Drew_2017

[Solomon Zorn]

I understand your need to believe Naturedidit.

As aitm already said, nature is not sentient, it doesn't “do” anything.

In order for theism to be true (not just believed but actually true) there are certain facts that need to occur.

Facts don't “occur.” Events occur, and information which accurately describes those events, are called facts. For Theism to be true, only one event has to happen: God creating the universe.

There are no facts necessary for naturalism to be true.

This statement is complete and utter bullshit. Who is teaching you this crap? Facts are necessary for anything to be true(factual).

...I point to the existence of the universe that God exists. Barring some other non-God explanation its as good as any competing idea.

NO! It is NOT “as good an explanation as any competing idea.” It requires a whole additional layer of explanation, to show where God came from, how he got his knowledge, and by what mechanism he created the universe, or effects changes in it.

Suppose however, that the universe is just absolute and utter chaos with no discernible or recognizable laws of physics and of course no life. I could still claim God caused it but I couldn't say any reason God would create a universe of utter chaos with no other known purpose and a naturalistic explanation would be just as plausible.

You have it completely backwards. A universe of chaos would be more likely created by magic, than an orderly one, because it would require magic to hold it together. Order IS nature. It is necessary for everything. No magic found.

Suppose we observe a universe with discernible laws of physics that allowed for the existence of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies. Now I can make a much better case we owe the existence of this universe to an agent that wanted to cause planetary systems to exist and created laws of physics to accomplish that.

The “laws” of physics are not like some man made thing. You cannot conceive of a universe where 1+1=3, because such an equation is nonsense. It is a false statement, and cannot happen. That is what violating the laws of nature is. It simply cannot, and does not happen.

Do you have any counter explanation for why unguided naturalistic forces would cause a multitude of conditions to obtain that would lead a person to believe we owe our existence to a Creator?

“Why” assumes intention again. There is no “why,” only “how.” How it happened, is not clear yet. But the processes are becoming clearer, every day.

There is a reason about 85% of the people of earth believe we owe our existence to a Creator and its due to what we do know, not what we don't know.

That is completely false. As Mr. Obvious pointed out, the popularity of theistic beliefs is due to indoctrination, not “what we know.”

[Baruch]

1. Nature as a whole, isn't sentient.  But humans are an example of one way that part of nature is sentient

2. Physics isn't math.  1+1=2 is a logical tautology, which science is not.  Rationalists think that natural law or natural theology is a thing ;-(  Some think economics has laws ;-((  Math has logic envy, physics has math envy, the rest of physical science has physics envy.  There is no Nobel Prize for geology, but there is for economics ;-((  The rest of scholarship has science envy (except for medicine and economics, medicine has a Nobel Prize).

3. Natural laws aren't ... it is a law, that matter is conserved and energy is conserved.  Nuclear power is a violation of natural law?  Now, we have a new law, mass-energy is conserved ... until we find a process where this isn't true (gravitational waves and Big Bang).  Mass and energy are still conserved however, under most circumstances.  Science isn't the discovery of facts, it is a method for discovering facts (approximately anyway).

[Mike Cl]

  Science isn't the discovery of facts, it is a method for discovering facts (approximately anyway).

When the scientific method is followed properly, it does lead us to facts.  And it also allows us to retest those facts.  I find it compelling, and interesting, that the scientific method (whose sole purpose is to uncover facts) has not found one fact that can lead us to think god(s) exist.  Not even a glimmer of an idea that there is such a fact out there to be discovered.  That, for me, is proof that god(s) don't exist.  I would think that if god(s) did exist, that that would be one of the first facts discovered using the scientific method.  Proof that god(s) don't exist and never did.

[Drew_2017]

Lack of reason comes to mind, considering that you just pulled an Argumentum ad populum.

My point wasn't that theism is true because a large % of the population believes it...the point is they believe it because known facts lead them to believe it and because of a coherent lack of evidence or even a workable model of how Naturedidit. For instance if belief in God were like belief in Santa Claus the overwhelming majority of people would reject belief in God for the same reason they lack belief in Santa, a far better explanation for gifts under the tree is available.

[Baruch]

When the scientific method is followed properly, it does lead us to facts.  And it also allows us to retest those facts.  I find it compelling, and interesting, that the scientific method (whose sole purpose is to uncover facts) has not found one fact that can lead us to think god(s) exist.  Not even a glimmer of an idea that there is such a fact out there to be discovered.  That, for me, is proof that god(s) don't exist.  I would think that if god(s) did exist, that that would be one of the first facts discovered using the scientific method.  Proof that god(s) don't exist and never did.

So what is he mass of the Earth ... please put on a scale ;-)

So Newton is correct, gravity is action at a distance, instantaneously? ;-)

[Baruch]

My point wasn't that theism is true because a large % of the population believes it...the point is they believe it because known facts lead them to believe it and because of a coherent lack of evidence or even a workable model of how Naturedidit. For instance if belief in God were like belief in Santa Claus the overwhelming majority of people would reject belief in God for the same reason they lack belief in Santa, a far better explanation for gifts under the tree is available.

Why do you need an explanation?  Just accept what is.  Or is it that people love stories?  Some stories are more entertaining than others, but that is all they are, they aren't truth.  An honest person has integrity, and integrity is synonymous with truth.  Facts aren't true, unless you have integrity when you state them.

[Solomon Zorn]

My point wasn't that theism is true because a large % of the population believes it...the point is they believe it because known facts lead them to believe it and because of a coherent lack of evidence or even a workable model of how Naturedidit...

That large percentage of the population who believe in God, believe in it because they were indoctrinated as children, not because they see some facts that lead to that conclusion. So your premise is mistaken.

[Drew_2017]

Hello Soloman,

For Theism to be true, only one event has to happen: God creating the universe.

I agree the existence of the universe is one line of evidence but alone it doesn't favor a theistic explanation over any other explanation. The real wrench in the monkey works is the existence of life and sentient life and the myriad of exacting conditions that allow the only life we know of to exist. For us to think theism is true we have to exist. 

There are no facts necessary for naturalism to be true. 

This statement is complete and utter bullshit. Who is teaching you this crap? Facts are necessary for anything to be true(factual).

Would naturalism or atheism be any less true if no universe existed? Does a universe have to exist for naturalism to be true? Does the universe have to have laws of nature for naturalism to be true? What fact is naturalism dependent on to be true?

BTW I'm self taught in some matters.

NO! It is NOT “as good an explanation as any competing idea.” It requires a whole additional layer of explanation, to show where God came from, how he got his knowledge, and by what mechanism he created the universe, or effects changes in it.

With the exception of the theory the universe came into existence un-caused out of nothing (a magic event) naturalistic explanations require a never ending back log of events and we are still left to ponder how that occurred. I'm not attempting to find the answer to all questions, just the answer to our existence and the existence of the universe.

You have it completely backwards. A universe of chaos would be more likely created by magic, than an orderly one, because it would require magic to hold it together. Order IS nature. It is necessary for everything. No magic found.

We do observe order in nature but there is nothing endemic to naturalism that would lead us to believe such forces would create order, be knowable and and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic. What do you mean its necessary for everything? I agree for sentient humans to exist a great many exacting conditions are necessary...the mystery is why did those conditions obtain by naturalistic forces that don't care if anything exists.

The “laws” of physics are not like some man made thing. You cannot conceive of a universe where 1+1=3, because such an equation is nonsense. It is a false statement, and cannot happen. That is what violating the laws of nature is. It simply cannot, and does not happen.

I'm not suggesting the laws of physics (in this universe not virtual ones where in fact we do dictate the laws of physics) are man made. I'm arguing they're not caused by unguided naturalistic forces that couldn't care less if any laws exist. The existence of the laws of physics are one of the lines of evidence that leads me to believe we owe our existence to a Creator/designer. We look for order out of chaos as a sign of intelligence. The constant babble of chaotic radio waves scientists hear is what they expect of naturally occurring phenomena. Its if that noise turns into some discernible pattern that alerts scientists to the possibility of an intelligent source.

“Why” assumes intention again. There is no “why,” only “how.” How it happened, is not clear yet. But the processes are becoming clearer, every day.

Why assumes there is some answer, not intention. Knowing why a volcano erupts makes no assumption it intentionally erupted. You haven't been critically examining your many assumptions.

That is completely false. As Mr. Obvious pointed out, the popularity of theistic beliefs is due to indoctrination, not “what we know.”

No its due to the fact naturalists offer little compelling evidence we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that never intended themselves or us to exist. For instance at one time people believed the Rain God caused rain. Most people don't anymore because scientists have offered a better explanation that makes sense. If the day comes they have a better explanation for why a universe with the right conditions to cause sentient life to exist came about they will believe that...

[Sorginak]

For instance at one time people believed the Rain God caused rain. Most people don't anymore because scientists have offered a better explanation that makes sense. If the day comes they have a better explanation for why a universe with the right conditions to cause sentient life to exist came about they will believe that...

In the meantime, in a world where it is proven the only magic that happens is on a Vegas stage, you would prefer to believe in the magical sky daddy?

[Solomon Zorn]

Hello Soloman,

I agree the existence of the universe is one line of evidence but alone it doesn't favor a theistic explanation over any other explanation. The real wrench in the monkey works is the existence of life and sentient life and the myriad of exacting conditions that allow the only life we know of to exist. For us to think theism is true we have to exist. 

There are no facts necessary for naturalism to be true. 

Would naturalism or atheism be any less true if no universe existed? Does a universe have to exist for naturalism to be true? Does the universe have to have laws of nature for naturalism to be true? What fact is naturalism dependent on to be true?

BTW I'm self taught in some matters.

With the exception of the theory the universe came into existence un-caused out of nothing (a magic event) naturalistic explanations require a never ending back log of events and we are still left to ponder how that occurred. I'm not attempting to find the answer to all questions, just the answer to our existence and the existence of the universe.

We do observe order in nature but there is nothing endemic to naturalism that would lead us to believe such forces would create order, be knowable and and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic. What do you mean its necessary for everything? I agree for sentient humans to exist a great many exacting conditions are necessary...the mystery is why did those conditions obtain by naturalistic forces that don't care if anything exists.

I'm not suggesting the laws of physics (in this universe not virtual ones where in fact we do dictate the laws of physics) are man made. I'm arguing they're not caused by unguided naturalistic forces that couldn't care less if any laws exist. The existence of the laws of physics are one of the lines of evidence that leads me to believe we owe our existence to a Creator/designer. We look for order out of chaos as a sign of intelligence. The constant babble of chaotic radio waves scientists hear is what they expect of naturally occurring phenomena. Its if that noise turns into some discernible pattern that alerts scientists to the possibility of an intelligent source.

Why assumes there is some answer, not intention. Knowing why a volcano erupts makes no assumption it intentionally erupted. You haven't been critically examining your many assumptions.

No its due to the fact naturalists offer little compelling evidence we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that never intended themselves or us to exist. For instance at one time people believed the Rain God caused rain. Most people don't anymore because scientists have offered a better explanation that makes sense. If the day comes they have a better explanation for why a universe with the right conditions to cause sentient life to exist came about they will believe that...

This is too much BULLSHIT, for any one man to handle, on an evening with the family, I leave it in the capable hands of the rest of you.

[Sorginak]

This is too much BULLSHIT, for any one man to handle, on an evening with the family, I leave it in the capable hands of the rest of you.

I have found that in long posts, the person's premise is also included in their conclusion, with the middle just being a bunch of babble.  Therefore, I skip to the end and respond to that.

[Baruch]

Yes, Drew_2017 ... you are using counterfactual arguments.  These are inherently invalid (as in what if G-d were African-American instead of Israeli) in any empirical system.  You can only argue from facts on the ground, which are never ever counterfactual.

[Drew_2017]

When the scientific method is followed properly, it does lead us to facts.  And it also allows us to retest those facts.  I find it compelling, and interesting, that the scientific method (whose sole purpose is to uncover facts) has not found one fact that can lead us to think god(s) exist.  Not even a glimmer of an idea that there is such a fact out there to be discovered.  That, for me, is proof that god(s) don't exist.  I would think that if god(s) did exist, that that would be one of the first facts discovered using the scientific method.  Proof that god(s) don't exist and never did.

Science is philosophically committed to naturalistic answers. They're not seeking God. This is the impetus behind the theory this is one of an infinitude (or great many universes). Scientists have come to realize the odds of one universe obtaining the characteristics necessary not just for sentient life, but stars, planets solar systems and galaxies is so astronomically low (unless intentionally designed) they are left to conclude this must be one of quadrillions of universes with differing characteristics so it was inevitable that one would exist with the characteristics to cause sentient life. This is what you call making reality fit your preconceived notions. The same thing occurred when it became obvious that the universe rather than always existing (the preferred explanation) came into existence. For many scientists it smacked of a supernatural event since most things observed have a cause.

Secondly like most things we can't directly observe (such as black holes) we infer there existence by what we do know. What we have found out over the last 100 years is how narrowly defined are the characteristics that allow for the possibility of life to obtain. That (whether you agree or disagree) is a fact that comports with the belief we owe our existence to a designer who intentionally caused the characteristics. It would be no different than if I walked on a beach and found sticks that clearly spelled out the word HELLO. In order for the sticks to be at the right place to spell the word hello is evidence someone intentionally placed the sticks. It could turn out the surf and wind time and chance caused it but that doesn't negate the evidence it was intentionally caused. 

[Mike Cl]

Science is philosophically committed to naturalistic answers. They're not seeking God. This is the impetus behind the theory this is one of an infinitude (or great many universes). Scientists have come to realize the odds of one universe obtaining the characteristics necessary not just for sentient life, but stars, planets solar systems and galaxies is so astronomically low (unless intentionally designed) they are left to conclude this must be one of quadrillions of universes with differing characteristics so it was inevitable that one would exist with the characteristics to cause sentient life. This is what you call making reality fit your preconceived notions. The same thing occurred when it became obvious that the universe rather than always existing (the preferred explanation) came into existence. For many scientists it smacked of a supernatural event since most things observed have a cause.

Secondly like most things we can't directly observe (such as black holes) we infer there existence by what we do know. What we have found out over the last 100 years is how narrowly defined are the characteristics that allow for the possibility of life to obtain. That (whether you agree or disagree) is a fact that comports with the belief we owe our existence to a designer who intentionally caused the characteristics. It would be no different than if I walked on a beach and found sticks that clearly spelled out the word HELLO. In order for the sticks to be at the right place to spell the word hello is evidence someone intentionally placed the sticks. It could turn out the surf and wind time and chance caused it but that doesn't negate the evidence it was intentionally caused.

Look, Drew, you are hopelessly wordy.  I find it very difficult to follow what you are trying to say.  I do know that you think it impossible for this universe to exist except by a creator.  Wishful thoughts at best.  You keep telling me what scientists think--you are as far removed from science or scientists as one can get.  It is clear you stuck on you deep need for a sky daddy.  Fine--enjoy your fiction.  I'll not bother posting about you or you silliness.

[Drew_2017]

In the meantime, in a world where it is proven the only magic that happens is on a Vegas stage, you would prefer to believe in the magical sky daddy?

In another thread I asked if there was an aversion to belief Goddidit VS Naturedidit. You responded quite reasonably...

As an atheist, so long as real evidence is provided I can easily admit that a god exists.

Does this sound like the same person who marginalizes belief in God as a Magical Sky Daddy? It also sounds like you have a perfectly reasonable non-magical naturalistic explanation for how the universe came into existence and happened to produce sentient life without intending to. After all only a person with conclusive evidence to the contrary would hold someones else's belief to ridicule. Please provide that evidence so I can laugh at my own foolishness.