Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Baruch]

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..........

Sad when a theist really doesn't "get" theism.  Kind of like a gambling addict not "getting" odds.

[sdelsolray]

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..........

Well, Drew has made some progress.  He appears to have dropped his sixth item of "evidence" for theism - the B creates A therefore C creates B fallacy (i.e., humans create virtual universes therefore god created humans).  One step at a time.

[Drew_2017]

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

That would be akin to saying a corpse has no relevancy or probative value in a murder case. How could the existence of the universe have no bearing on whether it was caused intentionally by design or by naturalistic causes? You made the right legal and argumentative claims but all you did was state them which for the majority of this board is more than enough. But for impartial people viewing this board you're just kidding yourself. 

[Drew_2017]

Well, Drew has made some progress.  He appears to have dropped his sixth item of "evidence" for theism - the B creates A therefore C creates B fallacy (i.e., humans create virtual universes therefore god created humans).  One step at a time.

I dropped it only in this instance because we're referring to trace evidence. At least we were until I produced some, compared it to the trace evidence you present in favor of naturalism and once again demonstrated you have a different standard of evidence for naturalism then you do for theism. I have to console myself with knowing any impartial person would have no problem seeing the double standard.

[sdelsolray]

That would be akin to saying a corpse has no relevancy or probative value in a murder case.
...

Poor analogy.  You assume a murder, just like you assume intelligent design.

Please state your scientific hypothesis for theism, your testing and experimentation regime, how the hypothesis is falsifiable and your null hypothesis.

[sdelsolray]

I dropped it only in this instance because we're referring to trace evidence. At least we were until I produced some, compared it to the trace evidence you present in favor of naturalism and once again demonstrated you have a different standard of evidence for naturalism then you do for theism. I have to console myself with knowing any impartial person would have no problem seeing the double standard.

I may be wrong, but I do not think I have used the word "naturalism" (or any varient) in this thread.  I suppose I should add "1 oz of 'Hey look over there aka Tu Quoque fallacy' to your favorite recipe.

[Baruch]

I dropped it only in this instance because we're referring to trace evidence. At least we were until I produced some, compared it to the trace evidence you present in favor of naturalism and once again demonstrated you have a different standard of evidence for naturalism then you do for theism. I have to console myself with knowing any impartial person would have no problem seeing the double standard.

There is no such thing as an impartial person ... theist or atheist.

[Baruch]

That would be akin to saying a corpse has no relevancy or probative value in a murder case. How could the existence of the universe have no bearing on whether it was caused intentionally by design or by naturalistic causes? You made the right legal and argumentative claims but all you did was state them which for the majority of this board is more than enough. But for impartial people viewing this board you're just kidding yourself.

Nietzsche killed god.  But statute of limitations and all that ...

[Drew_2017]

Poor analogy.  You assume a murder, just like you assume intelligent design.

The existence of a dead human alone by itself raises the possibility it was caused intentionally. The authorities do a investigation in the event of any death because the mere death itself raises the possibility it was intentional. Its actually an excellent analogy because in the case of a deceased there are two possibilities; natural causes or an intentional act? There are many cases where its difficult to tell if a death was intentional or not and just like in those cases each side makes arguments and cites evidence that leads them to believe one theory or another. In some cases all the evidence is circumstantial, you attempt to infer from the known evidence what happened. If we were to further the analogy any facts (evidence) I submit that support my belief it was intentional and not natural causes is barred or as they say in legal jargon suppressed. It doesn't matter it only serves to reveal your bias and tunnel vision in this case. No reasonable person would bar facts from being viewed as evidence in favor of a conclusion.

Please state your scientific hypothesis for theism, your testing and experimentation regime, how the hypothesis is falsifiable and your null hypothesis.

Sure give me a 100k grant and I'll get right on it.

[Drew_2017]

There is no such thing as an impartial person ... theist or atheist.

No but there are people who aren't committed to either position. I know many people who are agnostic or just indifferent. Most of the people I argue with in here are far more committed to their point of view than I am to mine. I don't deny there is evidence that supports naturalism. I don't denigrate it as some asinine idea of how our existence came about. I don't deny its possible indeed if theism isn't true then naturalism must be true. 

[Cavebear]

It seems to me that using a flashlight in the dark is the best way to find anything. 

And I think that represents human progress.  At our earliest, we knew little and suspected much without cause.  We guessed blindly.

Later, we formed the idea that actions had causes.  Like earthquakes were caused by the force of ocean waves pounding on the coasts.  That was wrong, but at least it had a proposed cause to an event.

Then some Greeks got the idea of looking for ways to actually PROVE stuff.  Some of them saw that ships disappeared over the horizon bow to top mast and realized the Earth was round.  Others noted the curve of lunar ecilipses as proof the Earth was round.  One noted that vertical steles cast shadows differently on the same day in different places as more proof the earth was round.

Then Christianity came along and set us back into superstition and ignorance for 1,000 years...

We gradually crawled out of that and rediscovered science and pushed forward again. 

Now we just have to make sure we don't kill ourselves with some of it while using the other stuff to advance again.

[fencerider]

It seems to me that using a flashlight in the dark is the best way to find anything.

Is sightmark 2000 lumen led flashlight good enough? ( the only time I purchased a $200 flashlight)

There is no such thing as an impartial person ... theist or atheist.

been out of church less than a year and seeing more and more how big the load of crap is. I am about as close to impartial that Drew is gonna find here. It just so happens that Drew makes arguments that don't make sense from a perspective of proof. They make sense from a perspective of faith. To me faith is just something that drains my energy and makes me tired.

[Cavebear]

Is sightmark 2000 lumen led flashlight good enough? ( the only time I purchased a $200 flashlight)
been out of church less than a year and seeing more and more how big the load of crap is. I am about as close to impartial that Drew is gonna find here. It just so happens that Drew makes arguments that don't make sense from a perspective of proof. They make sense from a perspective of faith. To me faith is just something that drains my energy and makes me tired.

I suppose we all like to think of ourselves as impartial (although I'm not sure how that squares with religious belief).  But not everyone is correct in that assumption of impartiality.  You can think you are anything you want, but not be correct in the assumption.

I have reason to think I am.  I try to use facts in arguments.  I examine my possible assumptions.  I have been known to change my mind in the presence of better facts, and I try to admit my errors when I see them.

Not all people do that.  Just watch any political talk TV show.  Cynically false statements abound, and some even say opposing statements in 2 sentences without the least sign of embarrassment.  I do not respect such people.

Faith is a belief in absence of facts.  Those who think that way are no part of my world.  I view them as disturbed people cynically trying to make the world worse for their benefit.  I have no use for them.

[Baruch]

Lying, fraud and theft are very profitable.  Why knock Capitalism aka Mafia?

[popsthebuilder]

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.

Good post

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk