Author Topic: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit  (Read 21585 times)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1065 on: May 08, 2017, 09:19:58 PM »
But why did you pick a fictional quote from a fictional character in a fictional book ... should I quote the Epistle of James?


God Not Found
"Never criticize someone unless you've walked a mile in his shoes. Then when you criticize him at least you'll be a mile away - and you'll have his shoes."
Ray Magliozzi
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted at all."

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1066 on: May 08, 2017, 10:15:31 PM »
This is because Luther was a good Bible student, and understood that the Epistle of James is the most Jewish book of the NT.  And Luther is a famous anti-Semite, who inspired Hitler.
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1067 on: May 09, 2017, 03:41:12 AM »
I think the term "skeptic" is used too loosely.  The OED says "one who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty as to the truth of any proposition whatever".  Another view of skeptic is someone who disbelieves anything they hear.  I disagree.  I think a skeptic is someone who questions statements that seem to contradict facts or logic.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1068 on: May 09, 2017, 09:45:13 AM »
I think the term "skeptic" is used too loosely.  The OED says "one who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty as to the truth of any proposition whatever".  Another view of skeptic is someone who disbelieves anything they hear.  I disagree.  I think a skeptic is someone who questions statements that seem to contradict facts or logic.
I agree

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk


Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1069 on: May 23, 2017, 11:10:52 PM »
Hello Hakurei Reimu,

Back from a little break.

I found it humorous you refer to me as a troll coming from someone who bloviates continually with diarrhea of the mouth and is so evidently proud of his own rhetoric.

Quote
P(G|V) > P(N|V), P(G|F) > P(N|F) ect ect...

Can you provide a real world of how this formula or observation can delineate between things alleged to be caused by naturalistic forces and things believed to be the result of design? If so this could be very useful in determining if a death is caused by natural causes...or intentionally.

Quote
Like I said, even you admit that every step in the naturalist chain is merely "unlikely" and not impossible, and thus naturalism is in fact capable of such a thing.

I never suggested naturalism wasn't possible. I have cited evidence in favor of it and mentioned facts that might become known that would change my opinion. This is because I'm not an ideologue blindly committed to one point of view that has become argument and evidence proof. Secondly what measure of evidence does merely being possible provide? I don't know of anything I can say is categorically impossible. We have incontrovertible evidence intelligent beings are capable of causing virtual universes to exist. 

Quote
God, however, is something you have to assume as part of the theistic hypothesis in order to make it work. If we knew that God exists the same way we know tricked coins exist, we wouldn't be having this argument.

Exactly the point, if we knew natural forces could or did cause all we observe we could rule out other possibilities unless further information becomes available. We do know intelligent beings cause virtual universes to exist.

Quote
I agree with you completely up to (5), but here you go off the rails. Again, there are powerful selection effects at work, as detailed by Ikeda-Jefferys. If anything, you should be surprised by (5) because of the fact that the dead are unable to observe anything. Furthermore, you should not be surprised by (6) —even if you are— because you would be unable to observe yourself in any other condition.

Again we can't observe ourselves in the null condition. We can observe the # and narrow degree of conditions that allow us to exist and be surprised those conditions obtained even though they would have to for us to have this epiphany.

Quote
But let's say that after all of that they are trained properly and by all rights should have hit you. Do we then conclude design? No. See, we know that the firing squad misses altogether is "extremely improbable" and not "impossible" because even expert marksman do occaisionally miss. Now, if there are trillions upon trillions of executions occuring every day, then by chance alone we expect a few of those squads to miss altogether by happenstance. Just because you happen to win that lottery doesn't give you leave to declare that somehow your survival was by design.

I've been waiting for someone to make this argument so I can pounce on it. First notice the slight of hand...yes given trillions of times at something the unexpected may occur. In context though we only know of one universe, unless shown otherwise this is a proper application of Occams Razor and a clear example of multiplying entities beyond necessity (invoking multiverse). Secondly the premise goes something like given enough time and chance the highly improbable becomes inevitable. If that is so it proves the existence of God. After all you agree with me the existence of God is highly improbable but given enough time and chance the existence of God is inevitable by your own logic.

Quote
It is well-confirmed with plenty of the required evidence. The idea that the universe began with a physical singularity is challenged because physical singularities are difficult to deal with — there's really no other reason to think why it would be challenged.

I defer to your scientific expertise I didn't know that scientists avoided explanations or investigations into matters because they are 'difficult to deal with'. I suspect that's new to most folks in here. 

I was watching a couple of science shows (I know its science for the masses) nevertheless they suggested that time in black holes stops because matter is infinitely compressed. You claim nothing can happen apart from time so what do you think since black holes evaporate over time?  They describe black holes as being singularities but I didn't hear them say they'd skip studying them because they're difficult.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1070 on: May 24, 2017, 05:58:14 AM »
Bad professors dismiss questions they don't like, out of hand, throwing their expertise and authority around.  I thought his response was ... dismissive and obfuscatory.  But then I have seen him do that before ... with me ... discussing the difference between Baysian and Frequency based definitions of probability (his technical field).  A bit like W C Fields ... "get away, you bother me".  On probability, I was simply seeking clarification, to solve a problem I have, not challenging him.

Scientism doesn't admit the existence of humans, hence self contradictory, because it won't admit the existence of scientists.  There are only atoms, nothing else.
שלום

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1071 on: May 24, 2017, 04:47:43 PM »
Wrong! There's also the void, which we now know isn't void at all, but full of stuff we can't ever see, but can infer.
God Not Found
"Never criticize someone unless you've walked a mile in his shoes. Then when you criticize him at least you'll be a mile away - and you'll have his shoes."
Ray Magliozzi
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted at all."

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1072 on: May 24, 2017, 07:12:56 PM »
Wrong! There's also the void, which we now know isn't void at all, but full of stuff we can't ever see, but can infer.

Thereby affirming Descartes .. whose materialism was a plenum, not atoms plus vacuum.  Personally, I prefer Leibnizian monads.  Magical thinking is thinking you can conjure electron-anti-electron pairs out of the vacuum, if you apply enough energy to avoid violating conservation of mass-energy.  Like Bullwinkle saying, Rocky, watch me pull antimatter out of my hat!
שלום

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1073 on: May 24, 2017, 07:14:34 PM »




Ha! Sorry, just trying to get to my 7,000th post before I go today...




God Not Found
"Never criticize someone unless you've walked a mile in his shoes. Then when you criticize him at least you'll be a mile away - and you'll have his shoes."
Ray Magliozzi
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted at all."

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1074 on: May 24, 2017, 07:16:45 PM »
Your reward ... getting bit by a pissed off lion!
שלום

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1075 on: May 25, 2017, 05:14:06 PM »
Yeah, I gotta get a new hat...
God Not Found
"Never criticize someone unless you've walked a mile in his shoes. Then when you criticize him at least you'll be a mile away - and you'll have his shoes."
Ray Magliozzi
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted at all."

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1076 on: May 27, 2017, 12:40:49 AM »
Drew:
I found it humorous you refer to me as a troll coming from someone who bloviates continually with diarrhea of the mouth and is so evidently proud of his own rhetoric.
That's rich coming from a guy who has posted in this thread at least as often as I have, and not only that has admitted in this very thread that he is playing the fool. A troll isn't decided by verbosity. A troll is decided by that fact. I often use a lot of words because the concepts I'm trying to convey are quite nuanced and don't take to being dumbed down.

Can you provide a real world of how this formula or observation can delineate between things alleged to be caused by naturalistic forces and things believed to be the result of design? If so this could be very useful in determining if a death is caused by natural causes...or intentionally.
Your question is too broad, but generally it involves Bayes theorem (look it up). Unfortunately, that requires you to have a little knowledge about probability, and you're not paying me to teach you.

I never suggested naturalism wasn't possible. I have cited evidence in favor of it and mentioned facts that might become known that would change my opinion. This is because I'm not an ideologue blindly committed to one point of view that has become argument and evidence proof.
Sorry, chum. It's not ideology that drives me to Naturedidit; it's just past performance. That is, the simple observation that Goddidit never had any sort of success in the past. Never.

Naturedidit is falsifiable — that is, not "argument and evidence proof." There are ways to prove naturalism wrong. It's just it's never been falsified. That's a big difference. However, you are mistaken if you think that there is a magic bullet that will kill naturalism dead in one shot. Naturalism was built up brick by brick, on a foundation of well-verfied data. It will take an amount of data equally compelling to dismantle it.

The problem is that you don't know what that compelling data would look like. Instead of focusing on even one well-documented violation of physical law, theistic proponents like you focus on irrelevant "improbabilities" which are easily answerable by the lottery fallacy, censored data and/or the law of large numbers. Instead of supporting the intervention of a deity directly through data, you appeal to this virtual universes canard.

Exactly the point, if we knew natural forces could or did cause all we observe we could rule out other possibilities unless further information becomes available. We do know intelligent beings cause virtual universes to exist.
Except that is exactly what we have observed. There is no good reason to believe that chemistry cannot create life (and intelligence) without intelligent intervention. That's about as good as it's going to get, lacking time machines to prove the point for sure.

I notice you keep harping on virtual universes. You do realize that the virtual universes that we create do not have the resolution of atomic motion, right? There's a reason for that. The simulation of a universe in full atomic detail cannot be done on a computer smaller than that of the universe itself — the amount of information that you can contain in any system is limited by its size. Of course, all simulations of virtual universes have taken place on computers much smaller than that of the real universe. This means that we have not created virtual universes. We have created approximate models of simulated universes.

So, no. No true virtual universes have ever existed, let alone were created by intelligent beings.

Again we can't observe ourselves in the null condition.
How would you know what the null condition is? The currently observed condition is as good a "null condition" as any other.

We can observe the # and narrow degree of conditions that allow us to exist and be surprised those conditions obtained even though they would have to for us to have this epiphany.
Except we don't have the distribution on those conditions, which makes the "narrowness" of those conditions completely relative. If the distribution on those conditions is also comparably narrow, the probability of landing within that range is not really surprising. You simply don't know the scale on which those conditions vary. Thus, the "narrow degree" of those conditions that allow us exist doesn't actually supply us with any useful information, although it may appear to at first glance.

I've been waiting for someone to make this argument so I can pounce on it. First notice the slight of hand...yes given trillions of times at something the unexpected may occur. In context though we only know of one universe, unless shown otherwise this is a proper application of Occams Razor and a clear example of multiplying entities beyond necessity (invoking multiverse).
You opened the door on universes that may or may not exist, and that we cannot observe. If you get to postulate universes that do not support life into consideration, then I get to use those in my arguments.

Just about every event in your life is, in some way, improbable. It's just that there are so damn many of those improbable events that one of them is certain to occur. They're actually quite common.

Secondly the premise goes something like given enough time and chance the highly improbable becomes inevitable. If that is so it proves the existence of God. After all you agree with me the existence of God is highly improbable but given enough time and chance the existence of God is inevitable by your own logic.
No, it doesn't quite work like that. See, what you are appealing to here is the fact that, as the number of trials approaches infinity, the graph of the trials converges in distribution to the true one. But this requires that the number of trials to actually be infinite. How do you know that the number of trials —or alternatively, opportunities for a god to exist— is actually infinite? Furthermore, in convergence to distribution, not only does it guarantee that each possibility be visited, but also that each possibility is visited an infinite number of times. That means that, if we carry the this logic to its ultimate conclusion, not only is there one god, but an infinite number of them, each of which can interfere with each other. So if there's an infinite number of gods, why haven't even one shown up yet?

I defer to your scientific expertise I didn't know that scientists avoided explanations or investigations into matters because they are 'difficult to deal with'. I suspect that's new to most folks in here.
Singularities are things you'd rather not deal with if you can help it, because it's a place where the metric (which tells you how to measure distances and time) goes singular (hence it's name) — which is to say, uninvertable. Being able to invert the metric is quite necessary thing to be able to do for our laws to work as advertized. It's why physics is said to "collapse" at the singularities of black holes.

If some description of what happens at proported singularites without invoking singular metrics can be found, believe me, the physicists will be on that like white on rice.

I was watching a couple of science shows (I know its science for the masses) nevertheless they suggested that time in black holes stops because matter is infinitely compressed. You claim nothing can happen apart from time so what do you think since black holes evaporate over time?
The evaporation of a black hole occurs at the event horizion, where time passes normally. No points for you.

They describe black holes as being singularities but I didn't hear them say they'd skip studying them because they're difficult.
Black holes are not singularities. If they're anything, they're fossil fields where all the interesting stuff is hiding behind an event horizon we can't see past. Sure, we can guess at what's going on past the event horizion, but we have to stop our simulations at some point above the prospective singularity because at that point our description of the universal laws go casters up. The internal structure of a black hole is still somewhat of a mystery. There's quite a bit more to the black hole than the singularity.

Baruch:
Bad professors dismiss questions they don't like, out of hand, throwing their expertise and authority around.  I thought his response was ... dismissive and obfuscatory.  But then I have seen him do that before ... with me ... discussing the difference between Baysian and Frequency based definitions of probability (his technical field).  A bit like W C Fields ... "get away, you bother me".  On probability, I was simply seeking clarification, to solve a problem I have, not challenging him.
"Seeking clarification"? Baloney! I told you the damn difference and you claimed that Bayesian statistics would lead to the gambler's fallacy! I then showed you why that wouldn't be the case, you went on your patented nonsense storm. At that point I gave up because you absolutely were NOT paying me to put up with your crap. You are someone who is impossible to teach because you refuse to learn.

Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Offline SGOS

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1077 on: May 27, 2017, 05:32:19 AM »
The OED says "one who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty as to the truth of any proposition whatever".
Since this definition is coming from a dictionary, it actually calls for intense skepticism since dictionaries don't provide either certainty or truth.  This is usually explained in the preface of every dictionary.  Dictionaries only claim to define words through the vagaries of common usage, including the usage of people predisposed to bias.  OK, they usually refer to "knowledgeable people," which would include people like the Pope, I guess (for those who demand certainty in everything).  Dictionaries are the last place to find truth.  They do provide a rough guide for those who would like to improve verbal communications.  But communication requires much more the definitions.

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1078 on: May 28, 2017, 05:58:26 PM »
Quote
That's rich coming from a guy who has posted in this thread at least as often as I have

I did start this thread so it behooved me to post in it.

Quote
you're not paying me to teach you.

I'd demand a refund if I did.

Quote
Sorry, chum. It's not ideology that drives me to Naturedidit; it's just past performance. That is, the simple observation that Goddidit never had any sort of success in the past. Never.

You're mistaken. Issac Newton believed Goddidit and was amply successful. He believed the universe was knowable, amenable to scientific inquiry and explicable in mathematical terms and he was correct. In your fertile imagination there is simply nothing beyond the reach of naturalistic powers that can cause themselves to exist and then minus plan or intent cause something unlike itself to exist life and mind. You've simply replaced God with the deity Mother Nature who is capable of anything given enough time and chance.

Quote
Naturedidit is falsifiable — that is, not "argument and evidence proof." There are ways to prove naturalism wrong. It's just it's never been falsified.

Yes it is. There is another condition you don't mention. Suppose we found ourselves in a universe teeming with life that survives and thrives under a host of conditions and find the universe is so constituted that a wide variety of conditions would cause stars and planets and subsequently life to exist. Your position would not only remain the same you'd be playing a much stronger hand. The fact that isn't true makes no difference. 

You do know that science of today is committed to naturalistic answers. I don't think too many scientists would be interested in attempting to falsify one of the main philosophical premises of science that it must answer naturalistically. I've seen the premise you're referring to on many occasions that there is a long history of explanations that were previously explained by various gods such as the rain god or the god of earthquakes and so forth. Mono-theists rejected such notions long before scientists did they believe as I do that God was responsible for the existence of the universe and the laws of physics that subsequently caused all we observe. As a result they too fully expect to find naturalistic causes for phenomenon within the universe.

Up to now naturalistic explanations have sufficed or at least what we call naturalistic. However what we call naturalistic appears to be anything that can happen even if such a phenomena would be considered super-naturalistic. Imagine if 50 years ago someone proposed the galaxies and even the universe itself is bound together by a type of matter that can't be seen or detected and then proclaimed there is more of that matter than matter that can be detected. Such a person would be fitted for a straight-jacket and the notion rejected. But that was before black matter was known to exist. Now its classified as natural as if that's a meaningful definition.

One last point about the evidence. The long line of naturalistic explanations is supposed to mean the cause of what we observe is naturalistic as well and no designer or creator is necessary. The flaw is in known examples of design by sentient humans those creations can also be explained naturalistically. A laptop can be explained completely by an appeal to naturalistic explanations. No Creator is necessary to explain how it works and functions. If your premise is correct we should conclude a laptop was caused to exist by naturalistic causes as well since there is a long successful track record of naturalistic explanations in how it functions and works.

Quote
Except we don't have the distribution on those conditions, which makes the "narrowness" of those conditions completely relative. If the distribution on those conditions is also comparably narrow, the probability of landing within that range is not really surprising.

And if the earth was flat the people who thought so would be correct. You might just as well point a finger and say if I'm right....then I'm right.

Quote
No, it doesn't quite work like that. See, what you are appealing to here is the fact that, as the number of trials approaches infinity, the graph of the trials converges in distribution to the true one. But this requires that the number of trials to actually be infinite. How do you know that the number of trials —or alternatively, opportunities for a god to exist— is actually infinite? Furthermore, in convergence to distribution, not only does it guarantee that each possibility be visited, but also that each possibility is visited an infinite number of times. That means that, if we carry the this logic to its ultimate conclusion, not only is there one god, but an infinite number of them, each of which can interfere with each other. So if there's an infinite number of gods, why haven't even one shown up yet?

I'm lampooning your theory of given enough time and chances virtually anything is possible. Once again you demonstrate your belief is evidence and argument proof. You allow for enough time and chances for naturalistic forces to accomplish great and wonderful things but not enough time and chance for God to exist. 



       



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

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1079 on: May 28, 2017, 08:39:39 PM »
The Western position from Thales and Pythagoras forward, is we hypothesize that part of the Cosmos can be explained, using naturalism (everything is water etc) and using rationality (starting with ratios of positive integers).  This has been a remarkably successful hypothesis ... though it was based on empirical insights of prior civilizations.

The idea that everything in the Cosmos can be explained, using naturalism and rationality alone (using an expanded definition of materialism ... originally a minority view within naturalism ... and an expanded definition of maths (here including Boolean algebra)) has not been as successful.  I find that the original Greek position, the people who defined Cosmos, Nature and Rationality ... to be sufficient for my needs.  I don't have to be too stuck on materialism nor maths to appreciate the non-human world.  I find that something beyond them is required.  I find the current scientism to be a form of monomania.

As far as this goes with deity, my understanding is that when you speak of deity, you are speaking of something beyond nature, beyond science.  You are speaking theology ... a part of philosophy distinct from natural philosophy aka science.  Drew wants to mix things up, have a god that is like an alien from Von Daniken, only much grander.  I have no problem with that, as a fiction, but trying to switch domains in the middle of an argument, is confused, if not dishonest.
שלום