Author Topic: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit  (Read 28437 times)

Offline doorknob

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #30 on: February 20, 2017, 09:43:37 PM »

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.


evidence:
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

See I think you are confused because belief is in the definition.

How ever if you read it carefully you will see that evidence IS the facts or information, (Indicating) (now follow along here "Indicating" is a verb,I hope I don't need to explain the English language to you.)  whether a belief is true or not. 

So you see evidence is what proves a belief and not the belief its self.


It seems like you don't fully understand the definitions of the words you are using.


Also facts are not beliefs. Once something becomes a fact it's no longer a belief.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2017, 09:49:32 PM by doorknob »

Offline aitm

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #31 on: February 20, 2017, 09:53:31 PM »
As far as we know only earth like planets can support life.

eh.....a little presumptuous don't ya think? i mean...LIFE....as we know it, is not LIFE as the universe may know it. Grab yerself son, we may not be  ALL that is according to US. It may very well turn out that giant gas balls as Sagan suggested are the "end all" of "life". You elevate yourself based on a superstition among a "minor" life form on an insignificant speck of dust on a forgotten spittle of nothing. But you have that god thing going for you....where a god promises shit for those who believe with the same percentage of "luck" that cattle have crossing a river filler with crocodiles.....well boo-hah for you.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2017, 10:49:32 PM »
Quote
author=doorknob link=topic=11330.msg1167576#msg1167576 date=1487645017]

evidence:
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

See I think you are confused because belief is in the definition.

I think we're splitting hairs on this issue. When enough facts in favor of a belief reach a certain critical mass the belief itself becomes accepted as fact and can be used in support of other beliefs. As it concerns the Goddidit Vs Naturedidit neither belief has reached a critical mass where it can be said either is a fact. If you claim naturedidit is a fact...you are going to dig a hole you can't climb out of. I won't get in that hole, theism is a belief not a fact. Its what I think is true...I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. The second or third perhaps...

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

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #33 on: February 20, 2017, 10:53:16 PM »
eh.....a little presumptuous don't ya think? i mean...LIFE....as we know it, is not LIFE as the universe may know it. Grab yerself son, we may not be  ALL that is according to US. It may very well turn out that giant gas balls as Sagan suggested are the "end all" of "life". You elevate yourself based on a superstition among a "minor" life form on an insignificant speck of dust on a forgotten spittle of nothing. But you have that god thing going for you....where a god promises shit for those who believe with the same percentage of "luck" that cattle have crossing a river filler with crocodiles.....well boo-hah for you.

Its not presumptuous to state a fact. Why do you think scientists are seeking earth like planets to search for life?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #34 on: February 20, 2017, 10:56:45 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.

You need to stop claiming there are no models that support a naturalistic cause for the universe, Drew. In another one of your threads you made a similar claim, and I posted a link to M Theory. It is a model for the naturalistic origin for our universe. There are other naturalistic models to explain the Big Bang. I also posted a link a new model that if correct means our universe had no beginning. According to that model our universe has always been here. Here is another one of the needs no cause models.

Quote
In the late 1990s, observations of type Ia supernovae led to the astounding discovery that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. The explanation of this anomalous acceleration has been one of the great problems in physics since that discovery. We propose cosmological models that can simply and elegantly explain the cosmic acceleration via the geometric structure of the spacetime continuum, without introducing a cosmological constant into the standard Einstein field equation, negating the necessity for the existence of dark energy. In this geometry, the three fundamental physical dimensions length, time, and mass are related in new kind of relativity. There are four conspicuous features of these models: 1) the speed of light and the gravitational constant are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe, 2) time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity, 3) the spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere, and 4) in the process of evolution, the universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration. One of these models is selected and tested against current cosmological observations, and is found to fit the redshift- luminosity distance data quite well.

So please stop saying there are no naturalistic models to explain our universe because there are. Now that you've been told that at least twice now the next time you make that claim you are going to be lying,

                                               
 
Moderator Message:
 
 
and if you continue to insist on lying there are going to be consequences.
 
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #35 on: February 20, 2017, 11:21:38 PM »
You need to stop claiming there are no models that support a naturalistic cause for the universe, Drew. In another one of your threads you made a similar claim, and I posted a link to M Theory. It is a model for the naturalistic origin for our universe. There are other naturalistic models to explain the Big Bang. I also posted a link a new model that if correct means our universe had no beginning. According to that model our universe has always been here. Here is another one of the needs no cause models.

So please stop saying there are no naturalistic models to explain our universe because there are. Now that you've been told that at least twice now the next time you make that claim you are going to be lying,

                                               
 
Moderator Message:
 
 
and if you continue to insist on lying there are going to be consequences.
 


I stand corrected there are other naturalistic models proposed. I cited one myself, the multiverse model. How well either of these models hold up (it wouldn't be the first time the big bang model has been disputed) remains to be seen. 
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2017, 12:24:08 AM »
Baruch - to measure physics inside a blackhole someone would have to go there

If someone went to a black hole maybe they would get those answers, but none if the rest of us would get to enjoy the information gathered there.


Drew - some day humans could simulate a universe and that would make them the creator of that universe

Humans may simulate a universe inside a computer. Sure we could call them the god of that universe. But there isn't any backwards compatible corollary. It doesn't create any kind of proof of what happened in our universe


not sure how JFK got into the thread but many different sources say that JFK and the senator were shot from 3 different angles. Probably 3 possibly 4 different shooters. Apparently some one was afraid of a miss. They wanted to make sure the job got done.


As our understanding of life on this planet increases, so does the possibility of life on other planets. 150 years ago scientists said it was impossible for anything to live on edge of a volcano. But we've found that life since then. They also said nothing could live on the rocks in the sub zero temperature if the artic and they found it there too.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2017, 03:22:13 AM by fencerider »
not expecting god to show up, but if he does we’re going to have to beat the prick up.

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2017, 01:40:13 AM »
Quote
Drew - some day humans could simulate a universe and that would make them the creator of that universe

Humans may simulate a universe inside a computer. Sure we could call them the god of that universe. But there isn't any backwards compatible corollary. It doesn't create any kind of proof of what happened in our universe

If somehow you know there isn't any backward compatibility that means we can put this whole debate to rest. Uh exactly how do you know there is no backward compatibility? How do you know its not a working model of the theistic premise?




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

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #38 on: February 21, 2017, 02:43:21 AM »
If you are observing simularities between a human created computer simulation and the real universe, you may create a hypothesis. But a hypothesis is not proof until proven. Hence, no backward compatible corollary.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2017, 03:18:47 AM by fencerider »
not expecting god to show up, but if he does we’re going to have to beat the prick up.

Offline SGOS

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #39 on: February 21, 2017, 04:31:21 AM »
How do you know its not a working model of the theistic premise?
Are you saying there is one, or there COULD be one?

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #40 on: February 21, 2017, 06:18:10 AM »
If somehow you know there isn't any backward compatibility that means we can put this whole debate to rest. Uh exactly how do you know there is no backward compatibility? How do you know its not a working model of the theistic premise?

A working model of a theistic premise, would be a metaphor, and these people don't accept metaphors (unless they are Pythagorean).  We will all chant the Pythagorean hymn now ... as rendered by he Count of Sesame Street ... One atheist, two atheists ...

"JFK and the senator" ... JFK and the governor of Texas ;-)
« Last Edit: February 21, 2017, 06:21:35 AM by Baruch »
שלום

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #41 on: February 21, 2017, 10:26:24 AM »
If I am understanding the argument presented in the last couple pages correctly, the basic premise is:If humans can create a computer simulation of the universe with god in it, that could be used as proof of a god in the real universe. That would be a leap of faith, not logic.
not expecting god to show up, but if he does we’re going to have to beat the prick up.

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #42 on: February 21, 2017, 11:40:40 AM »
If I am understanding the argument presented in the last couple pages correctly, the basic premise is:If humans can create a computer simulation of the universe with god in it, that could be used as proof of a god in the real universe. That would be a leap of faith, not logic.

It's a variation on the watchmaker assertion.  Humans can make a watch, therefore my god made the universe.  Because A caused B therefore C caused D.  Quite fallacious.

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #43 on: February 21, 2017, 12:12:32 PM »
Quote
You need to stop claiming there are no models that support a naturalistic cause for the universe, Drew. In another one of your threads you made a similar claim, and I posted a link to M Theory. It is a model for the naturalistic origin for our universe. There are other naturalistic models to explain the Big Bang. I also posted a link a new model that if correct means our universe had no beginning. According to that model our universe has always been here. Here is another one of the needs no cause models.

I looked further into the alternative model you cited...

(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.


Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp


It appears this alternative model was created because 'the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.'

I thought this would be a problem if it were false that the universe came into existence from a singularity not because the laws of physics break down at the singularity and math can't explain that. Its actually kind of odd that some scientists think the universe should explain itself mathematically. After all its not like the universe was created by a group of scientific engineers right? It was created by naturalistic forces that frankly don't give a rats ass if it can be explained mathematically.

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

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #44 on: February 21, 2017, 12:21:20 PM »
If I am understanding the argument presented in the last couple pages correctly, the basic premise is:If humans can create a computer simulation of the universe with god in it, that could be used as proof of a god in the real universe. That would be a leap of faith, not logic.

Not sure where you got the god in it...I never said that.

The notion that the universe could have been caused and designed by a transcendent agent known as God is typically held in derision by naturalists and atheists alike. Granted as of yet scientists can't create a real universe but they can create a virtual universe. We can trace back the existence of a virtual universe to intelligent designers. This amounts to a working model of theism which believes we can trace the existence of the universe back to a transcendent creator. I'm sure the folks who designed and created virtual universes didn't intent it to be the theistic model of how the universe came into existence...
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0