Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Drew_2017]

Hakurei Reimu

So, no. None of your cites are very impressive. They are at best irrelevant.

I'm not litigating my case before you for your approval, you are an adversary and an apologist for naturalism I expect nothing less.

Like the way you tried to bamboozle me with quantum wierdness, completely ignorant of the fact that I studied quantum mechanics in college and am in fact quite familiar with its bizarre implications and the fact that no one can agree on which interpretation is correct, if any.

The point you didn't refute was that the world doesn't act according to your whims and sense of logic.

In spite of your admission as to lack of knowledge of how or if the universe came into existence you maintain with a certainty no sentient being was involved.

Because including one doesn't solve any of the problems that it proports to solve, so Occam's razor cleaves it off. I have repeatedly challenged you to explain how anything we see in the universe gives the conclusion of purposeful design, and you have failed to make any of it stick.

You are an opponent, nothing I say is going to stick. However, I never suggested you have your head up your ass. You are knowledgeable and very articulate. 

Occam (a brilliant philosopher and a theist) stated an explanation shouldn't multiply entities beyond necessity. As always since you assume the truth of your proposition that God doesn't exist you also assume God isn't necessary.

1. God doesn't exist
2. Therefore the inclusion of God in any explanation is unnecessary.

Just as entities shouldn't be multiplied beyond necessity, they shouldn't be subtracted below necessity. You have no idea if a creator is necessary or not.

We do know somethings require a creator (designer-engineer). If we said a creator isn't necessary to cause a virtual universe we'd be mistaken or for a laptop or a car. Even though the simpler explanation is they poofed into existence uncaused or they always existed the simpler explanation isn't the preferable one.

Speaking of necessity lets compare what needs to be true for naturalism to be true and what needs to be true for theism to have any reason to be true.

1. The universe

Naturalism. The existence of the universe isn't necessary for atheism to be true and naturalism isn't any less true.

Theism- Requires the existence of a place for sentient beings to exist to have any reason to think they were intentionally created.

2. Life

Isn't necessary for naturalism to be true. Life is just an annoying unintentionally caused by product of arbitrary laws of physics. Is essential for theism to be true. Without life no sentient life will exist and the existence of sentient life is a primary reason why theists believe they were intentionally caused to exist.

3. Laws of physics that allow life to obtain.

Isn't necessary for naturalism to be true. An utterly chaotic universe or one with a totally different set of physical laws suits naturalism just fine. For anyone to think theism is true life permitting conditions are necessary.

4. Sentient life.

Naturalism has no use of or need of sentient life to arise to be true. For naturalism or theism to be talked about sentient life needs to arise but for theists to have a reason they think theism is true sentient life has to arise.

None of the aforementioned conditions need to be true for atheism to be true. Minus the 4 conditions obtaining the claim of atheists there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true!

Why would nature create conditions unnecessary for naturalism to be true but necessary for anyone to have a reason to believe theism is true?

[Baruch]

Selected entries in this poll of professional philosophers is relevant to the issues argued in this string:
https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

[sdelsolray]

Hey Drew, tell us the part again about how the fact the universe exists is evidence of your chosen sky fairy.  That was some funny stuff.

[Drew_2017]

Hey Drew, tell us the part again about how the fact the universe exists is evidence of your chosen sky fairy.  That was some funny stuff.

Is that all you got cream puff?

[TrueStory]

Speaking of necessity lets compare what needs to be true for naturalism to be true and what needs to be true for theism to have any reason to be true.

1. The universe

Naturalism. The existence of the universe isn't necessary for atheism to be true and naturalism isn't any less true.

Theism- Requires the existence of a place for sentient beings to exist to have any reason to think they were intentionally created.

2. Life

Isn't necessary for naturalism to be true. Life is just an annoying unintentionally caused by product of arbitrary laws of physics. Is essential for theism to be true. Without life no sentient life will exist and the existence of sentient life is a primary reason why theists believe they were intentionally caused to exist.

3. Laws of physics that allow life to obtain.

Isn't necessary for naturalism to be true. An utterly chaotic universe or one with a totally different set of physical laws suits naturalism just fine. For anyone to think theism is true life permitting conditions are necessary.

4. Sentient life.

Naturalism has no use of or need of sentient life to arise to be true. For naturalism or theism to be talked about sentient life needs to arise but for theists to have a reason they think theism is true sentient life has to arise.

None of the aforementioned conditions need to be true for atheism to be true. Minus the 4 conditions obtaining the claim of atheists there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true!

Why would nature create conditions unnecessary for naturalism to be true but necessary for anyone to have a reason to believe theism is true?

Why even number these 1 - 4 when every single one boils down to that humans have to exist for goddidit to be true.  Someone truly needs a huge ego to think the universe and a goddidit creator revolves around their existence. 

[sdelsolray]

Is that all you got cream puff?

You are projecting again.

Here, repeat this in front of a mirror:

"Is this all I have?"

Of course, your answer is:

"I have more.  I have the fact that life exists therefore my chosen sky fairy did it.  And then I have all those wonderful logical fallacies that I so cleverly use.  I truly am a cream puff."

[Baruch]

You are projecting again.

Here, repeat this in front of a mirror:

"Is this all I have?"

Of course, your answer is:

"I have more.  I have the fact that life exists therefore my chosen sky fairy did it.  And then I have all those wonderful logical fallacies that I so cleverly use.  I truly am a cream puff."

But which one of us is an eclair?  And jello, there is always more room for jello.  I must be jello ;-)

[Mr.Obvious]

But which one of us is an eclair?  And jello, there is always more room for jello.  I must be jello ;-)

Jello in eclairs?

*shudders*

[Baruch]

Jello in eclairs?

*shudders*

Orange jello with shredded carrot .. in an eclair!

[Mr.Obvious]

Orange jello with shredded carrot .. in an eclair!

My friend, if you are ever near my place, you must let me know.
I'll show you a true delight: the only thing that should fill an eclair is banketbakkersroom. :)

[Drew_2017]

Why even number these 1 - 4 when every single one boils down to that humans have to exist for goddidit to be true.  Someone truly needs a huge ego to think the universe and a goddidit creator revolves around their existence.

You're mistaken...I'd have a huge ego even if I was caused to exist as the result of unguided naturalistic forces. Why wouldn't I?

[Mike Cl]

You're mistaken...I'd have a huge ego even if I was caused to exist as the result of unguided naturalistic forces. Why wouldn't I?

Drew, you were not 'caused' to exist.  You just happened.  The conditions were right and you popped out--you, specifically, were not caused or planned for.  You just happened to develop into who/what you are.  The universe you were born into is not aware of you, does not give a shit about you; there is nothing behind you being alive except the right environment to support your type of life.  Not accidental, but happenstance. 

[TrueStory]

You're mistaken...I'd have a huge ego even if I was caused to exist as the result of unguided naturalistic forces. Why wouldn't I?

Lol, Biter.

[Hydra009]

Not accidental, but happenstance.

Theists typically have a hard time grasping the concept of happenstance.  If an orange rolls off the countertop, it's because either an intelligent god did it (a completely logical explanation) or the orange caused its own messy demise (an implausible idea championed by atheists).

Drew's logic (or lack thereof) would actually appear more sensible in that scenario.  Next thread:  pulpy mess, goddidit or orangedidit?

[Hakurei Reimu]

Hakurei Reimu

I'm not litigating my case before you for your approval, you are an adversary and an apologist for naturalism I expect nothing less.

So you have nothing to say about the fact that I actually seem to know the subject matter better than you? I don't know how that would help you in a litigation, never mind a scientific discussion.

The point you didn't refute was that the world doesn't act according to your whims and sense of logic.

I have news for you, sport: It doesn't act according to your whims and sense of logic either.

You are an opponent, nothing I say is going to stick.

That's because you haven't presented any sort of argument that is convincing. Why should I be impressed with an argument that addresses none of the points I raise, is a gross violation of Occam's razor, and when confronted on this, you devolve into accusing me of being locked in my way of thinking and saying shit I haven't said?

However, I never suggested you have your head up your ass. You are knowledgeable and very articulate. 

Occam (a brilliant philosopher and a theist) stated an explanation shouldn't multiply entities beyond necessity. As always since you assume the truth of your proposition that God doesn't exist you also assume God isn't necessary.

1. God doesn't exist
2. Therefore the inclusion of God in any explanation is unnecessary.

And there you go again, sticking fucking words into my mouth. Don't presume to know MY position better than I do. I even stated a situation where it would be sensible to seriously consider the prospect of a god or something other than naturalism is at work: that the universe is NOT fine tuned for life when it would need to be to support life naturalistically. That would be a dead giveaway that the universe did not work completely naturalistically. But this is NOT what we find, and thus the fine tuning of the universe actually supports naturalism dispite what it may seem at first blush (see the Ikeda-Jefferys theorem).

And so what if Willam of Occam was a theist? Albert Einstein was a proponent of the Steady State theory, nevermind that the original formulation of his own GR effectively destroyed it.

Just as entities shouldn't be multiplied beyond necessity, they shouldn't be subtracted below necessity. You have no idea if a creator is necessary or not.

That's all I need to use Occam's razor. You have not shown that the creator is necessary, and I have thought about this issue, and I don't see how the creator is necessary either. Hence, as an epistomological question, Occam's razor comes down squarely against such a creator.

What would render God necessary? Well, he could show up one day and show that he exists, an existence that is verifiable by any means. It might not establish everything you would wish it would establish, but it would be a start. He wouldn't even have to be the creator of the universe, either.

We do know somethings require a creator (designer-engineer). If we said a creator isn't necessary to cause a virtual universe we'd be mistaken or for a laptop or a car. Even though the simpler explanation is they poofed into existence uncaused or they always existed the simpler explanation isn't the preferable one.

And you have just demonstrated that you do NOT understand Occam's razor. Things even as simple as rocks don't simply poof into existence. The fact that we make laptops and virtual universes gives these things sufficient reason to exist without bringing any new agent or mechanism into play. Poofing into existence is such a new mechanism that is unnecessary to explain the existence of laptops, virtual universes, or even rocks. Therefore, poofing into existence is sliced off by Occam's razor.

Speaking of necessity lets compare what needs to be true for naturalism to be true and what needs to be true for theism to have any reason to be true.

Oh boy, here we go...

1. The universe

Naturalism. The existence of the universe isn't necessary for atheism to be true and naturalism isn't any less true.

False. The fact that a universe exists and we observe one is all we need to confirm that the universe necessarily exists. Not "necessary" in the sense of ontology, but epistomologically, which by the way, is the only "necessity" we have access to.

Also, ontologically there is an argument to be made that nothingness is hardly naturalism either, since naturallism makes a statement about how exant things behave, which is an empty statement if there are no exant things at all.

Theism- Requires the existence of a place for sentient beings to exist to have any reason to think they were intentionally created.

False. Ontologically, theism does not actually require there to be a universe at all. All it requires is a God, who necessarily knows he exists. However, it does not require him to be an actual creator; he may be indigent and simply never gets around to creating a universe. Hence, theism does not imply a universe ontologically.

Epistomologically, a god would need some sort of proof above and beyond that of naturalism to be live. The universe (of some form) is easy to verify; God, not so much. About the only thing we have is dubious books, uncredible sources, and empty arguments. The best way for God to let us know he exists is to come on down and be observed.

The fact that you think that theism demands such a universe full of sentient beings is simply your presuppositions showing.

2. Life

Isn't necessary for naturalism to be true. Life is just an annoying unintentionally caused by product of arbitrary laws of physics.

False. The fact that we are alive is all we need to verify that life exists. This is all the epistomological proof that we need to say that there is necessarily life.

Ontologically, life isn't vital, but neither are stars, gas giants, frost, and a whole plethora of phenomena known and unknown. There is a lot of matter in the universe to play with, so the fact that some infinitesimal fraction of it forms life should not be surprising. A universe governed by natural law would have some structure, even if that structure isn't very impressive.

Is essential for theism to be true. Without life no sentient life will exist and the existence of sentient life is a primary reason why theists believe they were intentionally caused to exist.

False. Again, consider the indigent god. Such a god knows he exists, is living in a manner of speaking, and is certainly sentient. That certainly fulfills the requirements of having exant sentient life, even if that was the goal of such an entity. And who are you to speak to the goals of such a being?

Epistomologically, God would need to come down and confirm that, yes, the goal of the universe was to create a bunch of sentient apes, and as such, first life would need to be created. Or something like that.

3. Laws of physics that allow life to obtain.

Isn't necessary for naturalism to be true. An utterly chaotic universe or one with a totally different set of physical laws suits naturalism just fine.

False. If the universe needs to be fine-tuned to support life naturalistically, then by necessity such a universe with exant life is necessarily fine-tuned. See the Ikeda-Jefferys theorem again. The fact that we are here is a selection bias on the kind of universes we can see.

For anyone to think theism is true life permitting conditions are necessary.

False. A god of sufficient power could make life exist even in life-hostile universes, even the chaotic ones. Therefore, fine-tuning or even a non-chaotic physics is not necessary for theism.

Remember, the only thing ontologically necessary for theism is the existence of a god. Anything else is just epistomological gravy.

4. Sentient life.

Naturalism has no use of or need of sentient life to arise to be true. For naturalism or theism to be talked about sentient life needs to arise but for theists to have a reason they think theism is true sentient life has to arise.

False. Again, epistomologically, the observation of sentient life is all we need to verify the existence of sentient life. Ontologically, no, it isn't a necessary part of the universe, but it is part of the universe never the less. Just like mud flows, worms, thunderstorms and a whole mess of natural phenomena that aren't necessary either, but nonetheless exist.

And, again, an indigent god may never get around to creating a universe, much less sentient life in such a universe, yet theism would be true in this case.

None of the aforementioned conditions need to be true for atheism to be true. Minus the 4 conditions obtaining the claim of atheists there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true!

Your four conditions do not epistomologically show that theism is true. They don't even ontologically imply the existence of any of 1-4; you instead must guess at the plans of a being that is intellectually beyond you, such that an ant would have better luck guessing at the designs of humans. The only thing that theism requires ontologically is the existence of God â€" anything more is beyond its scope. There is no epistomological reason to think that a God is necessary for the universe to exist in its present form. Even if I were to give you 1-4, at best, all you would have shown is that IF God THEN [insert condition here], but you have not shown, and cannot derived from this, that IF [insert condition here], THEN God. You need the latter implication to epistomologically show your case.

Why would nature create conditions unnecessary for naturalism to be true but necessary for anyone to have a reason to believe theism is true?

Your question is loaded and cannot be correctly answered. Before you can sensibly ask WHY something is created, you would first need to know that there is sufficient reason to believe there is a WHY in the first place. As any four year old knows, you can keep asking "Why?" questions until the adult runs out of answers and/or patience.

The bottom line is that you are speaking in ontological terms. We don't really have access to the ontology of the universe, the "outside" of the universe, or God. So, yeah, it's possible for god to be ontologically exant even if his existence is not supported by our evidence, either by direct evidence or by almost sure necessity from deduction. I, on the other hand, have always been speaking in epistomological terms, because ultimately, the epistomology is all we have access to. The available evidence is all we have to judge whether god or anything ever exists. We've got plenty of evidence the universe exists. We have plenty of evidence that the planets, etc. exist, and we have mechanisms for their formations. We have plenty of evidence that life exists, and nothing creationists come up with shows that their origin or evolution is naturalistically impossible. We have plenty of evidence that sentient life exists... though truth to tell, that evidence has proven pretty shakey given what I've seen, but it still is congruent with natural law.

Nowhere in the above is God a necessary part of the equation. A deity is not needed to explain our current evidence. We don't need him to explain the origin of the universe right down to explaining the existence of nominally sentient apes. Goddidit is still a quite barren argument from ignorance.