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

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on March 21, 2017, 11:55:17 PM
Yes, it is a belief.  They cannot prove or demonstrate it ... nobody knows what happened in the early universe, they only suppose.  They do rationally extrapolate back in time, to a small fraction of a second of the Big Bang, because of particle physics.  To presuppose a Creator, is to irrationally extrapolate back in time.  But that is like extrapolating from a folded newspaper boat to a giant ship.  Their belief is rational, but they also deny it is a belief.  You agree that they are rational, but in denial.  I deny both rationality and belief, I cast ridicule upon extrapolation back in time.  If you can't demonstrate something, here and now, you have nothing.  There is nothing to believe and nothing to rationalize.  The Big Bang itself, cannot be demonstrated .. though they always hope that super science will prove them right, eventually.  Like the ugly girl who thinks every year, she will be invited to the Prom ;-)  It will never happen, physics knows now, to have ultimate knowledge ... infinite power is required.  This is unobtainable, forever.  Seeing before the 3.5 K radiation is also probably impossible, the constitution of the universe at that time was uniformly chaotic.  If a naturalist moves far enough, he becomes a theist and vice versa.
Baloney.  A scientist can tell the difference between a theory and an hypothesis.  But both are based on rational thinking; thinking that can be demonstrated.  And scientists using hypothesis to describe as best they can the early universe know that it is an hypothesis.  Some day that working hypothesis may become a theory, but it is still a hypothesis until then.  There is no indication that a belief in any god will ever go beyond that--just a belief with no foundation.   Just because we don't know something right now does not mean it will remain unknown in the future.  Considering theists have had thousands of years head start and all they can come up with is just a set of beliefs with no foundation and science has only just started and has a set of theories and working hypothesis based upon reason and critical thinking is amazing.  Yet theists such as yourself just don't want to see it.
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?

Baruch

Sorry, you need to take Cosmos original or Cosmos remake ... with a little more skepticism.  Or do you really believe in Popular Mechanics?

I know that Ohm's law works ...  have used it as an electrical engineer.  I also know that it is semi-empirical ... it isn't "G-d's Truth" (TM).  That is a far cry from claiming to know, know ... what happens inside a black hole, or what happened in the first few seconds of the Big Bang.  Yes, scientists do know the difference between hypothesis and demonstrated theory ... but not at grant time ... they are paid by being on the bleeding, unconfirmed edge.  Life by the grant, die by the grant.  Publish or perish.
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: Baruch on March 22, 2017, 01:06:13 PM
Sorry, you need to take Cosmos original or Cosmos remake ... with a little more skepticism.  Or do you really believe in Popular Mechanics?

I know that Ohm's law works ...  have used it as an electrical engineer.  I also know that it is semi-empirical ... it isn't "G-d's Truth" (TM).  That is a far cry from claiming to know, know ... what happens inside a black hole, or what happened in the first few seconds of the Big Bang.  Yes, scientists do know the difference between hypothesis and demonstrated theory ... but not at grant time ... they are paid by being on the bleeding, unconfirmed edge.  Life by the grant, die by the grant.  Publish or perish.
Ah yes, of course.  The grant.  What is worse--living by the grant--or living by the tithe basket?  Which supports more lies and fairy tales?
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?

trdsf

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 22, 2017, 03:07:21 PM
Ah yes, of course.  The grant.  What is worse--living by the grant--or living by the tithe basket?  Which supports more lies and fairy tales?
I might also add that the 'bleeding, unconfirmed edge' is where all the interesting science is done.  No one's going to give out grant money for re-demonstrating that water is composed of H2O.  There's a reason scientific research goes to the edges of knowledge: to push back those edges, and uncover new and yet-unexplained phenomena.

No amount of money thrown in a collection plate can compete with that.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Sorginak

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 21, 2017, 10:54:37 PM
Its not a scientific fact that unguided naturalistic forces could cause a universe to exist or did cause a universe to exist. Its not a scientific fact time always existed, its not a scientifically established fact its naturalistic forces all the way down.

Theistic Faith believed that the earth was flat.
Science proved that it is not.

Theistic Faith believed that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Science proved that it is not.

Theistic Faith believed that the Earth was only approximately six thousand years old.
Science proved that the Earth is much older.

Is it so far fetched that one should trust science over theistic Faith?
Hardly.

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 22, 2017, 03:07:21 PM
Ah yes, of course.  The grant.  What is worse--living by the grant--or living by the tithe basket?  Which supports more lies and fairy tales?

And that is why, half the science (peer reviewed) is un-repeatable (aka fake).  Monetary inducement.  If money is bad, let the academics do without ... that would match their Marxism.

Or ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize

With the levitating frog experiment, we will soon understand Unobtainium ;-)
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.

Baruch

Quote from: trdsf on March 22, 2017, 03:37:10 PM
I might also add that the 'bleeding, unconfirmed edge' is where all the interesting science is done.  No one's going to give out grant money for re-demonstrating that water is composed of H2O.  There's a reason scientific research goes to the edges of knowledge: to push back those edges, and uncover new and yet-unexplained phenomena.

No amount of money thrown in a collection plate can compete with that.

You give plenty at the Church of Government ... and I do thank you for that.  Give 100% of income, whenever you can .. I need a new car.
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 21, 2017, 06:37:52 PM
If there was evidence for the existence of American Exceptionalism, there would be no need for patriotism ;-)

There he goes again.  Silly unrelated snark in the midst of adult posts...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Drew_2017

Quote from: Baruch on March 21, 2017, 11:55:17 PM
Yes, it is a belief.  They cannot prove or demonstrate it ... nobody knows what happened in the early universe, they only suppose.  They do rationally extrapolate back in time, to a small fraction of a second of the Big Bang, because of particle physics.  To presuppose a Creator, is to irrationally extrapolate back in time.  But that is like extrapolating from a folded newspaper boat to a giant ship.  Their belief is rational, but they also deny it is a belief.  You agree that they are rational, but in denial.  I deny both rationality and belief, I cast ridicule upon extrapolation back in time.  If you can't demonstrate something, here and now, you have nothing.  There is nothing to believe and nothing to rationalize.  The Big Bang itself, cannot be demonstrated .. though they always hope that super science will prove them right, eventually.  Like the ugly girl who thinks every year, she will be invited to the Prom ;-)  It will never happen, physics knows now, to have ultimate knowledge ... infinite power is required.  This is unobtainable, forever.  Seeing before the 3.5 K radiation is also probably impossible, the constitution of the universe at that time was uniformly chaotic.  If a naturalist moves far enough, he becomes a theist and vice versa.

I agree any extrapolation or circumstantial evidence is to draw an inference that its natural forces all the way down or we are the result of a Creator. Regardless of what value you assign to the available facts its all we have to go on and it what leads to our respective opinions. One factor to consider either theism or naturalism is true.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Cavebear

Quote from: Drew_2017 on March 24, 2017, 11:27:48 PM
I agree any extrapolation or circumstantial evidence is to draw an inference that its natural forces all the way down or we are the result of a Creator. Regardless of what value you assign to the available facts its all we have to go on and it what leads to our respective opinions. One factor to consider either theism or naturalism is true.

The lack of facts = lack of validity.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Drew_2017

#385
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 22, 2017, 09:25:45 AM
Baloney.  A scientist can tell the difference between a theory and an hypothesis.  But both are based on rational thinking; thinking that can be demonstrated.  And scientists using hypothesis to describe as best they can the early universe know that it is an hypothesis.  Some day that working hypothesis may become a theory, but it is still a hypothesis until then.  There is no indication that a belief in any god will ever go beyond that--just a belief with no foundation.   Just because we don't know something right now does not mean it will remain unknown in the future.  Considering theists have had thousands of years head start and all they can come up with is just a set of beliefs with no foundation and science has only just started and has a set of theories and working hypothesis based upon reason and critical thinking is amazing.  Yet theists such as yourself just don't want to see it.

I can just as well say there is no indication that naturalistic forces could or did cause themselves to exist and then proceeded to cause a universe with the right conditions for us to debate this subject. I can say the theistic method of causing a universe to exist works in the case of virtual universes. Whats the naturalistic method? Can it be reproduced?

Theism hasn't been detrimental to scientific investigation. Arguably the greatest scientist of his time Isaac Newton was motivated by the belief the universe was knowable and logical because he believed it was caused by God. Since according to you he was tragically wrong his thinking should have led to a dead end...but it didn't. Can you explain how someone with such backwards false thinking could have been such great scientist?
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Baruch

#386
Cellular automata.  Construct a cellular automata setup, and initialize it with random information.  Then let it run.  Interesting patterns may develop.  Is that a demonstration that a naturalistic explanation can be reproduced?  Notice, initializing it with meaningful patterns (non-random) wouldn't demonstrate a naturalistic explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyrwOf239M4
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: Drew_2017 on March 24, 2017, 11:45:18 PM
I can just as well say there is no indication that naturalistic that forces could or did cause themselves to exist and then proceeded to cause a universe with the right conditions for us to debate this subject. I can say the theistic method of causing a universe to exist works in the case of virtual universes. Whats the naturalistic method? Can it be reproduced?

Theism hasn't been detrimental to scientific investigation. Arguably the greatest scientist of his time Isaac Newton was motivated by the belief the universe was knowable and logical because he believed it was caused by God. Since according to you he was tragically wrong his thinking should have led to a dead end...but it didn't. Can you explain how someone with such backwards false thinking could have been such great scientist?

Just noting that you did not respond to the main question about theory and hypothesis...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Drew_2017

Quote from: Cavebear on March 25, 2017, 01:59:54 AM
Just noting that you did not respond to the main question about theory and hypothesis...

A slang term for hypothesis would be wagging (wild ass guessing) but it gives a basis for testing and falsifying a supposition. A hypothesis can graduate to a theory if some testing with positive results occurs. I would say these two elements form the basis for the scientific method of obtaining knowledge. What's interesting to note is the same method of inquiry works whether the phenomenon in question is a designed object or something believed to have been caused by natural forces. If aliens from an advanced race dropped off an alien contraption we would use the same method to figure out how it works and functions. It just seems odd that the same method works for phenomenon known to have been intelligently created as things believed to have been created by happenstance.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Sorginak

#389
Except that there is no reason to assume life on this planet Earth was created by an intelligent design.