Author Topic: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit  (Read 10557 times)

Offline doorknob

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2017, 02:07:18 PM »
Evidence is simply facts that comport with a belief. Acceptable evidence has to have probative value meaning it makes a belief more likely than not. The belief among theists is that a transcendent personal agent caused the universe to exist. Exhibit 1 is the existence of the universe. However those who believe the universe was caused by mechanistic forces also cite the existence of the universe as evidence it was caused by natural forces.

Both sides cite facts then argue how that fact supports there belief while attacking their opponents arguments. I argue the existence of the universe better supports the theistic premise over the naturalistic premise. There is no model or theory of how naturalistic forces we are familiar with caused naturalistic forces to exist. Instead there is theory about how something known as a singularity (that somehow came into existence) suddenly turned into the universe dominated by laws of physics. We can't point to any laws of physics that caused the universe to exist because those laws didn't exist until the universe did. The singularity itself is described as a phenomenon in which the known laws of physics don't apply.

The contention of theists is that a transcendent being intentionally caused the universe to exist. It is fact the universe exists and there is no naturalistic explanation for how the universe came into existence. The belief there is no evidence to support theism is false. I have cited six lines of evidence in support of theism. You can argue those facts don't support belief in theism but that doesn't negate those facts are evidence.

So your basically saying that because science doesn't have all the answers god must have done it. Also how are naturalistic explanations evidence for god? It is not. That's just you claiming it is. You must not understand what evidence is. The universes existence is not evidence for a supreme being. It's evidence that something happened. We don't yet know what happened but you don't get to say god did it just because we don't yet know. That's not how science works.


Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2017, 02:40:36 PM »
Quote
author=sdelsolray link=topic=11330.msg1167527#msg1167527 date=1487610052]
Yes, please provide us with competent evidence if you claim your God wrote these writings.  I could use a good circular reasoning argument today.

I make no such claim.

Quote
Study false equivalence.  That should answer your questions.

I looked up what false equivalence. What argument do you make to assert this is a case of false equivalence?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2017, 03:03:16 PM »
Well I think we don't know what happens inside ultra-dense objects, or even inside stars, all that well .... aside from black holes and cosmic singularities.  Science is usually predictive ... and that implies you can take the current situation and run it forward or backward.  Extrapolation in either direction bites.  One can imagine that this universe is a bubble inside a large universe, where the universe was created by some being, as an experiment, in some laboratory.  But don't you think that is far fetched?  By just avoid over extrapolation.  There is plenty we don't understand without going full retard in cause/effect.
שלום

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2017, 03:33:32 PM »
Quote
author=doorknob link=topic=11330.msg1167538#msg1167538 date=1487617638]
So your basically saying that because science doesn't have all the answers god must have done it.

No, that's basically what you are saying on my behalf. I'm saying there is no naturalistic model that accounts for how the universe or the laws of physics came into existence therefore the claim its naturalistic forces 'all the way down' isn't a fact its merely a belief and there is no evidence to support that belief. If the theory the universe came into existence from a singularity is true, it refutes the belief its naturalistic forces all the way down. 

Quote
Also how are naturalistic explanations evidence for god?

I don't cite naturalistic explanations as evidence of God. I argue that the laws of physics we have observed is better evidence of a Creator than unguided naturalistic forces. We don't have planets, solar systems stars and galaxies because the universe exists, we have these things because there are laws of physics that caused these things to occur. I contend this is by design not happenstance. If there were no laws of physics* there would be no stars or planets or life. Moreover not just any set of laws will produce planets stars and life. The force of gravity alone has a narrow band in which to cause stars and planets to exist. 

*can you think of any reason there has to be laws of physics?

Quote
It is not. That's just you claiming it is. You must not understand what evidence is.

I think you conflate evidence with proof. Evidence are facts that comport with a belief. For instance the fact Lee Harvey Oswald owned a rifle is evidence (not proof) he killed JFK. It is evidence because its a fact JFK was killed by a rifle shot. However, to prove Oswald killed JFK a lot more evidence besides just owning a rifle is needed. 

Quote
The universes existence is not evidence for a supreme being. It's evidence that something happened. We don't yet know what happened but you don't get to say god did it just because we don't yet know. That's not how science works.

I don't say God did it because we don't know how the universe and the laws of physics came into existence. That's you making a bogus argument on my behalf.  I will say that the laws of physics we are familiar with didn't cause the universe or the laws of physics we are familiar with to exist. The belief its natural forces all the way down is just a belief. 
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2017, 03:50:27 PM »
Well I think we don't know what happens inside ultra-dense objects, or even inside stars, all that well .... aside from black holes and cosmic singularities.  Science is usually predictive ... and that implies you can take the current situation and run it forward or backward.  Extrapolation in either direction bites.  One can imagine that this universe is a bubble inside a large universe, where the universe was created by some being, as an experiment, in some laboratory.  But don't you think that is far fetched?  By just avoid over extrapolation.  There is plenty we don't understand without going full retard in cause/effect.

I mostly concur. Our existence and the existence of universe is a giant mystery. We seek clues from what we do know in an attempt to infer what we don't know. The existence of black holes was first a mathematical probability. Later we inferred there existence not by direct observation but by the effect of gravity on stars. When first proposed black holes probably sounded like retarded science fantasy garbage.

Look at it this way, if I said the USA didn't land on the moon you could provide an overwhelming preponderance of evidence in favor of the claim we did land on the moon. The claim we didn't land on the moon could be relegated to a preposterous absurd baseless claim of a lunatic and justifiably so because of the hard facts you could provide. In the case of Goddidit VS Naturedidit there is no overwhelming preponderance of evidence that makes the opposing claim absurd.

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

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2017, 04:16:21 PM »
I make no such claim.
...
Then why did you respond to Sorginak's post as follows?

Sorginak:  "As an atheist, so long as real evidence is provided I can easily admit that a god exists."

You:  "Or whether any writing ascribed to God is actually from God as well."

...
I looked up what false equivalence. What argument do you make to assert this is a case of false equivalence?

Your false equivalence is your attempt to equate the evidence for Goddidit with the evidence for natural explanations.  The evidence is not equivalent at all.  Once you realize this your two questions are easily answered:

You:  "[W]hy is the belief Goddidit often held in ridicule as being absurd and preposterous?"

Answer:  Because such a belief is based solely on religious faith and is usually traceable to childhood religious indoctrination and related peer pressure.  It is typically devoid of rational thought.

You:  "Wouldn't that only be true if there was overwhelming evidence in favor of naturalistic causes?"

Answer:  In part yes, in part no.

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2017, 04:41:48 PM »
In Biblical terms ... in Jesus' words ... no, people, including religious people, wouldn't believe.  And per Paul, belief is only possible with what is not seen.  But in both cases, the speakers are being tricky with words.  You will not see the G-d you expect, if you are looking with a closed mind.  Religious and non-religious have closed minds.  And if a deity did appear, it would be not the god that the religious expect, and that god would be identified as the Devil, as was Socrates and Jesus.
This is an argument/statement I've heard all my life.  This is stated better than most, but it boils down to----there is a god, but a closed mind will never see him, nor even if he were to appear, he'd not be recognized as such--maybe even thought the devil.  I know there is a god and you should too! 

And I have to admit, that is about as good an argument one can offer for god.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2017, 04:52:47 PM »
Fungus,

He wrote:

Quote
Whether that god is still worth worshiping, however, is a different matter.

I wrote,

Or whether any writing ascribed to God is actually from God as well

I was actually agreeing with him, we don't know whether any writing ascribed to God is from God or whether any God is worth worshiping.


Quote
Your false equivalence is your attempt to equate the evidence for Goddidit with the evidence for natural explanations.  The evidence is not equivalent at all.  Once you realize this your two questions are easily answered:

I agree its not equivalent. I'm a theist because I believe the scales of available evidence is tipped in favor of theism. First understand my belief in theism isn't a belief in a deity that is personally going around causing things to happen in the universe. I believe a personal agent caused the universe and the laws of physics and let the laws of physics cause stars, planets solar systems and life to occur. Sir Isaac Newton didn't believe God was going around personally maintaining the universe and causing things to happen. He believed the universe was knowable, could be deduced by mathematics and reverse engineered because he believed the laws of physics were caused by an intelligent designer.

Before we lose site of it what I'm getting at is this. The existence of the universe and the existence of sentient life regardless of how you think such came about is an extraordinary event. It shouldn't be surprising an extraordinary explanation is forth coming. I argue the explanation that naturalistic forces without plan or intent to cause themselves to exist then proceeded to cause something unlike itself to exist life and mind without any plan or intent to do so is just if not more fantastic then the claim God caused the universe and the laws of physics to exist.   

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

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2017, 05:48:12 PM »
"The belief its natural forces all the way down is just a belief." ... but rationalists can't admit that.  They have to reject both philosophy and theology (metaphysics) in favor of physics.  But as you point out, physics only deals with observable post-Big Bang phenomena .... that and the dogma of Uniformitarianism ... that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and at all times (at least since the Big Bang) or at least outside of Black Holes.  But this is a claim "to far".  We have very little data on the interior of stars or ultra dense objects, and none at all of the inside of a Black Hole or the earliest part of the Big Bang ... nor are we every likely to, from observations made at least from within the Solar System, in any conceivable historical time.

If you know GR well, then you know that a meter isn't a meter and a second isn't a second, except in the immediate vicinity of a given clock/ruler.  Not just because of moving frames of reference, but because of gravity.  So if Uniformitarianism is true, it is nuanced.  That and these "variations" led us correctly to believe that matter can be changed to energy and vice versa (because non-Euclidean 4D geometry).  If you really want to know if a meter is the same here as it is nearer the giant Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way, then one has to journey there.  It may be rational, it may be probable ... but it is unproven.  This is what has led to the missing Dark Matter and Dark Energy that vexes modern cosmology.  But then cosmology has never been an experimental science ... unless we can become trans-dimensional mice ;-)
שלום

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2017, 05:51:45 PM »
This is an argument/statement I've heard all my life.  This is stated better than most, but it boils down to----there is a god, but a closed mind will never see him, nor even if he were to appear, he'd not be recognized as such--maybe even thought the devil.  I know there is a god and you should too! 

And I have to admit, that is about as good an argument one can offer for god.

i was making a point, not stating my personal view.  All minds are closed more or less.  Can we at least extol each other to open our minds further?  Maybe if we do, then when actual alien life (not G-d) shows up, maybe we don't have to have a collective freak out.  In fact, religious fundamentalism is a freak out, going on now for over 100 years, in reaction to the fantastic progress of modernism.  And even I oppose some aspects (bioethics) of modernism.  We monkey folk have way too much power and not enough wisdom.

I am modern enough to not freak out if aliens arrived here (seen enough SciFi) ... but I know enough to not accept any cookbooks ;-(  There are people who uncritically accept the new (chips in people, electronic money), just as there are those who reject anything beyond simple village life of 100 years ago.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 05:53:46 PM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline doorknob

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2017, 05:54:48 PM »
No, that's basically what you are saying on my behalf. I'm saying there is no naturalistic model that accounts for how the universe or the laws of physics came into existence therefore the claim its naturalistic forces 'all the way down' isn't a fact its merely a belief and there is no evidence to support that belief. If the theory the universe came into existence from a singularity is true, it refutes the belief its naturalistic forces all the way down. 

No that was my interpretation of what you said. Now I know you're full of shit!You're just making claims now with nothing backing you up! And naturalistic explanations are a fact! Naturalistic explanations are based on evidence. The claim that god did has nothing backing it!


I don't cite naturalistic explanations as evidence of God. I argue that the laws of physics we have observed is better evidence of a Creator than unguided naturalistic forces. We don't have planets, solar systems stars and galaxies because the universe exists, we have these things because there are laws of physics that caused these things to occur. I contend this is by design not happenstance. If there were no laws of physics* there would be no stars or planets or life. Moreover not just any set of laws will produce planets stars and life. The force of gravity alone has a narrow band in which to cause stars and planets to exist. 

LOL what? Physics are naturalistic evidence! And physics in no way supports the idea that a god did it. And you basically just said " I contend this is by design not happenstance." Well with all your contention you still have no evidence to support your claim. And you can't claim to know what would or wouldn't exist with out the laws of physics. There is no place that exists like that. In other words we can't observe it. So your claim is unsubstantiated.


*can you think of any reason there has to be laws of physics?

Oh no you've got me there! Yeah there's plenty of reasons for the laws of physics. That's just how the universe we live in works. I repeate physics are a part of naturalistic evidence.



I think you conflate evidence with proof. Evidence are facts that comport with a belief. For instance the fact Lee Harvey Oswald owned a rifle is evidence (not proof) he killed JFK. It is evidence because its a fact JFK was killed by a rifle shot. However, to prove Oswald killed JFK a lot more evidence besides just owning a rifle is needed. 

you don't even know what you're talking about any more do you? Evidence are facts. Period! Belief has nothing to do with evidence.

And no kidding the fact that Oswald owns a riffle doesn't prove he killed JFK! No kidding you need more evidence to make that conclusion. That's why we have court systems to examine any evidence and then draw a conclusion.


I don't say God did it because we don't know how the universe and the laws of physics came into existence. That's you making a bogus argument on my behalf.  I will say that the laws of physics we are familiar with didn't cause the universe or the laws of physics we are familiar with to exist. The belief its natural forces all the way down is just a belief.

Uh no. That's not how things work. Beliefs are just beliefs they don't depend on evidence or facts. Naturalistic explanations ARE based on facts! They aren't a belief any more. They are facts.  Nice try though.

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2017, 07:23:27 PM »
Quote
author=Baruch link=topic=11330.msg1167563#msg1167563 date=1487630892]
"The belief its natural forces all the way down is just a belief." ... but rationalists can't admit that.  They have to reject both philosophy and theology (metaphysics) in favor of physics.  But as you point out, physics only deals with observable post-Big Bang phenomena .... that and the dogma of Uniformitarianism ...

Just as hard core atheists can't admit there is evidence (facts) that comport with theism. If they did they would have to admit there is an intellectually justified basis to believe theism is true. I don't deny they're are facts that support belief in naturalism, I don't impugn naturalism or atheists...I just think they're mistaken.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2017, 07:59:05 PM »
Quote
No that was my interpretation of what you said. Now I know you're full of shit!

You're a little slow most atheists think I'm full of shit as soon as I say I believe in theism...

Quote
LOL what? Physics are naturalistic evidence! And physics in no way supports the idea that a god did it. And you basically just said " I contend this is by design not happenstance." Well with all your contention you still have no evidence to support your claim. And you can't claim to know what would or wouldn't exist with out the laws of physics. There is no place that exists like that. In other words we can't observe it. So your claim is unsubstantiated.

We can't observe it but it can be simulated.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10

Suppose some day the scientists who created this virtual universe caused sentient beings to exist on a planet somewhere and they had the same discussion we are having. Would you still say its natural forces all the way down?

I make the contention its by design because of the myriad of conditions in a narrow range of parameters which allows for the existence of humans to exist. 

Quote
you don't even know what you're talking about any more do you? Evidence are facts. Period! Belief has nothing to do with evidence.

I believe we had this discussion before and you're just as mistaken now as you were then. Evidence is facts. Given enough facts you come to conclude Oswald did kill the president but it doesn't become a fact he killed the president. It may achieve to be a belief beyond reasonable doubt. Facts themselves are beliefs held to be true unless some new evidence usurps it. On the other hand truth is whats actually true whether anyone believes it, no one believes it or whether any facts support it.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2017, 08:07:20 PM »




Before we lose site of it what I'm getting at is this. The existence of the universe and the existence of sentient life regardless of how you think such came about is an extraordinary event. It shouldn't be surprising an extraordinary explanation is forth coming. 
I was not going to reply to you any more since you drone on and on about your nonsense.  But this illustrates well how I think differently than you.  Life is not an extraordinary event.  It is to be expected; the when, where, how and shape it exactly takes is in question; not the if.  I will illustrate with rain.  Every day Earth has rain and has for millions (billions??) of years.  It is not extraordinary.  It is expected as part of the system of weather on Earth.  But the individual rain drop is another matter.  That first rain drop that hits me on the head when I go out to my car is extraordinary beyond words--and almost math.  Of all the rain drops that have fallen on the Earth from that storm, on Earth that day, or all the storms of history, for that one particular rain drop to hit me on the head is trillions, billions of trillions to one (or even more odds than that).  On the other hand, it is a certainty that if I walk out into a rain storm I will be hit by drops of rain.  The conditions on Earth is such that rain happens.  When and where is not known; which exact drops will fall is not known--but the rain will fall.  Rain is not extraordinary--it is totally ordinary and a product of the system.  The individual rain drops are extraordinary in the extreme when taken one at a time.  That is how I view this existence of this universe.  Life happens because it is the ordinary product of this universe.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2017, 09:29:23 PM »
Quote
I was not going to reply to you any more since you drone on and on about your nonsense.  But this illustrates well how I think differently than you.  Life is not an extraordinary event.  It is to be expected; the when, where, how and shape it exactly takes is in question; not the if.  I will illustrate with rain.  Every day Earth has rain and has for millions (billions??) of years.  It is not extraordinary.  It is expected as part of the system of weather on Earth.  But the individual rain drop is another matter.  That first rain drop that hits me on the head when I go out to my car is extraordinary beyond words--and almost math.  Of all the rain drops that have fallen on the Earth from that storm, on Earth that day, or all the storms of history, for that one particular rain drop to hit me on the head is trillions, billions of trillions to one (or even more odds than that).  On the other hand, it is a certainty that if I walk out into a rain storm I will be hit by drops of rain.  The conditions on Earth is such that rain happens.  When and where is not known; which exact drops will fall is not known--but the rain will fall.  Rain is not extraordinary--it is totally ordinary and a product of the system.  The individual rain drops are extraordinary in the extreme when taken one at a time.  That is how I view this existence of this universe.  Life happens because it is the ordinary product of this universe.

Imagine that people in a discussion board droning on...

It does illustrate a difference in our thinking and perception. In one sense particularly since I live in the NW of the USA I come to expect rain as a nearly daily event and nothing miraculous about it. The fact the odds of an individual rain drop landing on me is astronomically low means little because the odds that some raindrops will land on me when out in the rain is a 100%. That's looking at it from the street level. Looking at it from the viewpoint of our solar system not only is our solar system unique our planet is very unique as well. Nonetheless it appears there are as many planets as stars and somewhere they're are bound to be earth like planets. As far as we know only earth like planets can support life. Its not the planetary conditions that are daunting its the universal conditions that are formidable. A scientist and author Sir Martin Rees has written several books including Just Six Numbers and Our Cosmic habitat. In the book Just Six Numbers he makes the case why he believes this is one of an infinitude of universes. Because he doesn't believe the universe was created by design and because he knows how astonishingly narrow the six numbers are the only naturalistic way out of this problem is for there to be a infinitude of universes all with different characteristics. However he also devoted a chapter to discussing the possibility we owe our existence to a Creator and I thought he actually made a pretty good case.

There are two discoveries we might make in our life time that would alter the balance of the theist atheist debate in my mind. If solid evidence this is one of many universes is discovered or if life under truly different circumstances is found on some other planet I would probably become very agnostic or even go to the dark side...

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