Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Drew_2017]

  Useless example.   A laptop is not biological life.

Correct biological life especially sentient life is light years more complex than a laptop. A computer has to be turned on and fed information and a program to do anything. Humans act like nothing else in the universe they act autonomously. Of course it might take natural forces millions of years to accidentally cause a laptop to exist. But if you believe such forces caused a universe and humans to exist you can't deny they might cause a laptop to exist. If you really believe what you say, natural forces did in fact cause a laptop to exist. Natural forces somehow came into existence, caused a universe with the right conditions to cause life which eventually became sentient life which had the intelligence to cause laptops to exist.

[Sorginak]

A computer has to be turned on and fed information and a program to do anything.

Much in the same way theists are indoctrinated. 

[TrueStory]

Of course it might take natural forces millions of years to accidentally cause a laptop to exist.

And you have proof of that?  There should be plenty of evidence considering the age of the earth.

Natural forces somehow came into existence, caused a universe with the right conditions to cause life which eventually became sentient life which had the intelligence to cause laptops to exist.

Exactly.   Adding in any god is an extra step that is not needed.

[Baruch]

I never could make myself like or respect Buddhism.

You were "making" yourself like something?  Like eating peas?

[SGOS]

How do you reason that its less miraculous if naturalistic forces we observe somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence and then without plan or intent caused a universe to exist with the right conditions to cause something unlike itself to exist, life and mind.

A question that has no answer does not support a god.  But you equivocate the existence of God with natural forces and things that exist.  This is an error.  There is a difference between things that can be shown to exist, and those which cannot. These are not things that reside in the same metaphorical ballpark.

[Simon Moon]

Correct biological life especially sentient life is light years more complex than a laptop. A computer has to be turned on and fed information and a program to do anything. Humans act like nothing else in the universe they act autonomously. Of course it might take natural forces millions of years to accidentally cause a laptop to exist. But if you believe such forces caused a universe and humans to exist you can't deny they might cause a laptop to exist. If you really believe what you say, natural forces did in fact cause a laptop to exist. Natural forces somehow came into existence, caused a universe with the right conditions to cause life which eventually became sentient life which had the intelligence to cause laptops to exist.

Sorry, but complexity is not the hallmark of design.

We recognize design by contrasting it to what occurs naturally.

A laptop is obviously designed, because we have endless examples of them being designed. There is endless documentation on their design, we can go to places where they are designed and built, and given the right resources and knowledge, we can even do it ourselves.

We don't have anything like that for the universe and life. All we have are examples of them occurring naturally.

The problem with 'the watchmaker' argument (which is what you are using here), is that, you believe that EVERYTHING is designed, yet you ignore all the things that are obviously naturally occurring, and mention something that is obviously designed to use as an example for your argument.

Fail.

[sdelsolray]

You're only kidding yourself if you think eliminating God eliminates the miracle of our existence. How do you reason that its less miraculous if naturalistic forces we observe somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence and then without plan or intent caused a universe to exist with the right conditions to cause something unlike itself to exist, life and mind. That would be like a blind man driving a car from NJ to CA without getting into an accident. Secondly how do you know God isn't necessary? For a laptop to come into existence is it necessary for intelligence to create and design it or given enough time and chances could naturalistic forces accomplish such? Of course it could of you believe mindless unguided forces can cause the universe, the laws of physics and sentient beings to exist a laptop should be child's play. But even if naturalistic forces could cause a functioning laptop to exist it would still be more miraculous than if intelligent agents caused it.

You continue with PRATTs.

Consider abandoning them (at least temporarily, perhaps permanently) and up your understanding a bit.

I suggest you read a few books by Daniel Dennett.  One concept of his you might actually appreciate is, 'Competence doesn't require comprehension'.

[Baruch]

Dennett?
'Competence doesn't require comprehension'
Sounds like American politicians ... or at least the D variety.

So why not quote some Catholic theologian?  Dennett?  Argument from a different authority?

Simon - very good.  Natural things and man-made things.  Which implies that humans are at best, partly natural.  Otherwise anything that man does, including makes, is by definition, natural.  This is a central conundrum in philosophy .. are humans natural or not?  Per biology, we are evil apes.  Per physics we are clouds of particles.  We see what we see because if all you have is a hammer then ... but there are more than one type of hammer.  As a humanist, I see things as human, not as animal, vegetable or mineral.  A physicist is someone who doesn't know the difference between any of those four things.

[Drew_2017]

How do you reason that its less miraculous if naturalistic forces we observe somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence and then without plan or intent caused a universe to exist with the right conditions to cause something unlike itself to exist, life and mind.

A question that has no answer does not support a god.  But you equivocate the existence of God with natural forces and things that exist.  This is an error.  There is a difference between things that can be shown to exist, and those which cannot. These are not things that reside in the same metaphorical ballpark.

I agree it doesn't support a god. I don't use God in the gaps arguments because they are as fallacious as naturalism in the gaps arguments are. In your case in other posts its worse, you employ assertion of naturalism in the gaps. Including your assertion here that the existence of God cannot be shown to exist. You don't know that. Secondly no one disputes naturalistic forces exist I assume even you concede the naturalistic forces now existing didn't cause themselves to exist. What property of observed naturalistic forces would cause themselves to exist?

There is no real delineation between what is and what isn't a miracle it all relative. Three hundred years ago it would be miraculous to speak to someone on the other side of the world using a device held in your palm. For the sake of argument some phenomenon are more or less miraculous depending on whether intelligence was used. For instance it would be quite miraculous if drift wood washed up on the beach and spelled out distinctly 'Hello world how are you today?'. If it turns out someone caused it, it would just be a hoax. If a 1000 printed circuit boards turn out perfect its not miraculous if it was planned and designed to be that way. That's why our existence if due to unguided naturalistic forces that didn't' give a damn about our existence is more incredible then if we are the result of intent and design.

[Drew_2017]

Correct biological life especially sentient life is light years more complex than a laptop. A computer has to be turned on and fed information and a program to do anything. Humans act like nothing else in the universe they act autonomously. Of course it might take natural forces millions of years to accidentally cause a laptop to exist. But if you believe such forces caused a universe and humans to exist you can't deny they might cause a laptop to exist. If you really believe what you say, natural forces did in fact cause a laptop to exist. Natural forces somehow came into existence, caused a universe with the right conditions to cause life which eventually became sentient life which had the intelligence to cause laptops to exist.

Sorry, but complexity is not the hallmark of design.

We recognize design by contrasting it to what occurs naturally.

If all you knew was that unguided naturalistic forces existed would you predict such forces would eventually cause sentient human beings?

What naturally occurs according to you is sentient human beings. If intelligent humans were caused by naturalistic forces, then ultimately so were laptops. Laptops were caused by naturalistic forces that unintentionally caused humans to exist which subsequently intentionally caused laptops to exist. How can we contrast between the two if in fact they arose from the same source? We would only be contrasting between different directions naturalistic forces took. The grand canyon can be attributed to naturalistic force but so can the pyramids. Unless you now believe humans are gods because they act rationally and autonomously but that would defeat the argument gods don't exist. 

The problem with 'the watchmaker' argument (which is what you are using here), is that, you believe that EVERYTHING is designed, yet you ignore all the things that are obviously naturally occurring, and mention something that is obviously designed to use as an example for your argument.

No my argument is more nuanced than that. I believe there is a difference between direct design and indirect design. For instance the universe operates as it does due to the laws of physics. That's why we have stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies and that's why there is life. I euphemistically use the word unguided natural forces because on a macro level they are very guided by the laws of physics. We only have an example of guided naturalistic forces.

[fencerider]

and what about isotopes? If the universe was created for us why create isotopes that are not used in our bodies? Why create atoms that have no use for us? some of them poisonous, some we would be better off without - like the radio active kind

[Cavebear]

Yeah, like this:

That's the one I remember!

[SGOS]

I agree it [God of the gaps] doesn't support a god.

Then why do you use it?

I don't use God in the gaps arguments

Yes you do.  You present it as logical alternative explanation for existence.  You may not use the words "Goddidit,"  but it's presented as an explanation for existence.  It's the god of the gaps whether it's presented as an ultimate divine truth, as many theists do, or as a theistic hypothesis, as you seem to be doing.

They [gods of the gaps] are as fallacious as naturalism in the gaps arguments are.

Intellectually, you seem to grasp this, but you can't quite turn it into a logical defense.  Gaps in naturalist explanations are not filled in with "naturalism."  They are gaps, nothing more.  They are blots of ignorance.  They are gaps in knowledge.

In your case in other posts its worse, you employ assertion of naturalism in the gaps.

See above.  Part of your equivocation is the assumption that since filling in the gaps with god is what theists do, it must follow that filling in the gaps with naturalism is what atheists do.  Some do, but I'm not going to bother defending an unknown quantity of a gap.  And I'm not going to defend it with the inexplicable vigor that you invest in tearing down what is essentially nothing but an empty hole.

Including your assertion here that the existence of God cannot be shown to exist. You don't know that.

Then show me that he exists.  Don't bother showing me that he might exist.  I already understand this.  I would agree with you.  Show me that he does exist.

Secondly no one disputes naturalistic forces exist I assume even you concede the naturalistic forces now existing didn't cause themselves to exist. What property of observed naturalistic forces would cause themselves to exist?  There is no real delineation between what is and what isn't a miracle it all relative. Three hundred years ago it would be miraculous to speak to someone on the other side of the world using a device held in your palm. For the sake of argument some phenomenon are more or less miraculous depending on whether intelligence was used. For instance it would be quite miraculous if drift wood washed up on the beach and spelled out distinctly 'Hello world how are you today?'. If it turns out someone caused it, it would just be a hoax. If a 1000 printed circuit boards turn out perfect its not miraculous if it was planned and designed to be that way. That's why our existence if due to unguided naturalistic forces that didn't' give a damn about our existence is more incredible then if we are the result of intent and design.

I can't respond to this.  I have no idea what you are going on about.  It's just a morass of assumptions, anecdotes, and hypotheticals.  I hope it's not important to your position.

[Hydra009]

How do you reason that its less miraculous if naturalistic forces we observe somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence and then without plan or intent caused a universe to exist with the right conditions to cause something unlike itself to exist, life and mind.

The idea that natural things somehow "decided" to create themselves is a creationist talking point betraying an intentional stance towards non-living matter, an incorrect and childish misapprehension.  Garbage in, garbage out.

The universe simply consists of simple materials that interact with each other in ways we're often able to predict.

From the accretion of simple materials we get more complex structures - stars and planets forming from gravitationally-bound particles.  On geologically active planets, there's a tremendous amount of chemical activity.  You get polymers (like RNA).  You get amino acids.  You get phospholipid bilayers.  Potentially, you also get extremely simple life.  And due to the cumulative process of evolution, you can also get much more complex life over vast amounts of time.

And yes, we live in a universe that can support life (on a very small rock).  Obviously, if the situation were otherwise, we wouldn't be around to talk about it.

[Cavebear]

The idea that natural things somehow "decided" to create themselves is a creationist talking point betraying an intentional stance towards non-living matter, an incorrect and childish misapprehension.  Garbage in, garbage out.

The universe simply consists of simple materials that interact with each other in ways we're often able to predict.

From the accretion of simple materials we get more complex structures - stars and planets forming from gravitationally-bound particles.  On geologically active planets, there's a tremendous amount of chemical activity.  You get polymers (like RNA).  You get amino acids.  You get phospholipid bilayers.  Potentially, you also get extremely simple life.  And due the cumulative process of evolution, you can also get much more complex life over vast amounts of time.

And yes, we live in a universe that can support life (on a very small rock).  Obviously, if the situation were otherwise, we wouldn't be around to talk about it.

If the Earth wasn't the Earth, we wold not exist, or be very different.