News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

Started by Drew_2017, February 19, 2017, 05:17:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Solomon Zorn

Just because I'm eating french fries, doesn't mean I just ate a hamburger. It doesn't contradict the notion, but it does not, in any way, constitute evidence of a hamburger.
If God Exists, Why Does He Pretend Not to Exist?
Poetry and Proverbs of the Uneducated Hick

http://www.solomonzorn.com

Cavebear

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 18, 2017, 06:24:43 AM
Just because I'm eating french fries, doesn't mean I just ate a hamburger. It doesn't contradict the notion, but it does not, in any way, constitute evidence of a hamburger.

True, eating french fries is not direct evidence.  I made french fries in my fry baby machine last night and ate them with a baked turkey drumstick.  And a good healthy tossed salad with olive oil and vinegar dressing.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 18, 2017, 06:24:43 AM
Just because I'm eating french fries, doesn't mean I just ate a hamburger. It doesn't contradict the notion, but it does not, in any way, constitute evidence of a hamburger.

I know someone who likes french fries and ketchup for breakfast.  No hamburger.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

sdelsolray

#348
Quote from: fencerider on March 18, 2017, 03:16:11 AM
I went back to the beginning and read it all again to find the six pieces of evidence of the existence of god presented by Drew. I wasnt finding any so I stopped at pg11

Drew started out by saying we were talking about a god or nature creating the universe then switched to saying he was only talking about a creator not the existence of a god. I think Drew caused some confusion with that switch...

On the bottom of the first page Drew says he has presented 6 pieces of evidence of a creator's existence, but there aren't any pieces of evidence in the OP. Maybe you presented evidence in another thread but you didn't start by presenting any evidence in this thread. You added them one piece at a time.

Drew - The laws of physics are evidence of a creator.
unproven assertion not fact

Then Drew starts using the words god and creator interchangable but still arguing that he is only talking about a creator not a god.

Drew - If we found life under vastly different conditions on another planet, we would have proof that a god doesn't exist.
haha I wish that was true but that is also an unproven assertion not a fact

Drew - If we could create a theistic computer model that accurately represents the universe, then the model could be used as proof of a creator
leap of faith

Drew - The universe is too complicated to not be made by intelligent design
personal belief and unproven assertion

Drew - 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.
amazingly illogical... I guess saying that the universe existing is proof of a creator fits under the category of personal belief.

Drew doesn't believe that the universe, and stars, and sentient life can be the result of natural causes. Somehow this translates into proof of god.


Drew's original post containing his claim of 'six evidences for theism' was in a different thread.  Here it is:

Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 28, 2017, 06:03:38 PM
This is the evidence that persuades me of theism.

We all have the same evidence for or against the existence of God defined here as a personal intelligent agent capable of causing a universe with the conditions for life to exist. Evidence is merely facts that comport with a belief.
The following indisputable facts lead me to believe we owe our existence to an intelligent agent commonly referred to as God as opposed to the counter belief that mindless unguided forces are responsible for all we observe.

1.   The fact the universe exists
2.   The fact life exists
3.   The fact intelligent life exists
4.   The fact the universe has laws of nature, 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.
5.   The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.

These are the primary facts of our existence and one can believe these facts came into existence minus any plan, intent or designer or doubt that claim and believe it was the intentional result of a personal agent. I subscribe to the former belief. I don't care if anyone else does everyone can decide for themselves...

In essence, Drew is peddling the following recipe:

2 lbs argument from incredulity
1 lb fine tuning argument/argument from design
12 oz essence of non-sequitur/irrelevancy
12 oz begging the question
6 oz burden of proof shifting (substitute: "Hey, look over there')
Liberal dashes of false equivalence and secret definitions

Mix well, bake for 3 hours at 350, serves one.

SGOS

Quote from: sdelsolray on March 18, 2017, 12:38:37 PM
Mix well, bake for 3 hours at 350, serves one.
Actually, it only needs to be "half baked," and it probably serves more than one, as there are many who prefer half baked arguments.

Drew_2017

Hello Fencerider,

I've stated the case I made in favor of theism enough times I was getting feedback.

I'll paste a link to the actual argument but this is how you debate a subject (the truth of which isn't a fact) you site facts with probative value meaning the fact makes the truth of the belief more likely than not. Then you make an argument from the fact, why the fact supports the contention. The lowest level of truth finding is a mere preponderance of evidence simply more evidence in favor than against. It doesn't make the belief a fact...people who decide the merits of an argument render an opinion. Its about the best we can do when it comes to things we don't really know the truth of.

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

I switched sides and made a similar case for naturalism. I don't recall anyone arguing tooth and nail that the facts I cited in favor of naturalism were not evidence. What I don't understand is how the fact I cited aren't evidence in favor of theism? I suspect its because my opponents want to marginalize theism as a faith only concept.

1. The fact a naturalistic universe exists
Although its not known how the universe came into existence the universe itself is a naturalistic phenomenon which can be explained naturalistically.

2. The fact of evolution
The appearance of advanced life forms including sentient life can be explained by observed evolutionary process a completely naturalistic process.

3. All phenomenon within the universe can be explained naturalistically.
This fact supports the contention its naturalistic forces all the way down.

4. The fact the overwhelming majority of the universe is lifeless and chaotic.
This fact indicates life wasn't intentional but caused by naturalistic forces

5. The fact there are millions of planets and solar systems.
Given the # of planets available the existence of life is inevitable.



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

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

Drew_2017

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 18, 2017, 06:24:43 AM
Just because I'm eating french fries, doesn't mean I just ate a hamburger. It doesn't contradict the notion, but it does not, in any way, constitute evidence of a hamburger.

I agree and if I were a judge I'd exclude that as evidence because folks often eat french fries but not a hamburger, some might have a chicken sandwich. On the other hand if a receipt is found with the purchase of a burger that wouldn't be excluded. If I claimed someone murdered someone a dead body in a murder case wouldn't be excluded as evidence. To convict someone of murder a definitive link between the accused and the deceased would have to be established and the bar for a murder case is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why the fact the universe exists is one line of evidence in favor of God existing because the contention of theists is that God caused the universe to exist. This is actually a good thing because I'm attributing something to the existence of God that can be used to falsify the belief God caused the universe. If naturalists can offer evidence that better supports the belief the universe was caused by naturalistic causes they will score points. If the only thing I offered was the existence of the universe that would be a poor case.

Conspiracy apologists are a different breed altogether; in a type of mental judo they take any evidence one offers in favor of a belief as simply more evidence of a conspiracy. If they believe the USA never landed on the moon and you show them moon rocks they will just look at you as an idiot for believing they're really moon rocks.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Drew_2017

Quote from: sdelsolray on March 18, 2017, 12:38:37 PM
Drew's original post containing his claim of 'six evidences for theism' was in a different thread.  Here it is:
In essence, Drew is peddling the following recipe:

2 lbs argument from incredulity
1 lb fine tuning argument/argument from design
12 oz essence of non-sequitur/irrelevancy
12 oz begging the question
6 oz burden of proof shifting (substitute: "Hey, look over there')
Liberal dashes of false equivalence and secret definitions

Mix well, bake for 3 hours at 350, serves one.

That sounds a lot more like the recipe to discredit any belief you disagree with....I'll add some.

1 puddle that fits a hole (not sure how that's evidence of anything)
A ton of there is no evidence (not one single fact) that supports theism.
A dash of you can't prove a negative (though it done all the time)
A cup of 'atheism is a default belief' (lighty simmered)
And to top it all off a heaping of I don't believe in the existence of God anymore than I believe in invisible pink elephants. Question how do we know they're pink?




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

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

Baruch

The elephants are pink, because elephant society is matriarchal ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on March 18, 2017, 09:22:00 AM
I know someone who likes french fries and ketchup for breakfast.  No hamburger.
Well, according to Reagan, that would have been 2 veggies...  And speaking of Ronald Reagan, Trump is about 3 times less knowledgeable.  And there is a joke in there...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

fencerider

the elephants are pink because someone who couldnt believe what they were seeing was rubbing their eyes too much.

a puddle fits a hole because the hole is there first and then the liquid runs into it. they are implying that the conditions of earth came first and then life adapted to the conditions.

the facts make the truth of belief more likely than not? hasnt been presented yet. fyi the name should give you a clue fencerider. That means Drew could get me to believe in the existence of Drew's god, if he actually brought something to the table.
"Do you believe in god?", is not a proper English sentence. Unless you believe that, "Do you believe in apple?", is a proper English sentence.

SGOS

Quote from: fencerider on March 20, 2017, 05:01:34 AM
Drew could get me to believe in the existence of Drew's god, if he actually brought something to the table.
Like most theists, he's here just to testify in front of skeptics for coupons he plans to redeem in Heaven.  Offering intelligent discussion isn't necessary to get coupons.  Points are rewarded for perseverance, not reason.  Theists are big on "redemption."  Mostly it's about redemption of the coupons.

Drew_2017

Quote from: fencerider on March 20, 2017, 05:01:34 AM
the elephants are pink because someone who couldnt believe what they were seeing was rubbing their eyes too much.

a puddle fits a hole because the hole is there first and then the liquid runs into it. they are implying that the conditions of earth came first and then life adapted to the conditions.

the facts make the truth of belief more likely than not? hasnt been presented yet. fyi the name should give you a clue fencerider. That means Drew could get me to believe in the existence of Drew's god, if he actually brought something to the table.

My opponents will always claim my evidence isn't evidence. You and others are the loyal opposition philosophically committed to naturalistic explanations. You are in fact advocates of such a position. If I made this case in a live debate or in a court room its not my goal to persuade the opposing counsel of my contention nor are the merits of my case are determined by that opposition. Of course your response is always going to be I'm full of shit, I haven't made a case, my case is baseless and there is no evidence in favor of it. That doesn't mean impartial people won't see it otherwise.

Did I bring anything to the table in regards to the case for naturalism I made? Or like your opinion of theism is there no evidence in favor of naturalism either and you are actually an a-naturalist as well?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Baruch

1. People who speak of things they don't know ... are bloviating
2. Judges and attorneys bloviate a lot too.

Unless you were there, standing next to G-d, when G-d started the Big Bang in his mad scientist lab ... then you have nothing.  Naturalists who claim to know what happened before the 3.5K radiation ... are also bloviating.  We don't know.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 20, 2017, 12:58:11 PM
My opponents will always claim my evidence isn't evidence. You and others are the loyal opposition philosophically committed to naturalistic explanations. You are in fact advocates of such a position. If I made this case in a live debate or in a court room its not my goal to persuade the opposing counsel of my contention nor are the merits of my case are determined by that opposition. Of course your response is always going to be I'm full of shit, I haven't made a case, my case is baseless and there is no evidence in favor of it. That doesn't mean impartial people won't see it otherwise.

Did I bring anything to the table in regards to the case for naturalism I made? Or like your opinion of theism is there no evidence in favor of naturalism either and you are actually an a-naturalist as well?
Boo--hoo-hoo-hoo...................!!  Poor baby is so picked on.  :(((  And not because he doesn't know what he is talking about, but because he does!  You guys on this forum are just so mean!!!   
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?