Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Mr.Obvious]

Yeah, after all, I doubt anyone thinks Sir Sean Connery is exactly a genius - though a pretty good actor.

He's a genius.
At acting.
Seriously though, he's my favorite actor.

[Unbeliever]

I like his movie Medicine Man the best of them all.

[Drew_2017]

FenceRider,

It seems like Drew has been trying to break the ice in this whole thread by trying to get people to admit that sentience is can be considered proof of god or that the universe appears to have intelligent design. I suppose Drew was planning to pile on other evidence after getting through with the first one. This one aint workin Drew. maybe you should try presenting another kind of evidence. You're not gonna break any ice by arguing intelligent design or sentience. Don't forget that if you can prove intelligent design you would only be providing evidence of a creator. ... neither the existence of a creator nor the existence of an evil being provides proof of the existence of a god

I have listed 6 facts that comport with belief in theism on several occasions. I also listed 5 facts that support naturalism for comparison and no one seemed to object or have a problem with them in fact I think most agreed with them. They deny the six facts in favor of theism are evidence. The fact is no reasonable impartial person would deny admitting the 6 facts I listed as evidence. They may say its weak evidence or insufficient but they wouldn't say its not evidence. The belief there isn't one single fact that supports theism is absurd. No naturalist would list the existence of sentient humans as evidence we owe our existence to lifeless, mindless naturalistic forces that didn't give a crap on a hot day if life existed, if sentience existed or planets or galaxies existed. No naturalist or atheist is going to site the fact we live in a universe that only by the narrowest of margins allows for stars, planets and galaxies as evidence we owe our existence to unguided forces through sheer happenstance. There is ample reason for people to suspect and believe we owe our existence to a transcendent personal agent commonly referred to as God. Don't bother asking me how God came about I have no idea my opinion extends only to how the universe and sentient humans came about. I'm not seeking the answer to everything. Its ridiculous and in the long run detrimental to the cause of atheism to denigrate 85% of the population as people as know nothings who believe in the existence of a Creator only because they were brainwashed and indoctrinated by their parents and not because there are facts that are better explained by purposeful intent then by happenstance.

I'm aware of the strengths and weaknesses of both positions. I've even listed 3 things that if they occurred would alter my position. As far as I can fathom anything short of the personage of God appearing and manifesting some undeniable miraculous feat no other fact suffices. I don't know if continuing never ending monologue of evidence denial is a strategy or such an ingrained belief that no one on this board in the opposing camp can bring themselves to admit there is evidence (facts) that support theism. My first post...

This is the real crux of the matter and it seems to me there is a serious aversion among atheists and naturalists to the notion Goddidit. What if years down the road insurmountable evidence comes forth that in fact Goddidit. Are peoples teeth going to turn blue? Will there be rioting in the streets? Will the stock market crash and people's underwear explode? Will scientists run around in circles and pull their hair out? On the other hand if there is conclusive evidence Naturedidit it wouldn't be the end of the world for me. After all if God didn't do it then its the only game in town.

Most responded it would be no big deal. Yet they fight tooth and nail to deny there is a shred of evidence in favor of theism. Also when pressed most admit they don't know how the universe came into existence and they won't say atheism or naturalism is a fact.

[Baruch]

Axioms ... the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees, except when it ain't.  Our hosts are pretty Euclidean, square in fact ;-)

[Drew_2017]

I AM DONE WITH YOU SIR! You have restated the same simple-minded assertion, over and over and over. I have wasted a lot of time, explaining to you why this assertion is unsupported, by the facts you offer as "evidence." And yet you're back again, insisting that your non-squitur leap-of-faith, is valid.

I used to work in a very large stable, but your posts contain far more horseshit, than I am willing to shovel. You are an imbecile. Our conversation is over.

Just as well your mind is closed...

[Cavebear]

FenceRider,

Most responded it would be no big deal. Yet they fight tooth and nail to deny there is a shred of evidence in favor of theism. Also when pressed most admit they don't know how the universe came into existence and they won't say atheism or naturalism is a fact.

If you have a shred of evidence, I'd like to hear it...

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Just as well your mind is closed...

In my experience, if Solomon has decided he's done with you, you've done fucked up.

[Drew_2017]

If you have a shred of evidence, I'd like to hear it...

You've already heard it numerous times. 

[Baruch]

You've already heard it numerous times.

Life isn't a court room ... but denial of the validity of evidence presented in court ... is a standard legal tactic.  And for atheists, is the primary one.  I understand why they do it ... epistemological prejudice is what led them to atheism in many cases.  Carl Sagan is god!, all down down and worship The Carl.  So I have an Amen?

[Mike Cl]

You've already heard it numerous times.

So far all you have provided this forum is blowveiated hot air and simple opinion. 

[Solomon Zorn]

Life isn't a court room ... but denial of the validity of evidence presented in court ... is a standard legal tactic.  And for atheists, is the primary one.  I understand why they do it ... epistemological prejudice is what led them to atheism in many cases.  Carl Sagan is god!, all down down and worship The Carl.  So I have an Amen?

Baruch, are you actually going to sit here, and imply that I have overlooked some value, in what Drew posted?

[Baruch]

Baruch, are you actually going to sit here, and imply that I have overlooked some value, in what Drew posted?

You are over interpreting me ... not over interpreting Drew.  He was pretty much done, the first week.  I am trying to exhaust Etienne as hard as I can ;-))

[Solomon Zorn]

You are over interpreting me ... not over interpreting Drew.  He was pretty much done, the first week.  I am trying to exhaust Etienne as hard as I can ;-))

Thanks for clarifying. And good luck with that.

[fencerider]

I went back to the beginning and read it all again to find the six pieces of evidence of the existence of god presented by Drew. I wasnt finding any so I stopped at pg11

Drew started out by saying we were talking about a god or nature creating the universe then switched to saying he was only talking about a creator not the existence of a god. I think Drew caused some confusion with that switch...

On the bottom of the first page Drew says he has presented 6 pieces of evidence of a creator's existence, but there aren't any pieces of evidence in the OP. Maybe you presented evidence in another thread but you didn't start by presenting any evidence in this thread. You added them one piece at a time.

Drew - The laws of physics are evidence of a creator.
unproven assertion not fact

Then Drew starts using the words god and creator interchangable but still arguing that he is only talking about a creator not a god.

Drew - If we found life under vastly different conditions on another planet, we would have proof that a god doesn't exist.
haha I wish that was true but that is also an unproven assertion not a fact

Drew - If we could create a theistic computer model that accurately represents the universe, then the model could be used as proof of a creator
leap of faith

Drew - The universe is too complicated to not be made by intelligent design
personal belief and unproven assertion

Drew - Suppose the universe didn't exist yet I hypothetically said I believe in the existence of God and that God caused a universe to exist. You'd say there is no universe or any evidence (facts) that support your claim. Your claim there is no evidence in favor of God existing would actually be true, but the universe does exist! The universe not existing would favor your claim more than the fact it does exist. If the universe didn't exist you wouldn't have to explain how natural forces came into existence. The fact it does exist favors the theistic claim.
amazingly illogical... I guess saying that the universe existing is proof of a creator fits under the category of personal belief.

Drew doesn't believe that the universe, and stars, and sentient life can be the result of natural causes. Somehow this translates into proof of god.

[Cavebear]

I went back to the beginning and read it all again to find the six pieces of evidence of the existence of god presented by Drew. I wasnt finding any so I stopped at pg11

Drew started out by saying we were talking about a god or nature creating the universe then switched to saying he was only talking about a creator not the existence of a god. I think Drew caused some confusion with that switch...

On the bottom of the first page Drew says he has presented 6 pieces of evidence of a creator's existence, but there aren't any pieces of evidence in the OP. Maybe you presented evidence in another thread but you didn't start by presenting any evidence in this thread. You added them one piece at a time.

Drew - The laws of physics are evidence of a creator.
unproven assertion not fact

Then Drew starts using the words god and creator interchangable but still arguing that he is only talking about a creator not a god.

Drew - If we found life under vastly different conditions on another planet, we would have proof that a god doesn't exist.
haha I wish that was true but that is also an unproven assertion not a fact

Drew - If we could create a theistic computer model that accurately represents the universe, then the model could be used as proof of a creator
leap of faith

Drew - The universe is too complicated to not be made by intelligent design
personal belief and unproven assertion

Drew - Suppose the universe didn't exist yet I hypothetically said I believe in the existence of God and that God caused a universe to exist. You'd say there is no universe or any evidence (facts) that support your claim. Your claim there is no evidence in favor of God existing would actually be true, but the universe does exist! The universe not existing would favor your claim more than the fact it does exist. If the universe didn't exist you wouldn't have to explain how natural forces came into existence. The fact it does exist favors the theistic claim.
amazingly illogical I guess saying that the universe existing is proof of a creator fits under the category of personal belief.

Drew doesn't believe that the universe, and stars, and sentient life can be the result of natural causes. Somehow this translates into proof of god.

My experience is that most theists can't provide evidence to support their claims, when they try to do, it is usually biblical (which isn't evidence), and then they get angry and say we atheists are all going to hell.