Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Baruch]

"It should be noted that the universe not existing is a silly hypothetical" ... worse it is philosophy, or even theology, not science.  Science doesn't use counterfactual hypotheses.

[Solomon Zorn]

Going back a little, here's a few points of contention:

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.

We're not in court.

The belief among theists is that a transcendent personal agent caused the universe to exist. Exhibit 1 is the existence of the universe.

I believe pink lighters are made by homosexuals. Exhibit 1 is the existence of pink lighters.

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.

The existence of the universe, is evidence that the universe can exist. Not it's cause. But it is the fact that mechanistic forces are responsible, for every observable action in the universe, that leads us to believe there is nothing else required.

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.

If it's not surprising, then why do you insist that it suggests intelligent design?

Its surprising that scientists expect it to be that way and demand it be that way if it isn't.

If it is consistently observed to be that way, then it is perfectly logical for a scientist to expect it to be that way. As for demanding that it “be that way when it isn't,” I don't think you can give an example.

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.

Why do you equate mindless, with absolute chaos. Things that are mindless are not lacking order. They are in perfect order, in a complex universe. Radio waves are orderly. They behave precisely according to the laws of physics, like everything else. But they are completely without a mind, and therefore no pattern that indicates intelligence.

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.

Don't confuse analogy, which is what you are using here, with a sound argument. Analogy is good for teaching morals, not so strong for making a scientific statement. Toothpicks are not amino-acids, and have no potential for becoming a complex system.

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.

Why not?

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.

You keep asserting this idea, but you have not yet shown why we should expect chaos, rather than order.

...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...

Once again you show how naive you are with this statement. People all over the world, are indoctrinated into their various faiths from an early age. Science can't compete with that.

[doorknob]

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.

I am trying to understand what you are saying but the way you word things is just different than I'm use to. I have to really pick it apart to make sense of it. Sorry you feel that I'm trying to talk past you. I'm trying make you understand that you're claims are not based on science.

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! 

You've got the first part correct. I'd like to say however that I agree there are competing models to the big bag. However the model you're proposing is not a competing model.

If true it doesn't say anything in regard to what caused it. No one is saying that it's not a possibility that there is a creator it's just that at this time there is no evidence that points us in to your current claim.

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.   

What you are saying would be true if we found laptops in nature and we had no information on how it got there and so on. But we still can't make a conclusion we don't have that information yet.

We would have to investigate further to make any conclusion in regard whether a laptop had a designer or not. We don't know yet. Which is exactly where science is at right now. We don't know. How ever the god model is not a competing model at this time due to the lack of evidence that  any creator exists. There is nothing in nature at all that indicates a designer was the cause.

If you have some kind of evidence that can be backed using the scientific method please show it. Other wise there is no reason to think there is a creator let alone whether the creators it is the Christian god.

I'm 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.

.

Sorry I miss read your quote. I apologize.

And I never said that theism and naturalism can't be believed at the same time. Sorry for any confusion I caused.


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...

Sure you can show that model. But science isn't based on that model because there is no evidence of a creator. If you can find some scientific evidence please do share.

One final note if a creator was discovered it would become a natural explanation. So everything has a natural explanation.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drew_2017]

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

I'm not listing the existence of God as evidence, I'm listing evidence (facts) that supports the existence of God. What claim being made isn't extraordinary? Is the idea that naturalistic forces without plan, intent or desire caused a universe and laws of physics that culminated in sentient beings existing an ordinary see it everyday claim?

I'm not making a God of the gaps argument. I'm trying hard to disabuse folks of the most common (but false accusation) there there isn't one fact (i.e. evidence) that favors the existence of God.

[trdsf]

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.

Ah, but if the laws of physics actually do the work, then why does there need to be a god?

The 'first cause' argument doesn't work because you still need a first cause for 'god'.  And if you exempt your god from needing a first cause, then you can also exempt the universe from needing one.

The lack of a solid answer to the question of how the universe started only means we have more study to do, not that we should stop looking and accept "Fiat lux!" as an answer.  Resorting to 'goddidit' stops rational inquiry, and no progress can come of that.

[Drew_2017]

"It should be noted that the universe not existing is a silly hypothetical" ... worse it is philosophy, or even theology, not science.  Science doesn't use counterfactual hypotheses.

I'm using the hypothetical to make a point that if the universe didn't exist the claim there is no evidence that supports theism would actually be true. Are you suggesting the universe has to exist? Always existed?

[trdsf]

I'm not listing the existence of God as evidence, I'm listing evidence (facts) that supports the existence of God. What claim being made isn't extraordinary? Is the idea that naturalistic forces without plan, intent or desire caused a universe and laws of physics that culminated in sentient beings existing an ordinary see it everyday claim?

This is looking down the wrong end of the telescope.  The universe isn't here for the purpose of creating us.  We are an accidental but natural byproduct of the universe.  We're what hydrogen atoms can do with 13 billion years of physical, chemical and biological evolution, but we are not what hydrogen atoms must do.

If you were a sentient octopodal blob on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy, you wouldn't look up and say, "This was all created for fleshy bipeds in the next galaxy over."

The proper interpretation of why the universe is suited to the existence of beings like us is not because the universe was tuned to allow us to exist, but because we are the product of the existing laws of physics.  Had the laws been different, we wouldn't be here.

We are in no way implicit in the universe.  We are merely possible.

[widdershins]

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.

The thing is that is NOT what the evidence says.  It says the opposite.  It says that everything has a natural explanation.  Did your underwear explode?  Are your teeth blue?  Did you pull out your hair?  To be fair, it's not a good comparison.  The scientists believe what the evidence tells them whereas you believe what you believe the evidence is a conspiracy against what you believe.

Evidence is simply facts that comport with a belief...

I'm going to stop you right there and address just this.  You are confusing beliefs with science.  This statement is true for your beliefs.  For science, it is not.  The word "evidence" is really a misnomer for science.  Scientists don't collect "evidence" and they don't have scientific "beliefs".  Scientists collect data and they reach scientific conclusions.  But that's just the start of the process.  They then have to convince their peers that they are correct, something which often doesn't happen in their lifetime.  Science is a process of discovery.  A belief is pretending you already know.  The two are nothing alike.

Continuing with the rest of that paragraph:

...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.

This could not be more wrong.  Let's start with the flaw in theistic reasoning.  "God created the universe.  You want evidence?  Let's see here...  Ah, there it is, right there!  I told you!"  That is so stupid.  Here's why.  "Elves created a car.  You want evidence?  Let's see here... Ah, there's my car, right there!  I told you!"  The existence of something is not evidence for a particular claim of how that thing came to be.  Your claim is essentially, "Y exists, therefore X created Y".  Replace X and Y with ANYTHING other than God and universe and see how much sense it makes.  This thought process is the pinnacle of ignorance.

That being so, NO, scientists very much DO NOT use the very existence of the universe as evidence of how it came to be.  That something exists does not speak to how it came to exist.  Those are two different questions and when you have two different questions you need, big surprise, two different answers.

I don't have the time nor the will to give you basic science lessons that you should have gotten in high school, and probably did, if you had been paying attention and hadn't blocked them out because you "believed" they had nothing to teach you.  If you want to stop being stupid, learn some damned science.  You can learn how science actually works and keep the beliefs that are important to you.  You would have to lose the "science is just belief" belief, but at least you wouldn't sound like such an ignoramus.

As for that last line about how you have presented evidence, you, you didn't present anything.  You simply mislabeled a belief as evidence in support of a different belief and then wrongly claimed that there is no naturalistic explanation for how the universe came to be, insinuating that if science can't explain it then your explanation must be right, which is a false dichotomy.  So you used a word wrong, made a false claim and then went to a logical fallacy in just five short sentences.

If you're here trying to convince us of ANYTHING but the absolute fact that you are woefully ignorant of science you are wasting your time because you are woefully ignorant of science.  You do yourself and your own beliefs a disservice with this argument.  Not only are you not going to convince learned people that you know what you're talking about, you come off as both stupid and arrogant, attempting to school us in something you don't have even the most basic grasp of.  You make your own beliefs look like the beliefs of fools by talking like a fool in support of them.  If you EVER convert anyone with this argument, mark my words, it will be the absolute stupidest person you know.

[Drew_2017]

Solomon,

We're not in court.

No we're in a discussion board where I'm being asked to produce evidence. It behooves us to be clear what evidence is. Some think any evidence at all means proof...it doesn't.

I believe pink lighters are made by homosexuals. Exhibit 1 is the existence of pink lighters.

I hope the PC police don't patrol this board...you committed a PC felony! I'll play the devils advocate and claim that pink lighters were caused unintentionally by naturalistic forces that didn't intend pink lighters to exist.

Evidence #1 pink lighters function and operation can be explained completely by the laws of physics. There is nothing supernatural about lighters they operate under the laws of physics and there existence can be explained by the laws of physics. Secondly, pink lighters have been thoroughly examined and we have found no Creator in or around them. #3 Given enough time and chance mindless forces without plan or intent are bound to create pink lighters. Note I'm using the same evidence that convinces most skeptics its naturalistic forces all the way down.

That said if we do in fact owe our existence to unintelligent naturalistic forces then I would argue that pink lighters were caused by unintentionally by naturalistic forces. How did naturalistic forces do it? Easy they caused a universe to exist with laws of physics that caused stars to exist which in turn caused planets and solar systems to exist which in turn caused a planet like earth to exist which in turn caused sentient beings to exist who in turn caused pink lighters to exist...see? We can trace back the existence of pink lighters to naturalistic causes.

The existence of the universe, is evidence that the universe can exist. Not it's cause. But it is the fact that mechanistic forces are responsible, for every observable action in the universe, that leads us to believe there is nothing else required.

Using that same logic, evidence and reasoning I 'proved' pink lighters came into existence unintentionally by naturalistic forces. By mechanistic forces I assume you're referring to the laws of physics. Does the fact that mechanistic forces are responsible for every observable action in a laptop, a car or even a lighter convince you those things were caused to exist unintentionally by mechanistic forces? If your premise was correct it would.

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.

If it's not surprising, then why do you insist that it suggests intelligent design?

I was being facetious. It is surprising that the universe thus far can be reverse engineered and explained mathematically though alleged to have been caused by naturalistic forces that couldn't care less if the universe is understandable.

If it is consistently observed to be that way, then it is perfectly logical for a scientist to expect it to be that way. As for demanding that it “be that way when it isn't,” I don't think you can give an example.

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.

Why do you equate mindless, with absolute chaos. Things that are mindless are not lacking order. They are in perfect order, in a complex universe. Radio waves are orderly. They behave precisely according to the laws of physics, like everything else. But they are completely without a mind, and therefore no pattern that indicates intelligence.

Exactly, there are no laws of physics that cause radio waves to behave in a certain predictable way. There is no expectation (no matter how much time of chances are allotted) that forces barring intelligence are going to produce mathematical equations or an intelligent message. We live in a universe dominated by what we call (euphemistically I assume) laws of physics. You don't actually believe someone wrote up these laws physics and intentionally caused them right? So mindless naturalistic forces were able by sheer happenstance to come up with laws of physics that forces matter to behave in a certain way that ultimately leads to the existence of stars, galaxies, solar systems and sentient life to exist. Unlike the radio waves they caused a universe that at least in part is knowable, explicable in mathematical terms, amenable to scientific research is to some degree predictable. Although we can't make head or tails out of radio waves the universe produces we are able to make a great deal of sense out of the universe. 

Once again you show how naive you are with this statement. People all over the world, are indoctrinated into their various faiths from an early age. Science can't compete with that.

At one time people believed the earth was flat, rain and thunder were caused by the gods of rain and thunder and so forth. The few who might believe such are relegated to being nut jobs because of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence against such beliefs. There are literally thousands of beliefs once held very sincerely that have been abandoned.

There are a few things that might occur in my life time which would change the landscape. If scientists can actually get life to start under conditions believed to have been on earth at the time life began without using the theistic method. If we discover completely different life forms living under conditions we can't. If solid evidence comes forth this is one of many or an infinitude of universes.

[trdsf]

I was being facetious. It is surprising that the universe thus far can be reverse engineered and explained mathematically though alleged to have been caused by naturalistic forces that couldn't care less if the universe is understandable.

Why is that surprising?  That should be expected in a universe that follows explicable laws of nature.  A universe that 'just happened' is the one that would by definition be ultimately inexplicable.  Instead, what we find is that the more we look, the more we learn.  The only walls we hit are explicable ones - the limits set by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example - or those of being unable to make sufficiently detailed observations... yet.

[Solomon Zorn]

You keep coming back with the same old shit that I, or others, have repeatedly refuted, and act as though you're saying something new. This conversation is getting old, fast.

[Drew_2017]

Hi Doorknob,

I am trying to understand what you are saying but the way you word things is just different than I'm use to. I have to really pick it apart to make sense of it. Sorry you feel that I'm trying to talk past you. I'm trying make you understand that you're claims are not based on science.

I didn't think you were trying to talk past me I just realized what we had is failure to communicate effectively. I'm making philosophical arguments based on known facts. I'm not attempting to scientifically prove God exists.

If true it doesn't say anything in regard to what caused it. No one is saying that it's not a possibility that there is a creator it's just that at this time there is no evidence that points us in to your current claim.

I know its a widely popular assertion among atheists that there is not one single fact (evidence) that favors the existence of a Creator and if it were true, it would be a very compelling reason to reject theism off hand. Its not true, there are facts that make theism more likely true then if those facts didn't exist. You will undoubtedly disagree that those facts favor theism which is fine...but that doesn't negate the evidence.

What you are saying would be true if we found laptops in nature and we had no information on how it got there and so on. But we still can't make a conclusion we don't have that information yet.

So if we had never seen a laptop before and we didn't know where it came from you would believe it came into existence unintentionally by mechanistic forces? Maybe you would...but you would be wrong.

How ever the god model is not a competing model at this time due to the lack of evidence that  any creator exists. There is nothing in nature at all that indicates a designer was the cause.

The fact life exists and the conditions for life obtained alone is evidence it was caused intentionally by a Creator. Its fact I would argue far better supports the theism hypothesis. You will argue the laws of nature caused life to exist, I will argue the laws of nature were deliberately caused to make life exist. I'm skeptical of the claim that natural forces without plan or design caused something utterly unlike itself to exist...life and sentience. Don't you think that is a very tall order? For naturalistic forces without any intention to do so by sheer happenstance caused something unlike itself to exist...the truth is we don't know if naturalistic forces without any assistance did cause all we observe to exist...we don't even know if its possible they could do it. Those who believe it simply assume its true.

Sorry I miss read your quote. I apologize.

No problem...: )

One final note if a creator was discovered it would become a natural explanation. So everything has a natural explanation.

That's because the definition of supernatural is a moving goal post...








   

[Drew_2017]

Hello trdsf

Ah, but if the laws of physics actually do the work, then why does there need to be a god?

Because I don't believe nature haphazardly created these laws and by happenstance the laws just happened to cause stars, galaxies solar system planets and ultimately sentient beings to exist. I don't believe in such gratuitous serendipity...

The 'first cause' argument doesn't work because you still need a first cause for 'god'.  And if you exempt your god from needing a first cause, then you can also exempt the universe from needing one.

No because I'm not claiming I know or have any theory about how God came into existence. I agree any answer we come up with leaves more questions.

The lack of a solid answer to the question of how the universe started only means we have more study to do, not that we should stop looking and accept "Fiat lux!" as an answer.  Resorting to 'goddidit' stops rational inquiry, and no progress can come of that.

It wouldn't change anything right now we inquire how did nature do it? If we came to believe God caused the universe we'd ask how did God do it? BTW arguably the greatest scientist Isaac Newton believed God did it...I don't recall it stopped his rational inquiry.

[Drew_2017]

This is looking down the wrong end of the telescope.  The universe isn't here for the purpose of creating us.  We are an accidental but natural byproduct of the universe.  We're what hydrogen atoms can do with 13 billion years of physical, chemical and biological evolution, but we are not what hydrogen atoms must do.

I know that's what you think is true... considering the myriad of factors involved in allowing sentient life to exist I argue it was intentional.

The proper interpretation of why the universe is suited to the existence of beings like us is not because the universe was tuned to allow us to exist, but because we are the product of the existing laws of physics.  Had the laws been different, we wouldn't be here.

So we just got lucky....very very very lucky! How lucky can it be that forces that didn't intend us to exist, didn't plan for us to exist, didn't want us to exist stumbled upon the formula to cause our existence. Not to mention the forces that do exist didn't even intend their own existence never mind ours. If you are a skeptic why aren't you skeptical of those claims? I find that skeptics are usually only skeptical of claims they don't believe but swallow beliefs they do believe in hook line and sinker without even a burp.

[Drew_2017]

Evidence is simply facts that comport with a belief...

I'm going to stop you right there and address just this.  You are confusing beliefs with science.  This statement is true for your beliefs.  For science, it is not.  The word "evidence" is really a misnomer for science.  Scientists don't collect "evidence" and they don't have scientific "beliefs".  Scientists collect data and they reach scientific conclusions.  But that's just the start of the process.  They then have to convince their peers that they are correct, something which often doesn't happen in their lifetime.  Science is a process of discovery.  A belief is pretending you already know.  The two are nothing alike.

Are you claiming its a scientifically proven fact that God doesn't exist and its natural forces all the way down? I'm not claiming I can prove the existence of God scientifically. I don't think either of our respective beliefs pass scientific muster do you? I think you're mistaken about the scientific method, scientists propose theories about phenomenon. I'm not a scientist but I'm guessing they propose theories they believe are true. They don't know they're true, that's why they subject the belief to a test.

This could not be more wrong.  Let's start with the flaw in theistic reasoning.  "God created the universe.  You want evidence?  Let's see here...  Ah, there it is, right there!  I told you!"  That is so stupid.  Here's why.  "Elves created a car.  You want evidence?  Let's see here... Ah, there's my car, right there!  I told you!"  The existence of something is not evidence for a particular claim of how that thing came to be.  Your claim is essentially, "Y exists, therefore X created Y".  Replace X and Y with ANYTHING other than God and universe and see how much sense it makes.  This thought process is the pinnacle of ignorance.

I've already explained this see my post with Solomon. The rest of your post is just a rant...I hope you feel better.