Author Topic: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit  (Read 17036 times)

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1305 on: July 23, 2017, 09:01:23 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!
« Last Edit: July 23, 2017, 09:05:10 PM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline SGOS

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1306 on: July 24, 2017, 05:57:35 AM »
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. 

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1307 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.  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?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1308 on: July 25, 2017, 12:34:56 PM »
Once the claim is made: "Everything requires a maker," then everything requires a maker (by definition). 

That's an assertion not a definition.

Quote
Religion 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

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1309 on: July 25, 2017, 12:57:44 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 ;-)
שלום

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1310 on: July 25, 2017, 02:04:48 PM »
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.

Quote
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. 

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.

Quote
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)

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

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1311 on: July 25, 2017, 02:09:48 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

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1312 on: July 25, 2017, 08:01:41 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.
שלום

Offline Drew_2017 (OP)

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1313 on: July 25, 2017, 10:50:56 PM »

Quote
And 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

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1314 on: July 26, 2017, 05:28:44 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 05:51:21 AM by Baruch »
שלום