Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Drew_2017]

HK,

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, boy. The popularity of a belief has no bearing on its truth.

Please stop and think of what you say before saying it. The overwhelming majority of people including some atheists find it coherent. We weren't discussing the truth of theism only it coherency. What counter theory do you propose for the existence of the universe and intelligent life that you find coherent? 

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.

One of the reasons I curtailed my responses to you is because I question if you are 'all there'. Look at any post you want from me I've never denied the possibility we owe our existence to mechanistic naturalistic forces. Yet here you are acting as if you made some secret discovery. I've stated on numerous occasions naturalism is the second runner up. I made a case for naturalism citing lines of evidence like I did in the case for theism. To no one's surprise no one objected to the case I made for naturalism, no one said it wasn't valid evidence that I cited. It was oddly silent. I also stated what facts if they came to light would change my mind.

What I find incomprehensible is your near total faith in what you believe. Your confidence its true far outstrips the available evidence.

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.

You asked and I answered. Don't you remember?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gP5KBek7ULrStudhV4HmuCUTDeZnVc0ym8_3ydsN3jI

[Hakurei Reimu]

HK,

Please stop and think of what you say before saying it. The overwhelming majority of people including some atheists find it coherent.

So what if they find it coherent? Any idea can seem coherent until it shows itself to be incoherent. That's why the argument from popularity is a fallacy.

We weren't discussing the truth of theism only it coherency. What counter theory do you propose for the existence of the universe and intelligent life that you find coherent? 

Well, if we're going down that path, the existence of the universe as forwarded by Stephen Hawking is a coherent one, even though it has shown itself to be likely not the case. As to life, life is chemistry. A chemical complex that acts to increase its own prevalence is going to become common because it self replicates. When you have replicators with imperfect replication and environmental attrition, then you get evolution, and the escalation in complexity that comes with that. Intelligence has obvious survival advantages, and so would be selected for in particular species. There's no point where we suddenly became intelligent. The so-called lower animals have a gradation of intelligent behaviors.

Those are very simplified explanations of coherent ideas.

One of the reasons I curtailed my responses to you is because I question if you are 'all there'. Look at any post you want from me I've never denied the possibility we owe our existence to mechanistic naturalistic forces.

Yet you have also stated in the past that you consider the possibility less likely than that of a god. That is exactly why you try to argue that what you see in the universe is a design â€" that it is far more likely that some intelligent agent brought this into existence rather than happenstance. You are in fact angling for Goddidit, your denials notwithstanding.

Yet here you are acting as if you made some secret discovery. I've stated on numerous occasions naturalism is the second runner up.

And there you prove my point. You think that you are in a position to argue that naturalism is "the second runner up" with no proof at all. Why not neck and neck? Why is naturalism not first? Or leave Goddidit in the dust? By stating such, you are in fact stating that you take Goddidit as the most likely alternative.

I made a case for naturalism citing lines of evidence like I did in the case for theism. To no one's surprise no one objected to the case I made for naturalism, no one said it wasn't valid evidence that I cited. It was oddly silent.

Because I already said what needed to be said. Your "defense" is wrong, and in many ways backwards. They are dressed up forms of old arguments from your predecessors, and just as easily countered.

I also stated what facts if they came to light would change my mind.

I already pointed out how unlikely you are to be confronted with such evidence. Nobody takes seriously a scientific claim unless it passes tests presented it. Not have the potentiality of passing tests they may be presented, but actually passing tests that are presented. That's why, even during the period when String 'Theory' was being worked on, the Standard Model was still king. The Standard Model is a well-developed theory, whereas String Theory was an idea that might have been its replacement.

What I find incomprehensible is your near total faith in what you believe. Your confidence its true far outstrips the available evidence.

Yes, and if you had demonstrated any background into or comprehension of what you would argue about, that accusation might concern me. But, Mr. Dunning-Kruger, you quite obviously don't. You never elaborate what you think the criteria for design is that the universe satisfies â€" you simply assert that it is designed, without showing it. You never elaborate how you think that physical laws come into existence, or how they're created â€" you simply assert that they came into existence by way of a god, without showing how a god could create such things.

You are at least as unable to explain the origin of the natural laws and the universe as I am, only you cover up this ignorance with reference to your god-thing. You are neither the first to pull that trick with us, and you will not be the last.

You have been calling on me to do work for you ever since you started arguing with me. I have refused to support your case because that's your responsibility and yours alone. The absence of such explanations out of you is clear evidence that you do not have anything to back yourself up.

You asked and I answered. Don't you remember?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gP5KBek7ULrStudhV4HmuCUTDeZnVc0ym8_3ydsN3jI

We've been over that. That's not POSITIVE evidence. It still depends on an argument from ignorance. It depends on NOT KNOWING if naturalism is sufficient to explain the universe and life, rather than a specific line of evidence drawn from those facts to specifically a God.

[Drew_2017]

HK,

So what if they find it coherent? [the concept of a creator]

Do you do stand up comedy in your spare time? If only some atheists find it incoherent it means your argument persuades no one except those already convinced of your point of view and not even all them. Your just a horn tooting in the corner and no one is listening.

Any idea can seem coherent until it shows itself to be incoherent.

Any light bulb can seem to on until its shown to be off. I can tell good punchlines too.

Well, if we're going down that path, the existence of the universe as forwarded by Stephen Hawking is a coherent one, even though it has shown itself to be likely not the case.

You got me rolling in the aisle.   

Yet you have also stated in the past that you consider the possibility less likely than that of a god.

I bet you latched right on the that brilliant deduction the moment I said I was a theist.

And there you prove my point. You think that you are in a position to argue that naturalism is "the second runner up" with no proof at all. Why not neck and neck? Why is naturalism not first? Or leave Goddidit in the dust? By stating such, you are in fact stating that you take Goddidit as the most likely alternative.

I proved this point a long time ago before you even posted. I'm sure the fact I'm a theist has something to do with the order I place the theories. At this time with what we know the preponderance of evidence (strictly in my opinion) is in favor of theism. Its nothing I've hidden, try reading the first post or my introduction or even what it says under my name Sherlock.

Obnoxious Theist.

I already pointed out how unlikely you are to be confronted with such evidence.

BS. Any day we might discover completely different life than our own if it exists. The James Webb Space Telescope is coming online in 2018 and I'm sure its going to reveal a great deal. Scientists may have an actual workable theory they can duplicate of how life began. Less likely proof other universes exist or how the universe came into existence.

We've been over that. That's not POSITIVE evidence. It still depends on an argument from ignorance. It depends on NOT KNOWING if naturalism is sufficient to explain the universe and life, rather than a specific line of evidence drawn from those facts to specifically a God.

I'll let impartial undecided people some of whom may be looking at our dialog decide the value of the case I make and the evidence I present. Its a foregone conclusion my adversary doesn't find it persuasive. Neither of us 'know's' the answer to the question Godditit VS Naturedidit' you only pretend to know. 

[Baruch]

Drew ... your reasoning about G-d is "post-facto" ... does that mean anything to you?  It is almost impossible to escape unrecognized fallacy ... but do try harder please.

[Hakurei Reimu]

HK,

Do you do stand up comedy in your spare time? If only some atheists find it incoherent it means your argument persuades no one except those already convinced of your point of view and not even all them. Your just a horn tooting in the corner and no one is listening.

How do you figure that "only some atheists find [your argument for God] incoherent"? Acknowledging the possibility that there could be a god-like being is a long way from acknowledging that any particular argument for that existence is coherent. They are different things. One does not imply the other.

Any light bulb can seem to on until its shown to be off. I can tell good punchlines too.

Keep your day job, sport. People don't have magical "coherent argument" detectors built into them. Euclid's elements, as originally written, is actually logically incoherent â€" it doesn't quite hang together to justify all of its conclusions, and needed additional, hidden assumptions to work. These incoherencies took centuries to be fixed, and out of that realization that Euclid was incomplete as it stood came the development of non-Euclidean geometry.

You got me rolling in the aisle.   

You wanted me to give an example of a coherent argument. Hawking's no-boundary argument is a coherent argument, even if it happens to be wrong. Coherency is not the end all and be all of an argument. It's simply one of the basic requirements for consideration.

I bet you latched right on the that brilliant deduction the moment I said I was a theist.

Saying that you are a theist is different from you saying that you have a good reason to believe in god. Again, one does not imply the other. I've met theists who own up to the fact that they don't have a good reason to believe in god, and is based completely on an emotional experience.

I proved this point a long time ago before you even posted. I'm sure the fact I'm a theist has something to do with the order I place the theories. At this time with what we know the preponderance of evidence (strictly in my opinion) is in favor of theism. Its nothing I've hidden, try reading the first post or my introduction or even what it says under my name Sherlock.

Obnoxious Theist.

Thing is, you tried to pass off your preponderance of evidence as more than just strictly your opinion. You straight out asked us, particularly me, how I could not see the design in nature. I explained that I didn't see any such design that needed explaining, and no real warrant to call it a design. Instead of going, "Ah, well, I guess that's the difference," you instead berated me about not seeing the obvious design, brought out the full arsenal of the theist's argument from design and proceeded to act as if you were seriously arguing the case for design.

Yes, you try to pass it off as "strictly your opinion," but after 87 fucking pages of this thread I have no idea if this is genuine or you just trying to get out of this argument with some of your laughable dignity intact. Your behavior thus far tends to speak against the former.

And yes, "obnoxious theist"... there's no reason to hold to this description 100% of the time, and quite frankly I think it's pathetic for these two words to be end all and be all of your presence here.

BS. Any day we might discover completely different life than our own if it exists. The James Webb Space Telescope is coming online in 2018 and I'm sure its going to reveal a great deal.

The Webb is a little too low resolution to detect any sort of life for certain. At best you'll get spectrographs showing that there might be some life on another planet, but that's it. There's always an out for you; we'll see if you accept the findings or simply plug your ears up.

Scientists may have an actual workable theory they can duplicate of how life began.

Have you changed your tune about the scientits who work on abiogenesis?

Less likely proof other universes exist or how the universe came into existence.

Even less likely, given that interactions between other universes and our own aren't going to be very strong (otherwise, it would be quite obvious that there are).

Like I said before, your position seems safe from serious challenge. I'll be glad to eat my hat if the evidence comes in and you accept it, but I'm not hopeful.

I'll let impartial undecided people some of whom may be looking at our dialog decide the value of the case I make and the evidence I present. Its a foregone conclusion my adversary doesn't find it persuasive. Neither of us 'know's' the answer to the question Godditit VS Naturedidit' you only pretend to know. 

I've already elaborated why Goddidit isn't generally accepted by the scientific community. You can accept that this is why the scientific community and the practice of science in general does not admit such explanation, and thus admit that your conviction has no scientific merit, or not. It's really up to you.

As to my not accepting your argument as a foregone conclusion? Well, if you keep using old, discredited arguments messily dressed up in new clothing, I don't see why anyone should be surprised. If you came with some genuinely new arguments, you might get somewhere, but right now you are just being true to your name, and it is not an admirable trait.

[Cavebear]

MY argument is simply that a requirement for a deity is in error, being that no deity is required for the universe to exist.  Simple undeified atoms work just fine...

[Baruch]

MY argument is simply that a requirement for a deity is in error, being that no deity is required for the universe to exist.  Simple undeified atoms work just fine...

Except for life and consciousness ... you are right.  Bottom up analysis ... is proctology ;-)

[fencerider]

the ass of the universe is pretty big ;)

[fencerider]

If Drew wants to say god did it he has to explain where god is now. dead?

If Harukei Reimu wants to say nature did it HK has to provide evidence... oh wait astronomy and nuclear physics both support what HK is saying.

trying to understand how the Big Bang came out of nothing, and trying to understand how a god came out of nothing are both equally ridiculous. There are still a lot of things about physics and time that science still has to figure out. Maybe there will be an explanation of one or the other someday. But trying to convince people that a god created the universe is a really lame way to get anyone to believe a god exists today.

[SGOS]

where god is now. dead?

Well, that would explain his absence anyway.

[Mike Cl]

Well, that would explain his absence anyway.

Nah--he's on vacation.  Or golfing with Drump.

[Baruch]

Nah--he's on vacation.  Or golfing with Drump.

I like the Japanese version.  In Shinto, the worshipper has to clap loudly to get the attention of the Kami ... because they are very old, so don't hear well ;-)

[Drew_2017]

MY argument is simply that a requirement for a deity is in error, being that no deity is required for the universe to exist.  Simple undeified atoms work just fine...

That kind of reasoning is circular. I could say laptops work just fine no creator/designer needed. I can just show you a laptop and say see works fine and no creator in sight, none inside the laptop...proof atoms arranged like a laptop work just find...

I know that's false in laptops how do I know its not false in a universe that winds up having characteristics to cause humans? I know you won't agree but do you understand why I find your reasoning lacking?

[Drew_2017]

HK,

You wanted me to give an example of a coherent argument. Hawking's no-boundary argument is a coherent argument, even if it happens to be wrong. Coherency is not the end all and be all of an argument. It's simply one of the basic requirements for consideration.

I thought it was humorous the only example of a coherent theory would be one that was wrong...could't you cite an example of one that was right?

Your argument about coherency begs the question. Why should theories particularly about the universe and human existence presumptively caused by mindless irrational forces be coherent in the first place? Why should that not only be a expectation but according to you a requirement? In spite of the under girding principal of naturalism that we owe our existence to happenstance scientists still expect the universe to make sense, use induction and deduction, logic and explain the universe using formula's and math. Why should something created unintentionally by mindless forces by remotely comprehensible?

Thing is, you tried to pass off your preponderance of evidence as more than just strictly your opinion. You straight out asked us, particularly me, how I could not see the design in nature.

Never happened...fake news.

And yes, "obnoxious theist"... there's no reason to hold to this description 100% of the time, and quite frankly I think it's pathetic for these two words to be end all and be all of your presence here.

Its actually in response to Baruch's Freethinking Atheist because I asked many free thinkers if a person can be a freethinker and a theist they all said no. Evidently they can't think that freely.

I'm a reasonable theist, I cited evidence that leads me to my opinion, I'm open to facts and data that suggests otherwise. I've cited evidence against my belief and listed facts that may come to light that would change my opinion. I'm not a religious theist, I don't tie any religious beliefs to my theistic belief. That said I'm not bullied or intimidated by atheist 101 sound bites or silly arguments they never examine closely.

The Webb is a little too low resolution to detect any sort of life for certain. At best you'll get spectrographs showing that there might be some life on another planet, but that's it. There's always an out for you; we'll see if you accept the findings or simply plug your ears up.

I've heard that our own planet gives off unmistakable signs of life that could be detected. There's always an out for atheists like this is one of an infinitude of universes which explains why the right conditions for life obtained. Its a perfect naturalism in the gaps argument.

[Drew_2017]

If Drew wants to say god did it he has to explain where god is now. dead?

Why is that? If I say the pyramids were designed by intelligent beings and use the pyramids as evidence its true do I also have to say where or who those intelligent beings are?

trying to understand how the Big Bang came out of nothing, and trying to understand how a god came out of nothing are both equally ridiculous. There are still a lot of things about physics and time that science still has to figure out. Maybe there will be an explanation of one or the other someday. But trying to convince people that a god created the universe is a really lame way to get anyone to believe a god exists today.

Given the fact of our existence and the existence of the universe is the prime reason why most people are theists many of whom have no other religious beliefs. I know its easy for atheists (many of whom detest and loathe the notion God) to believe we owe our existence to mindless mechanistic forces that didn't care if they existed or we existed by sheer happenstance. They are highly motivated to believe so. Most find that an incredible claim backed by wishful thinking.