place.

Expression of a law requires understanding and therefore intelligence. That is the key difference.

I know you don't see the irony of this but according to your belief if true, mindless irrational universe created intelligent beings who could alone decipher the babble of mindless irrational forces. 

[fencerider]

Drew you've been talking about virtual universes as proof of the real universe since page 3, but you still haven't given us any connection. Let me give you an analogy which could be proven to be true, but shouldn't be accepted without a connection being made.

I have a chihuahua that likes to eat avocados. => Therefore I know that your St. Bernard also likes to eat avocados
while it is possible that your St Bernard likes avocados, the fact that my chihuahua likes them isnt proof that your St B does.

your reference to a virtual universe show that it is possible for the real universe to be created but it doesn't provide proof.


Drew the way you talk about a flat earth makes me wonder if you think the world is flat. I don't think anyone has to be impartial to figure out if it is flat or round. No one was around for the beginning of the universe, but we have the earth here now for us to make observations.... my observations tell me that it is round ( we can all observe again). My analysis of some of the youtube flat earth videos confirms that it is round ( we can all analyze again).

To go beyond whether you think the earth if flat or round and why is the subject of another thread.

[Drew_2017]

author=fencerider link=topic=11330.msg1179643#msg1179643 date=1497716466]
Drew you've been talking about virtual universes as proof of the real universe since page 3, but you still haven't given us any connection. Let me give you an analogy which could be proven to be true, but shouldn't be accepted without a connection being made.

I have a chihuahua that likes to eat avocados. => Therefore I know that your St. Bernard also likes to eat avocados
while it is possible that your St Bernard likes avocados, the fact that my chihuahua likes them isnt proof that your St B does.

your reference to a virtual universe show that it is possible for the real universe to be created but it doesn't provide proof.

If scientists created a computer simulation using facts and data to recreate the alleged naturalistic process whereby the universe came into existence and it actually worked you would accept that as evidence we owe the existence of the universe to a naturalistic process true? It wouldn't be proof but it would be circumstantial evidence. You would accept it as at least a potential model of how the actual universe came into existence.  Scientists didn't use the naturalistic process to cause a virtual universe to exist. The theistic model of the universe coming into existence is a matter of mind and intelligence first deciding to cause a universe to exist then using planning and intelligence to do so. In the theistic model, the Creator is transcendent to the universe yet can exert God like power over it. The same holds forth for virtual universe that scientists create, they are transcendent to it yet can alter the laws of physics they created at will. If scientists went even further and created earth like planets which ultimately caused sentient beings no doubt those beings would ponder their existence and wonder if they owe their existence to naturalistic forces or a creator. In that case the former would hold true.

[aitm]

The same holds forth for virtual universe that scientists create,.....yet can alter the laws of physics they created at will.

laws of physics they "created" at will. In simpler terms. Fiction. Superman can fly because "they" made up laws of physics at will. Your argument is based on comic books, as is pretty much, your god.

[Mike Cl]

If scientists created a computer simulation using facts and data to recreate the alleged naturalistic process whereby the universe came into existence and it actually worked you would accept that as evidence we owe the existence of the universe to a naturalistic process true? It wouldn't be proof but it would be circumstantial evidence. You would accept it as at least a potential model of how the actual universe came into existence.  Scientists didn't use the naturalistic process to cause a virtual universe to exist. The theistic model of the universe coming into existence is a matter of mind and intelligence first deciding to cause a universe to exist then using planning and intelligence to do so. In the theistic model, the Creator is transcendent to the universe yet can exert God like power over it. The same holds forth for virtual universe that scientists create, they are transcendent to it yet can alter the laws of physics they created at will. If scientists went even further and created earth like planets which ultimately caused sentient beings no doubt those beings would ponder their existence and wonder if they owe their existence to naturalistic forces or a creator. In that case the former would hold true.

As Dandy Don used to say--If, if and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

Your fanciful simulations are just that--fanciful.  Not close to being able to do that.  What your hypothesis is suggesting is just fiction.  We can all create our own fiction--like your god.  And if we use 'facts' then those fictions should no longer be fictions, but reality.  The 'fact' remains there is not a trace of your god--not anywhere or anywhen.

[Cavebear]

Rule #1  Never get involved in an argument of more than 4 paragraphs, and never get involved in an argument with equations...

[Baruch]

Rule #1  Never get involved in an argument of more than 4 paragraphs, and never get involved in an argument with equations...

That is two rules.  Conjunctions are a thing.

[Drew_2017]

As Dandy Don used to say--If, if and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

Your fanciful simulations are just that--fanciful.  Not close to being able to do that.  What your hypothesis is suggesting is just fiction.  We can all create our own fiction--like your god.  And if we use 'facts' then those fictions should no longer be fictions, but reality.  The 'fact' remains there is not a trace of your god--not anywhere or anywhen.

Do you consider the existence of the universe and the fact naturalistic forces exist as evidence (trace or otherwise) that we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces? If scientists created a computer simulation that demonstrates how naturalistic forces caused the universe to exist would you reject that as fanciful simulations?

I assume you mean by no trace you mean no trace evidence, physical facts from which you can infer the existence of something. Correct me if I'm wrong but you accept the existence of the universe and the fact naturalistic forces exist as trace evidence that leads you to infer its naturalistic forces all the way down and we owe our existence to forces that didn't intend or care if we existed. Maybe you can explain to me why the fact (the existence of the universe) you use as evidence to infer your position isn't valid trace evidence of the position I'm inferring? However, I'm not citing the existence of the universe alone, I cite the fact of the laws of physics that subsequently led to stars, planets, galaxies and solar systems that allowed our existence as trace evidence I argue favors theism. Its not up to you an advocate for your position to claim the facts I cite aren't evidence because you say so. Its up to impartial triers of fact to make such a determination.

Explain what legal theory bars the following facts as evidence I can use in favor of theism.

1. The existence of the universe.
2. The existence of the laws of physics. 
3. The existence of life.
4. The existence of intelligent self-aware life.
5. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

[sdelsolray]

...
Explain what legal theory bars the following facts as evidence I can use in favor of theism.

1. The existence of the universe.
2. The existence of the laws of physics. 
3. The existence of life.
4. The existence of intelligent self-aware life.
5. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

Lack of relevance, lack of probative value, non-sequitur.

[Mike Cl]

Do you consider the existence of the universe and the fact naturalistic forces exist as evidence (trace or otherwise) that we owe our existence to unguided naturalistic forces? If scientists created a computer simulation that demonstrates how naturalistic forces caused the universe to exist would you reject that as fanciful simulations?

I assume you mean by no trace you mean no trace evidence, physical facts from which you can infer the existence of something. Correct me if I'm wrong but you accept the existence of the universe and the fact naturalistic forces exist as trace evidence that leads you to infer its naturalistic forces all the way down and we owe our existence to forces that didn't intend or care if we existed. Maybe you can explain to me why the fact (the existence of the universe) you use as evidence to infer your position isn't valid trace evidence of the position I'm inferring? However, I'm not citing the existence of the universe alone, I cite the fact of the laws of physics that subsequently led to stars, planets, galaxies and solar systems that allowed our existence as trace evidence I argue favors theism. Its not up to you an advocate for your position to claim the facts I cite aren't evidence because you say so. Its up to impartial triers of fact to make such a determination.

Explain what legal theory bars the following facts as evidence I can use in favor of theism.

1. The existence of the universe.
2. The existence of the laws of physics. 
3. The existence of life.
4. The existence of intelligent self-aware life.
5. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

None of your 'facts' leads to anything but 'I don't know'.  What I meant is what I said.  There is not a trace of any evidence that a god(s) exist or ever existed.  The universe is--self evident.  That does not lead to 'It must have been created.'  We don't know what cause it to exist.  We don't know how life started exactly.  We know of several natural laws; we don't know if they are universal even if they are in this part of the universe.  I would also venture to say that we do not know what all of the 'natural' laws are yet.  But even though we don't know the answers yet, we know many more of the questions than ever before.  We also know much more about our universe; and we are only beginning to do so. 

Simply put, the bible, the koran, any other religious text, all god(s) that have been put forward are simply fiction.  There is not any proof of their validity.  If the existence of the universe if proof that it was crafted by a creator, so be it.  But it is simply fanciful self deception.

[sdelsolray]

[Baruch]

I have been self evident to myself, once I was past babyhood and had a "self" fully separate from my "mother".  Much later I found out that I was created by my parents ... in a cabbage patch ;-)  If they had told me I spontaneously assembled out of atoms ... I would have not believed them then, nor now.  There is always a "people in the loop" with people things.  Not so much if there are no life-forms involved.  Quartz crystals are ordered, and do form naturally ... and nobody makes them that way.  Though early Greek science was confused by that, they couldn't understand why the gem cutters always cut them in the shape they have.  Life vs non-life is spontaneous vs non-spontaneous.  So if the universe were a single living organism (Gaia written larger) then it would have to have some kind of parent.  But I don't think it is a single living organism at least as we conceive it.  Hence I am not a pantheist, but a pan-en-theist .. there is a subtle difference.

My older girl cat is black ... but I hold the laser pointer at night, that amazes her.  I am her god, sometimes.

[aitm]

At some point, normal people, when the others won't play, will simply go to another playground. Apparently, this one feels that repeating drivel will in time..........