Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[Hakurei Reimu]

You're more than welcome to offer your counter explanation. Please inform all of us how the universe and the laws of physics came into existence prior to the laws of physics and the existence of nature...yet was due to natural causes that unintentionally caused it?

Mr. Dunning-Kruger, the very construction of your question betrays how unprepared your mind is to thinking about this. Your question invokes an already exant time which you have not shown to have existence independent of the laws of physics to be "created," and would in fact involve the violation of the very laws of physics that you complain needs to be created.

Its atheists who box themselves into the corner, if you remove intent, then the result is unintended true? If you remove any plan, then you have unplanned events...true? If you remove design as a cause then you have happenstance...true? If something extremely fortunate occurs without any planning or desire for a positive outcome we call that luck...True? I'm sure you'd rather have it framed with some much more sophisticated rather than the truth.

By definition, by definition, by definition. What's the problem? I seriously don't see the problem with the universe being unitended, events being unplanned, and being the result of happenstance. It's not that we think that we can conjure design, intent, plans, etc. from nothing, it's just that their lack is of no consequence. It's not really important for human beings to be the end result of some plan or intent. We're here now and there's no two ways about it. The truly important part is what we do with our existence, not to what we owe our existence.

Exactly because you believe unintelligent mechanistic forces without plan intent or a degree in engineering caused the universe by the only means available to such forces...happenstance. In the case of creating humans fortuitous happenstance. I don't hide what I think...I believe a transcendent being of great power and intelligence designed and caused the universe.

Okay, you believe that. So what?

If we walked out on a beach and saw a message made out of sticks that read I want World Peace Now and I claimed it was caused by an intelligent agent and you disagreed since you ruled out an intelligent agency that only leaves happenstance as the cause.

If that message were written in English, you would have a point, but that's not what we have been presented with, is it? You are looking at phenomena in the universe and claiming that this is indicative of design. When we ask what warrants this conclusion, you reply that it should be obvious. Yeah, well, it isn't obvious. That's why we're asking, cupcake. But of course you miss this rather obvious subtext and blunder ahead, confused why people aren't lapping up your every word, and conclude that it must be because we're athiests prejudiced against the theistic hypothesis. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

Hydra...use your intelligence. You can't be an advocate of a position and also a fair impartial judge of your opponents case.

Sure, you can. Scentists do this all the time. Most will come around when faced with the appropriate evidence counter to their claims. Like, what happened three weeks ago when Stephen Hawking's no-boundary proposal was delt a severe blow. Techniques that put these models in mathematical language show that they don't work.

Would it mean anything to you if I told you have failed miserably to support your position?

If it were just you telling Hydra that he was wrong without argumentation, yes. And if Hydra were just telling you you're wrong without argumentation, it would apply just as much. But that's not what's been happening in this thread, is it?

Most atheists only disparage the opposing point of view because in fact they don't really have a better counter explanation.

Wrong. It's because they're sick and tired of telling a brick wall how they're wrong, and just settling for telling them they're wrong. Because if the brick wall was actually listening to them, it would have responded with a cogent counterarugment long ago.

The best you can say is I have no idea how things came about or why the laws of nature that allowed our existence to occur obtained I just know in my gut it wasn't intentionally caused but even then I won't say it was mindless forces and happenstance that did it. I'll say something cute like the universe exists as if that was in dispute.

Except that's not what has been happening, is it? Positing that the universe was intentionally caused invokes severe contradictions that you have made no attempt to resolve. This, not any prejudice, is what makes your argument ring so very hollow. I and others have stated at length why this is a severe problem for the theistic hypothesis, yet you and your ilk refuse to address it. You want the benefits of a consistent and cogent argument without having to do the work of building one, so you pretend your parroted, slipshod argument that doesn't hold up to scrutiny is a cogent one and call it good. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

[Drew_2017]

Hydra009

The position isn't the most important thing, it's the process.  And sorry, but atheists definitely have the advantage in that department.  Baloney detection kit vs "strong convictions" usually imparted at bended knee.  No contest.

As teachers are fond of saying you're only fooling yourself...atheists believe every atheist argument without applying the least amount of skepticism because they have complete faith that atheism is true! How else could they bequeath atheism as a default belief?

You are hyper skeptical of the claims you don't believe in but refuse to apply the least skepticism to the claims (evidence not withstanding) you do believe in. Go ahead list two atheist arguments you disagree with...I dare you.

Do you disbelieve in things you never heard of?

As a matter of fact, I do.  And so do you.  And likely everyone or almost everyone if not everyone who has visited this thread.  Have you heard of Xipe?  Var?  Zaria?  Monotheists by definition worship only their god and don't believe in the existence of other gods, including obscure gods they've never heard of.  And atheists just go one god further.

In the case of monotheists its not due to some default belief, they came to the rational conclusion that only the God they believe in exists. They reject all other gods regardless of name. Atheists (giving the benefit of the doubt) reject all gods because they made a rational decision none exist.

That's why the concept of burden of proof is so important.  Anyone with 5 minutes of spare time can come up with a god (or for the vain and unimaginative among us, claim to be one).  It would be an insanely huge time commitment and require an enormous amount of effort to investigate and debunk each and every claim.  Hence the implicit disbelief stance.

If one enters a claim or belief in the market place of ideas and wishes to be considered they have a burden of proof depending on the claim they make. A belief claim bears less burden because its an opinion what they think is true. If you make a fact claim your burden is much higher because you are stating its not an opinion its the truth. Most of the atheists on this board refuse to classify atheism as a belief because they have fooled themselves into thinking they don't subscribe to any beliefs only facts. So they raise the bar of evidence exponentially high yet consistently fail to deliver anything close to establishing atheism as a fact. Since atheists 'know' its true they don't require any real hard facts or data. They require far more evidence of the theistic belief claim than they do of their fact claim not that any evidence is ever excepted according to atheism's most hallowed and sacrosanct claim there is no evidence in favor of theism. Truth be told, atheists like theists don't really know how the state of affairs we observe came about. Since they don't really have a compelling counter explanation all they can do is pound away marginalizing and demonizing theism until hopefully scientists figure out how 'naturedidit'.

Of course you don't get it.  If you got it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  The point of the conceptual exercise is to get theists to realize that theism isn't a default state - it relies heavily on indoctrination to exist.  Obviously, the people behind that exercise didn't take into account that things that theists find to be distasteful are necessarily false.

Only because I'm not infected with the atheist virus that numbs the mind from critical thinking. Beyond wishful thinking what would make the claim no Creator, designer or transcendent God is necessary to cause a universe that creates intelligent beings the default belief? I'm often told by atheists, as if it proves something, that we know nature exists. We know life and intelligent beings exist also. Why should we be so arrogant to think we're the only intelligent life either in or outside of the universe? When it comes to investigation of phenomenon within the universe we should seek a naturalistic explanation but in reality that's a tautology that just means whatever we discover is going to be labeled naturalistic even if it were to defy the alleged laws of physics.

Naturalism vs supernatural is a red herring since no one can delineate or create a fool proof criteria of what is 'natural' or supernatural. A better delineation is between whether the universe was intentionally caused to exist by a personal agent, or unintentionally caused to exist by mechanistic forces.

[Drew_2017]

HK,

So basically, the entire conversation goes something like this:

Theist: "A universe of this complexity can't come into existence on its own, therefore god!"

You've taken a straw-man argument to a new level, only the conversation of your self-serving imagination would go like that. 

I'd simply list the six lines of evidence that lead me to the belief it was caused by a Creator and see if he or she has a superior counter explanation steeped in facts and data. Like everyone in here would do if they did.

But I'll respond to your main argument. Point one, there are innumerable known examples where it does take something more to complex to make something of lessor complexity. Scientists do things that are incredibly complex but we attribute this ability to their own superior complexity. So does it make sense to rule out the possibility we are the result of something more complex because then it would have to be more complex?

Secondly God may indeed need an explanation, I'm not attempting to explain God I'm attempting to explain the existence of the universe and the existence of intelligent beings that came about as a result. If we reject the existence of God on this basis then we have to reject your explanation as well. If we owe the existence of the universe to a singularity where did the singularity come from? Do you believe we owe our existence to ever diminishing complexity? Even if you do I know you don't actually have evidence of that claim you guys never do...

[Baruch]

Drew - self-criticism is something nobody likes to do, they love their own ideas too much.  And mutual criticism could cause knives to come out ... we like that even less.

[Hakurei Reimu]

You've taken a straw-man argument to a new level, only the conversation of your self-serving imagination would go like that. 

I'd simply list the six lines of evidence that lead me to the belief it was caused by a Creator and see if he or she has a superior counter explanation steeped in facts and data. Like everyone in here would do if they did.

Of course the highly summaried explanation is going to cut out a lot of detail, you idiot. Thing is, all of the evidences you cite doesn't get the elephant out of the room: that the same principles that you use to require a god also make him impossible. Your citations amount to nothing more than, "Look at the trees!" with just as much probative content.

But I'll respond to your main argument. Point one, there are innumerable known examples where it does take something more to complex to make something of lessor complexity. Scientists do things that are incredibly complex but we attribute this ability to their own superior complexity. So does it make sense to rule out the possibility we are the result of something more complex because then it would have to be more complex?

So where did the more complex thing come from? If something like the universe takes something more complex than the universe to create, then that more complex thing that created the universe takes something more complex than that to come into existence itself, and it's up the infinite ladder. The only way out is to say that "it takes something more to complex to make something of lesser complexity" is not universally true. There are exceptions. In fact, the scientists themselves are one of them. Evolutionary processes can and provably do form things of more complexity than what preceeds them.

Secondly God may indeed need an explanation, I'm not attempting to explain God I'm attempting to explain the existence of the universe and the existence of intelligent beings that came about as a result.

It's not just that god needs AN explanation; following your train of logic to its eventual conclusion means that your god needs infinite explanation, a whole infinite ascending ladder of ever more complex super-gods. Of course, the evidence this is not the case is that there are infinitely more gods than there are humans, so it is almost sure that you would find yourself as a god in this scenario rather than a human, and you're no god.

If we reject the existence of God on this basis then we have to reject your explanation as well.

Like every other of your "arguments," this is something you say but never demonstrate. First off, the only one who is rejecting spontaneous creation of anything is you. Your argument has been that the universe is too complex to come into existence on its own. I reject that notion. The early universe was unbelievably bloody simple, so simple that we know more about the early universe than we do about our own biochemistry. It is the reason why the Big Bang model is so successful a way of describing the universe up to Plank time.

If we owe the existence of the universe to a singularity where did the singularity come from?

Singularities are so goddamn simple that they can hardly be called complex. They're just places where the metric becomes uninvertable, which if you're generating them randomly, there's a good chance your metric will be uninvertable by simple chance. So, yeah, easy to generate.

Do you believe we owe our existence to ever diminishing complexity?

Yes. Owing our existence to ever increasing complexity doesn't seem to work, as is the logical conclusion of your arguments.

Even if you do I know you don't actually have evidence of that claim you guys never do...

You asked why Goddidit is not considered live. We answered, and you got all bent out of shape when we showed repeatedly that your evidence doesn't work, and your hypothesis is logically incoherent. I don't need any additional evidence to dismiss an idea that is logically incoherent. The logical incoherency is evidence enough against that.

[Mike Cl]

You asked why Goddidit is not considered live. We answered, and you got all bent out of shape when we showed repeatedly that your evidence doesn't work, and your hypothesis is logically incoherent. I don't need any additional evidence to dismiss an idea that is logically incoherent. The logical incoherency is evidence enough against that.

You know, I've heard that time and again from theists--why goddidit isn't as valid as my 'belief' (they insist atheism is a 'belief).  If that were indeed, the case, then bugsbunnydidit would be just as valid.  Or thordidit, as well.  Or............well, you get the idea.  Until some facts can demonstrate who/what did it, then nothing did it.  It just is.  For now.  But with science (which is really just a way of thinking and reasoning) the 'It just is. For now.' keeps being push further and further along the path to finding what/who did it.  Theists keep working oh so hard, to not see this idea.

[Baruch]

You know, I've heard that time and again from theists--why goddidit isn't as valid as my 'belief' (they insist atheism is a 'belief).  If that were indeed, the case, then bugsbunnydidit would be just as valid.  Or thordidit, as well.  Or............well, you get the idea.  Until some facts can demonstrate who/what did it, then nothing did it.  It just is.  For now.  But with science (which is really just a way of thinking and reasoning) the 'It just is. For now.' keeps being push further and further along the path to finding what/who did it.  Theists keep working oh so hard, to not see this idea.

You can cut yourself on real skepticism.  If the gambit is skepticism, you end up as a nihilist.  Unless you come out the other side, doubting your own doubt.

[Drew_2017]

HK,

Thing is, all of the evidences you cite doesn't get the elephant out of the room: that the same principles that you use to require a god also make him impossible.

Your opinion, no matter how many blood vessels you pop saying it is still just your opinion and I knew 50 posts again you disagree. You have no idea what is or isn't possible. You have no idea what it took what laws of physics caused the laws of physics we observe or if there were any. I'm making head way though you now agree I'm citing evidence.

So where did the more complex thing come from? If something like the universe takes something more complex than the universe to create, then that more complex thing that created the universe takes something more complex than that to come into existence itself, and it's up the infinite ladder.

I'll say this again slowly. I have no idea where or how or if those words are applicable to a being transcendent to the universe and that caused the laws of nature we observe. You are barking up the theology tree which is the branch of knowledge dedicated to the nature of God. Since you don't believe God or a Creator exists its of no relevancy to you. Theism is the belief a transcendent being caused the universe to exist just as scientists transcendent to virtual universes caused them to exist. Suppose we did live in a virtual universe precisely like the one we live in now in every characteristic including our existence. If you were correct scientists couldn't cause virtual universes to exist because they are more complex than the virtual universe they created and according to you that isn't possible because then it would require an endless recession of events.

Any naturalistic (if we pretend that word means something) explanation (if only you and others would actually offer one you believe and have evidence of) would suffer the same fate you speak of.

You asked why Goddidit is not considered live. We answered, and you got all bent out of shape when we showed repeatedly that your evidence doesn't work, and your hypothesis is logically incoherent. I don't need any additional evidence to dismiss an idea that is logically incoherent. The logical incoherency is evidence enough against that.

You are still under the delusion the merit of my arguments, evidence and reasoning depend on whether my adversarial opponents agree with me. That would be like going to court and thinking I have to persuade my opponents lawyer to win a case. 

[Mike Cl]

You can cut yourself on real skepticism.  If the gambit is skepticism, you end up as a nihilist.  Unless you come out the other side, doubting your own doubt.

I see, once again the Judge.  (And unless your name is Aaron, I want nothing to do with your judgements) I don't care if you think I'm a skeptic or not.  And I don't really fit neatly under any label and nihilism is one such label.  I do like much of what it says (even tho there is not just one branch of nihilism), so I can wear that label well, to a certain extent.  Life has not inherent  meaning.  It just is.  The meaning has to come from you; therefore life is far from meaningless.  there is no universal, objective morality bestowed from above--or below or anywhere else.  Morality simply does not exist--rules or conduct are established by each society and can be good or bad depending upon how it affects you; but those rules are needed, for anarchy is simply destructive.  You craft the ethics that you live by--just as you craft your own meaning for life.  That means it takes work and thought, which is something theists seem to lack.

[Drew_2017]

Hello Cavebear,

Laws of physics seem to occur naturally without external causation.  So inserting a deity in the process is merely an extra and unnecessary step.  The interactions of quarks and atoms in both quantum and macro physics just don't need a deity to operate, just as 2 magnets don't need MY presence to attract or repel. 

Once caused to exist cars no longer require the mechanics, engineers who designed them for cars to operate. The overwhelming majority of things intelligent beings create don't require the creator to 'run' them. Intelligent beings also use magnets to cause motors to run but they don't need the presence of the creator for it to function. Does this mean natural forces unintentionally caused the motors to exist using the same logic? I agree the laws of physics appear to tell the universe what to go do with itself along with the time to do it in. As one scientist quipped, 'Time is natures way of preventing everything from happening at once'.

It is theists who have boxed themselves into a corner.  Every scientific discovery that shows actions working without a deity diminishes their argument for a deity. 

It clearly diminishes the notion of local deities personally manipulating phenomena but modern theists such as Newton abandoned that thinking long ago. Newton believed the universe was knowable and explicable in mathematical terms precisely because he believed it was caused by an intelligent being. And he was right! (that it was explicable by mathematical deduction) I can claim that every mathematical formula derived from the universe diminishes the claim it was caused by happenstance. If we didn't know the pyramids were caused by intelligent human beings wouldn't the fact of its mathematical precision be a clue it was intentionally caused? Wouldn't it weigh against the notion it was caused by unplanned happenstance?

Your example of Blind unintended and undirected natural selection only occurs (to the best of our knowledge) in a universe with exacting laws of physics to cause stars, planets, solar system and a host of other planetary conditions including causing life coming into existence before it can take effect.

[fencerider]

Do you disbelieve in things you never heard of? of course!!! (we had someone with a tag Ananta Shesha - did you believe that Annanta Sesha is the serpent guardian of the temple of Vishnu before now?) I bet that 19 out of 20 people disbelieved in guayabano, guanabana, and babaco until just now too.

I guess its hard for you to understand Drew but asking why people don't believe in a god is like asking why some one chooses to be single. Nobody chooses to be single. People are born that way. They have to choose to be married. No one is born believing in a god. That is something that has to be taught. For people who want to have a god exist, learning about god or finding a god is easy. But not everyone is born wanting a god to exist ( in the same way that you can not have a desire for a granadilla for breakfast, if you've never seen one), and for these people someone will have to show them a god before they have any desire for god

[Baruch]

I see, once again the Judge.  (And unless your name is Aaron, I want nothing to do with your judgements) I don't care if you think I'm a skeptic or not.  And I don't really fit neatly under any label and nihilism is one such label.  I do like much of what it says (even tho there is not just one branch of nihilism), so I can wear that label well, to a certain extent.  Life has not inherent  meaning.  It just is.  The meaning has to come from you; therefore life is far from meaningless.  there is no universal, objective morality bestowed from above--or below or anywhere else.  Morality simply does not exist--rules or conduct are established by each society and can be good or bad depending upon how it affects you; but those rules are needed, for anarchy is simply destructive.  You craft the ethics that you live by--just as you craft your own meaning for life.  That means it takes work and thought, which is something theists seem to lack.

Ah, but my comment was directed at Drew ;-)

[Mike Cl]

Ah, but my comment was directed at Drew ;-)

Hmmm................but you quoted me.  Wasn't clear that it was directed to Drew--at least to me.

[Hakurei Reimu]

HK,

Your opinion, no matter how many blood vessels you pop saying it is still just your opinion and I knew 50 posts again you disagree.

Yeah, keep hiding behind that "your opinion" excuse. I showed you how the logic folds back on itself, and you have yet to offer any counterargument showing how it does not â€" how I am wrong. My argument stands until you (or someone else) shows what's wrong with it.

You have no idea what is or isn't possible. You have no idea what it took what laws of physics caused the laws of physics we observe or if there were any. I'm making head way though you now agree I'm citing evidence.

The hell you are. Even if I "don't have any idea" what it would take to make the laws of physics out of the laws of physics, that doesn't mean that your idea automatically has merit. You have yet to show what is WRONG with the argument that your own premises fold back on themselves to destroy your argument. You could knock out every naturalisitic contender to the creation of the universe and it won't dismiss the fact that your idea is incoherent. Your idea has to attain the minimum standard of not being self-contradictory before it is even allowed to enter the ring.

I have never seen any theistic argument for the existence of god that does not fold over and destroy itself, or doesn't open a hole big enough to allow the universe to be created spontaneously. You have not shown anyone with any serious scientific credentials in cosmology that your idea has any merit, which is why your camp is ignored.

I'll say this again slowly. I have no idea where or how or if those words are applicable to a being transcendent to the universe and that caused the laws of nature we observe.

And I'll say this, slowly. This is an ad hoc rationalization. You are appealing to properties of this god that have no connection the point that destroys it. The argument against spontaneous creation of the universe does not intersect with any property of transcendence â€" it refers to the unlikeliness of getting all the requisite parts together by chance, whatever those parts might be. This would apply to transcendental beings as well as for things in the universe, because your god would have some sort of structure and organization to be called intelligent. Since the complexity argument doesn't intersect with any specifics of the laws of the universe, the argument is independent of the particular laws we're discussing, such as the laws the govern the behavior of your transcendent god. For your argument against spontaneous creation of the universe is to hold any water, it must hold in the venue that the universe is created in, which is the transcendent venue that your god would exist in and to god himself.

You have no idea "where or how or if" complexity to transcendent beings? Well, there was no conditioning of your complexity argument against the universe based on its supposed lack of transcendence. If non-transcendence mattered to your argument, it would have to enter into the discussion somewhere, but it never does. Therefore, "transcendence" doesn't matter to the argument, and so the argument holds and, yes, folds back onto your god.

TL;DR: Your complexity argument does not condition on the (supposed) non-transcendence of the universe, nor to the specifics of the laws of the universe, but only on the degree of complexity that those laws and objects exhibit, thus it would apply to any object that displays similar or greater complexity operating under any law, which includes your god.

You are barking up the theology tree which is the branch of knowledge dedicated to the nature of God.

Yet you are appealing to that very nature (transcendency) precisely to get around your own argument against the spontaneous creation of the universe.

Suppose we did live in a virtual universe precisely like the one we live in now in every characteristic including our existence. If you were correct scientists couldn't cause virtual universes to exist because they are more complex than the virtual universe they created and according to you that isn't possible because then it would require an endless recession of events.

Any naturalistic (if we pretend that word means something) explanation (if only you and others would actually offer one you believe and have evidence of) would suffer the same fate you speak of.

Fucking strawman, Drew. I categorically did not say that more complexity cannot produce lesser complexity. What I denied whas that lesser complexity cannot produce greater complexity. In short, we can climb the complexity ladder just as much as we can slide down it.

And like that, your counterargument disappears.

You are still under the delusion the merit of my arguments, evidence and reasoning depend on whether my adversarial opponents agree with me.

And yet, despite this "delusion," you are unable to do anything more than resort to rhetoric. An argument definitively showing how I'm wrong would go much further than all the rhetoric you've been spouting so far.

You, on the other hand, are suffering from the delusion that I don't want to be proven wrong. That is not (completely) the case. If you were to solve the theistic infinite ladder conundrum, you would have broken the puzzle of existence right over the knee. It would fucking move the discussion forward at last. That's really the most annoying thing about these types of discussions.

That would be like going to court and thinking I have to persuade my opponents lawyer to win a case. 

There is no distinction between juror and lawyer in the scientific world. They are all your peers. In science, your ideas are judged by the community of scientists. Everyone with something to say can join in the discussion, which is not the case in a courtroom. I am exactly the kind of person you would need to convince.

[Drew_2017]

Do you disbelieve in things you never heard of? of course!!! (we had someone with a tag Ananta Shesha - did you believe that Annanta Sesha is the serpent guardian of the temple of Vishnu before now?) I bet that 19 out of 20 people disbelieved in guayabano, guanabana, and babaco until just now too.

I may 'lack' belief in things I never heard of but I don't disbelieve in things I haven't heard because barring any knowledge I have no cause to believe of disbelieve. The crux of this silly argument is the idea disbelief in God is a default and that confers some special status to it and that even babies or morons who've never considered such belief are atheists. All this say is no thought or knowledge of God is necessary to disbelieve in God. Its the morons, babies and non-thinking persons belief. Whereas to be a theist require some thought. If you want to label atheism the 'no-brainer' position by all means feel free.

I guess its hard for you to understand Drew but asking why people don't believe in a god is like asking why some one chooses to be single. Nobody chooses to be single. People are born that way. They have to choose to be married. No one is born believing in a god. That is something that has to be taught. For people who want to have a god exist, learning about god or finding a god is easy. But not everyone is born wanting a god to exist ( in the same way that you can not have a desire for a granadilla for breakfast, if you've never seen one), and for these people someone will have to show them a god before they have any desire for god

No one is born disbelieving in God either. If they are atheists by default, they are also a-naturalists by default. Someone has to indoctrinate them into believing the counter claim we owe the existence of the universe and intelligent beings to mindless naturalistic forces that never intended their own existence or ours...

I've had several of your fellow atheists over the years agree this is one of the goofier arguments. A little too much free thinking is a dangerous thing...