Author Topic: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit  (Read 23777 times)

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #360 on: March 20, 2017, 05:07:09 PM »
1. People who speak of things they don't know ... are bloviating
2. Judges and attorneys bloviate a lot too.

Unless you were there, standing next to G-d, when G-d started the Big Bang in his mad scientist lab ... then you have nothing.  Naturalists who claim to know what happened before the 3.5K radiation ... are also bloviating.  We don't know.

Neither side of this discussion was there or knows anything for sure although one side of the debate often acts as if they know for a fact we owe our existence to naturalistic unguided forces. How could they mock and ridicule an opposing idea if they weren't positive it wasn't true and there point of view is true? However if the only way to win a case or convict a criminal was to have eyewitness or video evidence the % of convictions would diminish. This topic Godidit Vs Naturedidit is a circumstantial evidence as opposed to direct evidence case for both sides. 

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

The following examples illustrate the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence: If John testifies that he saw Tom raise a gun and fire it at Ann and that Ann then fell to the ground, John's testimony is direct evidence that Tom shot Ann. If the jury believes John's testimony, then it must conclude that Tom did in fact shoot Ann. If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann. The jury must determine whether John's testimony is credible.


The lines of evidence I listed for theism and naturalism are all circumstantial evidence. One has to infer to tie the fact to the opinion. I didn't post this thread with any delusions I would convince the resident atheist-naturalists of my point of view. My best hope was that some would at least consider they're are reasons so many otherwise normal intelligent folks believe we owe our existence to a Creator and not sheer happenstance. I can't even get the resident atheists to agree the facts I listed in favor of naturalism are evidence because then I could ask why the facts I listed in favor of theism aren't evidence (in there eyes only).

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

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

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #361 on: March 20, 2017, 05:59:06 PM »
Some people only accept epistemology, when it works for them, and not when it doesn't.  If the evidence is against you, deny the evidence.  If the evidence is for you, accept that evidence.  So isn't this kind of pointless, without empirical facts?  We don't know where the physical universe came from ... and I am fine with that.  Occam's razor says ... assume as little as possible ... theistic explanation is always more complicated than natural explanation.  As long as your evidence is denied, Drew ... and Occam's razor is applied, you aren't getting anywhere.  I accept purely psychological evidence ... because even empirical evidence has to be interpreted by a human psyche to have any meaning.  Without people assigning meaning ... there is none.  For some, that is reason to deny humanity ... that there is no meaning from nature, and that if humans want to apply meaning, they are just stupid apes.  For me, that is reason to take empirical evidence with a pinch of salt, and rationalism with a salt lick ... humans are primary to me, not "inferred" atoms of Democritus, that aren't even "uncuttable".  When the philosophers fail, they apply New Speak.  When the physicists fail, they apply philosophy.
שלום

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #362 on: March 20, 2017, 10:43:12 PM »
Some people only accept epistemology, when it works for them, and not when it doesn't.  If the evidence is against you, deny the evidence.  If the evidence is for you, accept that evidence.  So isn't this kind of pointless, without empirical facts?  We don't know where the physical universe came from ... and I am fine with that.  Occam's razor says ... assume as little as possible ... theistic explanation is always more complicated than natural explanation.  As long as your evidence is denied, Drew ... and Occam's razor is applied, you aren't getting anywhere.  I accept purely psychological evidence ... because even empirical evidence has to be interpreted by a human psyche to have any meaning.  Without people assigning meaning ... there is none.  For some, that is reason to deny humanity ... that there is no meaning from nature, and that if humans want to apply meaning, they are just stupid apes.  For me, that is reason to take empirical evidence with a pinch of salt, and rationalism with a salt lick ... humans are primary to me, not "inferred" atoms of Democritus, that aren't even "uncuttable".  When the philosophers fail, they apply New Speak.  When the physicists fail, they apply philosophy.

It is pointless if I think I can change the minds of the loyal opposition. They run a kangaroo court where they get to argue a side, act as judge in deciding what is evidence, then act as an impartial jury when they render a verdict as if there is any doubt how that will turn out. You think about it this is primarily an atheist site why aren't they snowballing me with facts and evidence that makes their case air tight?   

I forgot to add Occam's Razor to my recipe for discrediting a belief!

Occam's razor suggests we not multiply entities beyond necessity. Conversely we should be just as careful not to delete entities below necessity just to make it 'simpler'. The simplest explanation for the existence of a laptop is it popped into existence uncaused out of nothing. That is a simpler explanation but hardly satisfying.The fact it takes engineers and designers to create a laptop is more complicated but then so is a laptop. A universe is so complicated that even the finest minds, technology and computers are barely able to cope making a virtual universe which is only a copy of the real universe. 

I'm also a theist for some of the reasons you mention the whole human experience of love, of sacrifice honor. Unlike all of existence which seems to only mindlessly react we as sentient beings can act. Some man today put his own safety at risk and pulled two woman out of a burning car. But if hard cold facts like the existence of the universe and sentient life don't even amount to evidence my subjective feelings aren't going to mean anything.

The saying is if you have the facts in a case you argue the facts if you don't have facts you argue smoke and mirrors. Ironically, they can make a case from facts, I gave them a good case to start with but they prefer to argue smoke and mirrors because they refuse to admit there is a case to be made for and there are facts that favor theism. I don't understand what atheist-naturalists gain by marginalizing anyone who disagrees with them as people who might just as well believe the earth is flat. All it does is rally the base it doesn't convince anyone God doesn't exist and we are the unintended by product of natural forces.         
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #363 on: March 20, 2017, 11:13:02 PM »
Not trying to send you away, but why do you persist on this one subject for say ... the last month.  We are both theists, though perhaps not for the same reasons.  You want to blame the Big Bang on G-d, I just want to blame G-d.  I could care less about inferred fantasies about the Big Bang.  It is not an experimental subject ... the 3.5K radiation is an observational subject, so it isn't totally worthless as evidence, but what can be inferred from it, is not empirical, it is rational, but so is the Ontological Argument for G-d.  If we are going to stop "infinite regression" at some point, I am fine stopping it at the 3.5K radiation, that leaves almost the entire known universe.  I would be fine stopping particle physics at the LHC (after its next upgrade).  Big Science is done, along with the totalitarian civilization that promotes it.  Star Trek, Star Wars etc are fascist fantasies, like Iron Sky.
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #364 on: March 21, 2017, 04:02:19 AM »
Unless you were there, standing next to G-d, when G-d started the Big Bang in his mad scientist lab ... then you have nothing.  Naturalists who claim to know what happened before the 3.5K radiation ... are also bloviating.  We don't know.

You assume there is a deity that started things.  There is no evidence for that.  All else from your argument fails.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #365 on: March 21, 2017, 06:46:02 AM »
You assume there is a deity that started things.  There is no evidence for that.  All else from your argument fails.

No ... you misread me (cumulatively).   That is Drew's position.  I don't accept ancient Greek hippy fantasies ... the guys who were justifiably persecuted by the theist Greek majority ... like Plato.  I don't believe in a creator ... so I am not a deist either.  Believing in a creator, is just a common form of believing bullshit about the past.  If you weren't there when it happened, you don't know anything.  But apemen must bloviate.
שלום

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #366 on: March 21, 2017, 10:49:54 AM »
Not trying to send you away, but why do you persist on this one subject for say ... the last month.  We are both theists, though perhaps not for the same reasons.  You want to blame the Big Bang on G-d, I just want to blame G-d.  I could care less about inferred fantasies about the Big Bang.  It is not an experimental subject ... the 3.5K radiation is an observational subject, so it isn't totally worthless as evidence, but what can be inferred from it, is not empirical, it is rational, but so is the Ontological Argument for G-d.  If we are going to stop "infinite regression" at some point, I am fine stopping it at the 3.5K radiation, that leaves almost the entire known universe.  I would be fine stopping particle physics at the LHC (after its next upgrade).  Big Science is done, along with the totalitarian civilization that promotes it.  Star Trek, Star Wars etc are fascist fantasies, like Iron Sky.

I was about to wrap it up but got a few more interesting replies. Its a profound mystery to me how atheist-naturalists continually deny there is any evidence, any fact, any reason whatsoever to support the belief we owe our existence to a Creator. At this point do they just continue to say that or do they actually believe it? Yet at the same time I haven't heard anyone say the evidence I listed in favor of naturalism isn't evidence. I heard many comment on another thread how religious people are irrational yet they act just as irrational when they continue to deny there is any evidence. They ask for evidence only to reject any evidence. I'd much prefer to debate this issue before impartial undecided people. I think the no evidence tact would go over like a lead balloon. 
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 #367 on: March 21, 2017, 10:52:26 AM »
You assume there is a deity that started things.  There is no evidence for that.  All else from your argument fails.

You assume we owe our existence to naturalistic forces...there is no evidence for that. All other naturalistic arguments (even the ones I made) fail. I've decided to join the no evidence crowd...due to peer pressure.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Offline Sorginak

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #368 on: March 21, 2017, 11:46:02 AM »
Its a profound mystery to me how atheist-naturalists continually deny there is any evidence, any fact, any reason whatsoever to support the belief we owe our existence to a Creator.

If there was evidence for the existence of a creator, there would be no need for theistic Faith.

That people do not believe in a creator should be reasonably informative enough to convey the fact that theistic Faith is not evidence of a creator. 

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #369 on: March 21, 2017, 12:36:01 PM »
If there was evidence for the existence of a creator, there would be no need for theistic Faith.

That people do not believe in a creator should be reasonably informative enough to convey the fact that theistic Faith is not evidence of a creator.

Faith in naturalism isn't evidence we owe our existence to naturalistic forces and since there is no evidence naturalistic forces could or did cause the universe and life naturalism is strictly a faith proposition.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Offline Sorginak

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #370 on: March 21, 2017, 05:23:00 PM »
At this point you are just a broken record.

Science has evidence at its disposal to prove that life came into existence via a particular order, which has absolutely nothing to do with a creator.  You can ignore science all you want for your faith-based delusion, but in the end science is more credible than a ridiculous magical sky daddy claim. 

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #371 on: March 21, 2017, 06:37:52 PM »
If there was evidence for the existence of a creator, there would be no need for theistic Faith.

That people do not believe in a creator should be reasonably informative enough to convey the fact that theistic Faith is not evidence of a creator.

If there was evidence for the existence of American Exceptionalism, there would be no need for patriotism ;-)
שלום

Offline Sorginak

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #372 on: March 21, 2017, 07:07:53 PM »
If there was evidence for the existence of American Exceptionalism, there would be no need for patriotism ;-)

I agree.  I may be a legal American, but I am not one conscientiously.

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #373 on: March 21, 2017, 10:54:37 PM »
At this point you are just a broken record.

Science has evidence at its disposal to prove that life came into existence via a particular order, which has absolutely nothing to do with a creator.  You can ignore science all you want for your faith-based delusion, but in the end science is more credible than a ridiculous magical sky daddy claim.
No one denies science is more credible this is false equivocation. Its not a scientific fact that unguided naturalistic forces could cause a universe to exist or did cause a universe to exist. Its not a scientific fact time always existed, its not a scientifically established fact its naturalistic forces all the way down. These are just beliefs...if you could offer some evidence I might change my mind and believe 'Naturedaddydidit' with no brains no planning or intent to do it. Natural forces just bootstrapped themselves into existence. But that is so much more credible...

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

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

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #374 on: March 21, 2017, 11:55:17 PM »
Yes, it is a belief.  They cannot prove or demonstrate it ... nobody knows what happened in the early universe, they only suppose.  They do rationally extrapolate back in time, to a small fraction of a second of the Big Bang, because of particle physics.  To presuppose a Creator, is to irrationally extrapolate back in time.  But that is like extrapolating from a folded newspaper boat to a giant ship.  Their belief is rational, but they also deny it is a belief.  You agree that they are rational, but in denial.  I deny both rationality and belief, I cast ridicule upon extrapolation back in time.  If you can't demonstrate something, here and now, you have nothing.  There is nothing to believe and nothing to rationalize.  The Big Bang itself, cannot be demonstrated .. though they always hope that super science will prove them right, eventually.  Like the ugly girl who thinks every year, she will be invited to the Prom ;-)  It will never happen, physics knows now, to have ultimate knowledge ... infinite power is required.  This is unobtainable, forever.  Seeing before the 3.5 K radiation is also probably impossible, the constitution of the universe at that time was uniformly chaotic.  If a naturalist moves far enough, he becomes a theist and vice versa.
שלום