Drew_2017

[Sorginak]

If the only two options at my disposal are between religious faith's gap of knowledge answer or what science is offering through reason and logic, then should it not be clear which is the better choice?

[Drew_2017]

If the only two options at my disposal are between religious faith's gap of knowledge answer or what science is offering through reason and logic, then should it not be clear which is the better choice?

I assume you believe this is an unbiased way of asking this question? Why not say, it depends on whether you're asinine enough to believe in utter hogwash nonsensical bullshit known as theism or whether you believe what science is offering through reason and logic, then should it not be clear which is the better choice?

I don't doubt science reason and logic; what I seek to change my mind is evidence (facts that corroborate a beilef) that natural forces minus any plan or design not only caused there own existence but ultimately the existence of the universe and sentient life. I'm assuming you have good solid evidential reasons to hold theism in contempt as a silly faith proposition. I know you'll make me look absolutely ridiculous for holding such beliefs but go ahead I'm ready. Then I will laugh at myself for being so naive. 

[Solomon Zorn]

Give one single solitary empirical example of anything not caused by natural forces. Something magic. You can't. Therefore the assumption that natural forces caused everything, is the only workable theory, and your contention that God exists, is nothing more than a myth, that you are hell-bent on rationalizing.

[Drew_2017]

Give one single solitary empirical example of anything not caused by natural forces. Something magic. You can't. Therefore the assumption that natural forces caused everything, is the only workable theory, and your contention that God exists, is nothing more than a myth, that you are hell-bent on rationalizing.

Hi Solomon

Why don't you tell me what you really think?

Its an assumed theory not a workable one. A workable theory would have some kind of model of how naturalistic forces and the laws of physics came into existence in the first place.

For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that everything that came into existence after the universe and the laws of physics has a naturalistic explanation. What's the workable theory of how the naturalistic forces we observe came into existence? Secondarily maybe you have a theory of why the laws of physics allow life to exist? It wasn't mandatory right?

[Solomon Zorn]

No examples of magic, forthcoming? I thought not. If it's not a workable theory, then please show me an empirical example of an exception to it. Not some gap in our knowledge of the unfathomable past, but any example from the "here and now."

[Baruch]

Give one single solitary empirical example of anything not caused by natural forces. Something magic. You can't. Therefore the assumption that natural forces caused everything, is the only workable theory, and your contention that God exists, is nothing more than a myth, that you are hell-bent on rationalizing.

Magic isn't the straw man people claim it to be.  It is natural, just like everything else.  I love stage magicians and card tricks ;-)  In other magic, it is psychosomatic.  As long as you allow that psychosomatic things are real and natural, then there is no problem.  That isn't where the problem is, the problem is with materialistic reductionism.  And that isn't science per se, that is a particular view of science.

Did you know, that quantum field theory pretty much describes every everyday experience ... and we can't calculate the outcomes, except in toy situations?  What is a theory, that can't be used to calculate most things?

[Drew_2017]

No examples of magic, forthcoming? I thought not. If it's not a workable theory, then please show me an empirical example of an exception to it. Not some gap in our knowledge of the unfathomable past, but any example from the "here and now."

I disagree with your premise on two points. That if a Creator caused the universe to exist it would be an act of magic. It might be magic to us just as if an alien of an advanced race might dazzle us with technology we'd think of as magic today. Also the notion I need to demonstrate some magical event has taken place for my position to have any merit. That's your notion. I point to the gap in knowledge not to insert God into it but to demonstrate you don't have any clue how the universe and the laws of physics came into existence nor any answer as to why they would cause sentient life to exist. 

[Solomon Zorn]

I disagree with your premise on two points. That if a Creator caused the universe to exist it would be an act of magic. It might be magic to us just as if an alien of an advanced race might dazzle us with technology we'd think of as magic today. Also the notion I need to demonstrate some magical event has taken place for my position to have any merit. That's your notion. I point to the gap in knowledge not to insert God into it but to demonstrate you don't have any clue how the universe and the laws of physics came into existence nor any answer as to why they would cause sentient life to exist.

“Magic,” as I am using it, means any cause which is not physical. Show an example of anything not caused by natural physical forces forces, or else accept that “Naturedidit,” is a workable theory. What seems to us, must have been an uncaused cause, may or may not work itself out mathematically for us. But there is no alternative theory, that is based on anything observable, like cause-and-effect. “Goddidit,” is not a theory at all. It's the rationalizing of a preconceived notion, based on a myth, and has nothing to do with observation.

And I can only reiterate that there is no “why” sentient life exists. The laws of physics allow for life to exist, but they don't actually “cause” anything. They are very simply the manner in which things behave. There is no reason to believe, that things could behave differently, any more than you should believe that 1+1 can equal anything other than 2.

[Sorginak]

Also the notion I need to demonstrate some magical event has taken place for my position to have any merit. That's your notion. I point to the gap in knowledge not to insert God into it but to demonstrate you don't have any clue how the universe and the laws of physics came into existence nor any answer as to why they would cause sentient life to exist.

Enjoyed moving that goal post? 

[Baruch]

Unfortunately, pop physics, like pop philosophy, pop psychology or pop religion ... is base and vulgar and wrong.  But it is all the masses can handle.

[Unbeliever]

I like those kinds of simulations.  Good stuff.

Yeah, it is pretty cool:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjSFR40SY58

[Unbeliever]

I remember casparov.

The friendly Russian ghost?

[Unbeliever]

ah, there is your problem, you think something "did" it. Nothing "did" it... it happened.

[Unbeliever]

because of a coherent lack of evidence or even a workable model of how Naturedidit.

So, instead of trying to find out how (or if) "nature did it" we should just assume God did it and quit looking for any other answers?

[Drew_2017]

because of a coherent lack of evidence or even a workable model of how Naturedidit.

author=Unbeliever link=topic=11251.msg1167708#msg1167708 date=1487720352]
So, instead of trying to find out how (or if) "nature did it" we should just assume God did it and quit looking for any other answers?

First I want to retract the statement above...its been pointed out they're alternative naturalistic models so I stand corrected. How workable is another question.

Even if we became to believe God did it we'd still look for answers. Sir Isaac Newton arguably greatest scientist of all time believed he could find answers because he believed God did it (caused the universe and laws of physics). The question now is how nature did it...the question then would be how did God do it?