Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Drew_2017]

Scientific issues are not settled in "debates" the way you think of them.

Does this look like a scientific forum to you? This is a debate forum and fortunately for you populated mostly by fellow atheists. Do you really believe you have established to a scientific standard of proof that 'naturedidit'?

[Hakurei Reimu]

Does this look like a scientific forum to you? This is a debate forum

Wrong. It's a discussion forum. We discuss things here, not debate things. The debate forum is thataway.

and fortunately for you populated mostly by fellow atheists. Do you really believe you have established to a scientific standard of proof that 'naturedidit'?

No. But you haven't even established that 'Goddidit' is even in the running. You never established that 'Goddidit' is even a coherent claim at all, or any better than 'Easterbunnydidit,' or 'magicalpixiesdidit,' or any similar claim of the same form. In fact, 'Naturedidit,' the way you seem to be regarding it, is probably as deceptive a descriptor as any other.

[Hydra009]

Not "proven as a round earth" â€" a consistent hypothesis in contrast with one that... well, isn't.

So math or STFU.

I don't think he ever picked up on the idea that naturalism is the default and supernaturalism has to be established.

For example, if someone's acting crazy you don't automatically assume that they're undergoing some sort of spiritual attack or possession - you start with other, more ordinary hypotheses like some sort of mental disorder or physical trauma to the brain.  You know, plausible stuff.  Then, when the patient levitates in the air, turns her head all the way around, and vomits 20 gallons of pea soup on an old priest and a young priest - something like that would go a long way towards establishing that something supernatural is going on.  But it's a conclusion you reach from mounting data incongruous with any naturalistic explanation - it's not a starting conclusion.

I think that's why he doesn't understand that the burden of proof is on him to establish that supernatural beings exist.  That or he understands and is not being honest with us.  Either one is pretty bad considering how long this thread is, but the former definitely carries less of a stigma.

[Hydra009]

I also disagree with the notion anyone is born atheist. Babies have no way of knowing if God exists or not.

At the risk of launching another pointless debate that I know will inevitably end in "are not" / "are too", I will try to explain this as clearly as I possibly can.

Atheist = a person who doesn't believe in the existence of a god or gods.  Under that precise definition, then yes, babies are atheists since they're too young to conceptualize that idea and therefore cannot possibly hold it.

The exact reason why a person doesn't believe in a God doesn't matter when determining whether or not they're an atheist since the definition makes no mention of a conscious, deliberate rejection of theism - just the absence of theism.  Therefore, an uncontacted tribe with no concept of a god would be atheists as would New Atheists living in Milwaukee, even though the first group is ignorant of the "good news" while the second group would likely be aware of it and hold a differing position.  Obviously, atheism (a- theos) is a catch-all term that doesn't necessarily imply anything in common other than a lack of theistic beliefs in the same way that non-smoker is a catch-all term for anyone who doesn't smoke (encompassing ex-smokers, adults who never picked up the habit, kids who are clearly too young to pick up the habit, and potentially even people who aren't even aware that smoking is a thing).

[Baruch]

Does this look like a scientific forum to you? This is a debate forum and fortunately for you populated mostly by fellow atheists. Do you really believe you have established to a scientific standard of proof that 'naturedidit'?

They can quote science experts like others quote Bible experts ... that is what lay people do.  HR might actually be a data scientist ... if that makes any sense.  I am a former engineer by trade, and computer scientist in the trenches (computer operations).  I know what reality looks like to my left brain.  I just choose to use my right brain to post here ... it needs the exercise.

Some here are former theists, others are not, they have always been atheists.  And for a few, myself included ... theism of a sort is still an option.  I tried atheism when I was around 20, but it didn't stick ... seemed anti-humanist to me ... like being a-social.

So one can sit on a technical definition of simple atheism ... though that begs the personal question, and even the psychology of someone who never has been a theist.  People come in all mental shapes.  What is funny is, some who say they don't like philosophy, use it to define their atheism.  So they are at least ... minimalist philosophers.

[Drew_2017]

I don't think he ever picked up on the idea that naturalism is the default and supernaturalism has to be established.

For example, if someone's acting crazy you don't automatically assume that they're undergoing some sort of spiritual attack or possession - you start with other, more ordinary hypotheses like some sort of mental disorder or physical trauma to the brain.  You know, plausible stuff.  Then, when the patient levitates in the air, turns her head all the way around, and vomits 20 gallons of pea soup on an old priest and a young priest - something like that would go a long way towards establishing that something supernatural is going on.  But it's a conclusion you reach from mounting data incongruous with any naturalistic explanation - it's not a starting conclusion.

I think that's why he doesn't understand that the burden of proof is on him to establish that supernatural beings exist.  That or he understands and is not being honest with us.  Either one is pretty bad considering how long this thread is, but the former definitely carries less of a stigma.

One of the few things Baruch and I agree on is there is no fixed criteria to delineate what people call natural or supernatural. If we had this same discussion 300 years ago rather than the exorcist you might say being able to talk to someone on the other side of the earth is a supernatural act. Doing so would defy all known laws of nature at that time. We do things routinely that would be defined as supernatural 300 years ago. This means that the supernatural is what can't possibly happen...unless it turns out it can happen in which case its natural. What could possibly happen that if it did happen wouldn't be regarded as natural? If the speed of light slowed down 3% even though it violates what we call laws of physics what would be supernatural or unnatural about it?

If it turns out (as the best evidence indicates) we owe the existence of the universe to a singularity a phenomenon in which the known laws of physics don't apply you will still say its natural its just a natural we have no familiarity with. If so what do you mean by natural if it includes things totally unlike the natural we are familiar with?

My only burden of evidence I have is to provide facts that support my belief which I have done innumerable times.

The universe ..... You say mindless naturalistic forces that didn't plan or intend a universe caused it to happen.

                          I say I believe a Creator that intended the universe to exist caused it to happen.

Life                     You say mindless naturalistic forces that didn't plan or intend life to exist caused it by happenstance.
                          I say I believe a Creator that planned the circumstances intentionally designed life to occur. 

Intelligent life    (same both sides)

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.

You claim this is the result of happenstance by mindless forces that never intended the universe to be knowable or explicable in mathematical terms.   

I say it was the result of an intelligent Creator who designed and caused it to occur.

The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.

You say this is the unintended consequences of the laws of physics and blind luck.

I say it was the result of an intelligent Creator who designed and caused it to occur.

Its not that we don't point to the same facts (evidence) we just draw different conclusions. Atheists don't believe in God but they must belief in luck. Apart from a designer-creator we are the luckiest possible result of blind happenstance (assuming as I do that life is a good thing).








   

[Drew_2017]

At the risk of launching another pointless debate that I know will inevitably end in "are not" / "are too", I will try to explain this as clearly as I possibly can.

They all end up that way...

Atheist = a person who doesn't believe in the existence of a god or gods.  Under that precise definition, then yes, babies are atheists since they're too young to conceptualize that idea and therefore cannot possibly hold it.

Only a person who knows of God or gods can be in a position to not believe in the existence of such. Not believing in something is presumably a rational reaction to a claim. Do you disbelieve in things you never heard of? Really I'm doing you a favor I don't get why so many atheists cling to this claim. I don't want to disparage babies because they're cute and adorable...but babies are compared to adults, morons true? Technically they are below morons they wouldn't score anything on a test. You are saying it only takes a moron to be atheist but it requires intelligence to be a theist...is that what you mean to say? 

[Baruch]

They all end up that way...

Only a person who knows of God or gods can be in a position to not believe in the existence of such. Not believing in something is presumably a rational reaction to a claim. Do you disbelieve in things you never heard of? Really I'm doing you a favor I don't get why so many atheists cling to this claim. I don't want to disparage babies because they're cute and adorable...but babies are compared to adults, morons true? Technically they are below morons they wouldn't score anything on a test. You are saying it only takes a moron to be atheist but it requires intelligence to be a theist...is that what you mean to say?

"One of the few things Baruch and I agree on is there is no fixed criteria to delineate what people call natural or supernatural."  Do we?  I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster ... and I have never seen it ... to disbelieve in it.  Had I seen it, it would be stupid to disbelieve it.  I do know G-d, so I can ... per you ... legitimately disbelieve in the Christian god.  Or Zeus for that matter.  Bodhidharma on the other hand ...

Other folks here ... they clearly say that supernatural is ... anything they disbelieve in.  Natural is whatever they do believe in.  That would be the psychological nub, not the ontological nub, of atheism.  I believe in the moon landings, so that must be natural.  I don't believe in the Easter bunny, so that must be supernatural.  Actually, in my case I understand, per Zen, that all dichotomies, including natural vs supernatural, are false.  Is that how you understand it?

Ever see "Baby Geniuses" genius?  In theology, babies are in heaven before birth, are omniscient, and we lose our knowledge upon birth.  The fold under the nose being made where an angel touches you, to remove your omniscience.  Of course, that is just a story.  And nobody here believes in stories.  That would be stupid epistemologically.  Then Goldilocks might be real.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Thing is, what I have noticed about all arguments for the existence of universal creators, is that the very same argument that would render one necessary also renders one impossible. That is a prima facie indication that the argument is defective in some way. Does this mean that we believe that, as you put it, "mindless naturalistic forces that didn't plan or intend a universe/life/intelligence caused it to happen?" Well, I guess in a way, it does. Because the notion of a creator creating all these things doesn't seem to work on close inspection, no matter how much better the idea may seem an explanation. So basically, the entire conversation goes something like this:

Theist: "A universe of this complexity can't come into existence on its own, therefore god!"
Scientist: "Doesn't this god of yours have a fair bit of complexity himself?"
Theist: "Yes! That's how he's able to be intelligent enough to create a universe!"
Scientist: "But wouldn't a god intelligent enough to create a universe like ours need an explanation himself, being that he's complex enough to not come into existence on his own?"
Theist: "Uh..."
Scientist: "Back to the drawing board, kid."
Theist: "You're just being close minded!"
Scientist: "Grow up."

[aitm]

Only a person who knows of God or gods ......

substitute mentally incompetent....same same. Your babble is just that...babble. It is nothing but to you. To those of use who have read it with an open mind, it is completely a childrens story, but for those with childish minds.. it is the word of a god, albeit rather an imbecilic one but what do children know?

[Hydra009]

My only burden of evidence I have is to provide facts that support my belief which I have done innumerable times.

Heh.  Good one.  That was a joke, right?

You claim this is the result of happenstance by mindless forces that never intended the universe to be knowable or explicable in mathematical terms.

Do I?

You theists sure love your framing devices.  Talk of "happenstance" and "mindless forces" and intent - implying the universe were some sort of cosmic accident - as if a group of quarks got together and had an out-of-control party that ended up creating the universe.

That's not my claim at all, and once again, I'm noticing this idea of cosmic agency that pervades theistic 'thinking' becoming smeared willy-nilly across what would otherwise be atheists' positions.

My position, put simply, is that the universe exists and that I have no compelling reason to suppose that some sort of god-being created it or in any way influenced it, as you allege.  When asked to substantiate your claim of godly involvement - to show that this entity exists as anything other than a fictional character - you have failed and failed spectacularly.  You either don't understand what's being asked of you or are incapable of performing it and thus have to resort to shameful, tiresome apologetics.  Either way, it's an exceptionally poor showing.  Maybe the worst we've had on this forum yet.  Kudos.

I say it was the result of an intelligent Creator who designed and caused it to occur.

Of course you do.  And that's all you'll ever be able to do - say it and hope that others listen and believe as you do.  But take heart, as P.T. Barnum may or may not have said, there's a sucker born every minute.  But as far as suckers go, you appear to have made an extremely bad pick of venues for that.  Go peddle your wares elsewhere.

[Hydra009]

Not believing in something is presumably a rational reaction to a claim.

It can be, but not necessarily.  Plenty of idiots doubt something that is true and plenty of idiots credulously believe in something that not only isn't true, but doesn't even make logical sense.

The position isn't the most important thing, it's the process.  And sorry, but atheists definitely have the advantage in that department.  Baloney detection kit vs "strong convictions" usually imparted at bended knee.  No contest.

Do you disbelieve in things you never heard of?

As a matter of fact, I do.  And so do you.  And likely everyone or almost everyone if not everyone who has visited this thread.  Have you heard of Xipe?  Var?  Zaria?  Monotheists by definition worship only their god and don't believe in the existence of other gods, including obscure gods they've never heard of.  And atheists just go one god further.

That's why the concept of burden of proof is so important.  Anyone with 5 minutes of spare time can come up with a god (or for the vain and unimaginative among us, claim to be one).  It would be an insanely huge time commitment and require an enormous amount of effort to investigate and debunk each and every claim.  Hence the implicit disbelief stance.

Really I'm doing you a favor I don't get why so many atheists cling to this claim.

Of course you don't get it.  If you got it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  The point of the conceptual exercise is to get theists to realize that theism isn't a default state - it relies heavily on indoctrination to exist.  Obviously, the people behind that exercise didn't take into account that things that theists find to be distasteful are necessarily false.

I don't want to disparage babies because they're cute and adorable...but babies are compared to adults, morons true?

For the most part, they are morons.  And babies don't score very high, either.

You are saying it only takes a moron to be atheist but it requires intelligence to be a theist...is that what you mean to say?

That's one hell of a filter you have there.  The light traveling from me to you must bend back on itself at some point during its journey.

[Drew_2017]

Do I?

You theists sure love your framing devices.  Talk of "happenstance" and "mindless forces" and intent - implying the universe were some sort of cosmic accident - as if a group of quarks got together and had an out-of-control party that ended up creating the universe.

You're more than welcome to offer your counter explanation. Please inform all of us how the universe and the laws of physics came into existence prior to the laws of physics and the existence of nature...yet was due to natural causes that unintentionally caused it?

Its atheists who box themselves into the corner, if you remove intent, then the result is unintended true? If you remove any plan, then you have unplanned events...true? If you remove design as a cause then you have happenstance...true? If something extremely fortunate occurs without any planning or desire for a positive outcome we call that luck...True? I'm sure you'd rather have it framed with some much more sophisticated rather than the truth.

My position, put simply, is that the universe exists and that I have no compelling reason to suppose that some sort of god-being created it or in any way influenced it, as you allege. 

Exactly because you believe unintelligent mechanistic forces without plan intent or a degree in engineering caused the universe by the only means available to such forces...happenstance. In the case of creating humans fortuitous happenstance. I don't hide what I think...I believe a transcendent being of great power and intelligence designed and caused the universe. If we walked out on a beach and saw a message made out of sticks that read I want World Peace Now and I claimed it was caused by an intelligent agent and you disagreed since you ruled out an intelligent agency that only leaves happenstance as the cause.

When asked to substantiate your claim of godly involvement - to show that this entity exists as anything other than a fictional character - you have failed and failed spectacularly. 

Hydra...use your intelligence. You can't be an advocate of a position and also a fair impartial judge of your opponents case. Would it mean anything to you if I told you have failed miserably to support your position? Most atheists only disparage the opposing point of view because in fact they don't really have a better counter explanation. The best you can say is I have no idea how things came about or why the laws of nature that allowed our existence to occur obtained I just know in my gut it wasn't intentionally caused but even then I won't say it was mindless forces and happenstance that did it. I'll say something cute like the universe exists as if that was in dispute.

[Cavebear]

To who ever said (the quotes are getting hard to follow)  "You're more than welcome to offer your counter explanation. Please inform all of us how the universe and the laws of physics came into existence prior to the laws of physics and the existence of nature...yet was due to natural causes that unintentionally caused it?

Its atheists who box themselves into the corner, if you remove intent, then the result is unintended true? If you remove any plan, then you have unplanned events...true? If you remove design as a cause then you have happenstance...true? If something extremely fortunate occurs without any planning or desire for a positive outcome we call that luck...True? I'm sure you'd rather have it framed with some much more sophisticated rather than the truth. "

Laws of physics seem to occur naturally without external causation.  So inserting a deity in the process is merely an extra and unnecessary step.  The interactions of quarks and atoms in both quantum and macro physics just don't need a deity to operate, just as 2 magnets don't need MY presence to attract or repel. 

It is theists who have boxed themselves into a corner.  Every scientific discovery that shows actions working without a deity diminishes their argument for a deity. 

I'll make it simpler.  In ancient times, people assigned the cause of every lightning bolt and flood to a deity.  They have been shown to be wrong.  In medieval times, people assigned plagues and illnesses to be caused by deity.  We now know that was wrong.  In modern times, some people still ascribe bad events to a deity and we know the causes of many of those events.  Every generation, the actions superstitious people assign to a deity are shown to be wrong.  There are some events not yet explained, but the pattern suggests they will be known to be not caused by a deity.

Now for all those silly assumptions you made ending in "true"...

"If you remove intent, then the result is unintended".  Yes
"If you remove any plan, then you have unplanned events".  Yes
"If you remove design as a cause then you have happenstance."  Yes, but...  If you mean "purposeless", no. If you mean random mutations tested in an environment" yes.  Random changes are happenstance, but unbeneficial ones to a particular organism fail and beneficial ones thrive.  A better eye or jaw does not need a deity to continue it, nor is it caused by one.
"f something extremely fortunate occurs without any planning or desire for a positive outcome we call that luck".  Yes, in the sense that "luck" means a random beneficial change.
"I'm sure you'd rather have it framed with some much more sophisticated rather than the truth".  That statement is flawed in construction, but if you mean I would want something other than the truth, you are incorrect.  Blind unintended and undirected natural selection works just fine for me.

[Baruch]

"I'll make it simpler.  In ancient times, people assigned the cause of every lightning bolt and flood to a deity."

Exactly, except we are still in ancient times relative to the wonderful Star Wars future ;-)  Today our gods are Obama, Trump etc not Zeus, Poseidon etc.  We ascribe all event to our all powerful President.  Americans are no more than a band of baboons.  Dangerous, but with a tendency to blind following.

Metaphysically, whether polytheist or monotheist, theism ascribes all ultimate agency to a god or gods.  This is because people don't want to take responsibility for themselves.  What people actually do is ... when things work positively ... I am an uber-mensch .. when thing work negatively .. my deity doesn't love me (if theist) or the damn White males need to be exterminated (if atheist).  Ape shit all the way down.