Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Baruch]

Since you are a theist, and science is your enemy, I can understand--to a point--why you'd say that.  You alter your view of reality to encompass the supernatural (which is a fiction) so that you can then find room for you views on god and such.  You have to push and pull at reality to get your fiction worked in--and then call athiests deceitful.  And you also then, repackage reality with the supernatural and say 'see'.  You do have a kinship with Drump and his alternate facts.

Oh science isn't my enemy ;-)  I am an engineer and IT technologist.  I simply don't accept as definitive, the view of the carpenter who only has a hammer, and thinks the universe is a nail.  And no, I don't support Trump either ... but then you know that, just kidding right?  But the D-party apes do have to jump around and pick off their fellow's lice ... mmm.  I love the smell of hanging chads in the morning!

Of course there is a difference between deceit and confusion.  Part of 1984, where all words have the same meaning, so that communication is meaningless.

[Mike Cl]

  They simply rename their narrow version of epistemology, scientism and then deceitfully repackage this as science.

Of course I know you are an engineer and IT specialist who has a deep connection to medicine.  I was only throwing your word 'deceitfully' back at you.  Theists are most fond of draping their beliefs in the wording of science.  This is very deceitful--but common for theists.

[Drew_2017]

Mike Cl link=topic=11330.msg1180027#msg1180027 date=1498002608]
Yeah, I know, it is very popular to say that we can't know one way or the other if a god(s) exist.  Most theists buy into that thought.  I don't.  I don't believe in 'naturalism'; nature is not an 'ism'.  I don't need to 'believe' in nature, for it is quite provable simply by looking around, crafting hypothesis about whatever aspect of nature you want to test, then test away.  That leads to theory or discarded ideas.  You can craft theistic hypothesis all day and night, but you can't test for any of them.  There are no theistic theories.  There are thousands of theories of nature.  And more are discovered every day.  I don't 'believe' in nature; it is not an ism.  It simply is.  I know nature exists for I live in it every single second that I live; and I'll still be in it when I die.  Not all of my questions have been answered or will be by the time I die--that does not disprove that nature exists.

In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."[1] Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.[2]

No one disputes nature exists and naturalistic explanations explain things like earthquakes and rain. Within the universe naturalistic explanations should be sought for any unexplained phenomena. The question is regards to naturalism which states only naturalistic explanations are possible even for the existence of natural forces themselves. This would mean even if we owe the existence of the universe to a singularity (a phenomena in which the known laws of physics break down) it too would be considered naturalistic though it doesn't conform to any law or observation we have made. That means there is no real definition or demarcation as to what is naturalistic and what wouldn't be. According to the definition above things made by human minds defy the definition because only naturalistic forces operate in the world. Would you call the pyramids a naturalistic phenomena or one caused by design and planning? Would you call a laptop a naturalistic phenomena or one caused by planning and design?

I find nature to be proof for me that there cannot be any god(s).  Nature is not perfect nor static.  It simply is.  It is not good or bad.  It just is.  But all animal life is sustained by the killing of other living things.  It cannot be helped, for that is simply the way it is.  Even vegans have to kill plants to survive--and if they don't then they kill themselves; killing other life forms is something animals have to do.  That is not very god-like; at least not in any theism I am aware of.  Life is not neat, clean and tidy like your god tells you it is supposed to be--not governed by any moral compass I am aware of.  All theist morals are false and simplistic.  In nature life is shit, piss, vinegar, spit, dirt and grime and grit; and beauty beyond compare.  It is up to you to deal with any and all of it--or not; nature does not care.  There is no room in nature for any god(s)--it is simply a fanciful construct by those who want to have a god exist; nothing substantial, just wishful thinking.  It is sustained by belief and faith; not facts, for there are none to support the fiction of god.  But Drew, if you wish to believe in your god, then go for it.  Just do not expect me to buy into any of it.

If I bought into theism I'd state it as a fact like my opponents do. I state it as a belief and I'm open to data, facts and information to the contrary but that has been in scarce supply. I haven't been involved in any form of organized religion for over 10 years far be it from me to promote it to anyone else.

 

[Mike Cl]

 


No one disputes nature exists and naturalistic explanations explain things like earthquakes and rain. Within the universe naturalistic explanations should be sought for any unexplained phenomena. The question is regards to naturalism which states only naturalistic explanations are possible even for the existence of natural forces themselves. This would mean even if we owe the existence of the universe to a singularity (a phenomena in which the known laws of physics break down) it too would be considered naturalistic though it doesn't conform to any law or observation we have made. That means there is no real definition or demarcation as to what is naturalistic and what wouldn't be. According to the definition above things made by human minds defy the definition because only naturalistic forces operate in the world. Would you call the pyramids a naturalistic phenomena or one caused by design and planning? Would you call a laptop a naturalistic phenomena or one caused by planning and design?

We don't know what caused the universe to exist.  It is a scientific I don't know.  That does not mean a god or creator did it.  You say, "That means there is no real definition or demarcation as to what is naturalistic and what wouldn't be. "  I don't think so.  We know what is natural or isn't.  So far we have not found anything that is not natural.  Would a laptop be natural?  Sure.  It was created by a person following a technology that led to that product.  The mind that created it was from natural development and used natural material to do so.  I my view everything we can determine exists is natural.  Oh yeah, the pyramids--it is natural.  It was created by a mind (like the laptop) when the technology that allowed it to be built was then built; and all the materials were natural.  Planning and design is not unnatural.   The human mind developed and evolved over time.  That is natural.  There is nothing supernatural or unnatural about it.  I don't see any evidence for anything supernatural or unnatural.

[Mike Cl]

If I bought into theism I'd state it as a fact like my opponents do. I state it as a belief and I'm open to data, facts and information to the contrary but that has been in scarce supply. I haven't been involved in any form of organized religion for over 10 years far be it from me to promote it to anyone else.

Yes, organized religion sucks big time.  You are treating nature and unnatural as being equal.  They are not.  You have supplied lots of examples of nature yourself.  But you have not offered any proof that unnatural exists or can exist.  You can believe what you like--that is the nature of belief; you don't need proof and facts to believe something.  Unnatural is a fiction.  Nature is not.  God is a fiction.  I have not seen any proof to the contrary.  It is not my responsibility to prove that god does not exist; it is the theists job to produce evidence that a god exists.  Superman is a fiction no matter how many movies and TV shows tell us differently.  Nobody can prove that Krypton existed or exists because Superman is a fiction.  It is not my job to prove to you that superman is a fiction--but if you think I am wrong, then you have the job of proving it to me.  Same with god and the unnatural.

[Drew_2017]

Hakurei Reimu

Let me start off with pointing out that you have, AGAIN, refused to put numbers on how improbable the universe or a creator could be. Or any estimation of those numbers. This alone makse your argument from imprability morbund.

I don't get my marching orders from you and my arguments don't stand of fall by your approval which will always be denied. I don't need to produce any numbers the world renowned cosmologist and astrophysicist Martin Rees (and others) have provided that work. The 'odds' are so improbable that it leads Rees (and others) to conclude this is one of many if not an infinitude of universes. The ultimate time and chance of the gaps theory. That was his only way to pull naturalism out of a hat. The only other way would be design and as an atheist he rejects that idea.

No, this is your wishful thinking. See, the flat-earthers have created this enormous pseudo-intellectual foundation to explain away the real physical problems with their hypothesis. The spotlight sun, a conspiracy of map-makers, anomalous refraction, fake astronomy, fake aerospace and so forth. All this in defense of a basic intuition:

The Earth is as flat as it appears.

When you say shit like this I have to just shake my head and question your rationality. There is an incredibly small group of people (most who I believe are tongue in cheek) who claim the earth is flat who's absurd claims are refuted by direct observable data that is easily reproducible. If such observable reproducible data were available for your claims there might be a small group of malcontents who claim otherwise but so what? Who cares?

The appearance of design requires and demands an intelligent designer.

It doesn't demand it, the appearance of design raises the question since not everything that appears designed isn't designed. The pyramids appear designed and that's still the best theory. On the other hand intelligence has the ability (if it chooses) to make things that were designed appear to be random or naturally occurring such as secret code or someone who murders by making it look like an accident.

Life, the solar system, the workings of fate and such, have all been attributed to a creator/god because of this basic intuition. Yet, as the progress of science has advanced, god has been pushed out of each of these and sequestered to the holes of our knowledge.

It has pushed back to the laws of physics. Do you know of any law of physics that demands the laws of physics exist or if they do exist they have to be within the narrow parameters to cause intelligent life to exist? As for the holes in our knowledge there is plenty of room for naturalism in the gaps. On your lucid days after having taken your meds you admit we don't know how the universe came into existence, why there are laws of nature, why those laws should be such that they allow our existence, or why the universe is knowable uniform and explicable in mathematical terms. Its just one of those naturalistic mysteries...

This implies one of two things:

(A) We are lousy at detecting intelligent design, or
(B) Ordered design does not require intelligence.

I think we're lousy at admitting the possibility of design as a viable theory.

The problem for you is that, even at that primitive level, the singularity explanation is far more comprehensive than Goddidit.

Its a naturalism in the gaps explanation at best.

If the (seeming) design of the universe is something that needs explaining, and needs explaining so badly that you're willing to put into the mix a creator that is not observed and has no evidence independent of that need, then the creator is something that also needs just as much explaining, if not more. Yet, you don't try to explain the presence of that creator, as if you figure that the creator is something that does not need explaining. Sorry, bub, it seems as though your creator is exactly the kind of thing that does need explaining, even if you have to introduce something otherwise unevidenced.

I'm not attempting to explain the existence of a Creator, I'm attempting to explain the existence of intelligent human life and the universe that allows our existence. Is there any canard you hear from atheists you don't repeat like a parrot I'm not attempting to convince you my point of view is true only that it is as viable as your counter explanation.

[Baruch]

"Do you know of any law of physics that demands the laws of physics exist or if they do exist they have to be within the narrow parameters to cause intelligent life to exist?"

That is the bootstrap problem for physics.  Physicists, astrophysicists and cosmologists who claim to have an answer ... have repeatedly been shown to be full of it.  I am still waiting for a working fusion reactor ... crickets!  Might as well believe in Cold Fusion.

[Drew_2017]

author=Mike Cl link=topic=11330.msg1180263#msg1180263 date=1498274657]
We don't know what caused the universe to exist.  It is a scientific I don't know.  That does not mean a god or creator did it. 

True it doesn't...it doesn't mean it was created by naturalistic means alone either.

You say, "That means there is no real definition or demarcation as to what is naturalistic and what wouldn't be. "  I don't think so.  We know what is natural or isn't.  So far we have not found anything that is not natural.  Would a laptop be natural?  Sure.  It was created by a person following a technology that led to that product.  The mind that created it was from natural development and used natural material to do so.  I my view everything we can determine exists is natural.  Oh yeah, the pyramids--it is natural.  It was created by a mind (like the laptop) when the technology that allowed it to be built was then built; and all the materials were natural.  Planning and design is not unnatural.   The human mind developed and evolved over time.  That is natural.  There is nothing supernatural or unnatural about it.  I don't see any evidence for anything supernatural or unnatural.

What is typically meant by natural forces is matter controlled by the laws of physics. We don't say things like the pyramids or laptops are caused by natural forces in the same vein we say the Grand Canyon was caused by natural forces. If purposeful intent and design are the cause of something we say its man made to distinguish it from being the result of happenstance. If a personal being of great power and intelligence caused the universe to exist what would be unnatural about that? We would call the universe and humans God made. The term supernatural is used mostly as a pejorative term because what's really meant by supernatural is the impossible. Suppose tomorrow we observed that gravity has lost its power by 5% even though the constant tug of gravity is considered a 'law' of physics. What creates a law of physics is the seemingly inviolable manner they are observed to always behave and this will be true up to the moment we observe something else. We wouldn't call it unnatural though. How can anything that if it happens be unnatural? What we mean by unnatural is something that can't happen unless it does happen in which case it becomes natural. If in fact we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator we won't consider it supernatural anymore because the supernatural can't happen.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Hakurei Reimu

I don't get my marching orders from you and my arguments don't stand of fall by your approval which will always be denied. I don't need to produce any numbers the world renowned cosmologist and astrophysicist Martin Rees (and others) have provided that work. The 'odds' are so improbable that it leads Rees (and others) to conclude this is one of many if not an infinitude of universes. The ultimate time and chance of the gaps theory. That was his only way to pull naturalism out of a hat. The only other way would be design and as an atheist he rejects that idea.

Translation from Drew-ese: "I-I-I don't know! HR, you're asking for scary numbers and I don't know what they are! WAHHH!"

C'mon, Drew, everyone can smell the despiration on your breath. Despite this empty posturing of yours that "renowned cosmologist and astrophysicists" have provided these numbers, you don't even provide a ballpark for that estimation, and furthermore, they sure as hell don't provide an estimation for the probability of a god existing, which is one of the pieces of information you require to make your argument fly. It doesn't matter if the odds of a universe being created like ours is one out of 10^(one million billion billion) against, if the odds of a god existing is one out of Graham's Number against, the universe is unbelievably more likely to exist as a matter of chance than by the designs of your god.

Now, either you start assigning some numbers for calculating the probability of your god, or I'm going to start assigning some for you, and you will not like the numbers I assign.

When you say shit like this I have to just shake my head and question your rationality. There is an incredibly small group of people (most who I believe are tongue in cheek) who claim the earth is flat who's absurd claims are refuted by direct observable data that is easily reproducible. If such observable reproducible data were available for your claims there might be a small group of malcontents who claim otherwise but so what? Who cares?

And yet you cannot deny the possiblity that some of them believe it, even in the face of all the evidence. You cannot deny the fact that serious people believe that Noah really did take two of every creature on the Ark and rode out a global flood, thus your statement:

"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."

is just so much wishful thinking. People are silly and believe all sorts of silly things even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

It doesn't demand it, the appearance of design raises the question since not everything that appears designed isn't designed. The pyramids appear designed and that's still the best theory. On the other hand intelligence has the ability (if it chooses) to make things that were designed appear to be random or naturally occurring such as secret code or someone who murders by making it look like an accident.

And yet we get fooled time and time again with things that appear to be designed yet are not. Animism was an ancient belief that all sorts of things had spirits that gave them the impetus of movement. Creationism is the idea that the complexity of life was the result of creation by a powerful god-thing. Lightning was thought to be the action of gods and spirits. History shows we're quite bad at spotting designs that we didn't make. The default assumption has since become, if some natural phenomenon appears designed, then assume first that the appearance of design is just that â€" appearance.

Until such time that a design can be descerned of the universe, any appearance of design is just that â€" an appearance of design, not an actual design.

It has pushed back to the laws of physics. Do you know of any law of physics that demands the laws of physics exist or if they do exist they have to be within the narrow parameters to cause intelligent life to exist?

I know that some laws of physics demand other laws of physics to exist. I also know that those same laws of physics also demand narrow parameters on those other laws. Basically everything built up from the big three is of this nature.

But that's not what you're asking, is it? To be honest, my common sense tells me 'no', but at the same time, my technical experience tells me that this common sense is almost certainly wrong, because I've seen it being wrong on multiple occasions.

As for the holes in our knowledge there is plenty of room for naturalism in the gaps. On your lucid days after having taken your meds you admit we don't know how the universe came into existence, why there are laws of nature, why those laws should be such that they allow our existence, or why the universe is knowable uniform and explicable in mathematical terms. Its just one of those naturalistic mysteries...

Classic strawmanning. See, while I do admit that we don't know how the universe came into existence, or the ultimate origin of the natural laws, etc., at no point have I said that all possibilities are therefore equally likely. We may not be able to say which of the possibilities are actually true, if any of them, but we can say some things about them and how that would impact their likelihood. Goddidit doesn't get a free pass just because we don't have anywhere near sufficient evidence to narrow down the possibilities from the naturalistic theories discussed.

For instance, is not this god you posit arguably an intelligent life form? Does that not mean that an intelligent life form has arisen before any universe got around to being created? Did this creator himself arose through design, or spontaneously through the action of chance or (hyper)natural law?

See, if it's the former, then you've got the problem that this creator needed a hypercreator to create him (as he couldn't exist spontaneously), and that same line of logic would lead to a hyperhypercreator to create the hypercreator, and we have an infinite ladder to climb of increasingly more powerful and capable creators. Are you proposing such? Because that's the ultimate conclusion to that line of argument.

If it's the latter, you're postulating an intelligent creator is more likely to spontaneously exist than a universe. Really? Well, let's compare probabilities for both outcomes and... oh, yeah. You don't do probabilities, do you. Further, you have given no clear reasons why anyone should believe that this god should be allowed to be spontaneously formed, and not the universe itself, except by special pleading.

Theologins have never come up with a satisfactory resolution to this problem, dispite their protestations otherwise. You either get an infinite ladder that collapses under its own weight, or a special pleading fallacy.

I think we're lousy at admitting the possibility of design as a viable theory.

Our ancestors were not afraid to posit such possibilies elsewhere, and their abject failure for such design hypotheses to pan out are well-documented. We've learned to be cautious. First prove that there's good reason to believe that there is a design at all before worrying about whose design it is.

Its a naturalism in the gaps explanation at best.

Better gaps that may be filled with knowledge than an infinite ladder that collapses under its own weight.

I'm not attempting to explain the existence of a Creator, I'm attempting to explain the existence of intelligent human life and the universe that allows our existence.

By way of a creator. You posit a design. Are you postulating a design without a designer? Then whenceforth did you name this thread "Goddidit vs. Naturedidit"? Your disingenuous argumentation is transparent for all to see.

Is there any canard you hear from atheists you don't repeat like a parrot I'm not attempting to convince you my point of view is true only that it is as viable as your counter explanation.

Oh, I know full well that you're trying to portray Goddidit as a viable arternative. The problem is that you're doing a bad job of it by continuously failing to support that argument with the requisite figures, or even estimates. You apparently can't even be bothered to pull numbers out of your ass. Goddidit has never been a viable alternative, period, and it is simply silly to expect an alternative that has been the very opposite of "viable" in regimes where it may be tested to suddenly start being viable in regimes where it is not.

Each of the naturalistic alternatives have some sort of physical basis for thinking that they may be viable. Yours is in many ways self-contradictory and not even a coherent idea, and is unsupported by... well, anything. This is what disqualifies it. Fix the problems and it may have a chance.

[SGOS]

I doubt that many in the scientific community use the term "naturalistic" or think in terms of something being naturalistic or unnaturalistic:  "Ooooh, I just love evolution, because its sooo naturalistic," or "Do you think this sounds naturalistic enough to be a theory?"  Science is just a process of observation and investigation that doesn't call upon prayer or special messages from the spirit world to conjure answers.  Naturalistic is a term I would expect from someone with no understanding of the natural world.   Perhaps a creationist giving a lecture to a Sunday School class.  If you want to give an impression to someone that you are reasonably familiar with science or one of the natural sciences, it's probably not a good choice of words, but it might give you some credibility with the uneducated.

[Baruch]

I doubt that many in the scientific community use the term "naturalistic" or think in terms of something being naturalistic or unnaturalistic:  "Ooooh, I just love evolution, because its sooo naturalistic," or "Do you think this sounds naturalistic enough to be a theory?"  Science is just a process of observation and investigation that doesn't call upon prayer or special messages from the spirit world to conjure answers.  Naturalistic is a term I would expect from someone with no understanding of the natural world.   Perhaps a creationist giving a lecture to a Sunday School class.  If you want to give an impression to someone that you are reasonably familiar with science or one of the natural sciences, it's probably not a good choice of words, but it might give you some credibility with the uneducated.

Science was originally, natural philosophy, before 1800 CE.  Under the influence of 19th century developments, particularly the German university system, science became the dominant term.  Naturalism only applies to ancient Greeks like Thales and Pythagoras who were breaking away from Greek religion (they were agnostics basically ... though not outright atheists).  In India they had the same things, with Buddhism (Theravada original version) being applied psychology and with Lokayata (materialism).

Yes, scientists for the last 200 years, aren't naturalists ... that is something that would be anachronistically applied to physics or chemistry in particular, but it was still current in the early 19th century with Von Humbolt and Darwin.  Biologists considered themselves naturalists for a longer time.  Physicists and chemists, were materialists ... which was considered separate at that time, from naturalism (biology, psychology and medicine).

In Science Sunday School they put up felt story boards with scientists and atoms and such ;-))  Today the only science is materialism, and there is no naturalism or philosophy in it, they are all idiot savants of the Democritus cult.

[Drew_2017]

God is a fiction.  I have not seen any proof to the contrary.  It is not my responsibility to prove that god does not exist; it is the theists job to produce evidence that a god exists.  Superman is a fiction no matter how many movies and TV shows tell us differently.  Nobody can prove that Krypton existed or exists because Superman is a fiction.  It is not my job to prove to you that superman is a fiction--but if you think I am wrong, then you have the job of proving it to me.  Same with god and the unnatural.

That depends...if you claim we owe our existence to naturalistic forces no deity or God necessary or if you claim God doesn't exist you submit a claim in the market place of ideas just as the theist does. You do make a claim... you claim God is a fiction which only leaves naturalistic forces that didn't plan or intend our existence to cause the universe and intelligent life. Criticizing theism alone doesn't provide evidence naturalistic forces caused our existence. If you wished to remain neutral and say I don't know if we owe our existence to naturalistic forces or to a Creator then you're off the hook. I can play the negative claim doesn't need to make a case game also, I could say I don't believe naturalistic forces alone can account for our existence. 

It is my job to cite evidence, reason and arguments as to why I believe a fix is in and we owe our existence to a Creator. You're skeptical if not in complete denial God exists I'm skeptical (but not in denial) we may owe our existence to mindless naturalistic forces. You make a bolder claim then I do yet say you don't have to support it or defend it. Of course its much easier to ridicule an opposing idea than to support your own. That's why I call this thread Goddidit Vs Naturedidit because its an either or proposition.

[Drew_2017]

Of course I know you are an engineer and IT specialist who has a deep connection to medicine.  I was only throwing your word 'deceitfully' back at you.  Theists are most fond of draping their beliefs in the wording of science.  This is very deceitful--but common for theists.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much...
Would you prefer a bunch of theists quote scripture? Scientific fact is available for anyone to use if they think it supports a case...

[Mike Cl]

That depends...if you claim we owe our existence to naturalistic forces no deity or God necessary or if you claim God doesn't exist you submit a claim in the market place of ideas just as the theist does. You do make a claim... you claim God is a fiction which only leaves naturalistic forces that didn't plan or intend our existence to cause the universe and intelligent life. Criticizing theism alone doesn't provide evidence naturalistic forces caused our existence. If you wished to remain neutral and say I don't know if we owe our existence to naturalistic forces or to a Creator then you're off the hook. I can play the negative claim doesn't need to make a case game also, I could say I don't believe naturalistic forces alone can account for our existence. 

It is my job to cite evidence, reason and arguments as to why I believe a fix is in and we owe our existence to a Creator. You're skeptical if not in complete denial God exists I'm skeptical (but not in denial) we may owe our existence to mindless naturalistic forces. You make a bolder claim then I do yet say you don't have to support it or defend it. Of course its much easier to ridicule an opposing idea than to support your own. That's why I call this thread Goddidit Vs Naturedidit because its an either or proposition.

No, I don't make a bolder claim than you.  I look around and see nature.  The nature I see and feel and live in has an underpinning of being proved by the scientific method.  Trees are green--we know why; the sky is blue--we know why; etc., and on and on.  (This is not, as you keep insisting, naturalism--I've explained that before)  I don't know, as you keep insisting, that what caused nature and our physical universe, is mindless or not; I don't care.  You and millions of others, insist there MUST be a creator behind all of nature.  Yet there is no evidence of that.  There is not a single piece of evidence that any god(s) exist or ever existed.  I put god in the same company as Paul Bunyan, Roger Rabbit and many others--a fiction.  There is as much evidence that Bugs Bunny exists  as there is for god.  If you want me to think Bugs Bunny exists you will have to produce some evidence.  I am not asking you to 'believe' anything.  I don't need to 'believe' that nature exists.  It is evident.  I think nature exists and I have physical proof of that thought.  You want me to 'believe' in something that has not any reason to.  You need me to believe, because there is no physical proof of your belief.  I have supported my position.  You have no position to support.  Must I prove to you that Bugs Bunny is not real?  I'm not going to do that, for it is evident; it is up to you to provide some proof for his existence; same for god or a creator.  You say it is god did it or nature did it.  No.  There is no god to have done anything.  You are trying to create an argument where none exists.  And, no, there is not always two sides of an argument--sometimes the argument should not be called an argument for there really is no other side.  And that is the side you are on--the, there is no side.

[Mike Cl]

Me thinks thou doth protest too much...
Would you prefer a bunch of theists quote scripture? Scientific fact is available for anyone to use if they think it supports a case...

I don't care what theists quote.  Scripture of all types is fiction--all of it.  Quote away!

Of course scientific fact is available.  And as all who can read and understand it, there is no god in any of it.  Not matter how much or how sincere your belief is you just cannot get it to co-exist with any scientific facts.  Not a single scientific theory supports the existence of anything supernatural or unnatural.