Author Topic: Hijri Byakuren and Drew_2017 on "Goddidit Vs Naturedidit"  (Read 146 times)

Offline Hijiri Byakuren (OP)

  • ULC Minister, Honorary Doctor of Divinity
  • *
  • Posts: 4963
  • Total likes: 1625
  • That's DOCTOR Hijiri, to you!
    • Pathos
Hijri Byakuren and Drew_2017 on "Goddidit Vs Naturedidit"
« on: April 04, 2017, 07:10:12 PM »
I don't usually like dogpiling people like what's happening in this thread, so I'm gonna use this little-known part of the forum to talk to you, @Drew_2017. I'm making a thread here instead of  going through the private messaging system because I'd still like the contents of our discussion to be public; but other than that, we can count on the moderators to enforce the one-on-one nature of the conversation.

To recap, this is your original post:

This is the real crux of the matter and it seems to me there is a serious aversion among atheists and naturalists to the notion Goddidit. What if years down the road insurmountable evidence comes forth that in fact Goddidit. Are peoples teeth going to turn blue? Will there be rioting in the streets? Will the stock market crash and people's underwear explode? Will scientists run around in circles and pull their hair out? On the other hand if there is conclusive evidence Naturedidit it wouldn't be the end of the world for me. After all if God didn't do it then its the only game in town.
I will go point-by point, as is only polite. If I ignore something, I either agreed with it or it didn't make a "point" I thought I could address. So, let us begin.

What if years down the road insurmountable evidence comes forth that in fact Goddidit.
I would have a lot of questions, not the least of which would be, "Whence cometh God?" But you probably knew that already.

Are peoples teeth going to turn blue? Will there be rioting in the streets? Will the stock market crash and people's underwear explode? Will scientists run around in circles and pull their hair out?
Well for one thing, the theist majority would need to decide which god it was, and if it was the "correct" god; in that regard, nothing changes. Atheists would certainly have egg in their face, and I'm sure at least a few would continue to deny God's existence, but a majority would at least become deists.

On the other hand if there is conclusive evidence Naturedidit it wouldn't be the end of the world for me. After all if God didn't do it then its the only game in town.
Good to see that we're on the same page, more-or-less. I do take exception to the use of "nature" as a stand-in for God, though. It makes you sound as though you think nature is a "thing" with its own volition, rather than a catch-all term for anything that isn't man-made.

Offline Drew_2017

Re: Hijri Byakuren and Drew_2017 on "Goddidit Vs Naturedidit"
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2017, 04:40:02 PM »
Hijri Byakuren

Quote
I would have a lot of questions, not the least of which would be, "Whence cometh God?" But you probably knew that already.

I would like to know also but the answer theism is to the question why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing? If it turns out we do owe our existence solely to natural causes, I'd like to know where they came from too.

Quote
Well for one thing, the theist majority would need to decide which god it was, and if it was the "correct" god; in that regard, nothing changes. Atheists would certainly have egg in their face, and I'm sure at least a few would continue to deny God's existence, but a majority would at least become deists.

They wouldn't have egg on their face in my opinion, from what we know now there position isn't unreasonable. Not now but at one time believing the earth was flat was a reasonable belief. I have a friend who was a committed atheist who had an out of body experience during surgery and was able to identify who was there and the conversation that took place. It didn't lead her to become a born again holy roller it did make her re-evaluate her belief the universe could be understood in terms of the laws of physics alone. I think the only thing that would convince a committed atheist-naturalist is some personal event or visitation. I say this because on an evidence basis alone there is no conclusive evidence in favor of either proposition yet atheists often state their position as fact  as if there was conclusive evidence. This thread is 52 pages long still haven't seen the conclusive evidence, then we could just but this issue to rest.

Quote
Good to see that we're on the same page, more-or-less. I do take exception to the use of "nature" as a stand-in for God, though. It makes you sound as though you think nature is a "thing" with its own volition, rather than a catch-all term for anything that isn't man-made.

Do you know of an alternative to Goddidit Vs Naturedidit? But no I don't personify nature.


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

Offline Hijiri Byakuren (OP)

  • ULC Minister, Honorary Doctor of Divinity
  • *
  • Posts: 4963
  • Total likes: 1625
  • That's DOCTOR Hijiri, to you!
    • Pathos
Re: Hijri Byakuren and Drew_2017 on "Goddidit Vs Naturedidit"
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2017, 09:00:03 AM »
I say this because on an evidence basis alone there is no conclusive evidence in favor of either proposition yet atheists often state their position as fact  as if there was conclusive evidence.
Indeed, I can see where you'd take issue with that. I try to pick my words carefully to avoid being accused of doing that myself. If the evidence isn't conclusive, I'll just say "the evidence suggests X" or "the evidence points toward Y."

Do you know of an alternative to Goddidit Vs Naturedidit?
Well you may have seen my little copypasta here and there, but I've always been open to the simulation idea. But as with everything else, it opens up the question of, "Where the hell did the programmer come from?"

Offline Drew_2017

Re: Hijri Byakuren and Drew_2017 on "Goddidit Vs Naturedidit"
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2017, 12:05:29 PM »
Indeed, I can see where you'd take issue with that. I try to pick my words carefully to avoid being accused of doing that myself. If the evidence isn't conclusive, I'll just say "the evidence suggests X" or "the evidence points toward Y."
Well you may have seen my little copypasta here and there, but I've always been open to the simulation idea. But as with everything else, it opens up the question of, "Where the hell did the programmer come from?"

Our respective viewpoints are opinions only. Its what we think is true minus conclusive evidence it is true.

Even if it turns out we owe our existence to a scientist in another universe it would only push the envelope back one step. If it turns out some unknown naturalistic forces caused the universe to exist we'd want to know where they came from. Sadly, we'll probably never know.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein