Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[PopeyesPappy]

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

(Phys.org) â€"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 afterâ€"not at or beforeâ€"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 afterâ€"not at or beforeâ€"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.

Drew, I don't believe in any of the models. I do believe that most of the people that understand this shit a lot better than I do think Big Bang theory as modified by inflation is the model of the development of our universe that best describes the current observations. I also believe (with a much lower level of confidence) that majority of those same people think M theory (one of the multiverse models) is also the best supported model for the origins of the Big Bang. Some are better supported than others. I've linked a few of the more recent ones. I have not claimed they are correct.

I'm only trying to get you to stop saying there are no naturalistic models for the origin of our universe in support of your argument because there are several of them. 

[Baruch]

"don't give a rats ass if it can be explained mathematically" ... yes Gaia isn't subordinate to Pythagoras or other ape men.

There is a subtle questionable shift in your argument.  In geometry, we assume the Euclidean axioms, and go from there.  But those axioms are in the same class as the theorems derived from them.  A transcendent thing and an immanent thing, are not in the same class.  It is like using Euclidean axioms to define what good cooking is.  What is that fallacy called? (asking for volunteers).

[fencerider]

I see that I did misunderstand. You were making a comparison, not providing proof.

Models can be useful, as long as we know how accurate they are. I dont think that any model should be neccessary to explain god, unless you think there was a creator that died and can no longer show his/her face.

[SGOS]

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.

It sure comes out sounding that way, but the underlying problem held in derision is an assertion without evidence, be it gods, junior high science fair exhibits, or aliens from another dimension.

[Drew_2017]

Drew, I don't believe in any of the models. I do believe that most of the people that understand this shit a lot better than I do think Big Bang theory as modified by inflation is the model of the development of our universe that best describes the current observations. I also believe (with a much lower level of confidence) that majority of those same people think M theory (one of the multiverse models) is also the best supported model for the origins of the Big Bang. Some are better supported than others. I've linked a few of the more recent ones. I have not claimed they are correct.

I'm only trying to get you to stop saying there are no naturalistic models for the origin of our universe in support of your argument because there are several of them.

Fair enough...

[Drew_2017]

"don't give a rats ass if it can be explained mathematically" ... yes Gaia isn't subordinate to Pythagoras or other ape men.

There is a subtle questionable shift in your argument.  In geometry, we assume the Euclidean axioms, and go from there.  But those axioms are in the same class as the theorems derived from them.  A transcendent thing and an immanent thing, are not in the same class.  It is like using Euclidean axioms to define what good cooking is.  What is that fallacy called? (asking for volunteers).

I'm expounding upon my arguments in an hap hazard manner. Its not terribly surprising that the universe has laws of physics, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms. Its surprising that scientists expect it to be that way and demand it be that way if it isn't. If I told you I believe the universe was caused by mindless naturalistic forces I'd expect to find a universe in which no laws, logic, deduction or induction applies. Why would I expect otherwise? When we listen to radio waves the universe produces we don't expect to find a message in it or be able to decode it or find mathematical formulas. We expect it to be babble and that's what we get.   

[doorknob]

I'm expounding upon my arguments in an hap hazard manner. Its not terribly surprising that the universe has laws of physics, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms. Its surprising that scientists expect it to be that way and demand it be that way if it isn't. If I told you I believe the universe was caused by mindless naturalistic forces I'd expect to find a universe in which no laws, logic, deduction or induction applies. Why would I expect otherwise? When we listen to radio waves the universe produces we don't expect to find a message in it or be able to decode it or find mathematical formulas. We expect it to be babble and that's what we get.

That's your expectation! That's not science that's just an assumption you're making. Actually when listening to radio waves from the universe we don't have expectations that is why we are listening. We are looking and learning as we go. When you limit your self like that you can not learn. You already have the answers and you think you know so you're ready to stop looking for them.

Glad you are not a scientist or we would never advance!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drew_2017]

I'm expounding upon my arguments in an hap hazard manner. Its not terribly surprising that the universe has laws of physics, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms. Its surprising that scientists expect it to be that way and demand it be that way if it isn't. If I told you I believe the universe was caused by mindless naturalistic forces I'd expect to find a universe in which no laws, logic, deduction or induction applies. Why would I expect otherwise? When we listen to radio waves the universe produces we don't expect to find a message in it or be able to decode it or find mathematical formulas. We expect it to be babble and that's what we get.

That's your expectation! That's not science that's just an assumption you're making. Actually when listening to radio waves from the universe we don't have expectations that is why we are listening. We are looking and learning as we go. When you limit your self like that you can not learn. You already have the answers and you think you know so you're ready to stop looking for them.

Its an expectation based on personal observation. If I drop a package of 200 toothpicks from 10 feet I expect to see a randomly tossed pile of toothpicks. I can only expect them not to operate outside of the laws of physics, not create a design or spell words or spit out mathematical formulas. I don't believe the old adage that if I spill it enough times it will create a paragraph with some intelligent message. If as you say we owe our existence to unguided forces minus any plan, intelligence or intent then we have no expectation to find such forces carefully controlled by the laws of physics doing great and wonderful things like causing life and intelligence to exist. No one would say to themselves I think the universe was caused by lifeless mindless forces therefor I expect to find life and sentience to arise in the universe. If its shocking to think it was caused by an intelligent designer how much more incredible it happened minus any plan or intent to do so.

Look, I'm not going to change your mind and probably no other atheist-naturalist on this board. What I resent is the notion that not only is theism wrong but its absurd and irrational to consider it a baseless claim with no evidence in its favor. . I asked you to say if you thought Naturedidit is a fact...you declined. So even you don't think there is enough evidence to declare naturedidit a fact. There have been thousands of false beliefs previously held that science and knowledge have shown us otherwise. Most people want to know the truth about something even if it goes against a previous belief. If the day comes science or knowledge shows a strong preponderance of evidence in favor of naturalism most people will come to believe that. For instance very few people think the universe is 6000 years old. 

[Baruch]

"to a large extent predictable" ... hardly ... know turbulence and chaos theory?  Predictability only exists in toy situations, and in mathematical simulations (in floating point numbers) even the toy situation rapidly goes awry.  The majority of matter in the universe is chaotic ... aka probabilistic in ordinary terms, and in QM, probabilistic in tiny terms.  BTW - in Monte Carlo analysis, one can use those many toothpicks thrown at random, to approximate the value of Pi.  Things are random, but not too random ;-)  Pseudo-random.  Keep your clockwork universe to simple clocks ... where Newton can follow it.  Humans circumscribe things, to force predictability ... it doesn't happen on its own.  That is how we got accurate clocks .. not by randomly putting parts together, but we put human intelligence into the situation, to get the outcome desired ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlQcCenLchU

the full movie is on YouTube, if you want real Newtonian science!

Same thing as human music (early part of movie) ... we like what we like, because of how our inner ear works, and how the mathematics of waves works ... it takes both, not just math.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecrf8KhVcyo

Of course with EM theory, and relativistic speed, even this science is ... questionable.  Extrapolation always bites.

[doorknob]

I'm expounding upon my arguments in an hap hazard manner. Its not terribly surprising that the universe has laws of physics, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms. Its surprising that scientists expect it to be that way and demand it be that way if it isn't. If I told you I believe the universe was caused by mindless naturalistic forces I'd expect to find a universe in which no laws, logic, deduction or induction applies. Why would I expect otherwise? When we listen to radio waves the universe produces we don't expect to find a message in it or be able to decode it or find mathematical formulas. We expect it to be babble and that's what we get.

Its an expectation based on personal observation. If I drop a package of 200 toothpicks from 10 feet I expect to see a randomly tossed pile of toothpicks. I can only expect them not to operate outside of the laws of physics, not create a design or spell words or spit out mathematical formulas. I don't believe the old adage that if I spill it enough times it will create a paragraph with some intelligent message. If as you say we owe our existence to unguided forces minus any plan, intelligence or intent then we have no expectation to find such forces carefully controlled by the laws of physics doing great and wonderful things like causing life and intelligence to exist. No one would say to themselves I think the universe was caused by lifeless mindless forces therefor I expect to find life and sentience to arise in the universe. If its shocking to think it was caused by an intelligent designer how much more incredible it happened minus any plan or intent to do so.

Look, I'm not going to change your mind and probably no other atheist-naturalist on this board. What I resent is the notion that not only is theism wrong but its absurd and irrational to consider it a baseless claim with no evidence in its favor. . I asked you to say if you thought Naturedidit is a fact...you declined. So even you don't think there is enough evidence to declare naturedidit a fact. There have been thousands of false beliefs previously held that science and knowledge have shown us otherwise. Most people want to know the truth about something even if it goes against a previous belief. If the day comes science or knowledge shows a strong preponderance of evidence in favor of naturalism most people will come to believe that. For instance very few people think the universe is 6000 years old.

pg 1 "I think most here would have no problem believing in god if there actually was evidence to support that belief！it's funny when religious people fail to acknowledge the mountains of naturalistic evidence that nature did indeed do it. And then they think there's evidence of god when there's actually none."

Direct quote from myself on page one. I declined nothing!

"What I resent is the notion that not only is theism wrong but its absurd and irrational to consider it a baseless claim with no evidence in its favor. . I asked you to say if you thought Naturedidit is a fact...you declined. So even you don't think there is enough evidence to declare naturedidit a fact."

That's a riot! Naturalism a baseless claim? Did you understand nothing I've been saying this entire time? Naturalism is not like theism! Theism is a claim based on religious beliefs AKA fiction. Naturalism is based on scientific facts. Can scientific facts change? Sure we're always learning new things, But that doesn't make the theistic explanation any less ridiculous than the claim that Santa clause deposits 10$ in my bank account each night is! Both are irrational and wishful thinking. Naturalism is backed by science as science only uses naturalistic explanations.

When you can show me scientific evidence that a god even might exist I wouldn't ridicule your belief quite as much. You'd still have to sell me on it but I'd at the very least take it more seriously.

[Drew_2017]

author=doorknob link=topic=11330.msg1167733#msg1167733 date=1487729023]
pg 1 "I think most here would have no problem believing in god if there actually was evidence to support that belief！it's funny when religious people fail to acknowledge the mountains of naturalistic evidence that nature did indeed do it. And then they think there's evidence of god when there's actually none."

Direct quote from myself on page one. I declined nothing!

Perhaps we're just talking past each other. If by naturalism you mean there is a 'ton' of evidence that natural forces cause earthquakes, planets to form, stars to explode and so forth we have no disagreement. I'm happy to stipulate all phenomena and action inside the universe can be traced to natural causes (I'm not actually 100% that's true but I'm willing to stipulate). I'll also explain why that ton of evidence doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

The premise is that all phenomena thus far has been traced back to a natural cause which in turn was caused by a natural cause and so forth. From this mountain of evidence we should infer that its natural causes all the way down. They're are competing models but big bang cosmology is still the dominant model. In that model the universe and the laws of physics began to exist. If true, it couldn't have been the kind of natural forces that caused the universe and the laws of physics. The laws of physics are naturalism!

The other nuance of this premise is that if things can be explained completely by an appeal to the laws of physics (no God needed) it means it was caused unintentionally by naturalistic forces. Its not true! We can explain how laptops function and work from top to bottom by naturalistic causes. And no matter how close we examine the laptops we don't see any mysterious creator in there making it function. Therefore we can conclude that laptops came into existence by naturalistic forces that never intended a laptop to exist.   

That's a riot! Naturalism a baseless claim? Did you understand nothing I've been saying this entire time? Naturalism is not like theism! Theism is a claim based on religious beliefs AKA fiction. Naturalism is based on scientific facts. Can scientific facts change? Sure we're always learning new things, But that doesn't make the theistic explanation any less ridiculous than the claim that Santa clause deposits 10$ in my bank account each night is! Both are irrational and wishful thinking. Naturalism is backed by science as science only uses naturalistic explanations.

I'm afraid you wasted your righteous indignation. I didn't say naturalism is a baseless claim. I wrote What I resent is the notion that not only is theism wrong but its absurd and irrational to consider it a baseless claim with no evidence in its favor.
You seem to think that belief in theism means no belief in naturalism. I believe in theism as Isaac Newton did, that God caused the universe and the laws of physics and let the laws do the work.

When you can show me scientific evidence that a god even might exist I wouldn't ridicule your belief quite as much. You'd still have to sell me on it but I'd at the very least take it more seriously.

I have shown a working model of theism. When scientists cause virtual universes to exist they use the theistic method. They carefully program and plan to do it intentionally. Once created scientists with God like power can change the laws they created...

[Drew_2017]

It sure comes out sounding that way, but the underlying problem held in derision is an assertion without evidence, be it gods, junior high science fair exhibits, or aliens from another dimension.

A fact that supports a belief is evidence.

Evidence are a compilation of facts one uses to establish the veracity of a claim. Evidence can amount to proof. There are several levels of proof. The most stringent would be scientific evidence a claim is true. These means repeatable experiments from independent labs. If a former belief obtains the status of being a scientific fact its the closest we come to ascertaining the truth of a matter.

The second degree of proof is in a criminal case where the burden of proof falls on the prosecutor to establish his claim beyond a reasonable doubt. This is lower than scientific fact. Its still a high bar.

Then there is a civil matter where a simple preponderance of evidence (more than against no matter how slight the margin) is all that's needed to establish a claim. I consider this debate to be on the civil level of proof. Theism is what I believe is true, its an opinion. It could change it has, I could be wrong.

Acceptable evidence is any fact deemed to have probative value meaning a fact makes the claim more probable. For instance the fact Oswald owned a rifle would make it more probable he murdered Kennedy since Kennedy was killed by a rifle bullet. If he didn't own one the defense would offer that in evidence because it favors their contention.

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. I contend God caused the universe to exist and the universe exists exhibit one. That single line of evidence won't convince anyone just as if the only evidence one had against Oswald was the fact he owned a rife wouldn't. That doesn't mean its not evidence. It would only mean its not enough to make a case. I have listed 5 other facts that support belief in theism.

[Hydra009]

A fact that supports a belief is evidence.

Correct.

The second degree of proof is in a criminal case where the burden of proof falls on the prosecutor to establish his claim beyond a reasonable doubt. This is lower than scientific fact. Its still a high bar.

Also correct.

I contend God caused the universe to exist and the universe exists exhibit one.

This is a claim, and a pretty extraordinary one at that.  It is not a fact, and therefore cannot be evidence.

I have listed 5 other facts that support belief in theism.

You have listed things that you think support theism but in actuality are just things you've attributed to God without actually showing that there's a causal connection.  There could be no connection whatsoever.  It's simply unknown.  This is why god-of-the-gaps reasoning isn't highly regarded.

[Baruch]

God-of-the-gaps is an ambush, designed by atheists.  Don't play their game?  God-the-watchmaker is an ambush, designed by atheists.  Don't play their game?

Galileo and Newton didn't have iPhones, like we have, therefore they were POS.  Materialists know nothing more than matter, they have no spirit ... except that is what psychology was all about, before Descartes invented "mind" as a way of avoiding theology.  Nobody proved there were atoms until the 20th century, and even then, it turns out that atoms are not atomic ... the name was used for what it wasn't intended, by rhetoric, used by atomic scientists (in search of grant money).  There is just some quantum sea ... maybe.  Matter isn't even real, so how could mind or spirit be real?  Buddhism wins.  Everything you think you know, is baseless.  Join me in nihilism .. ommm

[SGOS]

Theism is what I believe is true, its an opinion. It could change it has, I could be wrong.

Opinions can slide by without evidence and facts.  I consider that acceptable in informal discussion.  But opinions don't contribute anything in logical arguments.

But the universe does exist!

Not necessary to offer that observation.  You have only given an opinion "that could change, has, and could be wrong," but we are in agreement.  The Universe does appear to exist.

The universe not existing would favor your claim more than the fact it does exist.

It should be noted that the universe not existing is a silly hypothetical that by its very non existence does not favor anything, be it naturalistic or divine.  Non-existence is just an interesting absurdity that serves to distract.

The fact it does exist favors the theistic claim.

Actually, it doesn't support either a naturalistic claim or a theistic claim.  The theistic claim, "Goddidit," doesn't follow rationally from the existence of anything.  It's just the old "gaps" argument in new clothes.  If existence supports "Goddidit," it equally supports the "Jr. High science fair project" claim.  And it does so equally well (which is not very well for exactly the same reason it fails to support God, 11 dimensional aliens, and science fairs). 

The naturalistic claim, "We don't know," does follow rationally.

I contend God caused the universe to exist and the universe exists exhibit one. That single line of evidence won't convince anyone just as if the only evidence one had against Oswald was the fact he owned a rife wouldn't. That doesn't mean its not evidence. It would only mean its not enough to make a case. I have listed 5 other facts that support belief in theism.

Hold on there, Ironsides, you don't need a mock trial to support "an opinion that could change, has, and for which you could be wrong."  You've already claimed an opinion.  And there's nothing like an opinion.  It doesn't put you on solid ground, but it doesn't require a life line either.   Don't try to turn it into a fact.  Opinion works fine, and you're not going to make it fact through some fancy pants lawyering in a moot court trail.  Courts render opinions:  "It is the opinion of this court," is heard frequently.  Courts utilize evidence to formulate opinions, and juries render opinions.