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

Drew_2017

Quote from: fencerider on May 31, 2017, 01:23:07 AM
If you used Occam's razor to cut a $2.00 Canadian coin in half, do you get 2 $1.00 coins?

Just caught up on the back and forth between Harukei and Drew. I have to agree with Harukei on two points. Drew brought up humans creating virtual universes; back on page 3; as some sort of proof of intelligent design without providing proof. and Drew just said the universe is fine-tuned for life without supporting his statement. If you presuppose that the universe is fine-tuned the info provided nicely supports the conclusion. Its not the only conclusion available if you don't start by presupposing.

Of course you can presuppose that the Adventures of Godhi-dit are true and find out you are wrong. Or at least that the story didn't take place the way you were told it did

There is a difference between proof, evidence and circumstantial evidence. In the case Goddidit vs Naturedidit we have very little direct evidence such as a video, a bullet casing or fingerprints. Its mostly circumstantial evidence, those are facts that comport with a belief indirectly and require the triers of fact draw an inference from the evidence (facts). There are levels of proof the highest level of establishing a claim is scientific proof. This means a belief goes through all the challenges of scientists and remains valid. Second level of proof is a legal hurdle proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To pass through this hoop you must convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the accused is guilty. This is a fairly high standard since you can throw someone in jail for a long time. The least burden of proof is in a civil court where jurors decide based on a mere preponderance of evidence who made the better case. Its not a matter of who is actually correct they simply determine who presented a stronger case. Since its not a crime to believe in the existence of God or disbelieve in the existence of God the civil standard suffices. 

The fact for consideration that scientists and engineers have created a virtual universe clearly comports with the belief of theism. Theists contend a transcendent being caused the actual universe to exist. Virtual universes are created intentionally by design by beings who are transcendent to the virtual universe they caused to exist. It is a working model of what theists propose. How much weight should be given to that fact is for the impartial triers of fact to determine. If some day scientists can create a working model of how naturalistic forces caused a universe with the characteristics that is life permitting that would be solid circumstantial evidence in favor of naturalistic forces. Or if they could create a working model of how the universe always existed...or how it came into existence uncaused out of nothing that would be solid evidence.

As I mentioned to Harukei...

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.

He agreed were that so it would be a line of evidence that favors his belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces. The fact the opposite is true comports with the belief we owe our existence to a Creator/Designer. My opponents on this board are totally and vehemently committed to the claim there is no evidence (not one single known fact) that comports with theism. For many atheists it is a foundational claim which they will defend to the bitter end. To admit they're facts (which is evidence) that favors theism is to admit there is an intellectual basis to believe such might be true. That would be fatal to the proposition theism is strictly a faith proposition and nothing more.



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

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

Cavebear

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 31, 2017, 01:00:45 PM
The fact for consideration that scientists and engineers have created a virtual universe clearly comports with the belief of theism.
I will limit my refutation to this one statement and save myself a lot of quoting and argument.

Your assertion is not supported in any way.  You seem to have this odd idea about a "virtual" universe where science "clearly comports with the belief of theism".  I have seldom seen a stranger argument.  The distance between fact-based science and theistic belief is broader than the universe.  Indeed, it is completely out of it.  The scientific method has provided many facts and observation unlikely to be changed.  Yes, some explanations do change, but they tend to change in the direction of firmer understandings.

Theism is built (and falls) on revelations and unsupported beliefs.  Science does not.   Please go get a basic high school education.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Unbeliever

Quote from: fencerider on May 31, 2017, 01:23:07 AM
Drew just said the universe is fine-tuned for life without supporting his statement.
It seems to me that if the universe were created by an all-powerful God, it wouldn't need any fine tuning for us to exist. We could exist in any universe at all - fine tuned or otherwise - because an all-powerful god would be able to sustain us under whatever circumstances it wanted.


The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Simon Moon

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 31, 2017, 04:24:11 PM
It seems to me that if the universe were created by an all-powerful God, it wouldn't need any fine tuning for us to exist. We could exist in any universe at all - fine tuned or otherwise - because an all-powerful god would be able to sustain us under whatever circumstances it wanted.


The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism


I agree. The fine tuning argument always seems like an argument that shoots the theist using it in the foot, if they are arguing for the god of classical theism.

When engineers design anything, they are forced to fine tune it because they are constrained by the laws of physics.

So, if a god needs to fine tune the universe, he must also be constrained by something. Thus, he is not all powerful.

And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell

Baruch

Quote from: Simon Moon on May 31, 2017, 04:53:45 PM

I agree. The fine tuning argument always seems like an argument that shoots the theist using it in the foot, if they are arguing for the god of classical theism.

When engineers design anything, they are forced to fine tune it because they are constrained by the laws of physics.

So, if a god needs to fine tune the universe, he must also be constrained by something. Thus, he is not all powerful.

Zeus was subordinate to the Three Fates ... old ladies that had to share one eye between them.  The pagans didn't have a problem with this, unlike modern quibblers.
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: Unbeliever on May 31, 2017, 04:24:11 PM
It seems to me that if the universe were created by an all-powerful God, it wouldn't need any fine tuning for us to exist. We could exist in any universe at all - fine tuned or otherwise - because an all-powerful god would be able to sustain us under whatever circumstances it wanted.


The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism

All powerful = doesn't exist => G-d is all powerful = G-d doesn't exist ... are you aware of "begging the question"?  Besides, I have no reason to believe the Anthropic Principle even it its secular form, it isn't part of science, just speculation.  And yes, even theologians have unsuccessfully grappled with the notion of "an all powerful god" for centuries now ... it is a self contradictory notion (famously all powerful god creating an immovable object).  Traditionally, the fact that such an all powerful god, doesn't simply mess everything up, in mad-puppet-ville because that god can, is explained as the god's mercy.

The universe simply wasn't created ... that is simply an overextended metaphor, taken literally by theists and atheists alike.  And thus not fine-tuned, not tuned at all.  It is an unnatural, irrational, immoral crap fest ... the vast tragedy of G-d's many failures.
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: Drew_2017 on May 30, 2017, 02:13:19 PM
Ideally science is a search for the truth where ever it leads however scientists aren't automatons and they have ideas how things should turn out. Some symposiums have been known to get a bit testy with full blown arguments taking place.

Some philosophers have been successfully prosecuted for abusing their grad students sexually.  Don't trust any human, for anything, whether they argue with each other or not.  Poo throwing apes, all of them.  Don't expect ideals from simians.
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.

sdelsolray

Quote from: Cavebear on May 31, 2017, 01:14:04 PM
I will limit my refutation to this one statement and save myself a lot of quoting and argument.

Your assertion is not supported in any way.  You seem to have this odd idea about a "virtual" universe where science "clearly comports with the belief of theism".  I have seldom seen a stranger argument.  The distance between fact-based science and theistic belief is broader than the universe.  Indeed, it is completely out of it.  The scientific method has provided many facts and observation unlikely to be changed.  Yes, some explanations do change, but they tend to change in the direction of firmer understandings.

Theism is built (and falls) on revelations and unsupported beliefs.  Science does not.   Please go get a basic high school education.

According to Drew from prior posts he wrote, his livelihood involves, at least in part, computer simulations.  I suspect this is why he pretends computer simulations of "virtual universes" (his words, not yours or mine) support his a priori theist beliefs.  Simple.

Baruch

Quote from: sdelsolray on May 31, 2017, 09:04:15 PM
According to Drew from prior posts he wrote, his livelihood involves, at least in part, computer simulations.  I suspect this is why he pretends computer simulations of "virtual universes" (his words, not yours or mine) support his a priori theist beliefs.  Simple.

I tried to talk to him about cellular automata once ... should be his area ... and crickets.
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.

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
He believed the universe was knowable and explicable in mathematical terms and that formulas could be extracted because he believed the universe and the laws of physics were intentionally designed and caused by a Creator.
If the universe shows any sort of regularity, it's going to be analyzable to some degree in terms of mathematics. Newton's theistic worldview is irrelevant.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
According to you he was completely mistaken about his belief even though he got the results he expected due to his worldview.
I in fact do not think Newton was right about his worldview. However, his mathematics was right because they had to conform to what is observed. Holding himself to that constraint automatically means that any model he comes up with will be successful.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
This is as close as I will get for you to admit fine-tuning of the universe is a fact that weakens your position though I expect you to deny in another bloviated response.
So let me get this straight. Because Newton's model of the solar system was created based on the worldview that his creator would make things mathematically scrutible, he is correct in his worldview that his creator exists.

Yet I point out that my naturalistic worldview leads me to the concludion that the universe will be life-friendly, even if it appears fine-tuned, because I correctly deduce that a naturalistic universe that contains life will be life friendly regardless of any other considerations. My own worldview leads me to the correct conclusion that the universe is life-friendly 100%, yet I am not correct because of... reasons.

Which is it, Drew? Am I correct in my naturalistic worldview because I predict that the universe will be necessarily life-friendly because of my worldview, or is Newton wrong in his worldview even though his worldview lead to a mathematical universe and he was correct?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
I don't believe you have ever critically examined your own worldview in a moment of personal introspection, not arguing in a forum. What phenomena could we possibly observe that wouldn't be considered naturalistic?
Well, there is the argument that if god existed he would operate in some naturalistic manner. But that's not what I mean by "naturalistic". I mean in that context that life operates and originates according to naturalistic law. If, for instance, life caused a genuine decrease in entropy locally, that would be extremely interesting. If it created energy ex nihilo, like animal vitality, then again it would be extremely interesting. But we don't see any of that, do we? We don't see the rules of the universe being broken, even for our sake.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
Entangled particles billions of miles apart can somehow instantly communicate with its partner faster than the speed of light.
We don't know what's happening with entangled particles. However, their actions don't violate relativity, which places a prohibition of sending information faster than light, and there's no way to use entangled particles as a means of faster than light communication. It's also inherent in the mathematics of quantum mechanics. It predicts this strange event, and correctly. So while it's wierd, it's not non-naturalistic.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
But you won't call that a supernatural occurrence...its a misunderstood natural process right?
The universe isn't violating it's own laws. Further, it was something that was theorized about before it was ever demonstrated.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
Super-natural phenomena by definition is always super-naturalism of the gaps because if it transits from the gaps into observation its 'natural' by default.
And you somehow think that this is an indictment on naturalism instead of supernaturalism? "Supernaturalism" is something that is necessarily going to only get smaller. As more is explained through the action of natural law instead of spooky ghosts and gods, obviously their perview is going to shrink.

And that really burns you up doesn't it? That I chose to back the horse that can only gain ground as our knowledge expands instead of the one that can only lose ground.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
There are several observations of quantum mechanics that prior to being observed would be considered supernatural but upon observation they become misunderstood natural phenomena.
No. The supernatural form of these would involve actual communications that transferred real information. The quantum equivalents don't transfer real information. Your dishonest equivalency is based on only the vaguest similarities.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
Fortunately you picked a criteria you can rest assured will never be breached making your position evidence and argument proof.
Excuses. You were the one to make the choice to back the horse that can only lose ground to the other. Find an instance of the universe violating its own rules (or perhaps forced to violate its own rules), and you would actually gain some ground back.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
Feel free to knock yourself out beating up this straw-man you created. Your belief that extracting formulas and mathematical equations from naturalistic forces is due to your devotion and complete unquestioning acceptance of your world-view.
And yet when Newton extracted equally mathematical equations based on natural forces (that happened to be set up by your creator), his worldview is correct and justified in your mind. Nice.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
This is what makes so many atheists comical because they detest others who have faith in what they believe yet are oblivious to their own belief system.
Excuses. We don't have the easy out of invoking a god to get us out of tight spots. Not when solving our personal lives, and not when solving the problems of the universe. And we've explained much about the universe with this point of view. And you still have to explain why, the more god is exiled from our theories, the better they work to describe the universe.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
The fact there are laws of physics, that the universe can be explained by mathematical equations and formulas comports with the belief we owe the existence of the universe to a Creator-Engineer which is in keeping with Newton's world-view. You simply hi-jack the universe is reducible to equations and formulas by assuming its what we should expect from naturalistic forces...
Excuses. You are still at a loss to explain how God is a factor in any modern physical theory, and why when God is kicked out of physics, it works better. The universe does seem to operate by mathematical law, but with a sufficiently powerful god, it could also operate on the sheer caprice of that same god. After all, if a god created the universe's laws, it could certainly change those same laws for shits and giggles.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
its simply accepted its the result mindless naturalistic forces because you and others believe the laws of physics themselves are  the result of mindless naturalistic forces.
Excuses. You're trying to distract from the fact that, despite how much you crow about the design of the universe, you can't really descern what that design was supposed to accomplish. You say that the universe was fine-tuned for life, yet that life is only the smallest component of the universe â€" there has not been a single company that has such poor yield on a product.

As to mindless forces following laws? Well, we have an entire field of mathematics that we use to study randomness. Randomness follows mathematical laws. If randomness follows mathematical laws, why is it such a stretch to suppose that other things less random can follow mathematical laws?

You seem to operate from the point of view that the natural state of matter is to be unruly. Is this true? What justifies this statement, other than your presupposition?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
I'm not arguing biblical theism. Why are atheists always so fast to quote the bible? Favorite whipping boy I suspect.
No, it is because the writers of the bible were exactly the mono-theist believers you bleated about. They didn't reject these notions because of their mono-theist belief, even though you said that they did, because their writings clearly show that they still believed in such things. You are a liar when you claimed that believers in a mono-theist god came to reject notions of rain gods and thunder gods.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
What different methods do scientists use when they are explaining the existence of something known to be caused by intelligent design as opposed to phenomenon believed to have been caused by irrational mindless naturalistic forces?
For one thing, a descernable design. What is the goal of the endevour? The pyramids were tombs to bury dead pharaohs. Beasts don't bury their dead, much less in elaborate tombs. Stonehenge, more slippery, but it had something to do with the equinoxes and solstices, owing to the arrangement of stones, and the fact that knowing when they will come is pretty important to an agrarian society.

Another good indicator is refined materials. The materials we find in the pyramids are purposefully worked to fit together; the stone is processed specifically to make it more suitable to the task. If anything, life does the opposite. Before it gets absorbed, the food ingested by an animal is broken down into its base components. Life therefore builts itself up by raw materials.

We design things to satisfy our needs. We bio-engineer plants to increase yield and nutrative content, even (especially) at the expense of its survivability outside human cultivation. While these plants weren't completely desgined by us, they bear the impermatur of an intelligent modification.

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

Hakurei Reimu

(Continued)

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
I assume for instance the methods scientists use to reverse engineer technology is completely different from the techniques they use to explain stellar phenomena and if they attempted to use the same techniques of hypothesis and experimentation on both phenomenon they'd get the wrong results. They'd know very quickly they were using the wrong technique.
Why would the same techinques produce wrong results here? When you reverse engineer a product, you usually have a device of known purpose. Even the more complicated ones would have instruction manuals that tell you how to use the device, even if you had no idea how the device works to achieve that. After that, it's just using that purpose/expected operation as a guide to deciphering how the device achieves that. Simiarly, if you have some purposeless object, you simply assign a purpose based on its observed behavior and then apply the same technique. Hell, you can even do the same thing to the purposeful device and still get some probative answers (but usually working from its assigned purpose yields better results).

In short, I don't see how you have supported the notion that the same techniques would yield wrong answers if used outside their original purpose. Hell, you'd be surprised how often a technique from another field works to help understand something. The German pharmecutical industry branched out of its artificial dye industry.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
In reality scientists use the same methods of inquiry regardless of whether they think the phenomenon in question was caused intentionally by intelligent beings or naturalistically by mindless forces. Whether a scientist believes he is revealing the mind of God (such as Newton) or believes they are discovering the result of mindless forces makes no difference because they use the same techniques and the same techniques work regardless.
Which basically undercuts your assertion that if they were using the wrong technique, they would get the wrong results. Is everything designed? Or is the difference between designed and undesigned much thinner than you think it is? By essentially claiming that all is designed, you have robbed the term "designed" of any probative value.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
Of course there is if you believe what you say you believe. How did naturalistic forces cause laptops to exist?
'Ey! How about you ask about what I believe instead of sticking with your invented strawman? The process of extracting the aluminum used in my laptop's casing alone is too rare in nature to be of any use, and any aluminum that spontaneously frees itself from its ore bauxite would quickly be reabsorbed back into bauxite. The only way you get aluminum in quantities sufficient to build affordable laptops is to electrolytically extract it. The reduction of aluminum doesn't happen often enough in nature to overwhelm the oxidation of same, and thus create native aluminum. Even if there were such a thing, you have to work aluminum into the proper shapes.

Hence, human intervention is necessary in this case.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
Its a rather circuitous route bear with me. In the beginning (if there was a beginning) matter somehow came into existence and was compelled to obey laws of nature.
Why do you think that matter needs to be "compelled" to obey the laws of nature, rather than they being the laws of nature partially because that's how matter behaves? See, this is begging the question. You assume that matter needs to be "compelled" to do so, so you need to impose this artificial requirement that matter needs to be told to obey laws or they don't. There's also the question begging that matter needs a cause to come into existence, when everything about particle physics tells us that if there's enough energy around, you can hardly prevent it.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
These laws of nature caused matter to clump into stars which with the laws of physics caused new forms of matter to exist as they exploded.
Again, you're assuming that matter needs to be compelled to form stars, rather than the interplay of spacetime and matter causing this outcome, and the tendency for nuclei to achieve lower states of energy by binding together when coulombic repultion is overcome by temperature and pressure to cause fusion.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
They subsequently caused new stars with rocky matter and in the fullness of time coalesced  into planets.
Yes, because matter tends to do that, and heavier elements are less likely to be blown away by their primaries. You get a sufficiently enriched nebula (inevidable because supergiant stars form and explode at a regular rate), and you can't help planets forming.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
Subsequently these same laws of nature (quite by accident) caused life to exist
No, the same behavior of matter that caused nuclei to form also caused the rich chemistry of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. Which is rather odd for a purposeful design. You would think that a sensible designer would do their best to separate the steps of nucleosynthesis and the formation of life. Or the formation of stars and the formation of stars, so that mucking with one set of parameters won't screw up subsequent steps.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
which eventually formed into sentient human life that had the intelligence
Anyone who doesn't see the survival advantage of increased intelligence â€"increased ability to assess what's in the environment and using that to instruct an organisms actionsâ€" needs to stop posting now. If there is a way for intelligence to evolve, a biosphere will find a way to do it.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
to further refine the pre-existing laws of nature to produce all kinds of things such as laptops and cars,
How have we altered universal laws? We can't alter â€"or refineâ€" pre-existing universal laws. We leverage them to make things that facilitate our surivival and comfort.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
virtual universes and that's the just so story of how mindless naturalistic forces caused laptops, cars and virtual universes to exist.
Strange but true, as far as any evidence that anyone has gathered has shown.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 29, 2017, 07:10:45 PM
If however as humans we can create things naturalistic forces can't...then we are super natural god's true?
Naturalistic forces alone can't. I know that this is a subtle distinction for you, but do try to bear in mind. We leverage natural forces, not defy them, and have no other kinds of forces available. We are not gods.

Anyway, if I were a god starting from scratch creating a universe, I wouldn't create a universe like we see. There is a rather glaring problem with it: gravity. See, gravity is the force that pulls stars and planets together for energy and nucleosynthesis and for concentrating chemicals together for life, but the only reason you need to do all that is because the universe isn't dense enough already to form life everywhere. But the reason why it isn't that dense already is because if it were, the universe would collapse in on itself before doing anything interesting. In short, the reason why we need gravity to pull together matter into stars and planets is because of gravity.

So, get rid of it. Impose a Minkowski metric over the entire universe, decouple the spacetime metric from the stress-energy tensor (matter), fill it up with enriched water, sprinkle some heat sources and sinks throughout the universe (which work by their own physics, or just by your own caprice) and Bob's your uncle. In one fell swoop, I've gotten rid of four of Rees's six numbers (N,Ω,λ,Q) connected directly with gravity â€"because there's no gravityâ€" and at the same time eliminated ε, because 'stars' don't shine by fusion anymore. So only one parameter of these is needed to be "fine tuned." Chemistry remains the same, and everything needed to create life is already there, waiting. Or I can just drop a few life forms here and there to get it over with, instead of relying on the vaugarities of chance.

Anyway, I think we need to dial it back a bit. It's a bad sign if I have to split my posts.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 31, 2017, 01:00:45 PM
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.

He agreed were that so it would be a line of evidence that favors his belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces. The fact the opposite is true comports with the belief we owe our existence to a Creator/Designer.
Only because you think that this is the limit of the scale of habitability. You went from a universe that life is extremely robust in to one that life only clings to by the skin of its teeth, but still exists naturalisitically.

That's not the extreme of that scale. The real extreme would be life that can only exist by the intervention of supernatural agents, initial or continuous. It is only in this regime that would be evidence against naturalism.

This is not the operation of any dogmatic notion. It's simply misunderstanding the actual range of possibility. If you think that it is impossible for life to exist in a universe without that universe being at least life-friendly, then the observation of life-friendliness provides no data at either extreme. The fact that I consider it possible that a god could directly intervene in the formation and continued function of life and you don't is not my fault. You simply weren't specific enough.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Drew_2017

Quote from: Cavebear on May 31, 2017, 01:14:04 PM
I will limit my refutation to this one statement and save myself a lot of quoting and argument.

Your assertion is not supported in any way.  You seem to have this odd idea about a "virtual" universe where science "clearly comports with the belief of theism".

The model comports with theism not science. If scientists created a model to demonstrate how the universe and the laws of nature came into existence by some naturalistic method and the model worked in computer simulations you would submit that fact as evidence in favor of naturalism. Of course because it would be a fact that comports with naturalism.

From what I have heard from many atheists is the notion the universe could have been caused by a transcendent agent is a ridiculous belief on the face of it. The notion a being might be responsible for the laws of physics absurd. Yet in virtual universes that is exactly the scenario... transcendent beings cause the universe to exist, lay down the 'laws of physics for that universe and exert God like power over it. The real question isn't whether this line of evidence means anything to you or other atheists on this board. I believe it would have a big impact on impartial folks not committed to either view point.



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

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

Drew_2017

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 31, 2017, 04:24:11 PM
It seems to me that if the universe were created by an all-powerful God, it wouldn't need any fine tuning for us to exist. We could exist in any universe at all - fine tuned or otherwise - because an all-powerful god would be able to sustain us under whatever circumstances it wanted.


The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism

Including the circumstances we find ourselves in. I'm also not making any theological claims about whether God is all powerful or omnipotent.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Drew_2017

Quote from: Baruch on May 31, 2017, 09:18:56 PM
I tried to talk to him about cellular automata once ... should be his area ... and crickets.

I vaguely heard something about it. I have spent 25 years in IT, programming, creating websites, setting up networks, installing servers administering servers, creating scripts databases fixing laptops making gaming machines. Whatever was needed. A jack of all trades master of a few. About the only simulation was dice and card games. To paraphrase a line in A Beautiful Mind, you'll never come to know greater truth with computer programming because its boring...really boring.





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

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