Author Topic: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit  (Read 21825 times)

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1275 on: July 13, 2017, 06:39:52 PM »
Yes, being too open minded, and your brain can fall out.  But which interlocutor is which?
« Last Edit: July 15, 2017, 12:43:21 AM by Baruch »
שלום

Online Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1276 on: July 13, 2017, 10:20:56 PM »
Hmmm................but you quoted me.  Wasn't clear that it was directed to Drew--at least to me.

I think Baruch has a Drew fixation...
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

Online Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1277 on: July 13, 2017, 11:06:25 PM »
HK,

Quote
By definition, by definition, by definition. What's the problem? I seriously don't see the problem with the universe being unitended, events being unplanned, and being the result of happenstance. It's not that we think that we can conjure design, intent, plans, etc. from nothing, it's just that their lack is of no consequence. It's not really important for human beings to be the end result of some plan or intent. We're here now and there's no two ways about it. The truly important part is what we do with our existence, not to what we owe our existence.

The person I responded to had a problem with that definition. I give you credit for owning up to what you believe. The reason some atheists prefer not to have it framed as we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend our existence or their own existence and humans are just the accidental by product of the laws of physics is because they realize that's as an extraordinary claim as theism. Secondly they don't want to have to defend that belief because there is scare evidence such did happen or such could happen. I could make the same no evidence charge against that belief as they do at theistic belief.

Philosophically I think it is a big deal. If we owe our existence to mechanistic forces that didn't intend our existence, humans are of no more value than anything else created. If so there is no compelling reason human can't be treated as a commodity after all they weren't intended to exist in the first place. We would live in a amoral world in which there is no real right or wrong.

 

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

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1278 on: July 13, 2017, 11:45:44 PM »
HK,

The person I responded to had a problem with that definition. I give you credit for owning up to what you believe. The reason some atheists prefer not to have it framed as we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend our existence or their own existence and humans are just the accidental by product of the laws of physics is because they realize that's as an extraordinary claim as theism.
[citation needed]

Quote from: Drew_2017
Secondly they don't want to have to defend that belief because there is scare evidence such did happen or such could happen. I could make the same no evidence charge against that belief as they do at theistic belief.
Except you have the additional problem of the theistic belief being incoherent that it's difficult to impossible to even figure out how it could work, let alone how likely it is. Once again, there's a reason why serious cosmologists do not take Goddidit seriously — it has all the trappings of a fantasy story.

Quote from: Drew_2017
Philosophically I think it is a big deal. If we owe our existence to mechanistic forces that didn't intend our existence, humans are of no more value than anything else created. If so there is no compelling reason human can't be treated as a commodity after all they weren't intended to exist in the first place. We would live in a amoral world in which there is no real right or wrong.
I don't see how being externally assigned value like we were a can of chili beans being slapped with a price tag by some snot-nosed clerk solves the issue of being treated like a commodity. There are a lot of god-fearing people who to this day treat others as if they were commodities. Being real doesn't give right and wrong force. Being believed to be so does. Indeed, it's the only force it can have and the only force it needs.

Yᴏᴜ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴛᴏ ʙᴇʟɪᴇᴠᴇ ɪɴ ᴛʜɪɴɢs ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴀʀᴇɴ'ᴛ ᴛʀᴜᴇ. Hᴏᴡ ᴇʟsᴇ ᴄᴀɴ ᴛʜᴇʏ ʙᴇᴄᴏᴍᴇ?
   —Death, Hogfather, Terry Pratchett
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Online Cavebear

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1279 on: July 14, 2017, 02:45:11 AM »

Philosophically I think it is a big deal. If we owe our existence to mechanistic forces that didn't intend our existence, humans are of no more value than anything else created. If so there is no compelling reason human can't be treated as a commodity after all they weren't intended to exist in the first place. We would live in a amoral world in which there is no real right or wrong.

I suspect that is the basis of your confusion and distress, Drew.  You are afraid that humans, and therefore YOU, are no more important in the universe than any other living creature.  Well, you/we aren't!  The universe wouldn't notice if we humans disappeared suddenly next Tuesday, and most of the species on Earth would see an improvement in their lives. 

Sure, the cows and chickens would have a hard time of it, dogs would go feral and most would die as wolves took over.  Most domesticated animals would die off rapidly.  But MOST animals would thrive without us ruining their habitats and harvesting them as food.

Not saying that is a good thing.  I kind of like humans.  But most animals would do better if we weren't here.

A mild example:  WWII kept fishing in the north Atlantic to a minimum.  Fish populations exploded in that short time.  After the war, commercial fishing resumed and populations decreased again...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1280 on: July 14, 2017, 07:04:59 AM »
I think Baruch has a Drew fixation...

My dialog algorithm has a glitch.  Why don't you go up to the higher universe simulation and patch my algorithm?

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

That is what convinced Elon Musk that we are in a Holodeck.  And why he wants to use his megalomania to break out of the running simulation that oppressive aliens created.  So ... the question has to be ... are you really Elon Musk?  If you are, I deserve a free Tesla.  But I don't want a free ride to the Moon courtesy of SpaceX.

Cavebear - you want humanity to die, because you really are a cave bear.  Your kind will survive.  This is why so many posters here love Planet of the Apes movies ... they are CIA crossbreed experiments between humans and chimps.  Transgenics ... such a bright idea ... not!
« Last Edit: July 14, 2017, 07:07:03 AM by Baruch »
שלום

Online Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1281 on: July 14, 2017, 10:12:52 PM »
HK,

Quote
Except you have the additional problem of the theistic belief being incoherent that it's difficult to impossible to even figure out how it could work, let alone how likely it is.

That's not theists problem pal that's your problem. The billions who believe we owe our existence to God have no difficulty. Millions who have never been in church and believe we owe our existence to a Creator don't find it incomprehensible. More over we have a working model of theism in scientists who cause virtual universe to exist using design and engineering. What people find incoherent is the notion our existence came about by lifeless mindless naturalistic forces that didn't intend anything we observe to happen including their own existence. They're are a myriad of exacting conditions necessary for the only kind of life we know to exist and according to your belief they obtained by chance. People (perhaps mistakenly) find that difficult to believe minus the kind of evidence that is available to prove the earth is round.

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

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1282 on: July 15, 2017, 12:05:32 AM »
Theists and atheists like to make life complicated.  It isn't ... get up in the morning, crap/piss, eat ... do your day ... eat, crap/piss and back to bed.  Even a cave man could do it!
שלום

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1283 on: July 15, 2017, 12:36:42 AM »
HK,

That's not theists problem pal that's your problem.
So your idea is incoherent and that's... my problem? What the what?

Quote from: Drew_2017
The billions who believe we owe our existence to God have no difficulty. Millions who have never been in church and believe we owe our existence to a Creator don't find it incomprehensible.
So what if they don't? I'm not interested in the opinions of people who can barely figure out their own taxes. I'm interested in people who can wrestle with the equations of quantum mechanics and general relativity to produce answers. Your millions only have no trouble with it because they've stopped thinking about it, and while they've never been to church, Christianity is so pervasive in our culture that this is not an impediment to absorbing the idea of a creator from it.

You have never displayed any comprehension of the paradoxical morass that you have presented me, questions that philosophers and theologins have had trouble answering for millennia. You do not even acknowledge the known problems with the theistic argument, that theologins have agreed are quite large problems with the argument.

Quote from: Drew_2017
More over we have a working model of theism in scientists who cause virtual universe to exist using design and engineering.
Lies. Your camp has never presented such model. It is simply an assertion. The Standard Model is a proper model. It makes predictions. It forms comprehensive explanations. Yours... doesn't.

Quote from: Drew_2017
What people find incoherent is the notion our existence came about by lifeless mindless naturalistic forces that didn't intend anything we observe to happen including their own existence.
No, you find it unimaginable, not incoherent. I have already pointed out to you the contradictions inherent in the argument when carried to their logical conclusions, and it is those contradictions that make the argument incoherent. My brain refusing to imagine "the notion our existence came about by lifeless mindless naturalistic forces that didn't intend anything we observe to happen including their own existence," does not have any bearing on its coherency.

Quote from: Drew_2017
They're are a myriad of exacting conditions necessary for the only kind of life we know to exist and according to your belief they obtained by chance.
You have not demonstrated that these conditions are "exacting" in any way. You haven't even demonstrated that they may be freely varied the way you are envisioning. You are depending on probabilities that you don't even know how to characterize to save your little argument.

On the other hand, Stephen Hawking's theorized no boundary condition for the initial state of the universe was specific enough to work with, and show that it is not the case. That's actually a good thing, for it means that we can go past Hawking's idea and move on to testing other ideas.

Quote from: Drew_2017
People (perhaps mistakenly) find that difficult to believe minus the kind of evidence that is available to prove the earth is round.
The flat earth has enough definiteness to test and prove it to be wrong (at least absent the ad hoc arguments used to save it from the scrap heap). Your argument is so ill-specified that it's not even wrong. How do you even test your idea? How would you gather evidence that the laws of the universe is not created by a Creator? What kind of predictions does your design argument lead you to?

The lack of ability for your idea be tested is symptomatic of sloppy thinking. It's lazy. You've stopped being curious about the universal design when you determined that it had a design, and did not investigate further to figure out the specifics of that design, and how the choice of laws serve that design, or it even makes sense to say that the universe really has a design. You stopped thinking about the postulates of a universal creation as soon as it lead you to a creator. You did not consider what ramifications those same principles would have on that creator of yours. Otherwise, you would have recognized the conundrum of the infinite divine ladder and would demonstrate that you were at least as capable as those theologans that recognizied the same problem millennia ago.

You are not curious about this at all. You're not really here to discuss anything, but to rehearse your notions as if they had any value. Maybe you should just trot on over to a christian forum where they'll eat up your tripe.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Online Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1284 on: July 15, 2017, 09:56:32 PM »
HK,

Quote
So your idea is incoherent and that's... my problem? What the what?

Your argument theism is incoherent is your problem. Its appears its only persuades atheists and not even all of them find it persuasive. So called weak atheists who don't deny God exists don't find it incoherent. If they did they wouldn't just lack belief they'd disbelieve. To the billions who do believe clearly not incoherent. Your unpersuasive argument is your problem. Try something like facts that mindless naturalistic forces alone could and did cause all we observe. 

Quote
So what if they don't? I'm not interested in the opinions of people who can barely figure out their own taxes.

Who you kidding? They're are very smart people who hire accountants to do their taxes because the rules and regs have become exponentially complex. The masses you refer to are convinced of the majority of scientific theories and discoveries. If the time comes they actually have data, repeatable experiments and facts that support the contention we owe our existence solely to mechanistic forces the masses will be persuaded. They don't and you don't. You have blather...lots and lots of blather.

Quote
Lies. Your camp has never presented such model. It is simply an assertion. The Standard Model is a proper model. It makes predictions. It forms comprehensive explanations. Yours... doesn't.

The intention of the scientists who caused virtual universes to exist is to make predictions about the universe and to see if the figures they used would appear as the universe appears. It wasn't there intention to demonstrate how intelligent beings can cause a universe to exist. I'm sure they would have used the naturalistic method of causing the universe to exist but apparently no one knows how that came about, do you?



 

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

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1285 on: July 16, 2017, 12:36:52 AM »
HK,

Your argument theism is incoherent is your problem. Its appears its only persuades atheists and not even all of them find it persuasive. So called weak atheists who don't deny God exists don't find it incoherent. If they did they wouldn't just lack belief they'd disbelieve. To the billions who do believe clearly not incoherent.
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, boy. The popularity of a belief has no bearing on its truth. Your argument that others "don't find it incoherent" does not dismiss the fact that I have found specific contradictions within it that you (or anyone, really) have done nothing to address. I don't care if all of the earth tells me the sky is green, I see that it's fucking blue.

Quote from: Drew_2017
Your unpersuasive argument is your problem. Try something like facts that mindless naturalistic forces alone could and did cause all we observe. 
The fact that it's improbable and not impossible, even by your standards, proves that it's at least possible. After that, it becomes improbability verses improbability, and I've already done an analysis to destroy your assertion that probability theory gives you any strong advantage.

The nature of the exact origin of the universe and its laws is mysterious, but that doesn't give your version of events any precedent. We also have some ideas, which through some mathematical grit we can characterize well enough to test (as with Hawking's no-boundary idea). Again, the most learned people on the planet are inching ever closer to the final answer, while your camp is stuck in the same rut.

We don't have evidence for "mindless naturalistic forces" creating the universe because we're not there yet and won't be for decades to centuries, but apparently you lot think that you're ready to tackle that problem. So let's have it. What is your POSITIVE evidence for your idea? I'm sure I've asked you this before, but you've remained curiously silent.

Quote from: Drew_2017
Who you kidding? They're are very smart people who hire accountants to do their taxes because the rules and regs have become exponentially complex.
Then you admit that expertise matters! What sort of expertise in cosmology do your billions who believe in a creator have? Even if billions of people believe in this creator of yours, because of their lack of expertise, the acedemic merit of those beliefs is nonexistent. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

Cosmology is exactly the kind of exponentially complex subject where people defer to the experts, like tax law. Yet this is exactly the subject that you fearlessly wade into and make speculations on the nature of the universe, and think those speculations are equal in quality to anything experts in cosmology have come up with, and the fact that those experts don't think anything of your view doesn't concern you in the slightest. Furthermore, you do nothing to get yourself educated on cosmology, instead being satisfied with your easy answer. Arrogant and lazy.

Quote from: Drew_2017
They don't and you don't. You have blather...lots and lots of blather.
The evidence of the existence of your god is at least as lacking as ours. The time to believe in something is when you have evidence for it. You do not have positive evidence for the existence of your god. Your "evidence" is based entirely on the argument from incredulity of the naturalistic case. That is a castle built on sand.

Quote from: Drew_2017
The intention of the scientists who caused virtual universes to exist is to make predictions about the universe and to see if the figures they used would appear as the universe appears. It wasn't there intention to demonstrate how intelligent beings can cause a universe to exist.
You are conflating a computer model with a theoretical model. They are not the same thing. Such computer models are based upon the theoretical model, but it is the theoretical model that predicts and explains. Whatever the computer finally churns out, it is the theoretical model that gets the credit.

You have no theoretical model of your god-creator. You can't even extract from your laughable "theory" how likely it is for your god-creator to exist to make the universe. Again, you're the ones who think you're ready for this, the ones who think that you have that answer. Yet a clear explanation and presentation of evidence remain strangely elusive.

Quote from: Drew_2017
I'm sure they would have used the naturalistic method of causing the universe to exist but apparently no one knows how that came about, do you?
They haven't done creation of any universe at all. Not even in the computer. What exists in the computer is a simulation of a universe, not an actual universe. It has no independent ontology. Power down the computer, and this "universe" vanishes in a puff of bits.

The simulated universe does not solve the conundrum of existence. It simply denies our existence altogether. It still leaves the question of where the damn computer that we would be running on came from in the first place, and what natural laws it follows. There's also still the question of how to test the idea that we live in a simulated universe, etc.

---

The principle reason why we don't have evidence for how "mindless naturalistic forces" create what we see is because we're still in the middle of figuring out what the nature of the universe is and the laws it operates under. I don't know about you, but I think that both would have great relevance to figuring out how they came to be. So, we're not ready to present any case for the natural creation of the universe, even if we have some ideas. I have never pretended that we are ready, and have made specific denials that we are in a position to tackle this puzzle of existence.

You, on the other hand, do think that you're ready to present that explanation. Only, it's clear that you aren't, because that "explanation" of yours boils down to "naturalism doesn't provide an explanation." It's never been any more sophisticated or developed than that lazy, arrogant position. Naturalism doesn't provide an answer because it's not ready for that step. But, again, you think that you are, and you could proceed without us. Problem is that you need positive evidence for that position, and a cogent argument that stands on its own to draw a logical connection from your creator through its design and ending up in a realized universe, with the provisio that it has to be more detailed than, "The creator made a design and then did it."

I don't think you know how to do it because you have a cargo cult understanding of science. I'm not an expert, yet it's clear that you're having your ass handed to you, your denials notwithstanding. An expert in cosmology would have you for lunch.

You are free to your opinion, but it has no academic merit. You may have billions of people who think similarly, but their opinions have no academic merit. A real theory stands on its own support of argument and evidence, so as long as Goddidit is based upon naturalism not having the answer, it will continue to have no academic merit.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1286 on: July 16, 2017, 06:08:08 PM »
Only because I'm not infected with the atheist virus that numbs the mind from critical thinking.
Check, please!  I thought that maybe if I patiently explained everything at a relatively low reading level one final time, I might get through to our semi-functional chatbot/chewboy.  My bad.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2017, 06:12:44 PM by Hydra009 »

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1287 on: July 16, 2017, 07:16:02 PM »
Drew needs to take some lessons from Drich0150 about how to be an arrogant little shit.  He's not very good at it.  Of course, he's not very good at peddling his theism either.

Online Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1288 on: July 17, 2017, 10:52:12 PM »
Check, please!  I thought that maybe if I patiently explained everything at a relatively low reading level one final time, I might get through to our semi-functional chatbot/chewboy.  My bad.

Good idea if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

Online Cavebear

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1289 on: July 18, 2017, 02:53:45 AM »
Well, admittedly, every little stupid shit can't be Drich.  It takes a special form of fanatical blindness to be that talented.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!