Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Hydra009]

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

*watchmaker analogy*
*shifting burden of proof*
*dubious "evidence" that looks surprisingly like givens*
*Newton was a theist*

Checkmate, atheists.  Goddidit 1, Self-exploding universe 0

[Drew_2017]

author=Sorginak link=topic=11330.msg1171940#msg1171940 date=1490220146]
Theistic Faith believed that the earth was flat.
Science proved that it is not.

I think your history has been replaced by histrionics.

Hellenic world[edit]

The early Greeks, in their speculation and theorizing, ranged from the flat disc advocated by Homer to the spherical body postulated by Pythagoras. Pythagoras's idea was supported later by Aristotle.[2] Pythagoras was a mathematician and to him the most perfect figure was a sphere. He reasoned that the gods would create a perfect figure and therefore the Earth was created to be spherical in shape. Anaximenes, an early Greek philosopher, believed strongly that the Earth was rectangular in shape.

Since the spherical shape was the most widely supported during the Greek Era, efforts to determine its size followed. Plato determined the circumference of the Earth (which is slightly over 40,000 km) to be 400,000 stadia (between 62,800 and 74,000 km or 46,250 and 39,250 mi) while Archimedes estimated 300,000 stadia (48,300 km or 30,000 mi), using the Hellenic stadion which scholars generally take to be 185 meters or  1â,,10 of a geographical mile. Plato's figure was a guess and Archimedes' a more conservative approximation.

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

Copernicus first proposed the earth wasn't the center of the solar system and he did buck the religious orthodoxy of the time but he was hardly and atheist. Not long ago big bang cosmology offended the orthodoxy in our time. 

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

I do trust the scientific method of truth and fact finding. Its not a scientific fact that:
Its naturalistic forces all the way down
That naturalistic forces did cause themselves to exist
That naturalistic forces could cause themselves to exist.
That naturalistic forces alone could cause a universe with laws of physics that would ultimately allow sentient life.
That time always existed.
That there are other universes.

The reality is neither science nor human knowledge knows the big ticket answers to the most basic philosophical questions we can ask. Why are we here? How did our existence come about? Why is there something rather than nothing? Was it planned or happenstance? Opinions abound among us in this forum buts facts are hard to come by. Do I agree we should continue to pursue those answers employing the scientific method? Absolutely. Let the chips fall where they will.

[Cavebear]

Since the spherical shape was the most widely supported during the Greek Era, efforts to determine its size followed. Plato determined the circumference of the Earth (which is slightly over 40,000 km) to be 400,000 stadia (between 62,800 and 74,000 km or 46,250 and 39,250 mi) while Archimedes estimated 300,000 stadia (48,300 km or 30,000 mi), using the Hellenic stadion which scholars generally take to be 185 meters or  1â,,10 of a geographical mile. Plato's figure was a guess and Archimedes' a more conservative approximation.[/i]


Copernicus first proposed the earth wasn't the center of the solar system and he did buck the religious orthodoxy of the time but he was hardly and atheist. Not long ago big bang cosmology offended the orthodoxy in our time. 

I do trust the scientific method of truth and fact finding. Its not a scientific fact that:
Its naturalistic forces all the way down
That naturalistic forces did cause themselves to exist
That naturalistic forces could cause themselves to exist.
That naturalistic forces alone could cause a universe with laws of physics that would ultimately allow sentient life.
That time always existed.
That there are other universes.

The reality is neither science nor human knowledge knows the big ticket answers to the most basic philosophical questions we can ask. Why are we here? How did our existence come about? Why is there something rather than nothing? Was it planned or happenstance? Opinions abound among us in this forum buts facts are hard to come by. Do I agree we should continue to pursue those answers employing the scientific method? Absolutely. Let the chips fall where they will.

Eratosthenes, a Greek librarian, determined the earth's circumference to be 40,250 to 45,900 kilometers (25,000 to 28,500 miles) by comparing the Sun's relative position at two different locations on the earth's surface.  A simple matter of geometry.  I love that guy!

Of your other questions, we can't know the answers but can make some better guesses than theisms.  We are here because we have preceeding simpler forms that became more complex.

Time exists beyond our mere perception.

Natural forces don't need  cause, intent, or direction. 

[Baruch]

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

Definitely a stupid design.  But I still like dinosaurs anyway.  With T Rex, you get big teeth with tiny hands.  With People you get egomania with tiny brains.

[Baruch]

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.

Science is still controlled by Platonic academics, both before Galileo and after Galileo.  Simple repetitive observation is all you can do for most of astronomy.  It isn't an experimental science, nor is geology.  Physics and chemistry are experimental sciences.  Materialism simply assumes that experiment here and now, would work the same, everywhere, every time, an assumption called Uniformitarianism.  It is what had to be assumed to justify modern Geology.  And it does seem more or less true, in astronomy and geology.  Of course the academics, who are paid to be expert know-it-alls, same as the people Galileo was tried by, are a constant corruption.  The academics in subjects other than science (say economics or history) are still fighting a successful regard action against falsification ;-)

It is ultimately a philosophical question, not a science question, what happens where there are no physical laws (origin of Big Bang, or inside a black hole).  But then believing in science, a not unreasonable belief, is itself a philosophical choice, made by ape people.  it doesn't exist out in Fact land.  Observations and measurements are facts, their interpretation is editorial.

[Drew_2017]

CaveBear

Of your other questions, we can't know the answers but can make some better guesses than theisms.  We are here because we have preceeding simpler forms that became more complex.

So the story goes but hardly explains why a universe with the right conditions to allow evolution to occur came into existence.

Time exists beyond our mere perception.

That and a $1 will buy you a cup of coffee.

Natural forces don't need  cause, intent, or direction.

Another baseless assertion...your faith is showing.

[Drew_2017]

Science is still controlled by Platonic academics, both before Galileo and after Galileo.  Simple repetitive observation is all you can do for most of astronomy.  It isn't an experimental science, nor is geology.  Physics and chemistry are experimental sciences.  Materialism simply assumes that experiment here and now, would work the same, everywhere, every time, an assumption called Uniformitarianism.  It is what had to be assumed to justify modern Geology.  And it does seem more or less true, in astronomy and geology.  Of course the academics, who are paid to be expert know-it-alls, same as the people Galileo was tried by, are a constant corruption.  The academics in subjects other than science (say economics or history) are still fighting a successful regard action against falsification ;-)

It is ultimately a philosophical question, not a science question, what happens where there are no physical laws (origin of Big Bang, or inside a black hole).  But then believing in science, a not unreasonable belief, is itself a philosophical choice, made by ape people.  it doesn't exist out in Fact land.  Observations and measurements are facts, their interpretation is editorial.

There is a branch of science that parallels our discussion. Forensic science is the method used to determine if a death is 'natural causes' or if the death was caused intentionally by design. In some cases there are no eyewitness, no video tape the only thing left to make a determination is the available evidence left at the crime scene. We could (if it were possible) put tape around the entire universe and call it a crime scene. Everything in it is potential evidence of natural causes or intent*. We can dust all we want to but I don't think we're going to find any finger prints or DNA. The point is often a very strong case can be made one way or another that will often rise to the benchmark of being beyond a reasonable doubt...but less than scientific fact.

[Baruch]

Forensic science was invented by the Scottish doctor who inspired Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy3Jlbclomw

This made criminology more scientific, but not a science.  The court determines guilt, with the aid of evidence presented in an adversarial and political environment.  Basically created an SME (Subject Matter Expert) who is called to testify in court.  But the context is a court.  Truth is not what the court is after, they are after guilt.

[Drew_2017]

Forensic science was invented by the Scottish doctor who inspired Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.



This made criminology more scientific, but not a science.  The court determines guilt, with the aid of evidence presented in an adversarial and political environment.  Basically created an SME (Subject Matter Expert) who is called to testify in court.  But the context is a court.  Truth is not what the court is after, they are after guilt.

Forensic science is more scientific than some sciences...and it often exonerates as much as convicts because it seeks the truth of a matter not a apriori conviction. The courtroom isn't perfect but isn't out just to convict...you're too cynical.   

[Baruch]

Forensic science is more scientific than some sciences...and it often exonerates as much as convicts because it seeks the truth of a matter not a apriori conviction. The courtroom isn't perfect but isn't out just to convict...you're too cynical.

Supposedly, British courts are supposed to simply establish the facts of the case.  They don't go thru the shenanigans of hiding exculpatory or damning evidence, depending on which side of the bench you are on.  I don't know if that is true, or just bragging rights.  Unfortunately in my state, much scientific evidence was simply handled incompetently by the chief state lab officer ... not as a result of trying to frame or free anyone.  Just a big mess.  Competent medical analysis is quite good, if used properly.  Unfortunately that isn't the only weapon in the criminology arsenal ... we still falsely convict, based on mistaken identity, and forced confessions.  The DA office is political, as are most of the judges.  They are required to get a certain number of convictions, particularly in prominent cases (O J Simpson trial) .. just like patrolmen who have to put out more speeding and parking tickets at the end of the month.

[fencerider]

If you can't demonstrate something, here and now, you have nothing.

That's a good place to start. No point going back in history to an event that nobody witnessed to prove a god exists

[Drew_2017]

That's a good place to start. No point going back in history to an event that nobody witnessed to prove a god exists

Neither side of the debate should use naturalism in the gaps or God in the gaps arguments. Respective arguments in favor of a proposition should only list known facts that comport with such a belief.

[Sorginak]

Neither side of the debate should use naturalism in the gaps or God in the gaps arguments. Respective arguments in favor of a proposition should only list known facts that comport with such a belief.

I am perfectly comfortable with stating that I am not entirely certain how life is possible, including using god as a possibility, yet are you?

[Drew_2017]

author=Baruch link=topic=11330.msg1172600#msg1172600 date=1490578892]
Supposedly, British courts are supposed to simply establish the facts of the case.  They don't go thru the shenanigans of hiding exculpatory or damning evidence, depending on which side of the bench you are on.  I don't know if that is true, or just bragging rights.  Unfortunately in my state, much scientific evidence was simply handled incompetently by the chief state lab officer ... not as a result of trying to frame or free anyone.  Just a big mess.  Competent medical analysis is quite good, if used properly.  Unfortunately that isn't the only weapon in the criminology arsenal ... we still falsely convict, based on mistaken identity, and forced confessions.  The DA office is political, as are most of the judges.  They are required to get a certain number of convictions, particularly in prominent cases (O J Simpson trial) .. just like patrolmen who have to put out more speeding and parking tickets at the end of the month.

I agree from the forest level of the Criminal Justice system in the USA its flawed as all such human run organizations are. I believe it has vastly improved and more guilty are convicted and fewer innocent are incarcerated. However the two most egregious  examples were two acquittals OJ and Casey Anthony. I blame the Casey jury more than the OJ jury. The prosecutors bollixed the OJ case.

A man comes in to see his lawyer. The lawyer informs the man he has some good news and some bad news. The man says tell me the bad news first. The lawyer says the police have collected blood at the murder crime scene and they matched the blood with your DNA and you're going to be charged with murder. The man ponders this and says what's the good news? The good news is your cholesterol is low.

[Drew_2017]

I am perfectly comfortable with stating that I am not entirely certain how life is possible, including using god as a possibility, yet are you?

I never stated how life came to exist as a fact in favor of the existence of God, only that life does exist. I don't know whether life started by direct intervention or because the existence of the universe and the laws of physics allowed life to happen. The thinking among scientists is if a planet has water and is in the 'Goldilocks' zone life will occur. However using intelligence we haven't yet figured out how natural forces caused life without trying to do so. I'm excited about the possibility we may discover other life in my life time. They think a planet like ours gives off a unique signature we might find in other solar systems.

It is weird to think either way... are we alone in the universe or is their life elsewhere?