Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[popsthebuilder]

That's the eternal debate.  Some sort of determinism (theologic or not) VS a messy, chaotic indeterminate conception of the universe.
Both of those are abstract concepts, so photographs are pretty hard to come by.  Did you expect otherwise?
Don't you mean cdesign proponentsist?

I'll never get why you guys still try to maintain the facade when it's obviously not fooling anyone.  Just say God when you mean God.  Thump that Bible if that's what you're about.  Don't hide it in the lectern and put a science book up top.
Which of us is doing the showing?  Also, which of us is actually displaying a skeptical bent and which is playing the skeptic in between church services?

I'm skeptical of all things. It's left over from my years of atheist I guess.

I didn't throw a science book on top but find science (sound science) to go along with faith in a singular creative force (sound faith) quite well.

If the universe was caused by chaos it would be easily observable, or at least everything wouldn't seem to be bound by laws and perfectly described with math.

As far as Sunday service at church goes. That is very few and far between. I am not a member of any church. But I do believe the Bible to have potential to illumine, expound, and reiterate many truths, which is to say truth as a whole as opposed to prices and parts of theories without unity or cohesion.


So what mask am I wearing? The bias I show is based on experience and scientific truth (math, observation).

What do you mean " which is doing the showing"?


Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[TrueStory]

I'm sorry but it seems to me that the observable universe is observed as being wholly controlled my laws of some sort and as such not chaotic at all. And we had spoken about how everything readily observable​ is too readily, perfectly described with mathematics. 

As opposed to what?  What's the alternative chaos thing you are comparing to since nothing you've ever experience is chaotic?  How are you measuring that? 

[popsthebuilder]

 
As opposed to what?  What's the alternative chaos thing you are comparing to since nothing you've ever experience is chaotic?  How are you measuring that?

Woe...I'm sorry again. I didn't mean I haven't observed chaos. I have. I mispoke. Damn.

Internal chaos is the lack of appropriate action in light of knowledge.

Knowledge being potential(stored energy) and chaos being the negation or wasting there of.


cha·os

ˈkāˌäs/

noun

noun: chaos; plural noun: chaoses

complete disorder and confusion.

"snow caused chaos in the region"

synonyms:disorder, disarray, disorganization, confusion, mayhem, bedlam, pandemonium, havoc, turmoil, tumult, commotion, disruption, upheaval, uproar, maelstrom;

muddle, mess, shambles, free-for-all; 

anarchy, lawlessness,entropy; 

informalhullabaloo,hoopla, train wreck, all hell broken loose

"police were called in to quell the chaos"

antonyms:order

PHYSICS

behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.


Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[TrueStory]

Woe...I'm sorry again. I didn't mean I haven't observed chaos. I have. I mispoke. Damn.

Internal chaos is the lack of appropriate action in light of knowledge.

Knowledge being potential(stored energy) and chaos being the negation or wasting there of.


cha·os

ˈkāˌäs/

noun

noun: chaos; plural noun: chaoses

complete disorder and confusion.

"snow caused chaos in the region"

synonyms:disorder, disarray, disorganization, confusion, mayhem, bedlam, pandemonium, havoc, turmoil, tumult, commotion, disruption, upheaval, uproar, maelstrom;

muddle, mess, shambles, free-for-all;

anarchy, lawlessness,entropy;

informalhullabaloo,hoopla, train wreck, all hell broken loose

"police were called in to quell the chaos"

antonyms:order

PHYSICS

behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.


Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

I never said you've never experienced a definition of chaos.  By your own words you live in a world that is non chaotic.  Do I have to quote your own post again so you know what you are talking about?   I guess so.

I'm sorry but it seems to me that the observable universe is observed as being wholly controlled my laws of some sort and as such not chaotic at all. And we had spoken about how everything readily observable​ is too readily, perfectly described with mathematics.

So what is a universe that is chaotic?  How is that described and exist?

Just address the main point not the minutiae

[popsthebuilder]

I never said you've never experienced a definition of chaos.  By your own words you live in a world that is non chaotic.  Do I have to quote your own post again so you know what you are talking about?   I guess so.
So what is a universe that is chaotic?  How is that described and exist?

Just address the main point not the minutiae

You tell me; all I have to go off of is the one we all observe comparitively, which is obviously not rife with chaos, but seems to be lead along it's path or course by binding laws.

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

You tell me; all I have to go off of is the one we all observe comparitively, which is obviously not rife with chaos, but seems to be lead along it's path or course by binding laws.

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Not binding laws, just repeating patterns, and since we are a part of the pattern, then logically we can't violate them.  Do we expect water to be non-wet?  But I don't think theists understand theism, they are too post 1500.

Theologians think in terms of theological determinism .. either predestination or predetermination.  In one case G-d knows the future, and chooses not to change it (free will allowed aka Pelagic) or is a puppet master who runs every detail (Pauline).  And post-1500 thinkers conflate that with the physical laws (not really laws) that we have learned about since then (even Galileo and Newton did this, even Einstein did).  But they are all wrong.  Here is the G-d of history (post facto, not pre facto) ...

1. You did something, and you regret it
2. Now that what you did was in the past, you can't change it
3. You can choose to ameliorate your error, or not, in the present, but you can't act in the future tense

Takes 3 sentences to describe.  One can argue that in G-d's view it is pre facto or something else, but I won't.  I would like to see anyone, theist or atheist, escape the scenario I just described.  You can't.  There is something that is immutable, and humanistic ... not naturalist.

G-d's judgement ... you can't change the past
G-d's providence ... you can only act in the present, not in the future

[Baruch]

I'm sorry but it seems to me that the observable universe is observed as being wholly controlled my laws of some sort and as such not chaotic at all. And we had spoken about how everything readily observable​ is too readily, perfectly described with mathematics. 

Happenstance....can we have some sort of link for evidence of such please?

Thank you,

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Galileo, Newton and Einstein would agree with you.  Bohr would not.  Determinism is classical physics, and it is wrong.

[TrueStory]

You tell me; all I have to go off of is the one we all observe comparitively, which is obviously not rife with chaos, but seems to be lead along it's path or course by binding laws.

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

I appreciate the honesty that you do not know.  For me I don't see things the way you do so it's a non question.

[popsthebuilder]

Baruch.

When you say you hate GOD do you mean the universe along with all it's contents or just some things?

Just curious.

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Baruch.

When you say you hate GOD do you mean the universe along with all it's contents or just some things?

Just curious.

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Hyperbole is my middle name.  But as a pantheist ... there is a lot to hate ... stars, planets, animals, plants minerals ... not really those.  Carefully read the arguments in The Book Of Job?  I am anthropomorphic, so I see things anthropomorphic.  For me, like Socrates, the human element is the primary interest.  Metaphysically, humanity is G-d's humanity (not that that limits G-d).  I am a part of humanity, so I am a part of the manifestation of G-d (G-d's immanence) ... hence a demigod.  In regular theism the attempt is made to put humanity as far down as possible and G-d as far up as possible.  Conventional Jewish and Muslim theology for example.  I don't agree with that at all, I relate to positive theology, not negative theology (though I tried this too).  The ancients limited the notion of demigods to emperors and mythological characters ... but I don't agree with them either.  I am democratic, every human is (anthropomorphically) a demigod, however modest.  And per paganism, I see G-d in the Nature too (or the rest of Nature if humans are a part of Nature).  Animals and plants are a living part of G-d just as humans are, but different.  In that part I would agree with Hindus and Buddhists ... while I don't agree with other aspects of their thought.  So basically my thinking, like yours, is a synthesis of all I have read and experienced, some parts retained and other parts dropped.  I can appreciate the POV of a great many people, since I share those POV in part.

So hate G-d?  I am both attracted and repelled by human experience.  Did I volunteer for this adventure, this abuse?  I don't care to idealize G-d as "all good" or "all loving" ... for me G-d is amoral, monstrous ... not unlike the last chapter of The Book of Job.  I can like some parts of human experience, but I am not sure I am not delusional in doing so, am I just masochistic?  And there are definite parts of human experience that are disturbing or even hateful.  And given free will, I can't just blame G-d for everything (though that is pretty much what that last chapter claims).  As a pantheist, I don't believe in a pre-life or after-life ... there is just Life, though perhaps of many dimensions.  No real past or future, just an eternal present.  I might agree with Rabia of Basra ... who claimed to love G-d the best ... but with great love there is great hate.  Indifference is the opposite of love, not hate.  And as a mystic, I am the opposite of indifference to G-d.  I have great love/hate for G-d.  I don't want to judge anyone, even G-d.  But there is so much to object to, and as a mystic, I am not as separate from the rest of you, not as individual.  I am like the alien in The Thing, anything I touch becomes part of me.  Every joy and every despair everywhere, anytime ... are potentially a concern ... though I am not G-d, just a little finger of G-d or perhaps just a hangnail.  Like 10-step I work at gratitude every day, but every day brings a new temptation to not be gracious.  Gratitude of course isn't just a feeling, it is an agenda ... which I must push uphill like the stone of Sisyphus ... with inevitable alienation.

[popsthebuilder]

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

You words on indifference resonate with me.

Thank you again

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

Hyperbole is my middle name.  But as a pantheist ... there is a lot to hate ... stars, planets, animals, plants minerals ... not really those.  Carefully read the arguments in The Book Of Job?  I am anthropomorphic, so I see things anthropomorphic.  For me, like Socrates, the human element is the primary interest.  Metaphysically, humanity is G-d's humanity (not that that limits G-d).  I am a part of humanity, so I am a part of the manifestation of G-d (G-d's immanence) ... hence a demigod.  In regular theism the attempt is made to put humanity as far down as possible and G-d as far up as possible.  Conventional Jewish and Muslim theology for example.  I don't agree with that at all, I relate to positive theology, not negative theology (though I tried this too).  The ancients limited the notion of demigods to emperors and mythological characters ... but I don't agree with them either.  I am democratic, every human is (anthropomorphically) a demigod, however modest.  And per paganism, I see G-d in the Nature too (or the rest of Nature if humans are a part of Nature).  Animals and plants are a living part of G-d just as humans are, but different.  In that part I would agree with Hindus and Buddhists ... while I don't agree with other aspects of their thought.  So basically my thinking, like yours, is a synthesis of all I have read and experienced, some parts retained and other parts dropped.  I can appreciate the POV of a great many people, since I share those POV in part.

I can, and always have, related very closely to your thoughts in the above paragraph.  I see the universe and everything in it as directly related to every other part.  And if there was a god, it would have to be as you say--part of the fabric of the universe and everything being related to god.  I find it interesting that the conclusion we each come to are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  I also closely relate to this: "So basically my thinking, like yours, is a synthesis of all I have read and experienced, some parts retained and other parts dropped. "

The more closely I have looked at nature in detail (which must be of god, if there is one), the more I see it as proof positive that there not only is no god, but there CANNOT be one.  Looking at nature up close and personal, I see violence, cruelty, mayhem, and killing as simply a matter of course.  I do not envision any type of god that would be wantonly cruel and violent when there are ways to construct a universe without those elements.  Why disease?  Why creatures and plants that have to kill to live?  Why inflict all manner of disease and deformity upon the unborn and newly born?  Theists love to talk of the perfection of nature.  Have they looked at nature?  Nothing is perfect.  There has not been a physically perfect and uniform human ever, for example.  The right side of your body looks different than your left.  Not all systems of your body works to perfection--few of them do.  But we each function in a way that allows us to be able to procreate and thus further the existence of our species.  Not in a perfect way, but in a way that allows us to (actually demands us to) evolve with our environment so that our species continues.  And not in a perfect way but in a way that works.  This does not reflect the working of god--not to me.  But to you, it does.  So we part company at this juncture.  No god could be so bereft of any compassion or ethics or fairness to allow such a system to continue; to have created it in the first place.

For example, your god could have allowed all living things to derive all the energy then needed from star power, not biological star power.   The sun could supply all the energy need to support life on this planet.  But instead, all living things must kill (with the exception of plants) to survive.  Why not just have that energy supplied by the sun instead?  That would have been easy for your god.  But your god chose not to do it that way, and therefore must either be a figment of your imagination (which I suspect) or is a totally wicked and evil being.  I chose to think there is not any god as opposed to your version (or any other version).

[popsthebuilder]

I can, and always have, related very closely to your thoughts in the above paragraph.  I see the universe and everything in it as directly related to every other part.  And if there was a god, it would have to be as you say--part of the fabric of the universe and everything being related to god.  I find it interesting that the conclusion we each come to are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  I also closely relate to this: "So basically my thinking, like yours, is a synthesis of all I have read and experienced, some parts retained and other parts dropped. "

The more closely I have looked at nature in detail (which must be of god, if there is one), the more I see it as proof positive that there not only is no god, but there CANNOT be one.  Looking at nature up close and personal, I see violence, cruelty, mayhem, and killing as simply a matter of course.  I do not envision any type of god that would be wantonly cruel and violent when there are ways to construct a universe without those elements.  Why disease?  Why creatures and plants that have to kill to live?  Why inflict all manner of disease and deformity upon the unborn and newly born?  Theists love to talk of the perfection of nature.  Have they looked at nature?  Nothing is perfect.  There has not been a physically perfect and uniform human ever, for example.  The right side of your body looks different than your left.  Not all systems of your body works to perfection--few of them do.  But we each function in a way that allows us to be able to procreate and thus further the existence of our species.  Not in a perfect way, but in a way that allows us to (actually demands us to) evolve with our environment so that our species continues.  And not in a perfect way but in a way that works.  This does not reflect the working of god--not to me.  But to you, it does.  So we part company at this juncture.  No god could be so bereft of any compassion or ethics or fairness to allow such a system to continue; to have created it in the first place.

For example, your god could have allowed all living things to derive all the energy then needed from star power, not biological star power.   The sun could supply all the energy need to support life on this planet.  But instead, all living things must kill (with the exception of plants) to survive.  Why not just have that energy supplied by the sun instead?  That would have been easy for your god.  But your god chose not to do it that way, and therefore must either be a figment of your imagination (which I suspect) or is a totally wicked and evil being.  I chose to think there is not any god as opposed to your version (or any other version).

Can you not imagine any problems that might arise from eternal life + perfectly healthy, unchecked growth?



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

Can you not imagine any problems that might arise from eternal life + perfectly healthy, unchecked growth?



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Of course I can.  But do you really see the cruelty and wanton pain and killing of the creatures of nature as god's way of population control?  Really?????

[trdsf]

I'm sorry but it seems to me that the observable universe is observed as being wholly controlled my laws of some sort and as such not chaotic at all. And we had spoken about how everything readily observable​ is too readily, perfectly described with mathematics.

All we can really derive from observing that the universe follows predictable (within parameters) behavior is that the universe follows predictable (within parameters) behavior.  The existence of universal laws of science is not evidence of a lawmaker.

What it is, is evidence that the universe is explicable, and a universe that is predictable requires a means of quantifying its behavior, and that means mathematics.  Wondering why mathematics 'happens' to be useful to explain the universe is a bit like wondering why a square in Euclidean space has four equal sides and four right angles -- for one thing, if it wasn't useful for explaining the behavior of the universe, we wouldn't use it.  We would use something else that produced reliable, repeatable, independently verifiable results.

A universe that was chaotic on the large scale and still permitted the existence of complex beings capable of observing it would be better evidence for an external guiding hand, but even then it wouldn't be great evidence.  The universe at the particle level runs on chaos, but it runs on chaos that we can understand and predict statistically.

Generating order from chaos is surprisingly easy.  Even though the behavior of particles can only be predicted statistically, because there are so unspeakably many particles they can average out into the smooth, predictable universe we observe.  On a smaller scale, the overall orderly behavior of a Lorenz system is another example -- internally chaotic but the whole is quite organized:



Now, a truly chaotic universe -- not even predictable statistically -- does not permit the long-term stability necessary for life to arise.  Furthermore, in being truly chaotic, it also means that discerning any pattern -- specifically including the actions of an outside guiding force -- is not possible.

In short, while an orderly universe may permit a creator, it neither implies nor requires one, and cannot be taken as evidence that there might be one.