Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[popsthebuilder]

Poor analogy.  You assume a murder, just like you assume intelligent design.

Please state your scientific hypothesis for theism, your testing and experimentation regime, how the hypothesis is falsifiable and your null hypothesis.

Because it must not be true unless it  can be deemed so through a human construct. As if existence is hinged on whether man can fully explain it.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

All of Drew's points were argued and settled over 1000 years ago, in debates in Christianity, Islam and Judaism.  You don't need QM or Black Holes for this debate.  Scoffers and skeptics do what they do, every century.  And theists can be equally pig headed ;-)  Avicenna (Ibn Sina) had an actual theory of how prophecy works over 1000 years ago, a rational theory ... but theists ignored it.  He was the last great Muslim philosopher and then the Mongols and the Crusaders snuffed it out.

Personally I find philosophical argument unpersuasive.  I also find argument based on hypotheticals to be unpersuasive.  Give me empirical evidence we can examine here and now, or ... but that's just me.  Of course what counts as empirical evidence and how to interpret ... Fight Club!  The problem I have with naturalists is that they fall into confirmation bias so easily ... like Euclidean geometers ... who couldn't handle spherical trig, even if some ancient people did know that the Earth was round.

[Baruch]

Because it must not be true unless it  can be deemed so through a human construct. As if existence is hinged on whether man can fully explain it.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Yes, but be careful not to fall into the pit of Platonism ;-)  For the purpose of argument, only human means can be employed, appealing to authority is not good.  I think that reality is more or less real ... but I can't prove that to anyone.  And my sense of what it means is different from most theists even.

[Cavebear]

Explain what legal theory bars the following facts as evidence I can use in favor of theism.

1. The existence of the universe.
2. The existence of the laws of physics. 
3. The existence of life.
4. The existence of intelligent self-aware life.
5. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

1.  The universe can exist by basic physics, no deity required.  Singularity; BOOM!
2. The laws of physics are what they are.  No deity required.  There MIGHT be other combinations of laws. 
3.  Life is merely chemicals replicating themselves.  It seems to be rather easy.  It happened on Earth very fast.
4.  That one is not required for the universe.  It happened after billions of years.  Might not happen again given a similar world.  Or again here if we go extinct.
5.  I would say that it is "amenable" to scientific research only because intelligence evolved.  But a universe could have laws of nature, knowable, but not depend of there being intelligent life to actually know it.  A tree can fall in a forest without anything to understand why.

[Drew_2017]

Cave Bear,

1.  The universe can exist by basic physics, no deity required.  Singularity; BOOM!

The singularity is a phenomenon in which the laws of physics as we know them no longer apply. I know you believe no deity was required...

2. The laws of physics are what they are.  No deity required.  There MIGHT be other combinations of laws.

Again I know that is your belief that no deity is required. By stating it as a fact you raise the bar of evidence to support the fact claim no deity required. But don't worry about that only evidence of theism is required on this board...required and then disallowed.

3.  Life is merely chemicals replicating themselves.  It seems to be rather easy.  It happened on Earth very fast.

Then perhaps you can explain how it came about? In my opinion, its not the existence of life which may have been caused unattended by the laws of physics, its the myriad of exacting conditions necessary for the only life we know of to exist that suggests plan and intent.

4.  That one is not required for the universe.  It happened after billions of years.  Might not happen again given a similar world.  Or again here if we go extinct.

Nothing is required to happen for atheism to be true and only some form of nature needs to exist for naturalism to be true. A universe with no stars, planets or life is just as 'naturalistic' as one that has such. The existence of intelligent human life is not only not required of mindless natural forces its an anomaly. No one would predict that lifeless mindless forces would somehow come into existence and without any plan or intent to do so cause something unlike it self to exist...life and mind.

5.  I would say that it is "amenable" to scientific research only because intelligence evolved.  But a universe could have laws of nature, knowable, but not depend of there being intelligent life to actually know it.  A tree can fall in a forest without anything to understand why.

No matter how ingenuous human intellect is it can't create laws and mathematical formulas out of nonsense. Human intellect can't cause deduction, induction or the rules of logic to apply if they're not applicable. Scientists can't crack the random radio noise from the universe makes. They could potentially crack communication from intelligent life forms.

[Baruch]

"No matter how ingenuous human intellect is it can't create laws and mathematical formulas out of nonsense. Human intellect can't cause deduction, induction or the rules of logic to apply if they're not applicable. Scientists can't crack the random radio noise from the universe makes. They could potentially crack communication from intelligent life forms."

Now you are saying something.  Every human generated number, is pseudorandom ... the result of an algorithm.  All of these constitute the computable numbers (most of which have infinite, nearly non-repeating digits).  The numbers that exist, that are not computable, can't be produced by a human process.  Those numbers are not-human produced, and are more pseudorandom than any we can make (they are also infinite, nearly non-repeating digits).  There is no true random number ... but you can bet that life exists in the non-computable numbers (analog signals have to have them).  Real intelligent life can generate any computable pseudorandom number ... but no life can generate those other numbers.

[Drew_2017]

author=Mike Cl link=topic=11330.msg1179812#msg1179812 date=1497827185]
None of your 'facts' leads to anything but 'I don't know'.  What I meant is what I said.  There is not a trace of any evidence that a god(s) exist or ever existed.  The universe is--self evident.  That does not lead to 'It must have been created.'  We don't know what cause it to exist.  We don't know how life started exactly.  We know of several natural laws; we don't know if they are universal even if they are in this part of the universe.  I would also venture to say that we do not know what all of the 'natural' laws are yet.  But even though we don't know the answers yet, we know many more of the questions than ever before.  We also know much more about our universe; and we are only beginning to do so. 

Anytime someone renders an opinion or belief they admit its what they think is true not what they know is true. The only time we render opinions is when the thing itself is uncertain its true. Even if facts don't lead conclusively to a belief that doesn't disqualify such facts as evidence. If a person is found dead with a gun in their hand that would be evidence he killed himself even though no one knows for sure. The fact we don't know for sure is exactly why neither hypothesis can be discounted and why either hypothesis is a belief though my opponents nearly always state their position as fact. Yes we are learning more and we may learn some facts that would tip the balance in favor of naturalism. If we were actually able to duplicate how natural forces caused life to exist that would be very significant. If we find other life especially in a completely different form. If we find some unifying theory that gives a possible explanation for the why the exacting properties for life to emerged or if we find strong evidence this is one of an infinitude of universes with varying properties. A working model of how natural forces caused the universe to exist would be nice...
 

[Baruch]

"A working model of how natural forces caused the universe to exist would be nice..." that would be self contradictory, multiverse or not.  That is why naturalism is like alchemy, it is Ouroboros eating his tail.  And it claims to solve the "bootstrap problem" without any proof.

[Mike Cl]

Anytime someone renders an opinion or belief they admit its what they think is true not what they know is true. The only time we render opinions is when the thing itself is uncertain its true. Even if facts don't lead conclusively to a belief that doesn't disqualify such facts as evidence. If a person is found dead with a gun in their hand that would be evidence he killed himself even though no one knows for sure. The fact we don't know for sure is exactly why neither hypothesis can be discounted and why either hypothesis is a belief though my opponents nearly always state their position as fact. Yes we are learning more and we may learn some facts that would tip the balance in favor of naturalism. If we were actually able to duplicate how natural forces caused life to exist that would be very significant. If we find other life especially in a completely different form. If we find some unifying theory that gives a possible explanation for the why the exacting properties for life to emerged or if we find strong evidence this is one of an infinitude of universes with varying properties. A working model of how natural forces caused the universe to exist would be nice...

Yeah, I know, it is very popular to say that we can't know one way or the other if a god(s) exist.  Most theists buy into that thought.  I don't.  I don't believe in 'naturalism'; nature is not an 'ism'.  I don't need to 'believe' in nature, for it is quite provable simply by looking around, crafting hypothesis about whatever aspect of nature you want to test, then test away.  That leads to theory or discarded ideas.  You can craft theistic hypothesis all day and night, but you can't test for any of them.  There are no theistic theories.  There are thousands of theories of nature.  And more are discovered every day.  I don't 'believe' in nature; it is not an ism.  It simply is.  I know nature exists for I live in it every single second that I live; and I'll still be in it when I die.  Not all of my questions have been answered or will be by the time I die--that does not disprove that nature exists. 

I find nature to be proof for me that there cannot be any god(s).  Nature is not perfect nor static.  It simply is.  It is not good or bad.  It just is.  But all animal life is sustained by the killing of other living things.  It cannot be helped, for that is simply the way it is.  Even vegans have to kill plants to survive--and if they don't then they kill themselves; killing other life forms is something animals have to do.  That is not very god-like; at least not in any theism I am aware of.  Life is not neat, clean and tidy like your god tells you it is supposed to be--not governed by any moral compass I am aware of.  All theist morals are false and simplistic.  In nature life is shit, piss, vinegar, spit, dirt and grime and grit; and beauty beyond compare.  It is up to you to deal with any and all of it--or not; nature does not care.  There is no room in nature for any god(s)--it is simply a fanciful construct by those who want to have a god exist; nothing substantial, just wishful thinking.  It is sustained by belief and faith; not facts, for there are none to support the fiction of god.  But Drew, if you wish to believe in your god, then go for it.  Just do not expect me to buy into any of it. 

[Hakurei Reimu]

Drew

Let me start off with pointing out that you have, AGAIN, refused to put numbers on how improbable the universe or a creator could be. Or any estimation of those numbers. This alone makse your argument from imprability morbund. It doesn't matter if, given a creator, a universe looking like ours is certain (probability = 1) via creation by this creator if the creator is himself much, much more improbable than a universe like ours emerging spontaneously. It needs an answer, or your improbability argument never gets off the ground.

So, yeah. You present an argument that lacks the very things that make them work and then blame close mindedness on my part for not buying it.

This simply reveals the level of unquestioned devotion you have to your point of view to suggest in the case of Goddidit Vs Naturedidit is comparable to round earth vs flat earth. If there were any where near the overwhelming preponderance of facts, data and evidence that confirms round earth and rules out flat earth we'd all be atheists except a small portion of kooks. You'd also present that irrefutable, reproducible evidence that once and for all seals the case.

No, this is your wishful thinking. See, the flat-earthers have created this enormous pseudo-intellectual foundation to explain away the real physical problems with their hypothesis. The spotlight sun, a conspiracy of map-makers, anomalous refraction, fake astronomy, fake aerospace and so forth. All this in defense of a basic intuition:

The Earth is as flat as it appears.

We come to the conclusion that the earth is round when we question this basic intuition. Similarly, the Goddidit hypothesis all comes in defense of a similar intuition:

The appearance of design requires and demands an intelligent designer.

Life, the solar system, the workings of fate and such, have all been attributed to a creator/god because of this basic intuition. Yet, as the progress of science has advanced, god has been pushed out of each of these and sequestered to the holes of our knowledge. This implies one of two things:

(A) We are lousy at detecting intelligent design, or
(B) Ordered design does not require intelligence.

Both of these would imply that the intuition that the appearance of design requires a designer is wrong in and of itself; the appearance of design does not warrant the existence of an intelligent designer. A begs the response, "How do you know what you're looking at is a design?", and B the response, "A design doesn't need a designer and needs to be proven separately." So, yes, the analogy for flat earth is precisely applicable here; even with all the abundant evidence for a spherical earth there are people that seemingly are fully committed to the notion that the earth is flat. I could have substituted young earth creationists for flat earthers and it would not have made much of a difference â€" the evidence that there was no world-drowning flood is equally as compelling as the case of a flat earth, yet believers in the young earth and the flood are numerous enough to be a worry for the future of american education. How much more committed can people be if the evidence is not so clear?

We should expect naturalistic explanations for events and phenomena within our universe. Its when we attempt to explain the cause of fact of the universes existence the best theory at the moment is it came forth from a singularity a phenomena in which our laws of physics break down.

The problem for you is that, even at that primitive level, the singularity explanation is far more comprehensive than Goddidit.

If the (seeming) design of the universe is something that needs explaining, and needs explaining so badly that you're willing to put into the mix a creator that is not observed and has no evidence independent of that need, then the creator is something that also needs just as much explaining, if not more. Yet, you don't try to explain the presence of that creator, as if you figure that the creator is something that does not need explaining. Sorry, bub, it seems as though your creator is exactly the kind of thing that does need explaining, even if you have to introduce something otherwise unevidenced.

But that leads you up the infinite ladder of explanations for the explanations. Your reasoning, if taken to its logical conclusion, generates hypercreators, and hyperhypercreators, and hyperhyperhypercreators, and so on, with an infinite number and degree of creators. Which, by the way, is similar to one of the very things you have railed against in this very thread.

It is abundantly clear that the notion of a universal creator is something that really hasn't been thought through very carefully by theists, their insistence otherwise notwithstanding. They have never been able to solve the infinite ladder of creators with any satisfaction â€" it's simply glossed over; no theist ever addresses why, if a universe cannot exist without a creator, why the creator does not need a creator themselves. They have never been able to explain the origin of order in the universe with any satisfaction â€" it is, too, simply glossed over; they simply attibute that to something that is itself ordered, and by their own argument, needs explanation just as ernestly as the order they are explaining.

Even on this primitive level, it is clear to the impartial person that an incomplete explanation is more satisfying than one that folds over and destroys itself in its own logic. So, yeah. You present an argument that only multiplies the entities involved for no apparent gain and then blame close mindedness on my part for not buying it.

Lets take this thought further. What expectation would we have from forces that have no intelligence, no plan, no blueprint was caused by mindless irrational forces produce a universe that is explicable in mathematical terms?

You responded with long winded drivel about how math is a tool humans developed while dodging the question. Humans could develop all the math they wanted to but it wouldn't help explain the universe if the universe wasn't explicable in mathematical terms. We didn't read into the universe the equations and formula's that have been derived, we investigated and derived them from the 'dumb' universe. If there is another advanced race somewhere in the universe that is as or more developed they will have extracted the same laws of physics and equations we have.

No, it simply shows that you simply didn't pick up on the subtext, which is that the spontaneous appearance of forces without intelligence, or a plan, or a blueprint, etc. only seems mysterious if you think that intelligence, a plan, etc. are necessary for ordered forces to appear. Yet we find in mathematics that order crops up everywhere without our direct intervention. We didn't design the connections or the more esoteric theorems of mathematics, they were inherent in the axioms we chose. Furthermore, the axioms we chose were motivated by the necessity of making sure that the mathematical systems we constructed reflected real problems that we wished to solve in the real world. We didn't come up with the structure in mathematics; the universe came up with that structure, and we only copied it in order to understand that structure in a more controlled setting. And since the physical laws are mathematically governed (or rather, our mathematics are physically guided), the chances are pretty good that natural forces can produce a universe that is explicable in mathematical terms.

BTW, what would an "irrational force" look like? To me, gravity is a completely irrational force if you want to create life in the universe.

Just as you admitted if the universe was utter chaos with no laws of physics that would strengthen your hand.

Gaslighting. I've admitted no such thing. In fact, I've stated exactly the opposite because of the observation of life in the universe, which reverses that otherwise cromulant argument. Jefferys-Ikeda theorem again.

You obviously don't see your own gaffe here. True the gear ratios don't require an understanding of gear ratios to operate...they due require an engineer to create those gear ratios in the first place.

What gaffe? I was demonstrating that even if there were a design, the understanding of that design is not required for those components to work. Gear ratios work regardless of who, or even if, they were designed. A designer is only necessary if there was some understanding involved, but we have found gears in nature:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a9449/the-first-gear-discovered-in-nature-15916433/

So, no, a gear is not prima face evidence of design or the intervention of intelligence. No engineer designed the issus jump apparatus. It evolved, mindlessly but not without reason. Which, again, is more proof that your intuition is wrong.

I know you don't see the irony of this but according to your belief if true, mindless irrational universe created intelligent beings who could alone decipher the babble of mindless irrational forces. 

It is an irony, but it's the only way it could work. Intelligence we actually have examples of are always built up from things that are not intelligent in action. Minds we have examples of are built up from mindless components which act in mindless ways. We have literally no examples of mindless forces being created from intelligence, but we have plenty of examples of mindless forces creating intelligence... though your millage may vary.

TL;DR â€" There is nothing to the theistic hypothesis that makes it more likely than universe-creating pixies, or an idea, or a platonic solid, or even that the universe exists because it simply decided that it needed to exist and *poof*. Naturalistic causation at least has a proven track record of being at least assessible. Furthermore, it has a proven track record of being the case every single time. It therefore puzzles me why anyone would be up in arms over the casual rejection of difficult-to-impossible to assess hypotheses (like Goddidit, or the less controversial Toothfairydidit) in favor of ones that have a fighting chance of being investigated.

[sdelsolray]

The existence of a dead human alone by itself raises the possibility it was caused intentionally. The authorities do a investigation in the event of any death because the mere death itself raises the possibility it was intentional. Its actually an excellent analogy because in the case of a deceased there are two possibilities; natural causes or an intentional act? There are many cases where its difficult to tell if a death was intentional or not and just like in those cases each side makes arguments and cites evidence that leads them to believe one theory or another. In some cases all the evidence is circumstantial, you attempt to infer from the known evidence what happened. If we were to further the analogy any facts (evidence) I submit that support my belief it was intentional and not natural causes is barred or as they say in legal jargon suppressed. It doesn't matter it only serves to reveal your bias and tunnel vision in this case. No reasonable person would bar facts from being viewed as evidence in favor of a conclusion.
...

Backstory:

Drew says:  The universe's existence is evidence of intelligent design/theism.
sdelsolray says:  That's not relevant evidence.
Drew says:  It's the same as the analogy, 'a corpse has relevance to a murder case'.
sdelsolray says:  Drew assumes a murder occurred and similarly assumes intelligent design occurred.
Drew backpeddles:  Well, your have to look at a corpse to see if a murder occurred.
sdelsolray says:  Please present your scientific hypothesis for intelligent design/theism and associated parameters.
Drew Says:  Give me $100,000 and "I'll get right on it".

Three things:

1)  Your thought experiment is not a scientific hypothesis, is riddled with logical fallacies and is nothing more than wishful thinking stuffed with quasi-philosophical and metaphysical woo woo.

2)  Before scientific research grants are given, the applicant must first propose their hypothesis, how they are going to test, their controls and procedures, the falsifiability parameters, null hypothesis, budget, timeline, etc.  You are the applicant.  You are the one who analogized to a scientific method process by analogy to corpse/murder investigation.  Get to work on that grant application.  Once presented, I'll consider your request for a $100,000 research grant.

3)  Time to update your recipe.

Drew's GODDIDIT Casserole

2 lbs argument from incredulity
1 lb fine tuning argument/argument from design
12 oz essence of non-sequitur/irrelevancy
9 oz begging the question
6 oz burden of proof shifting (substitute: "Hey, look over there')
2 oz ad hominem (substitute Tu Quoque)
6 short strawmen sticks
1 argument from popularity
Liberal dashes of false equivalence, secret definitions and metaphysical woo woo

Mix well, bake for 3 hours at 350, serves one.

[sdelsolray]

Because it must not be true unless it  can be deemed so through a human construct. As if existence is hinged on whether man can fully explain it.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Drew, all of a sudden, has gone all sciency on us.  You know, CSI murder investigation, real events, relevant evidence and reasonable inferences or deductions.  I simply asked him for how he intends to apply that same rigor to his sky fairy claim.

[popsthebuilder]

Cave Bear,


The singularity is a phenomenon in which the laws of physics as we know them no longer apply. I know you believe no deity was required...

Again I know that is your belief that no deity is required. By stating it as a fact you raise the bar of evidence to support the fact claim no deity required. But don't worry about that only evidence of theism is required on this board...required and then disallowed.

Then perhaps you can explain how it came about? In my opinion, its not the existence of life which may have been caused unattended by the laws of physics, its the myriad of exacting conditions necessary for the only life we know of to exist that suggests plan and intent.


Nothing is required to happen for atheism to be true and only some form of nature needs to exist for naturalism to be true. A universe with no stars, planets or life is just as 'naturalistic' as one that has such. The existence of intelligent human life is not only not required of mindless natural forces its an anomaly. No one would predict that lifeless mindless forces would somehow come into existence and without any plan or intent to do so cause something unlike it self to exist...life and mind.




No matter how ingenuous human intellect is it can't create laws and mathematical formulas out of nonsense. Human intellect can't cause deduction, induction or the rules of logic to apply if they're not applicable. Scientists can't crack the random radio noise from the universe makes. They could potentially crack communication from intelligent life forms.

I kinda come and go on this thread,  surely missing whole chunks,  but I must say that this post I'm responding to was both easily read and intelligible. I'm not saying that because I am theistic but because it was simple, and direct and pointed; hallmarks of attempts at truthful persuasive communication.

good post

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

Because it must not be true unless it  can be deemed so through a human construct. As if existence is hinged on whether man can fully explain it.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

PS ... this is a hidden assumption of epistemology.  Of course our esteemed atheists wouldn't be engaging in philosophy, would they? ;-)  They simply rename their narrow version of epistemology, scientism and then deceitfully repackage this as science.

Philosophy usually privileges consciousness and rationality, when the universe is demonstrably mostly unconscious and irrational.  Like a chess master that sees every encounter with an other person, as a chess game to be won or lost.

[Mike Cl]

  Of course our esteemed atheists wouldn't be engaging in philosophy, would they? ;-)  They simply rename their narrow version of epistemology, scientism and then deceitfully repackage this as science.

Since you are a theist, and science is your enemy, I can understand--to a point--why you'd say that.  You alter your view of reality to encompass the supernatural (which is a fiction) so that you can then find room for you views on god and such.  You have to push and pull at reality to get your fiction worked in--and then call athiests deceitful.  And you also then, repackage reality with the supernatural and say 'see'.  You do have a kinship with Drump and his alternate facts.