News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

Started by Drew_2017, February 19, 2017, 05:17:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

fencerider

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 25, 2017, 02:21:30 PM
Are folks so desperate you need to make up things I believe or say? I've made no theological statements about God.
My bad. Most people who don't believe in global warming believe that god will keep us from destroying earth (CO2 pollution)

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 25, 2017, 02:03:30 PM
I don't have to destroy mere possibilities. Who cares what's possible I don't know that anything isn't 'possible'. Mere possibilities offer no probative value
yup. That's exactly what atheist say when talking about the existence of god

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 27, 2017, 11:03:17 PM
As any four year old knows, you can keep asking "Why?" questions until the adult runs out of answers and/or patience.
considering that Drew says he's been arguing with atheists for more than 10 years, that is a funny thing to say
"Do you believe in god?", is not a proper English sentence. Unless you believe that, "Do you believe in apple?", is a proper English sentence.

Baruch

#1006
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 27, 2017, 09:44:25 PM
Drew, you were not 'caused' to exist.  You just happened.  The conditions were right and you popped out--you, specifically, were not caused or planned for.  You just happened to develop into who/what you are.  The universe you were born into is not aware of you, does not give a shit about you; there is nothing behind you being alive except the right environment to support your type of life.  Not accidental, but happenstance.

So his parents fucking wasn't part of that equation?

PS ... there is no "why" where there is no agency.  If the universe has no external agency, then there is no "why".  The question become nonsense.  In the case of internal agency however, since internal agency clearly exists (in spots) ... then "Why" isn't nonsense ... even if our semi-sentient explication might be.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

#1007
Quote from: Baruch on April 28, 2017, 07:01:36 AM
So his parents fucking wasn't part of that equation?

PS ... there is no "why" where there is no agency.  If the universe has no external agency, then there is no "why".  The question become nonsense.  In the case of internal agency however, since internal agency clearly exists (in spots) ... then "Why" isn't nonsense ... even if our semi-sentient explication might be.
Thanks for the lecture on the 'birds and the bees', Baruch.  I never knew that fucking and children had a link.

and that is a perfect illustration of what I am saying--fucking parents sometimes leads to a baby.  Not 'the' baby; not specifically this Drew, but a human baby.  What that baby turns out to be is determined by genes and happenstance.  Those parents did not put in an order for Drew.  They simply felt like having sex on day and about 9 months later a baby popped out.  Happenstance determined that Drew became Drew.

As for 'agency' and there being a 'why'---of course there can be a lack of an agency and still there being a why.  Why has nothing to do with agency.  There is a cause for this universe.  That does not mean there is an agency attached to that why.  Happenstance (or luck if you prefer) is the 'agency'.  But then, what is your definition of 'agency'.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

SGOS

Quote from: Baruch on April 28, 2017, 07:01:36 AM
So his parents fucking wasn't part of that equation?

PS ... there is no "why" where there is no agency.  If the universe has no external agency, then there is no "why".  The question become nonsense.  In the case of internal agency however, since internal agency clearly exists (in spots) ... then "Why" isn't nonsense ... even if our semi-sentient explication might be.
Why is this thread nonsense?  Does it have a creator?  Apparently, some people thrive on nonsense.  The search for logic and clarity is overrated and only brings disappointment.  But nonsense is the cure for logic and clarity.  It's happiness, if not outright bliss.

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 28, 2017, 08:22:54 AM
Thanks for the lecture on the 'birds and the bees', Baruch.  I never knew that fucking and children had a link.

and that is a perfect illustration of what I am saying--fucking parents sometimes leads to a baby.  Not 'the' baby; not specifically this Drew, but a human baby.  What that baby turns out to be is determined by genes and happenstance.  Those parents did not put in an order for Drew.  They simply felt like having sex on day and about 9 months later a baby popped out.  Happenstance determined that Drew became Drew.

As for 'agency' and there being a 'why'---of course there can be a lack of an agency and still there being a why.  Why has nothing to do with agency.  There is a cause for this universe.  That does not mean there is an agency attached to that why.  Happenstance (or luck if you prefer) is the 'agency'.  But then, what is your definition of 'agency'.

What you implied earlier ... is that the cause of everything is natural aka QM or GM or both.  So the reason why you exist ... is because of QM or GM or both.  Causation isn't "why" ... "why" involves intention.  Why am I having turkey for lunch?  Not "why did the sun come up this morning?".  English is a miserable language.  In pagan times the answer to the second involved agency ... aka Helios and the chariot of the Sun.

It is Drew that hangs his hat on external agency for the universe, not me.  I don't care, I think it is a wasted discussion like most theology.  It won't help me decide what to have for lunch.  But I don't think you are denying internal agency

What frustrates is the parental view (by the atheist toward the theist) ... instead of answering the toddler "Because" to every question asked, the atheist responds "Nature" ... which is just as empty of content, and just as ad hominem.  And of course responding "G-d" is just as empty of content, and ad hominem in the opposite direction.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: SGOS on April 28, 2017, 08:51:06 AM
Why is this thread nonsense?  Does it have a creator?  Apparently, some people thrive on nonsense.  The search for logic and clarity is overrated and only brings disappointment.  But nonsense is the cure for logic and clarity.  It's happiness, if not outright bliss.

I agree, if you mean what I think you mean.  And probably Mike Cl isn't denying all agency ... just the big one ... which I agree with him too.  Pantheism doesn't require agency, there is no Creation with Pantheism, just like in Naturalism, what is ... is.  We differ on what is, not how it is.

What if someone was concerned about the election of Trump?  The atheist answers ... because of QM/GR.  The theist answers ... because G-d.  The parent answers ... because.  None of those answers have any meaning at all.  They are avoidance of answering at all.

And as far as where children come from, there is a whole chain of agency/"why".  But there is a living being (or two) in the loop ... not random matter.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SGOS

#1011
Quote from: Baruch on April 28, 2017, 12:41:39 PM
What you implied earlier ... is that the cause of everything is natural aka QM or GM or both.  So the reason why you exist ... is because of QM or GM or both.  Causation isn't "why" ... "why" involves intention.  Why am I having turkey for lunch?  Not "why did the sun come up this morning?".  English is a miserable language.  In pagan times the answer to the second involved agency ... aka Helios and the chariot of the Sun.
I remember some minister on TV years ago trying to make peace by bringing science and religion together and giving each it's due. He said, "Science answers the 'how?' questions, but religion answers the 'why?' questions."  I understood what he was trying to say, although science can answer some why questions, assuming they are questions not being begged.

Just what are the 'why?' questions religion has the answers for?  Why did God create the universe?  Why does God punish the wicked? 

I keep coming up with question begging.  The answer 'God' is inserted into the question.  If it's not inserted directly with the use of the word, "God," it's implied.  Begging questions is not just a fallacy.  It creates nonsense questions that are making unsupported statements.  This is what religion claims as its domain.  But question begging doesn't form legitimate questions.  Religion may answer some legitimate questions, but I can't think of what they might be.

"Nature," is not a 100% satisfying answer either, which may be why it bothers Drew so much, although it does satisfy me, because it includes a broad category of much that we do understand, and much that we don't.  But it's shorter than saying, "Well, we don't know all of it, but there's no reason to make assumptions about unidentifiable agencies of a magical nature."  Nature to theists often implies "not gods," but that's not the case.  It's not that science claims "not gods."  I just doesn't deal with that sort of question, nor do I see a reason that it should.  That would be throwing in the god of the gaps.  Some scientists do, but they are usually quick to admit that while they believe a god is part of it, it's not science.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on April 28, 2017, 12:41:39 PM
What you implied earlier ... is that the cause of everything is natural aka QM or GM or both.  So the reason why you exist ... is because of QM or GM or both.  Causation isn't "why" ... "why" involves intention.  Why am I having turkey for lunch?  Not "why did the sun come up this morning?".  English is a miserable language.  In pagan times the answer to the second involved agency ... aka Helios and the chariot of the Sun.

It is Drew that hangs his hat on external agency for the universe, not me.  I don't care, I think it is a wasted discussion like most theology.  It won't help me decide what to have for lunch.  But I don't think you are denying internal agency

What frustrates is the parental view (by the atheist toward the theist) ... instead of answering the toddler "Because" to every question asked, the atheist responds "Nature" ... which is just as empty of content, and just as ad hominem.  And of course responding "G-d" is just as empty of content, and ad hominem in the opposite direction.
Okay--I guess.  But I never answered my daughter's question with 'nature'.  I always told her as best I could what the answer was.  I never left it at 'because' or 'nature did it'.  I went into the depth I felt she could handle.  Or if I did not know something, I'd tell her so.  And I guess the word 'agency' is a bit confusing in that I never used it and it sounds like 'agency' and 'authority' are being used together as one.  If I meant or questioned a cause  of something, I use the word cause, not agency.  Agency, to me, smacks of theology--and I think all theology is bullshit.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

trdsf

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 28, 2017, 08:22:54 AM
and that is a perfect illustration of what I am saying--fucking parents sometimes leads to a baby.  Not 'the' baby; not specifically this Drew, but a human baby.  What that baby turns out to be is determined by genes and happenstance.  Those parents did not put in an order for Drew.  They simply felt like having sex on day and about 9 months later a baby popped out.  Happenstance determined that Drew became Drew.
Perfectly correct.  And this is probably the biggest source of misconceptions about why things happened as they did.  There is a tendency to think of what actually is as being the same as what actually needs to be, and there's nothing specifically necessary about any of us -- or all of us, for that matter.  I don't need to be here, you don't need to be here, the whole planet Earth doesn't need to be here, so far as the functioning of the universe is concerned (yes, I do discount theories of quantum mechanics that require an intelligent observer to make an event happen; events happen without observers, we just have no direct information on them).  If my parents had had sex on another day, or if dad had lasted one minute longer or one minute less, statistically speaking, "I" would be someone else entirely.  I might have been a daughter.  A cosmic ray might've happened by and changed a gene and I could be long dead of a malformation.  I might have been twins (as if the world needs more than one of me).

There is nothing specifically necessary about myself, nor about any of the millions of alternate versions of me that might have been -- were I one of them (one of us?), the version that's actually here would seem as unusual to me.

More importantly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the idea that things could have been different.  They could have.  It's not easy to predict what the world would look like right now had Alexander the Great not existed, but it's easy to imagine that as being possible.  It's even harder to imagine the possible changes had a T. Rex eaten the proto-primate to the left rather than to the right, but it's also easy to imagine that as possible.  You can go further back: assuming the Theia hypothesis, imagine it had struck the early proto-Earth a more glancing blow and left multiple moons or no moon at all, rather than one big one.  Or not striking Earth at all.

The point is: just because it happened doesn't mean it had to happen.  Neither fate, destiny, nor design had anything to do with any of this, and while design (read: the intention to have a child) may have played a role in some individuals being here, it had nothing to do with the particular combination of genes that got together.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Mike Cl

Quote from: trdsf on April 28, 2017, 03:35:32 PM
Perfectly correct.  And this is probably the biggest source of misconceptions about why things happened as they did.  There is a tendency to think of what actually is as being the same as what actually needs to be, and there's nothing specifically necessary about any of us -- or all of us, for that matter.  I don't need to be here, you don't need to be here, the whole planet Earth doesn't need to be here, so far as the functioning of the universe is concerned (yes, I do discount theories of quantum mechanics that require an intelligent observer to make an event happen; events happen without observers, we just have no direct information on them).  If my parents had had sex on another day, or if dad had lasted one minute longer or one minute less, statistically speaking, "I" would be someone else entirely.  I might have been a daughter.  A cosmic ray might've happened by and changed a gene and I could be long dead of a malformation.  I might have been twins (as if the world needs more than one of me).

There is nothing specifically necessary about myself, nor about any of the millions of alternate versions of me that might have been -- were I one of them (one of us?), the version that's actually here would seem as unusual to me.

More importantly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the idea that things could have been different.  They could have.  It's not easy to predict what the world would look like right now had Alexander the Great not existed, but it's easy to imagine that as being possible.  It's even harder to imagine the possible changes had a T. Rex eaten the proto-primate to the left rather than to the right, but it's also easy to imagine that as possible.  You can go further back: assuming the Theia hypothesis, imagine it had struck the early proto-Earth a more glancing blow and left multiple moons or no moon at all, rather than one big one.  Or not striking Earth at all.

The point is: just because it happened doesn't mean it had to happen.  Neither fate, destiny, nor design had anything to do with any of this, and while design (read: the intention to have a child) may have played a role in some individuals being here, it had nothing to do with the particular combination of genes that got together.
Yes--well said!
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

#1015
SGOS: Why does 2+2=4?  That is a bad question ... the proper question is ... what is the result of 2+2.  Why is there a universe?  That is a bad question, it assumes outside agency ... the proper question is ... what is the universe.  Again, English is a bad language, and people use it badly.

"Some scientists do, but they are usually quick to admit that while they believe a god is part of it, it's not science." ... agreed.

trdsf: "it had nothing to do with the particular combination of genes that got together" ... but you are more than just a set of genes.  Just as computer code is more than just 1 and 0.  Could things have been different? ... agreed.  Determinism isn't true, not even in physics (see chaos theory and QM).  There may be a cause and an effect, but we only know a partial story, a synopsis, that we argue over.  Like a WW II battle that could go either way ... but the actual battle was thousands of men killing each other, and in the midst of that one British soldier spared an unarmed retreating Corporal Hitler ... or not.  That small thing, too small to notice, has consequences for millions of people later.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on April 28, 2017, 03:25:24 PM
Okay--I guess.  But I never answered my daughter's question with 'nature'.  I always told her as best I could what the answer was.  I never left it at 'because' or 'nature did it'.  I went into the depth I felt she could handle.  Or if I did not know something, I'd tell her so.  And I guess the word 'agency' is a bit confusing in that I never used it and it sounds like 'agency' and 'authority' are being used together as one.  If I meant or questioned a cause  of something, I use the word cause, not agency.  Agency, to me, smacks of theology--and I think all theology is bullshit.

And "cause" means "political agenda" ... see ... bad English.  So you hate some words, because they trigger you?  I didn't think you were Millenial ;-)  Cause/effect isn't scientific it is prescientific.  And yes, you can't give a good answer to a kid, even if you have a PhD and dumb it down ... because you don't know.  Parents totally lie all the time about everything (not just Santa Claus), even in the sense that they don't know anything, yet claim they do.  Did you explain basic arithmetic?  You aren't qualified nor am I ... get a PhD in Number Theory first.  You gave, and I gave ... a more elaborate version of "because".  So you explained nature to your child?  How did that go, given that you aren't a biologist or a geologist?  See ... authority creeps in, even with science.  Unless you think Gilligan has a Nobel Prize.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Drew_2017

QuoteThat's all I need to use Occam's razor. You have not shown that the creator is necessary, and I have thought about this issue, and I don't see how the creator is necessary either. Hence, as an epistomological question, Occam's razor comes down squarely against such a creator.

No it doesn't and you have only shown you have faith a Creator isn't necessary. You state your belief as fact (that a creator isn't necessary) because you have such complete total faith it is true that for you it is a fact. We have a difference of opinion you believe it isn't necessary but can't prove it I believe it is necessary but can't prove it. All we can do is make our case and let the undecided decide.

QuoteAnd you have just demonstrated that you do NOT understand Occam's razor. Things even as simple as rocks don't simply poof into existence. The fact that we make laptops and virtual universes gives these things sufficient reason to exist without bringing any new agent or mechanism into play. Poofing into existence is such a new mechanism that is unnecessary to explain the existence of laptops, virtual universes, or even rocks. Therefore, poofing into existence is sliced off by Occam's razor.

Occams razor is only applicable if we have enough information to demonstrate the simpler explanation is all that's necessary and additional explanations such as a creator-designer are unnecessary. For instance if I said aliens are necessary to cause laptops to exist you could apply Occam razor because you can demonstrate human engineers and designers are sufficient to cause laptops to exist. You have no idea that natural forces is all that's necessary to cause all we observe. 

QuoteFalse. The fact that a universe exists and we observe one is all we need to confirm that the universe necessarily exists. Not "necessary" in the sense of ontology, but epistomologically, which by the way, is the only "necessity" we have access to.

I don't think I have met someone as ideologically committed to naturalism as you are. Does the fact I exist or you exist make our existence necessary? How does observing the existence of a universe mandate its necessity? If we weren't here to observe it would its existence then be unnecessary? Do you apply an iota of skepticism to the beliefs you cling to so desperately they become unsubstantiated facts?

QuoteAlso, ontologically there is an argument to be made that nothingness is hardly naturalism either, since naturallism makes a statement about how exant things behave, which is an empty statement if there are no exant things at all.

I agree some form of nature has to exist for naturalism to be true. It doesn't have to be in the form of the universe we observer however and nothing is required for the belief God doesn't exist to be true.

QuoteFalse. Ontologically, theism does not actually require there to be a universe at all. All it requires is a God, who necessarily knows he exists. However, it does not require him to be an actual creator; he may be indigent and simply never gets around to creating a universe. Hence, theism does not imply a universe ontologically.

I agree God (defined as a transcendent being) could exist apart from the existence of the universe. That wasn't what I said.

Theism- Requires the existence of a place for sentient beings to exist to have any reason to think they were intentionally created.

I'd have no reason to think humans were intentionally created by a Creator if we didn't exist. Life, sentient life, a life causing and life permitting universe isn't necessary for atheism-naturalism to be true. If a chaotic lifeless universe existed and could some how be observed there would be no reason to doubt it was caused by mindless unguided forces that didn't give a hoot if life, planets, stars or galaxies existed which is precisely what we'd expect from such forces. If you knew only mindless mechanistic forces existed would you therefore predict such forces would culminate in producing something totally unlike itself to exist, life and mind? Would you say lifeless mindless forces exist so I predict they will by happenstance create life and mind? If I said a transcendent being exists I might well predict such a being might cause a universe to exist that causes life. As sentient beings we create virtual universes and play god.

2. Life
Isn't necessary for naturalism to be true. Life is just an annoying unintentionally caused by product of arbitrary laws of physics.


QuoteFalse. The fact that we are alive is all we need to verify that life exists. This is all the epistomological proof that we need to say that there is necessarily life.

By this line of reasoning anything that exists necessarily has to exist the proof being that it does exist. I can think of no epistomoligical reason that states or reasons that things that do exist have to exist. At best this amounts to a tautology that whatever exists has to exist because it exists. A corollary would be that whatever doesn't have to exist doesn't exist and its non-existence is proof it doesn't have to exist. Once again you state your beliefs no matter how suspect as fact.

QuoteA universe governed by natural law would have some structure, even if that structure isn't very impressive.

And we know natural law has to exist because......drum roll please...... it does exist and that's all the proof you need. I await your response to tell me I misunderstood and don't comprehend what you say.

QuoteFalse. A god of sufficient power could make life exist even in life-hostile universes, even the chaotic ones. Therefore, fine-tuning or even a non-chaotic physics is not necessary for theism.

I'll give you that one...good point!

QuoteRemember, the only thing ontologically necessary for theism is the existence of a god.

No because I spoke about conditions which would lead sentient beings to think we owe our existence to a creator.

4. Sentient life.

QuoteAgain, epistomologically, the observation of sentient life is all we need to verify the existence of sentient life. Ontologically, no, it isn't a necessary part of the universe, but it is part of the universe never the less. Just like mud flows, worms, thunderstorms and a whole mess of natural phenomena that aren't necessary either, but nonetheless exist.

Its because of the existence of sentient life that leads sentient humans beings to question the narrative we are the result of naturalistic forces that you agree didn't have to cause any naturalistic phenomena never mind sentient beings. If we found ourselves in a self-sustained cocoon that appeared to sustain us miraculously you would think it was an unknown naturalistic phenomena in search of a naturalistic explanation.

QuoteNowhere in the above is God a necessary part of the equation. A deity is not needed to explain our current evidence. We don't need him to explain the origin of the universe right down to explaining the existence of nominally sentient apes. Goddidit is still a quite barren argument from ignorance.

Its a foregone conclusion that if mindless naturalistic forces (somehow came into existence or always existed) and could cause all that resulted, a universe, life, sentient life then a Creator would be unnecessary. By assuming your belief is true you obviate the need for a creator.

Suppose 200 years from now scientists could create a virtual universe in which virtual sentient beings arose who believed they really existed. Would the people who believed they owed their existence to a transcendent Creator(s) be right or wrong?

 








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

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

fencerider

Technically they would never be sentient, they would just be running a program. We were already programming virtual toy robots to attack each other in the 80's. In 200 years from now a virtual machine will be able to run its program fast enough to appear to be thinking at the speed of humans but it will never think. If it has a belief in god, it would only be there because a programmer put it there.
"Do you believe in god?", is not a proper English sentence. Unless you believe that, "Do you believe in apple?", is a proper English sentence.

Drew_2017

Quote from: trdsf on April 28, 2017, 03:35:32 PM
Perfectly correct.  And this is probably the biggest source of misconceptions about why things happened as they did.  There is a tendency to think of what actually is as being the same as what actually needs to be, and there's nothing specifically necessary about any of us -- or all of us, for that matter.  I don't need to be here, you don't need to be here, the whole planet Earth doesn't need to be here, so far as the functioning of the universe is concerned (yes, I do discount theories of quantum mechanics that require an intelligent observer to make an event happen; events happen without observers, we just have no direct information on them).  If my parents had had sex on another day, or if dad had lasted one minute longer or one minute less, statistically speaking, "I" would be someone else entirely.  I might have been a daughter.  A cosmic ray might've happened by and changed a gene and I could be long dead of a malformation.  I might have been twins (as if the world needs more than one of me).

You may well be entirely correct. What I don't understand is the basis of your certainty you are correct. It appears to me you assume your worldview is correct then proceed from there to declare things true based on them comporting with your worldview. You usually ask for evidence of something being true especially if you are skeptical of the claim. What evidence supports your contention that you may have been a daughter or not born at all or on what basis do you think you could have been someone else altogether? That still suggests that at someone point you'd still be someone only someone else which is bizarre at the least.



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

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0