Author Topic: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit  (Read 10276 times)

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« on: February 19, 2017, 05:17:23 PM »
This is the real crux of the matter and it seems to me there is a serious aversion among atheists and naturalists to the notion Goddidit. What if years down the road insurmountable evidence comes forth that in fact Goddidit. Are peoples teeth going to turn blue? Will there be rioting in the streets? Will the stock market crash and people's underwear explode? Will scientists run around in circles and pull their hair out? On the other hand if there is conclusive evidence Naturedidit it wouldn't be the end of the world for me. After all if God didn't do it then its the only game in town.

 
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

Offline Sorginak

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2017, 05:34:11 PM »
As an atheist, so long as real evidence is provided I can easily admit that a god exists.  Whether that god is still worth worshiping, however, is a different matter.
Religion is primitive, inventive nonsense.

Online Mr.Obvious

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2017, 05:40:03 PM »
No aversion, should the facts lead there.
They just don't. Not currently at least.
E = Mc²

In the end, we are all standing in the dark,
trying to figure out why we are here.
But let us not choose one direction
without proof of where it is headed.

Check your pocket for matches
so we can observe and learn together
as fast friends and relative idiots.

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2017, 06:24:15 PM »
As an atheist, so long as real evidence is provided I can easily admit that a god exists.  Whether that god is still worth worshiping, however, is a different matter.

Or whether any writing ascribed to God is actually from God as well.
There is evidence Goddidit and there is evidence Naturedidit. What we lack in either case is conclusive evidence. Goddidit or naturedidit are just opinions. However, given that they are opinions and no one really knows why is the belief Goddidit often held in ridicule as being absurd and preposterous? Wouldn't that only be true if there was overwhelming evidence in favor of naturalistic causes?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2017, 07:59:31 PM »
Or whether any writing ascribed to God is actually from God as well.
How would one go about proving that a written work was actually from a god and not from a human?  Just curious.

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2017, 08:57:06 PM »
This is the real crux of the matter and it seems to me there is a serious aversion among atheists and naturalists to the notion Goddidit. What if years down the road insurmountable evidence comes forth that in fact Goddidit. Are peoples teeth going to turn blue? Will there be rioting in the streets? Will the stock market crash and people's underwear explode? Will scientists run around in circles and pull their hair out? On the other hand if there is conclusive evidence Naturedidit it wouldn't be the end of the world for me. After all if God didn't do it then its the only game in town.

 

People today can't even get their little heads around trumpdidit.
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2017, 12:42:05 AM »
If fiery letters appeared in the sky, in all languages, saying "I am God and I exist", I would have to pay some attention.  IF!  Actually, that would answer a lot of questions. 

But I notice that keeps not happening.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead

Offline doorknob

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2017, 09:50:26 AM »
 I think most here would have no problem believing in god if there actually was evidence to support that belief!it's funny when religious people fail to acknowledge the mountains of naturalistic evidence that nature did indeed do it. And then they think there's evidence of god when there's actually none.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Hijiri Byakuren

  • ULC Minister, Honorary Doctor of Divinity
  • *
  • Posts: 4973
  • Total likes: 1634
  • That's DOCTOR Hijiri, to you!
    • Pathos
Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2017, 10:32:51 AM »
Until there is actual proof that a god exists, this argument is moot. In the absence of an outside force, "nature" is the only possible mechanism for the shape our world has taken.

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2017, 11:28:35 AM »
If fiery letters appeared in the sky, in all languages, saying "I am God and I exist", I would have to pay some attention.  IF!  Actually, that would answer a lot of questions. 

But I notice that keeps not happening.

In Biblical terms ... in Jesus' words ... no, people, including religious people, wouldn't believe.  And per Paul, belief is only possible with what is not seen.  But in both cases, the speakers are being tricky with words.  You will not see the G-d you expect, if you are looking with a closed mind.  Religious and non-religious have closed minds.  And if a deity did appear, it would be not the god that the religious expect, and that god would be identified as the Devil, as was Socrates and Jesus.
שלום

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2017, 11:31:51 AM »
Until there is actual proof that a god exists, this argument is moot. In the absence of an outside force, "nature" is the only possible mechanism for the shape our world has taken.

I agree, except for me nature is alive, and for others it is dead.  Or at best, part alive and part dead.  What makes me a theist, is that all of it is alive for me.  For you, looking at what I say, would say that I am projecting.  I could rhetorically respond, that you see nature as dead (or part dead) because you are dead or part dead.  Part zombie or all zombie.  Thus the modern school of consciousness research, that you can't tell the difference between a living person and a zombie ... at least within a given set of assumptions (POV).
שלום

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2017, 11:56:55 AM »
If fiery letters appeared in the sky, in all languages, saying "I am God and I exist", I would have to pay some attention.  IF!  Actually, that would answer a lot of questions. 

But I notice that keeps not happening.

Interesting...if I saw that I would think its a hoax.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2017, 12:00:52 PM »
Or whether any writing ascribed to God is actually from God as well.
...

Yes, please provide us with competent evidence if you claim your God wrote these writings.  I could use a good circular reasoning argument today.

...
There is evidence Goddidit and there is evidence Naturedidit. What we lack in either case is conclusive evidence. Goddidit or naturedidit are just opinions. However, given that they are opinions and no one really knows why is the belief Goddidit often held in ridicule as being absurd and preposterous? Wouldn't that only be true if there was overwhelming evidence in favor of naturalistic causes?

Study false equivalence.  That should answer your questions.

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2017, 12:04:12 PM »
How would one go about proving that a written work was actually from a god and not from a human?  Just curious.

Beats me...
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2017, 01:57:51 PM »
I think most here would have no problem believing in god if there actually was evidence to support that belief!it's funny when religious people fail to acknowledge the mountains of naturalistic evidence that nature did indeed do it. And then they think there's evidence of god when there's actually none.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Evidence is simply facts that comport with a belief. Acceptable evidence has to have probative value meaning it makes a belief more likely than not. The belief among theists is that a transcendent personal agent caused the universe to exist. Exhibit 1 is the existence of the universe. However those who believe the universe was caused by mechanistic forces also cite the existence of the universe as evidence it was caused by natural forces.

Both sides cite facts then argue how that fact supports there belief while attacking their opponents arguments. I argue the existence of the universe better supports the theistic premise over the naturalistic premise. There is no model or theory of how naturalistic forces we are familiar with caused naturalistic forces to exist. Instead there is theory about how something known as a singularity (that somehow came into existence) suddenly turned into the universe dominated by laws of physics. We can't point to any laws of physics that caused the universe to exist because those laws didn't exist until the universe did. The singularity itself is described as a phenomenon in which the known laws of physics don't apply.

The contention of theists is that a transcendent being intentionally caused the universe to exist. It is fact the universe exists and there is no naturalistic explanation for how the universe came into existence. The belief there is no evidence to support theism is false. I have cited six lines of evidence in support of theism. You can argue those facts don't support belief in theism but that doesn't negate those facts are evidence.

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein