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

Baruch

#1305
Quote from: Drew_2017 on July 23, 2017, 01:53:48 PM
That kind of reasoning is circular. I could say laptops work just fine no creator/designer needed. I can just show you a laptop and say see works fine and no creator in sight, none inside the laptop...proof atoms arranged like a laptop work just find...

I know that's false in laptops how do I know its not false in a universe that winds up having characteristics to cause humans? I know you won't agree but do you understand why I find your reasoning lacking?

Not everything requires a maker.  A Winter demon doesn't cause snow avalanches.

The Pyramids were built by aliens - Von Daniken.  Where are the aliens?  When they got done, the Egyptians killed and ate them.  Stupid ape people!
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.

SGOS

Quote from: Baruch on July 23, 2017, 09:01:23 PM
Not everything requires a maker. 
Once the claim is made: "Everything requires a maker," then everything requires a maker (by definition). 

Religion progresses: ideology -> conclusion. 
Science progresses: observation -> tentative conclusion. 

Mike Cl

Everything requires a maker; everything requires a cause.  So what?  In the eyes of a theist a 'cause' or 'maker' means a being of some sort--a god--to have ultimately done it.  What Drew likes to call mindless happenstance probably isn't.  It's math and probability.  The mathematical probability of a particular rain drop hitting me in a rain storm verge on the impossible; while it is a 100% certainty that I'll get hit by many if I go out into the rain.  That our solar system developed exactly where it is now most likely is an almost mathematical impossibility; that it would develop somewhere given the chemical and physical makeup of this universe I see as 100% of happening somewhere/somewhen.  I guess you could say that that is mindless and happenstance.  But I would not view the physical actuality of our solar system as a sign of a 'cause' or a 'maker', which there for sure is a cause and a maker, if you will.  It's not mindless nor is it mindful.  It is indifferent.  There is no emotion one can attach to the various elements of this universe; helium just does not get happy or sad or anything else; it just is.  So, our universe just is; and the actual cause is still a long way from being known; but it is much clearer now that it was 2000 years ago.  And in another 2,000 years the questions will be that much clearer.  (And Jesus will still be a fictional character as will god)
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?

Drew_2017

Quote from: SGOS on July 24, 2017, 05:57:35 AM
Once the claim is made: "Everything requires a maker," then everything requires a maker (by definition). 

That's an assertion not a definition.

QuoteReligion progresses: ideology -> conclusion. 
Science progresses: observation -> tentative conclusion.

Religion and science are two different domains. Science is facts without heart or humanity. Science can inform us of the most efficient means to kill people but has no say on whether such is right or wrong.

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

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

Baruch

Quote from: Drew_2017 on July 25, 2017, 12:34:56 PM
That's an assertion not a definition.

Religion and science are two different domains. Science is facts without heart or humanity. Science can inform us of the most efficient means to kill people but has no say on whether such is right or wrong.

1st ... he was being rhetorical, and you took it out of context.  The point being, that Aristotelianism doesn't make modern sense.  Some causes are personal, some are impersonal.  And cause/effect is over-booked as a panacea.

2nd ... you are stereotyping religion and science.  Some claim with "natural law" that science aka biology/psychology can and should tell us right from wrong.  You have to defeat that view, otherwise you are making an assertion ;-)
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.

Drew_2017

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 24, 2017, 10:40:30 AM
Everything requires a maker; everything requires a cause.  So what?  In the eyes of a theist a 'cause' or 'maker' means a being of some sort--a god--to have ultimately done it. 

Whether theism (defined as a person) or naturalism (defined as impersonal means) caused the universe and our existence the notion we are the result of an endless recession of events is a non-starter in my opinion. We'd have to cross an endless recession of events to get to the events now occurring. I believe the reality we experience is only a slice of reality kind of like our vision is only a thin slice of light. Time is like artificial gravity on a big spaceship. I just don't see the naturalistic forces we observe being the source of the naturalistic forces we observe. I can see those forces being responsible for our existence, the existence of planets, stars and so forth but not there own existence. However the naturalism philosophy crumbles if we admit the natural world isn't the totality of reality.

QuoteWhat Drew likes to call mindless happenstance probably isn't.  It's math and probability.  The mathematical probability of a particular rain drop hitting me in a rain storm verge on the impossible; while it is a 100% certainty that I'll get hit by many if I go out into the rain.  That our solar system developed exactly where it is now most likely is an almost mathematical impossibility; that it would develop somewhere given the chemical and physical makeup of this universe I see as 100% of happening somewhere/somewhen. 

Surprisingly enough I don't disagree...knowing what we know now the fact other stars have planets, the # of stars and # of galaxies means the conditions for life as we know it (given those parameters) can be satisfied by time and chance. This also assumes that life can come into existence with the conditions on earth without any extra help. The problem isn't with those conditions but the universal conditions that have to occur for those planetary conditions to exist in the first place. Those are the conditions Martin Rees refers to in his book just six numbers that lead him to conclude this is one of an infinitude of universes. Since he believes we owe our existence to happenstance and not design. Ironically the evidence he provides for other universes is evidence of design but since that must be wrong he invokes multiverse on a ginormous scale.

QuoteI guess you could say that that is mindless and happenstance.  But I would not view the physical actuality of our solar system as a sign of a 'cause' or a 'maker', which there for sure is a cause and a maker, if you will.  It's not mindless nor is it mindful.  It is indifferent.  There is no emotion one can attach to the various elements of this universe; helium just does not get happy or sad or anything else; it just is.  So, our universe just is; and the actual cause is still a long way from being known; but it is much clearer now that it was 2000 years ago.  And in another 2,000 years the questions will be that much clearer.  (And Jesus will still be a fictional character as will god)

Interesting you say that...that's how religious people talk about God.... God just is.

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: Baruch on July 25, 2017, 12:57:44 PM
1st ... he was being rhetorical, and you took it out of context.  The point being, that Aristotelianism doesn't make modern sense.  Some causes are personal, some are impersonal.  And cause/effect is over-booked as a panacea.

2nd ... you are stereotyping religion and science.  Some claim with "natural law" that science aka biology/psychology can and should tell us right from wrong.  You have to defeat that view, otherwise you are making an assertion ;-)

The sky is blue
2+2= 4

Just seeing if you might agree with anything I say. We can work outwards from these two.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Baruch

Quote from: Drew_2017 on July 25, 2017, 02:09:48 PM
The sky is blue
2+2= 4

Just seeing if you might agree with anything I say. We can work outwards from these two.

I happen to agree that 2+2=4 ... but then I am an Independent, not a D or R math challenged person ;-)

And yes, I happen to agree with theism, but I understand that your arguments are weak.  But that is your problem to solve, not mine.  I wish you best, in finding stronger arguments.
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.

Drew_2017


QuoteAnd yes, I happen to agree with theism, but I understand that your arguments are weak.

Compared to who?

Of course they're not ironclad I can't conjure arguments beyond the evidence available which is scant on either side. I don't have a faith in theism, I have a belief. I've admitted they're facts that could be revealed that would change my current belief. In contrast to many of my opponents who state their belief as a fact but have a (IMO) weaker case than mine. I wasn't expecting to change any minds in here the point of this thread was for me to support my belief in Goddidit. Blame God for not making it a slam dunk case.



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

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

Baruch

#1314
Quote from: Drew_2017 on July 25, 2017, 10:50:56 PM
Compared to who?

Of course they're not ironclad I can't conjure arguments beyond the evidence available which is scant on either side. I don't have a faith in theism, I have a belief. I've admitted they're facts that could be revealed that would change my current belief. In contrast to many of my opponents who state their belief as a fact but have a (IMO) weaker case than mine. I wasn't expecting to change any minds in here the point of this thread was for me to support my belief in Goddidit. Blame God for not making it a slam dunk case.

Faith or belief, isn't a hypothesis.  If you had an hypothesis, it would be testable.  Now either you have a proto-universe to blow up, or a proto-Earth to populate, or you get to shut up ... with mere rationalism, that is un-empirical.  You can also "test" by providing a second universe or second Earth to compare with ... comparison study counts as science also.  The atheists here are both ideological and rationalist and empirical.  Their ideology (belief) colors their scientism.  But it is as minimalist as yours, so it is difficult to come to grips with it.  I don't support scientism, neither do you.  But their science isn't flawed, merely colored (rose tinted glasses).  You are simply saying what they say, but wearing different glasses.

In my case, I am a demigod.  So are all the other humans.  I can produce both myself and another human for examination.  My standard for demigod is both ancient and progressive (democratic).  Not just dead Roman emperors are demigods, but any living person is.  That doesn't mean any of us have created a universe  (including a universe in a computer simulation .. ahem).  That isn't the ancient standard.  You can be a demigod without creating anything ex nihilo.  In fact, the Biblical standard of Genesis I .. is simply to provide order to what is already present but chaotic.  This people do all the time.  We also show no more wisdom in doing so, than the Biblical god does.

The Medieval version of the Abrahamic god is the straw-man around here.  Don't accept any straw-men.  Basically if you let an opponent define the terms .. you already lost.  This is why I can validly claim, per my own definition of terms, that I am right ... because I carefully define my own terms, and won't let anyone else define them for me.  A word means exactly what I say it means .. I accept no dictionary or Pope or any other authority, other than my own.  That is what a demigod does.  Embodied psychology not disembodied etymology.  A chair can't do that, a rock can't do that.  They aren't demigods.  Animals can do that, so can any other life form.  And yes, I support vitalism not materialism.

Materialism is one way of interpreting scientific results, a form of reductionism.  It isn't correct, though it does match the data.  All interpretations match the data ... this is why interpretations are seductive.  Say the mechanical details of 9/11.  But those details will never tell us why the planes were flown into the buildings, just that they were, and the building burned and fell down.  To resolve the controversy, we would have to build new buildings the same way, and fly the same kind of planes into them ... so the controversy can never be resolved.  The interpretation of events by anyone, is political ... and there is no science in that, just deceit.

The present argument here is ... "I like Mexican food" vs "I don't like Mexican food" while both argue a "bait and switch" ... "Is Mexican food any good?".  Neither side is self aware or honest ... because both sides are political (in a culture political way).  There is no nutrition evidence presented, that would actually be scientific, just a useless nattering of nabobs.  HR has more science fact to throw at you (he is very political) but that is actually unnecessary.  Because you accept his definition of terms.  If you accept the interpretation (philosophy) of materialism, anytime, any where ... then you have already lost the argument.

I couldn't be a plausible theist if I rejected science.  Also if I accepted scientism, reductionism or materialism.  And arguing about anything that can't be demonstrated here and now, is nattering nabobs.  Any theist must accept vitalism of some sort ... though as an interpretation of science, it can't be proven.  I know you accept vitalism ... but you let your opponent define it in his terms, as supernaturalism.  Vitalism isn't supernatural.  Scientism is claiming more than is justifiable.  Reductionism and materialism are simplistic barbarisms ... reductio ad absurdum ... like the first scientist, Thales, claiming everything is a form of water.
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 July 23, 2017, 01:53:48 PM
That kind of reasoning is circular. I could say laptops work just fine no creator/designer needed. I can just show you a laptop and say see works fine and no creator in sight, none inside the laptop...proof atoms arranged like a laptop work just find...

I know that's false in laptops how do I know its not false in a universe that winds up having characteristics to cause humans? I know you won't agree but do you understand why I find your reasoning lacking?
The logic is not circular, since it does not depend on an argument supported by a later one.  You should be careful about using terms you do not understand that just seems good to you at a time.

In your example, a laptop was built and had a creator.  An examination of the laptop shows standard existing technology which can be traced backwards to earlier simpler models.

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on July 28, 2017, 03:23:04 AM
The logic is not circular, since it does not depend on an argument supported by a later one.  You should be careful about using terms you do not understand that just seems good to you at a time.

In your example, a laptop was built and had a creator.  An examination of the laptop shows standard existing technology which can be traced backwards to earlier simpler models.

But not complete regress.  Trace it back to pictures on a cave wall.  The pictures didn't paint themselves.  You can't take the human out of the loop ... or primate, or mammal or reptile ... going back to abiogenesis.  That is linear regression, which is always contingent empirically on the axioms.  Circular regress is tautology .. it is what math is.  Unless you make a bad circle, in which case it is self-contradiction.
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.

Drew_2017

#1317
Quote from: Baruch on July 26, 2017, 05:28:44 AM
Faith or belief, isn't a hypothesis.  If you had an hypothesis, it would be testable.  Now either you have a proto-universe to blow up, or a proto-Earth to populate, or you get to shut up ... with mere rationalism, that is un-empirical.  You can also "test" by providing a second universe or second Earth to compare with ... comparison study counts as science also.  The atheists here are both ideological and rationalist and empirical.  Their ideology (belief) colors their scientism.  But it is as minimalist as yours, so it is difficult to come to grips with it.  I don't support scientism, neither do you.  But their science isn't flawed, merely colored (rose tinted glasses).  You are simply saying what they say, but wearing different glasses.

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
"professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"
synonyms:   theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption; More
PHILOSOPHY
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.


To validate a hypothesis some type of testing or experimentation has to occur but not required to propose a hypothesis. The hypothesis of most atheists is that no creator is necessary and all we observe occurred without one. They point to the fact most phenomena with in the universe can be traced back to natural causes no Creator required. They extrapolate from the known to the unknown and propose the unknown will be traced back to natural causes as well. My rebuttal is things known to be created by intelligent beings can also be explained naturalistically. It simply has no bearing on whether intelligence was behind it. They propose the laws of nature occurred without plan or intent to cause the conditions favorable to life in spite of the mind-boggling narrow conditions necessary for life to exist. This leads several scientists to hypothesize this is just one of many or an infinitude of universes a naturalism in the gaps proposition at best.

QuoteIn my case, I am a demigod.  So are all the other humans.  I can produce both myself and another human for examination.  My standard for demigod is both ancient and progressive (democratic).  Not just dead Roman emperors are demigods, but any living person is.  That doesn't mean any of us have created a universe  (including a universe in a computer simulation .. ahem).  That isn't the ancient standard.  You can be a demigod without creating anything ex nihilo.  In fact, the Biblical standard of Genesis I .. is simply to provide order to what is already present but chaotic.  This people do all the time.  We also show no more wisdom in doing so, than the Biblical god does.

It is the existence of rational (perhaps semi rational) human beings that is the fly in the ointment. If we could have this same discussion about a universe in which no life existed naturalism would be a slam dunk proposition.

QuoteThe Medieval version of the Abrahamic god is the straw-man around here.  Don't accept any straw-men.  Basically if you let an opponent define the terms .. you already lost.  This is why I can validly claim, per my own definition of terms, that I am right ... because I carefully define my own terms, and won't let anyone else define them for me.  A word means exactly what I say it means .. I accept no dictionary or Pope or any other authority, other than my own.  That is what a demigod does.  Embodied psychology not disembodied etymology.  A chair can't do that, a rock can't do that.  They aren't demigods.  Animals can do that, so can any other life form.  And yes, I support vitalism not materialism.

I've noticed like most of the atheists in this forum you tend to state your opinions as if they are uncontested facts which all of us have to accept as true.

QuoteThe present argument here is ... "I like Mexican food" vs "I don't like Mexican food" while both argue a "bait and switch" ... "Is Mexican food any good?".  Neither side is self aware or honest ... because both sides are political (in a culture political way).  There is no nutrition evidence presented, that would actually be scientific, just a useless nattering of nabobs.  HR has more science fact to throw at you (he is very political) but that is actually unnecessary.  Because you accept his definition of terms.  If you accept the interpretation (philosophy) of materialism, anytime, any where ... then you have already lost the argument.

HK is all over the map I think he would fare very poorly in a debate with a panel of undecideds provided they could stay awake long enough to listen to his rambling diatribes. He uses scientific knowledge as a prop for decoration not because it provides proof or evidence of his deeply felt convictions but because it lends credence that his beliefs are scientific. That he expresses his opinions as facts would only raise the bar before undecideds who would demand he provide evidence equivalent to making a fact claim but would be very disappointed when they find out he can't.


QuoteI couldn't be a plausible theist if I rejected science.  Also if I accepted scientism, reductionism or materialism.  And arguing about anything that can't be demonstrated here and now, is nattering nabobs.  Any theist must accept vitalism of some sort ... though as an interpretation of science, it can't be proven.  I know you accept vitalism ... but you let your opponent define it in his terms, as supernaturalism.  Vitalism isn't supernatural.  Scientism is claiming more than is justifiable.  Reductionism and materialism are simplistic barbarisms ... reductio ad absurdum ... like the first scientist, Thales, claiming everything is a form of water.

Supernaturalism is a pejorative term atheists always use but can never define. 
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Drew_2017

MY argument is simply that a requirement for a deity is in error, being that no deity is required for the universe to exist.  Simple undeified atoms work just fine...

Quote from: Cavebear on July 28, 2017, 03:23:04 AM
The logic is not circular, since it does not depend on an argument supported by a later one.  You should be careful about using terms you do not understand that just seems good to you at a time.

Circular reasoning is when you attempt to make an argument by beginning with an assumption that what you are trying to prove is already true. In your premise, you already accept the truth of the claim you are attempting to make. ... Examples of Circular Reasoning: The Bible is true, so you should not doubt the Word of God.

You start with the assumption that a requirement for a deity is in error [MY argument is simply that a requirement for a deity is in error, being that no deity is required for the universe to exist] you then repeat the same claim, classic circular reasoning but a tautology as well.

I'm curious what defiled atoms look like though. 

QuoteIn your example, a laptop was built and had a creator.  An examination of the laptop shows standard existing technology which can be traced backwards to earlier simpler models.

Correct because unlike the universe we can trace the existence of a laptop to a creator. However, if we didn't know how a laptop came into existence we can make the same claim no Creator necessary and the undefiled atoms of a laptop do the job fine. All we have to do is begin with the assumption a Creator isn't necessary then point to the laptop that doesn't require a Creator to function and call it proof.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Baruch

Drew - I think we finally got your attention ;-)

You don't know who you are, because you don't know who I am.  If you knew who I am, then you would know who you are.  Break out of the Matrix.
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.