[Merged] Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ? - Page 7

RoboTimbo · 8th May 2012, 07:39 AM

If it's just making crap up, I prefer The Flying Spaghetti Monster creating the universe and being destroyed in its creation.

GIBHOR, that makes me happy so does that make it true? Is there evidence for a non-The Flying Spaghetti Monster explanation?

godless dave · 8th May 2012, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

because simplicity is a bad criteria for finding out the truth in regard of the issue which we do debate. beside this, the simpler one fails on so many criterias...... how do you explain the origin of the universe, its finetuning, and specially the amazing fine tuning of the galaxy solar moon earth ?

That "fine-tuning" doesn't exist.

Hokulele · 8th May 2012, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

thats why i wonder why so many here stick to strong atheism.

Aha! No wonder you fail to understand the various bits of evidence that have been supplied so far in this thread, it appears you do not know how the scientific method works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

Pay particular attention to the following bit from that Wiki article:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then only a weak conclusion can be made; namely that the observed data set provides no strong evidence against the null hypothesis. As the null hypothesis could be true or false, in this case, in some contexts this is interpreted as meaning that the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion, on others it means that there is no evidence to support changing from a currently useful regime to a different one.

So although it would be intellectually dishonest to say that the non-existence of God has been proven, it would be even more intellectually dishonest to use that as a reason to believe that said God must exist.

Quote:

So war " we don't know " has been the standard answer. And the few, that made actually the effort to present evidence for naturalim, have shown how weak the arguments actually are. Planet formation is a good example.

Wait a minute, you demanded that Dinwar link to the article that shows how planetary formation is due to natural processes (that particles can and will clump, given the opportunity). Did you even read that article? What is the point of demanding something you will completely ignore?

Quote:

If the universe had a beginning, and most scientists would today agree on that, then obviously it had a cause. the Kalaam Cosmological argument has not been debunked.

Wrong. There are plenty of natural events that do not have causes. Why should the universe as a whole be different? We went through all of this the last time you started a thread, but just in case you forgot. For example, we know the mechanism for how radioactive particles decay, but there aren't any apparent triggers for when a particular particle will decay. We can talk about the half-life of a material, but that is as close as we can get.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

because simplicity is a bad criteria for finding out the truth in regard of the issue which we do debate. beside this, the simpler one fails on so many criterias...... how do you explain the origin of the universe, its finetuning, and specially the amazing fine tuning of the galaxy solar moon earth ? ? the planet formation ? the arise of life from non life ? conscience ? knowledge of morals ? all naturalistic explanations fail miserably on all these issues.

If simplicity is a bad critieria, why do you assume that only your God exists? If supernatural forces/entities are allowed, why don't you believe in all of the gods mankind has described? Why is yours the only one that is real?

And to the rest of your questions, you have been given explanations for most of them. That you refuse to consider those is not a problem of naturalism.

marplots · 8th May 2012, 08:44 AM

I'm an atheist, and I am drinking a cup of coffee. I made the coffee in a machine that runs hot water through ground coffee beans. I pour it into a cup and add a bit of milk and sugar. Then I stir it.

At no point in this process do I pray, or ask for God's intervention, or worry about whether God will continue to allow gravity to keep my coffee in the cup.

Tell me how this isn't naturalism of the sort even believers rely on every day? And if they are atheists at least to that extent, they might understand why I am even more atheist.

So I wonder... How does a believer get through their day while simultaneously denying naturalism? Do they hate coffee?

JoeBentley · 8th May 2012, 08:47 AM

And really having to make the distinction between "God hasn't been proven to exist" and "God has been proven not to exist" is just silly. Yes there is an intellectual difference between the two concepts but it's not a distinction we have to make in non-Woo discussions.

If there's no chair I can say there's no chair in the room. I don't have to break down the metaphysical difference between there is no chair in my room and having proven there is no chair in my room.

Wowbagger · 8th May 2012, 09:15 AM

Did it ever occur to any of you that perhaps GIBHOR, and others who make his sort of arguments just don't care about productivity in science?!

There are countless folks who can successfully go about their daily lives without worrying about which frameworks of thinking lead to the most effective and innovative ideas to fight disease, or predict asteroid collisions, or any of the assorted things science and engineering are good at doing.

Or, maybe they do care, but they are lucky enough to not be in a position of responsability to do anything about it. (Which means they, effectively, don't care that much.)

So, those sorts of folks can afford not to think in naturalistic terms.

Meanwhile, those of us who would rather not leave everything up to a supernatural power ARE going to use our sciences: "Big-Bang" Cosmology, "Old Earth" geology, and Evolutionary Biology, etc; to develop the solutions we need to solve any problems we might choose to confront. (Or, at the very least, cheer those who are doing so, by embracing the naturalistic understanding they require.)

Much of this bickering is pointless, once productivity becomes the focus.

JoeBentley · 8th May 2012, 09:22 AM

If that's true (and it very well might be) the problem is they just don't except that, they have to come up with excuses and rationalizations.

Simply going "I know I can't prove God exists, but I believe anyway" is certainly nothing noble and carries with it it's own set of problems, but its a different beast entirely from wanting to hold the opinion that God exists on some rational level and making up evidence, denying evidence, or rewriting the rules of evidence so you pretend like you have a rational reason for an irrational belief.

It's all comes back to intellectual honesty. If you hold an opinion as to how the world works that you can't support with evidence your options are to either admit that you don't value evidence or change your view. Convincing others (to say nothing of yourself) you have evidence when you don't is just wrong.

Dinwar · 8th May 2012, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Did it ever occur to any of you that perhaps GIBHOR, and others who make his sort of arguments just don't care about productivity in science?!

If he hadn't trotted out the Creationist garbage I'd agree with you. However, he wants to debate the science--thus he is obligated to utilize the scientific method, and his failure to do even the most basic research into the subject makes his opinion valueless.

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Where is this coherent definition of macro evolution?

When paleontologists decide they're not going crazy enough, they'll write something on macroevolution using the definition "evolution above the species level". It gets....weird. One of those things you can only see on the scale of eras. It's a legitimate definition--but it's not something typically discussed, becuase Creationists have hijacked the term so badly that most paleontologists don't deal with it. In fact, somewhere I have an article discussing precisely the consequences of said hijacking of the term "macroevolution".

joobz · 8th May 2012, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

When paleontologists decide they're not going crazy enough, they'll write something on macroevolution using the definition "evolution above the species level". It gets....weird. One of those things you can only see on the scale of eras. It's a legitimate definition--but it's not something typically discussed, becuase Creationists have hijacked the term so badly that most paleontologists don't deal with it. In fact, somewhere I have an article discussing precisely the consequences of said hijacking of the term "macroevolution".

Economics does not exist.

Certainly, we can evaluate and see the effects of earnings and supply/demand theory on individuals and individual house holds. But no one has demonstrated successfully how these "microeconomic" systems can actually result in a macroeconomic event. Where is the line?

Dinwar · 8th May 2012, 10:19 AM

Macroevolution, by the paleontological term, is somewhat different from the biological definition. It's not the accumulation of microevolutionary changes through time; it's more how the members of various branches are culled. It focuses a lot more on the "natural selection" part of the equation, and how that selection impacts future evolutionary pathways. Peter Ward's book "Future Evolution" shows one application of this.

Fundamentally yes, all evolution is accumulated change through time that's subsequently culled to some degree. But the paleontological version of macroevolution is an emergent property of that process. Saying it's accumulated microevolutionary changes is akin to saying that biology is merely atomic physics.

Twiler · 8th May 2012, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

thats why i wonder why so many here stick to strong atheism. So war " we don't know " has been the standard answer. And the few, that made actually the effort to present evidence for naturalim, have shown how weak the arguments actually are. Planet formation is a good example.

If the universe had a beginning, and most scientists would today agree on that, then obviously it had a cause. the Kalaam Cosmological argument has not been debunked.

Why?

Why?

Why?

Paulhoff · 8th May 2012, 11:15 AM

So, having a god that can be anything you want it to be explains What?

Paul

Dinwar · 8th May 2012, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

thats why i wonder why so many here stick to strong atheism. So war " we don't know " has been the standard answer. And the few, that made actually the effort to present evidence for naturalim, have shown how weak the arguments actually are. Planet formation is a good example.

I note that GIBHOR hasn't responded to my photo of a protoplanet being formed precisely the way nebular theory describes. Guess that means that planet formation isn't as weak an argument as he thought.

And what's the alternative? "God did it." Without evidence to support such gods, without justification, without taking into account the huge amounts of data we have (and which I've referenced). Just POOF! and planets form thanks to a divine incantation.

Quote:

If the universe had a beginning, and most scientists would today agree on that, then obviously it had a cause.

"Most scientists" aren't involved in cosmology or the Big Bang Theory. Most scientists in the relevent fields don't think discussing what happened before the BB makes any sense; thus, the normal rules of causality may not be applicable.

And you've yet to explain why the universe needs a creator, but God doesn't. Or why we should care--after all, a Clockmaker God is irrelevent to the universe the instant it's been created.

Wowbagger · 8th May 2012, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

If he hadn't trotted out the Creationist garbage I'd agree with you. However, he wants to debate the science--thus he is obligated to utilize the scientific method, and his failure to do even the most basic research into the subject makes his opinion valueless.

"Creationist garbage" still applies to what I stated.

Evolution is a productive framework (and, of course, theory) for developing innovative solutions to problems in the field of biology (and engineering, but that's a different story). Understanding Evolution science is an important key to fighting diseases, saving endangered species, and improving crop yields, etc.

Its "sister", abiogenesis, is productive in detailing various aspects of how life could get started from non-life, and various engineering innovations come out of that, as well. (even if we don't have all the answers yet)

Many folks can afford to spew "Creationist garbage" because they don't have to care about that.

The moment someone does care, they magically become naturalists, at least temporarily.

Dinwar · 8th May 2012, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Many folks can afford to spew "Creationist garbage" because they don't have to care about that.

Three problems with this.

First, if they didn't care, they wouldn't be arguing the point and researching Creationist claims. If you don't care, you don't put the effort it. I don't are about Dadaist painting--so I simply ignore everything to do with it (I may accidently encounter something related to it, but I certainly don't seek it out). These people DO care, or at least think they do or should. It's just not a requirement for their job so they don't see the consequences of their errors.

Second, there ARE consequences, they're just indirect. People try to push Creationism into classrooms all the time, and there are organizations attempting to use the wide acceptance of Creationism to turn the USA into a theocracy (no conspiracy theory here--the Wedge Document is proof that this is happening). I'd be among the first against the wall should that happen. Their support makes attacks against my job possible.

Third, you assume that the truth is irrelevant so long as it doesn't directly impact someone. I hold that the truth is all that really matters, and that even if something doesn't directly impact you you should try to get the facts straight. Literary criticism doesn't impact my livelyhood at all; however, when I discuss literary criticism I at least attempt to be honest and accurate, and when I'm shown to be wrong I accept it. It's intellectual honesty, and someone who accepts a false idea merely because it doesn't have enough of an impact on his life to warrant correction, but still wants to tell people who study that area why they're wrong, is not honest.

Ron_Tomkins · 8th May 2012, 12:00 PM

Actually, it's not about the "simplest answer". The veracity of something doesn't depend on how simple the answer is. I could create up some bogus made up explanation that is actually really complicated to follow. Besides, how simple something is, is relative: To a layman, some of the most basic laws of physics are really complicated, while to a physics professor, they are quite simple.

So how simple an explanation is, should not be the criteria to determine whether something is true or not. It is irrelevant whether it's simple or complicated. As irrelevant as whether it sounds good or bad. Whether it would make a good movie or it's just plain dull. Whether it sounds really convincing to us or not. Whether we were told by our mommy. All irrelevant.

The only thing that matters is that there's compelling evidence to back it up.

Dinwar · 8th May 2012, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Actually, it's not about the "simplest answer". The veracity of something doesn't depend on how simple the answer is.

Occam's Razor (Do not multiply entities unnecessarily) is still a good rule of thumb, though. If there's no reason to add complexity to the explanation, it's not justifiable to do so. For example, grains of sand settling out of the water column due to fluid dynamics is a sufficient explanation for normal bedding in sedimentary units. There's no need to speculate that invisible, undetectable demons are the source of fluid dynamics. If I hear hoofbeats outside I'm going to assume it's a horse, because I know horses aren't uncommon around here; I'm not going to speculate about zebras being transported from Africa and released into the Los Angeles Basin.

The issue is that the simplest answer also has to explain all the data in order to be the most likely to be correct. If it doesn't explain the data it's simply wrong.

Wowbagger · 8th May 2012, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Third, you assume that the truth is irrelevant so long as it doesn't directly impact someone.

Actually, I did NOT mean to imply this at all! I assume quite the opposite: The more people are aware of how "naturalistic-style" science impacts their lives, in important (and often beneficial) ways, the better off society will be.

That does NOT mean we should just let people who can "afford to be ignorant" stay ignorant. I was hoping my words would do two things:

1. Keep the thread focused on its goal: explain WHY "naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence". You cannot do that, successfully, without addressing the productive value of naturalism versus appealing to inane and/or superfluous entities.

2. Serve as a wake-up call to Creationists that their arguments don't go anywhere very important. They are like the ducts on the set of Star Trek labeled "GNDN": Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing.

Of course, it is important not to fall into a fallacy of consequences: Instead of saying "Evolution is true because it is useful", one should be careful to phrase it as "Evolution seems to be true enough, that we can make use of it".

Here is a good resource of examples of how Evolution impacts our lives:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...hp?topic_id=15

Originally Posted by Dinwar

First, if they didn't care, they wouldn't be arguing the point and researching Creationist claims. If you don't care, you don't put the effort it.

I have not read every post in this thread. But, it looks like GIBHOR is arguing from an "Ultimate Truth" perspective, and NOT a "productivity" perspective, nor even an "empirical knowledge generation" perspective (which is a form of productivity).

If he cared about this stuff, he either has a hard time communicating that; OR he cares a LOT more about "Ultimate Answers" than discovery or innovations.

If all you care about are "Ultimate Answers" that seem to sum up everything you know about life and Universe, you generally go with the simple, easy-to-swallow solutions; without generally taking into consideration any specifics as to HOW those Answers can help us improve our world.
(They might take very general things into consideration, such as "love" and "being happy", but lack the insights into just how love and happiness can most effectively come about in a changing world.)

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I hold that the truth is all that really matters, and that even if something doesn't directly impact you you should try to get the facts straight.

And that is why this debate is failing: It is one person's Truth vs. another person's Truth.

Instead, you should consider turning this debate into something slightly different: HOW can we can demonstrate one version of Truth is better at something, than another Truth?

It takes more than "evidence", because all that's going to lead to is a battle of "My pile of evidence is bigger than yours!", with no real guidelines to measure whose pile is better. And, talking about the scientific method ain't gonna help, because your opponent is not automatically going to care about that.

I think I already mentioned, a few times, what it takes.

Dancing David · 8th May 2012, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

When paleontologists decide they're not going crazy enough, they'll write something on macroevolution using the definition "evolution above the species level". It gets....weird. One of those things you can only see on the scale of eras. It's a legitimate definition--but it's not something typically discussed, becuase Creationists have hijacked the term so badly that most paleontologists don't deal with it. In fact, somewhere I have an article discussing precisely the consequences of said hijacking of the term "macroevolution".

Thanks.

Ron_Tomkins · 8th May 2012, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Occam's Razor (Do not multiply entities unnecessarily) is still a good rule of thumb, though. If there's no reason to add complexity to the explanation, it's not justifiable to do so.

Of course. I agree. I was just talking about erroneous connections such as "If the explanation is simple, then it must be true". The criteria for determining whether something is true or not, cannot simply (no pun intended) be whether it is simple or not. Also, as I already said, simple is a relative term.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 8th May 2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Instead, you should consider turning this debate into something slightly different: HOW can we can demonstrate one version of Truth is better at something, than another Truth?

There have been several examples of people explaining how assuming a naturalistic viewpoint has positively impacted the world (the easiest example, and therefore the most common, has been the existence of the technology which comprises the internet, allowing this conversation to take place at all). These have been ignored.

rocketdodger · 8th May 2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
naturalism is the foundation of strong atheism, which declares, that God most probably does not exist. Please present good reasons, why you believe this world view to be the best explanation for our existence.

For me, the issue is that once the notion of "God" most people think of is evaluated critically, parts start to fall away, and what you have left isn't anything at all.

If there is a God, it is some unknowable unimaginable entity that is so far removed from any of the religious notions people hold that it might as well be some naturalistic phenomena anyway.

Here is a question to you, GIBHOR: If God isn't like anything you can imagine it is like, meaning if it is intelligent it is intelligent in a way you cannot understand, if it has form it is a form you cannot understand, etc., then what is the utility in ascribing the term "God" to it rather than any other term we use for stuff we don't really know anything about?

I think the notion of "atheism" is a bit skewed these days. In reality, an atheist has specific points that they hold a view on. It isn't like you can say "an atheist doesn't believe in God" because the term "God" isn't well defined anymore. For example, as an atheist I don't believe in:

1) A supreme being, because the notions of "supreme" and "being" are not consistent.
2) A being that is omniscient with regards to its own existence, because that is inconsistent.
3) A being that is not constrained to the rules of our universe, in particular what we observe as cause and effect.
4) A non-animal being that has a gender, because gender only applies to animals that reproduce via sexual reproduction.
5) A being that is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, because that is inconsistent.

... and there are more. The point is that what one considers "God" may be only a subset of these points, or all of them, or none of them. It is more accurate to address each point specifically rather than use a generalization.

JoeBentley · 8th May 2012, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Instead, you should consider turning this debate into something slightly different: HOW can we can demonstrate one version of Truth is better at something, than another Truth?

"Truth" is a meaningless Navel Gazer term when it's used as some alternative to actual knowledge or understanding.

The best idea is the one that most accurately reflects the real world. Because only those ideas allow us to better understand the real world.

godless dave · 8th May 2012, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

Why?

Why?

Why?

Even if the universe did have a cause - wouldn't a natural cause be the first thing to look for? Natural causes are the only kind we've found so far.

Dinwar · 8th May 2012, 01:32 PM

Quote:

If all you care about are "Ultimate Answers" that seem to sum up everything you know about life and Universe, you generally go with the simple, easy-to-swallow solutions; without generally taking into consideration any specifics as to HOW those Answers can help us improve our world.

You seem to be arguing from consequences. Or, rather, you're setting up a dichotomy between truth and practicality. I think that's where you and I are talking past each other--I'm saying that practicality is a side issue (even if by "practical" you merely mean "that which can help answer other questions"). If something's true it's true, and anything that contradicts it is false.

Quote:

And that is why this debate is failing: It is one person's Truth vs. another person's Truth.

No. It's one person's supported and reasoned conclusions vs. a pack of lies and falsehoods. Truth isn't subjective--it doesn't matter if I believe it or not, when my knife slipped the other night my hand bled.

Quote:

Instead, you should consider turning this debate into something slightly different: HOW can we can demonstrate one version of Truth is better at something, than another Truth?

I've tried. I've even shown photographic evidence of my point. Others have posted peer-reviewed evidence (which included other photographs). The issue is that one side of this debate is willing to look at evidence, and the other is not. This is the main problem here, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, because as soon as one side stops looking for and at evidence there's nothing left, the conversation is dead. If nothing can convince GIBHOR he's wrong, there's no point in this conversation, no matter how we look at it.

JoeBentley · 8th May 2012, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

The issue is that one side of this debate is willing to look at evidence, and the other is not.

I am wondering how we're supposed to argue against people that are straight up admitting they think they can just make stuff up.

Twiler · 8th May 2012, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by godless dave

Even if the universe did have a cause - wouldn't a natural cause be the first thing to look for? Natural causes are the only kind we've found so far.

I'm objecting to the 'obviously' part. I'm not going to accept anything as obvious when we're discussing cosmological phenomena.

Wowbagger · 8th May 2012, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

There have been several examples of people explaining how assuming a naturalistic viewpoint has positively impacted the world (the easiest example, and therefore the most common, has been the existence of the technology which comprises the internet, allowing this conversation to take place at all). These have been ignored.

Perhaps he doesn't care. Or, perhaps he doesn't believe them. Either way, it's still a better approach than others I have seen around here.

Challenge him, and anyone else with similar arguments, to come up with ways a non-naturalistic viewpoint could help contribute something significant to thsoe things.

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

"Truth" is a meaningless Navel Gazer term when it's used as some alternative to actual knowledge or understanding.

The best idea is the one that most accurately reflects the real world. Because only those ideas allow us to better understand the real world.

I realize that. Pretend that I had the word "Truth" in quotes, in those posts of mine.

A good test for how accurately an idea reflects the real world is to see if it can be put to practical use.

JoeBentley · 8th May 2012, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

A good test for how accurately an idea reflects the real world is to see if it can be put to practical use.

Yeah. So why is this idea so hard for some people to grasp?

And you know what it's not even that it's hard for them to grasp so much as they find the idea offensive.

MattusMaximus · 8th May 2012, 03:07 PM

I hate it when I arrive to these threads late and all the good stuff is already said.

MattusMaximus · 8th May 2012, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Perhaps he doesn't care. Or, perhaps he doesn't believe them. Either way, it's still a better approach than others I have seen around here.

Challenge him, and anyone else with similar arguments, to come up with ways a non-naturalistic viewpoint could help contribute something significant to thsoe things.

Precisely.

For example, one of my favorite responses to creationists who insist that their views are "science" is to say something along the lines of: "Really? Okay, then please explain to me how so-called 'scientific creationism' or 'intelligent design' can be used to create a modern vaccine and/or antibiotic. Evolutionary science does this all the time, so when is creationism going to get into the act?"

It's always fun to watch them lamely attempt to change the subject at that point in the conversation

Squeegee Beckenheim · 8th May 2012, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Perhaps he doesn't care. Or, perhaps he doesn't believe them. Either way, it's still a better approach than others I have seen around here.

I would posit that if the results are the same (i.e. GIBHOR ignores anything which contradicts what he'd like to believe), then no approach is better than the other. He won't reply, no matter what approach you take.

Feel free to address him directly using your approach and see what result you get.

marplots · 8th May 2012, 04:53 PM

Now I'm feeling elitist.

"Yes, Virginia, there is a God. He cares about you, has a plan for your life and holds a place for you in the happy-ever-after. Now get back to herding those sheep."

Maybe God is a useful psychological remedy.

Lowpro · 8th May 2012, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Now I'm feeling elitist.

"Yes, Virginia, there is a God. He cares about you, has a plan for your life and holds a place for you in the happy-ever-after. Now get back to herding those sheep."

Maybe God is a useful psychological remedy.

More like psychological torture, but that's what love is

GIBHOR · 8th May 2012, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

DNA isn't some code--it's a substrate.
.

I did not say DNA IS a code. I said it CONTAINS codified information, similar to a computer code, or a book. How could it have a " natural " aka non intelligent origin ?

RoboTimbo · 8th May 2012, 05:59 PM

GIBHOR, will you be answering the question you've been asked and never answered in your many similar threads?

What caused your god(s)?

GIBHOR · 8th May 2012, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

I suggest you study the science involved in greater detail, and not only from Creationist sources.

Hans

please explain why you discard creationist sources.

GIBHOR · 8th May 2012, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

GIBHOR, will you be answering the question you've been asked and never answered in your many similar threads?

What caused your god(s)?

The God i believe in is uncaused, has no beginning , and no end. He just is.

GIBHOR · 8th May 2012, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Lamuella

the universe/galaxy/solar system/earth aren't really all that fine tuned. We think they are, because they gave rise to us, but that's a fairly arrogant assumption. The universe is no more fine tuned to us than the lottery is fine tuned to a particular lottery winner.

http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html

Carbon chemistry

Quote:

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.
This epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0.
Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1

GIBHOR · 8th May 2012, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

each of your examples is nothing more than a vauge statement of incredulity. .

absolutely. Why do you believe the alternatives, like chance, or physical necessity, are compelling answers to explain these phenomenas?

8th May 2012, 08:06 AM	#242
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,131	Originally Posted by GIBHOR because simplicity is a bad criteria for finding out the truth in regard of the issue which we do debate. beside this, the simpler one fails on so many criterias...... how do you explain the origin of the universe, its finetuning, and specially the amazing fine tuning of the galaxy solar moon earth ? That "fine-tuning" doesn't exist.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

8th May 2012, 08:26 AM	#243
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,275	Originally Posted by GIBHOR thats why i wonder why so many here stick to strong atheism. Aha! No wonder you fail to understand the various bits of evidence that have been supplied so far in this thread, it appears you do not know how the scientific method works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis Pay particular attention to the following bit from that Wiki article: Originally Posted by Wikipedia If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then only a weak conclusion can be made; namely that the observed data set provides no strong evidence against the null hypothesis. As the null hypothesis could be true or false, in this case, in some contexts this is interpreted as meaning that the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion, on others it means that there is no evidence to support changing from a currently useful regime to a different one. So although it would be intellectually dishonest to say that the non-existence of God has been proven, it would be even more intellectually dishonest to use that as a reason to believe that said God must exist. Quote: So war " we don't know " has been the standard answer. And the few, that made actually the effort to present evidence for naturalim, have shown how weak the arguments actually are. Planet formation is a good example. Wait a minute, you demanded that Dinwar link to the article that shows how planetary formation is due to natural processes (that particles can and will clump, given the opportunity). Did you even read that article? What is the point of demanding something you will completely ignore? Quote: If the universe had a beginning, and most scientists would today agree on that, then obviously it had a cause. the Kalaam Cosmological argument has not been debunked. Wrong. There are plenty of natural events that do not have causes. Why should the universe as a whole be different? We went through all of this the last time you started a thread, but just in case you forgot. For example, we know the mechanism for how radioactive particles decay, but there aren't any apparent triggers for when a particular particle will decay. We can talk about the half-life of a material, but that is as close as we can get. Originally Posted by GIBHOR because simplicity is a bad criteria for finding out the truth in regard of the issue which we do debate. beside this, the simpler one fails on so many criterias...... how do you explain the origin of the universe, its finetuning, and specially the amazing fine tuning of the galaxy solar moon earth ? ? the planet formation ? the arise of life from non life ? conscience ? knowledge of morals ? all naturalistic explanations fail miserably on all these issues. If simplicity is a bad critieria, why do you assume that only your God exists? If supernatural forces/entities are allowed, why don't you believe in all of the gods mankind has described? Why is yours the only one that is real? And to the rest of your questions, you have been given explanations for most of them. That you refuse to consider those is not a problem of naturalism.
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey Last edited by Hokulele; 8th May 2012 at 08:27 AM.

8th May 2012, 08:44 AM	#244
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	I'm an atheist, and I am drinking a cup of coffee. I made the coffee in a machine that runs hot water through ground coffee beans. I pour it into a cup and add a bit of milk and sugar. Then I stir it. At no point in this process do I pray, or ask for God's intervention, or worry about whether God will continue to allow gravity to keep my coffee in the cup. Tell me how this isn't naturalism of the sort even believers rely on every day? And if they are atheists at least to that extent, they might understand why I am even more atheist. So I wonder... How does a believer get through their day while simultaneously denying naturalism? Do they hate coffee?
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420

8th May 2012, 08:47 AM	#245
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,772	And really having to make the distinction between "God hasn't been proven to exist" and "God has been proven not to exist" is just silly. Yes there is an intellectual difference between the two concepts but it's not a distinction we have to make in non-Woo discussions. If there's no chair I can say there's no chair in the room. I don't have to break down the metaphysical difference between there is no chair in my room and having proven there is no chair in my room.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

8th May 2012, 09:15 AM	#246
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,538	Did it ever occur to any of you that perhaps GIBHOR, and others who make his sort of arguments just don't care about productivity in science?! There are countless folks who can successfully go about their daily lives without worrying about which frameworks of thinking lead to the most effective and innovative ideas to fight disease, or predict asteroid collisions, or any of the assorted things science and engineering are good at doing. Or, maybe they do care, but they are lucky enough to not be in a position of responsability to do anything about it. (Which means they, effectively, don't care that much.) So, those sorts of folks can afford not to think in naturalistic terms. Meanwhile, those of us who would rather not leave everything up to a supernatural power ARE going to use our sciences: "Big-Bang" Cosmology, "Old Earth" geology, and Evolutionary Biology, etc; to develop the solutions we need to solve any problems we might choose to confront. (Or, at the very least, cheer those who are doing so, by embracing the naturalistic understanding they require.) Much of this bickering is pointless, once productivity becomes the focus.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! Last edited by Wowbagger; 8th May 2012 at 09:16 AM.

8th May 2012, 07:39 AM	#241
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,886	If it's just making crap up, I prefer The Flying Spaghetti Monster creating the universe and being destroyed in its creation. GIBHOR, that makes me happy so does that make it true? Is there evidence for a non-The Flying Spaghetti Monster explanation?

8th May 2012, 09:22 AM	#247
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,772	If that's true (and it very well might be) the problem is they just don't except that, they have to come up with excuses and rationalizations. Simply going "I know I can't prove God exists, but I believe anyway" is certainly nothing noble and carries with it it's own set of problems, but its a different beast entirely from wanting to hold the opinion that God exists on some rational level and making up evidence, denying evidence, or rewriting the rules of evidence so you pretend like you have a rational reason for an irrational belief. It's all comes back to intellectual honesty. If you hold an opinion as to how the world works that you can't support with evidence your options are to either admit that you don't value evidence or change your view. Convincing others (to say nothing of yourself) you have evidence when you don't is just wrong.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

8th May 2012, 09:40 AM	#248
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,979	Originally Posted by Wowbagger Did it ever occur to any of you that perhaps GIBHOR, and others who make his sort of arguments just don't care about productivity in science?! If he hadn't trotted out the Creationist garbage I'd agree with you. However, he wants to debate the science--thus he is obligated to utilize the scientific method, and his failure to do even the most basic research into the subject makes his opinion valueless. Originally Posted by Dancing David Where is this coherent definition of macro evolution? When paleontologists decide they're not going crazy enough, they'll write something on macroevolution using the definition "evolution above the species level". It gets....weird. One of those things you can only see on the scale of eras. It's a legitimate definition--but it's not something typically discussed, becuase Creationists have hijacked the term so badly that most paleontologists don't deal with it. In fact, somewhere I have an article discussing precisely the consequences of said hijacking of the term "macroevolution".
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,979	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

8th May 2012, 09:51 AM	#249
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,505	Originally Posted by Dinwar When paleontologists decide they're not going crazy enough, they'll write something on macroevolution using the definition "evolution above the species level". It gets....weird. One of those things you can only see on the scale of eras. It's a legitimate definition--but it's not something typically discussed, becuase Creationists have hijacked the term so badly that most paleontologists don't deal with it. In fact, somewhere I have an article discussing precisely the consequences of said hijacking of the term "macroevolution". Economics does not exist. Certainly, we can evaluate and see the effects of earnings and supply/demand theory on individuals and individual house holds. But no one has demonstrated successfully how these "microeconomic" systems can actually result in a macroeconomic event. Where is the line?
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

8th May 2012, 10:19 AM	#250
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,979	Macroevolution, by the paleontological term, is somewhat different from the biological definition. It's not the accumulation of microevolutionary changes through time; it's more how the members of various branches are culled. It focuses a lot more on the "natural selection" part of the equation, and how that selection impacts future evolutionary pathways. Peter Ward's book "Future Evolution" shows one application of this. Fundamentally yes, all evolution is accumulated change through time that's subsequently culled to some degree. But the paleontological version of macroevolution is an emergent property of that process. Saying it's accumulated microevolutionary changes is akin to saying that biology is merely atomic physics.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,979	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

8th May 2012, 10:36 AM	#251
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494	Originally Posted by GIBHOR thats why i wonder why so many here stick to strong atheism. So war " we don't know " has been the standard answer. And the few, that made actually the effort to present evidence for naturalim, have shown how weak the arguments actually are. Planet formation is a good example. If the universe had a beginning, and most scientists would today agree on that, then obviously it had a cause. the Kalaam Cosmological argument has not been debunked. Why? Why? Why?
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494

8th May 2012, 11:15 AM	#252
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 12,570	So, having a god that can be anything you want it to be explains What? Paul
	__________________ For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

8th May 2012, 11:30 AM	#253
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,979	Originally Posted by GIBHOR thats why i wonder why so many here stick to strong atheism. So war " we don't know " has been the standard answer. And the few, that made actually the effort to present evidence for naturalim, have shown how weak the arguments actually are. Planet formation is a good example. I note that GIBHOR hasn't responded to my photo of a protoplanet being formed precisely the way nebular theory describes. Guess that means that planet formation isn't as weak an argument as he thought. And what's the alternative? "God did it." Without evidence to support such gods, without justification, without taking into account the huge amounts of data we have (and which I've referenced). Just POOF! and planets form thanks to a divine incantation. Quote: If the universe had a beginning, and most scientists would today agree on that, then obviously it had a cause. "Most scientists" aren't involved in cosmology or the Big Bang Theory. Most scientists in the relevent fields don't think discussing what happened before the BB makes any sense; thus, the normal rules of causality may not be applicable. And you've yet to explain why the universe needs a creator, but God doesn't. Or why we should care--after all, a Clockmaker God is irrelevent to the universe the instant it's been created.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,979	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

8th May 2012, 11:32 AM	#254
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,538	Originally Posted by Dinwar If he hadn't trotted out the Creationist garbage I'd agree with you. However, he wants to debate the science--thus he is obligated to utilize the scientific method, and his failure to do even the most basic research into the subject makes his opinion valueless. "Creationist garbage" still applies to what I stated. Evolution is a productive framework (and, of course, theory) for developing innovative solutions to problems in the field of biology (and engineering, but that's a different story). Understanding Evolution science is an important key to fighting diseases, saving endangered species, and improving crop yields, etc. Its "sister", abiogenesis, is productive in detailing various aspects of how life could get started from non-life, and various engineering innovations come out of that, as well. (even if we don't have all the answers yet) Many folks can afford to spew "Creationist garbage" because they don't have to care about that. The moment someone does care, they magically become naturalists, at least temporarily.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

8th May 2012, 11:46 AM	#255
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,979	Originally Posted by Wowbagger Many folks can afford to spew "Creationist garbage" because they don't have to care about that. Three problems with this. First, if they didn't care, they wouldn't be arguing the point and researching Creationist claims. If you don't care, you don't put the effort it. I don't are about Dadaist painting--so I simply ignore everything to do with it (I may accidently encounter something related to it, but I certainly don't seek it out). These people DO care, or at least think they do or should. It's just not a requirement for their job so they don't see the consequences of their errors. Second, there ARE consequences, they're just indirect. People try to push Creationism into classrooms all the time, and there are organizations attempting to use the wide acceptance of Creationism to turn the USA into a theocracy (no conspiracy theory here--the Wedge Document is proof that this is happening). I'd be among the first against the wall should that happen. Their support makes attacks against my job possible. Third, you assume that the truth is irrelevant so long as it doesn't directly impact someone. I hold that the truth is all that really matters, and that even if something doesn't directly impact you you should try to get the facts straight. Literary criticism doesn't impact my livelyhood at all; however, when I discuss literary criticism I at least attempt to be honest and accurate, and when I'm shown to be wrong I accept it. It's intellectual honesty, and someone who accepts a false idea merely because it doesn't have enough of an impact on his life to warrant correction, but still wants to tell people who study that area why they're wrong, is not honest.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,979	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

8th May 2012, 12:00 PM	#256
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,057	Actually, it's not about the "simplest answer". The veracity of something doesn't depend on how simple the answer is. I could create up some bogus made up explanation that is actually really complicated to follow. Besides, how simple something is, is relative: To a layman, some of the most basic laws of physics are really complicated, while to a physics professor, they are quite simple. So how simple an explanation is, should not be the criteria to determine whether something is true or not. It is irrelevant whether it's simple or complicated. As irrelevant as whether it sounds good or bad. Whether it would make a good movie or it's just plain dull. Whether it sounds really convincing to us or not. Whether we were told by our mommy. All irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that there's compelling evidence to back it up.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan Last edited by Ron_Tomkins; 8th May 2012 at 12:01 PM.

8th May 2012, 12:10 PM	#257
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,979	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins Actually, it's not about the "simplest answer". The veracity of something doesn't depend on how simple the answer is. Occam's Razor (Do not multiply entities unnecessarily) is still a good rule of thumb, though. If there's no reason to add complexity to the explanation, it's not justifiable to do so. For example, grains of sand settling out of the water column due to fluid dynamics is a sufficient explanation for normal bedding in sedimentary units. There's no need to speculate that invisible, undetectable demons are the source of fluid dynamics. If I hear hoofbeats outside I'm going to assume it's a horse, because I know horses aren't uncommon around here; I'm not going to speculate about zebras being transported from Africa and released into the Los Angeles Basin. The issue is that the simplest answer also has to explain all the data in order to be the most likely to be correct. If it doesn't explain the data it's simply wrong.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,979	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

8th May 2012, 12:16 PM	#258
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,538	Originally Posted by Dinwar Third, you assume that the truth is irrelevant so long as it doesn't directly impact someone. Actually, I did NOT mean to imply this at all! I assume quite the opposite: The more people are aware of how "naturalistic-style" science impacts their lives, in important (and often beneficial) ways, the better off society will be. That does NOT mean we should just let people who can "afford to be ignorant" stay ignorant. I was hoping my words would do two things: 1. Keep the thread focused on its goal: explain WHY "naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence". You cannot do that, successfully, without addressing the productive value of naturalism versus appealing to inane and/or superfluous entities. 2. Serve as a wake-up call to Creationists that their arguments don't go anywhere very important. They are like the ducts on the set of Star Trek labeled "GNDN": Goes Nowhere, Does Nothing. Of course, it is important not to fall into a fallacy of consequences: Instead of saying "Evolution is true because it is useful", one should be careful to phrase it as "Evolution seems to be true enough, that we can make use of it". Here is a good resource of examples of how Evolution impacts our lives: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...hp?topic_id=15 Originally Posted by Dinwar First, if they didn't care, they wouldn't be arguing the point and researching Creationist claims. If you don't care, you don't put the effort it. I have not read every post in this thread. But, it looks like GIBHOR is arguing from an "Ultimate Truth" perspective, and NOT a "productivity" perspective, nor even an "empirical knowledge generation" perspective (which is a form of productivity). If he cared about this stuff, he either has a hard time communicating that; OR he cares a LOT more about "Ultimate Answers" than discovery or innovations. If all you care about are "Ultimate Answers" that seem to sum up everything you know about life and Universe, you generally go with the simple, easy-to-swallow solutions; without generally taking into consideration any specifics as to HOW those Answers can help us improve our world. (They might take very general things into consideration, such as "love" and "being happy", but lack the insights into just how love and happiness can most effectively come about in a changing world.) Originally Posted by Dinwar I hold that the truth is all that really matters, and that even if something doesn't directly impact you you should try to get the facts straight. And that is why this debate is failing: It is one person's Truth vs. another person's Truth. Instead, you should consider turning this debate into something slightly different: HOW can we can demonstrate one version of Truth is better at something, than another Truth? It takes more than "evidence", because all that's going to lead to is a battle of "My pile of evidence is bigger than yours!", with no real guidelines to measure whose pile is better. And, talking about the scientific method ain't gonna help, because your opponent is not automatically going to care about that. I think I already mentioned, a few times, what it takes.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! Last edited by Wowbagger; 8th May 2012 at 12:18 PM.

8th May 2012, 12:48 PM	#259
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,738	Originally Posted by Dinwar When paleontologists decide they're not going crazy enough, they'll write something on macroevolution using the definition "evolution above the species level". It gets....weird. One of those things you can only see on the scale of eras. It's a legitimate definition--but it's not something typically discussed, becuase Creationists have hijacked the term so badly that most paleontologists don't deal with it. In fact, somewhere I have an article discussing precisely the consequences of said hijacking of the term "macroevolution". Thanks.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

8th May 2012, 12:53 PM	#260
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 32,057	Originally Posted by Dinwar Occam's Razor (Do not multiply entities unnecessarily) is still a good rule of thumb, though. If there's no reason to add complexity to the explanation, it's not justifiable to do so. Of course. I agree. I was just talking about erroneous connections such as "If the explanation is simple, then it must be true". The criteria for determining whether something is true or not, cannot simply (no pun intended) be whether it is simple or not. Also, as I already said, simple is a relative term.
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

8th May 2012, 01:13 PM	#261
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,260	Originally Posted by Wowbagger Instead, you should consider turning this debate into something slightly different: HOW can we can demonstrate one version of Truth is better at something, than another Truth? There have been several examples of people explaining how assuming a naturalistic viewpoint has positively impacted the world (the easiest example, and therefore the most common, has been the existence of the technology which comprises the internet, allowing this conversation to take place at all). These have been ignored.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

8th May 2012, 01:13 PM	#262
rocketdodger Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hyperion Posts: 6,669	Originally Posted by GIBHOR Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ? naturalism is the foundation of strong atheism, which declares, that God most probably does not exist. Please present good reasons, why you believe this world view to be the best explanation for our existence. For me, the issue is that once the notion of "God" most people think of is evaluated critically, parts start to fall away, and what you have left isn't anything at all. If there is a God, it is some unknowable unimaginable entity that is so far removed from any of the religious notions people hold that it might as well be some naturalistic phenomena anyway. Here is a question to you, GIBHOR: If God isn't like anything you can imagine it is like, meaning if it is intelligent it is intelligent in a way you cannot understand, if it has form it is a form you cannot understand, etc., then what is the utility in ascribing the term "God" to it rather than any other term we use for stuff we don't really know anything about? I think the notion of "atheism" is a bit skewed these days. In reality, an atheist has specific points that they hold a view on. It isn't like you can say "an atheist doesn't believe in God" because the term "God" isn't well defined anymore. For example, as an atheist I don't believe in: 1) A supreme being, because the notions of "supreme" and "being" are not consistent. 2) A being that is omniscient with regards to its own existence, because that is inconsistent. 3) A being that is not constrained to the rules of our universe, in particular what we observe as cause and effect. 4) A non-animal being that has a gender, because gender only applies to animals that reproduce via sexual reproduction. 5) A being that is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, because that is inconsistent. ... and there are more. The point is that what one considers "God" may be only a subset of these points, or all of them, or none of them. It is more accurate to address each point specifically rather than use a generalization.
	Last edited by rocketdodger; 8th May 2012 at 01:15 PM.

8th May 2012, 01:23 PM	#263
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,772	Originally Posted by Wowbagger Instead, you should consider turning this debate into something slightly different: HOW can we can demonstrate one version of Truth is better at something, than another Truth? "Truth" is a meaningless Navel Gazer term when it's used as some alternative to actual knowledge or understanding. The best idea is the one that most accurately reflects the real world. Because only those ideas allow us to better understand the real world.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

8th May 2012, 01:28 PM	#264
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,131	Originally Posted by Twiler Why? Why? Why? Even if the universe did have a cause - wouldn't a natural cause be the first thing to look for? Natural causes are the only kind we've found so far.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

8th May 2012, 01:32 PM	#265
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,979	Quote: If all you care about are "Ultimate Answers" that seem to sum up everything you know about life and Universe, you generally go with the simple, easy-to-swallow solutions; without generally taking into consideration any specifics as to HOW those Answers can help us improve our world. You seem to be arguing from consequences. Or, rather, you're setting up a dichotomy between truth and practicality. I think that's where you and I are talking past each other--I'm saying that practicality is a side issue (even if by "practical" you merely mean "that which can help answer other questions"). If something's true it's true, and anything that contradicts it is false. Quote: And that is why this debate is failing: It is one person's Truth vs. another person's Truth. No. It's one person's supported and reasoned conclusions vs. a pack of lies and falsehoods. Truth isn't subjective--it doesn't matter if I believe it or not, when my knife slipped the other night my hand bled. Quote: Instead, you should consider turning this debate into something slightly different: HOW can we can demonstrate one version of Truth is better at something, than another Truth? I've tried. I've even shown photographic evidence of my point. Others have posted peer-reviewed evidence (which included other photographs). The issue is that one side of this debate is willing to look at evidence, and the other is not. This is the main problem here, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, because as soon as one side stops looking for and at evidence there's nothing left, the conversation is dead. If nothing can convince GIBHOR he's wrong, there's no point in this conversation, no matter how we look at it.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,979	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

8th May 2012, 01:38 PM	#266
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,772	Originally Posted by Dinwar The issue is that one side of this debate is willing to look at evidence, and the other is not. I am wondering how we're supposed to argue against people that are straight up admitting they think they can just make stuff up.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

8th May 2012, 01:47 PM	#267
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494	Originally Posted by godless dave Even if the universe did have a cause - wouldn't a natural cause be the first thing to look for? Natural causes are the only kind we've found so far. I'm objecting to the 'obviously' part. I'm not going to accept anything as obvious when we're discussing cosmological phenomena.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,494

8th May 2012, 02:50 PM	#268
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,538	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim There have been several examples of people explaining how assuming a naturalistic viewpoint has positively impacted the world (the easiest example, and therefore the most common, has been the existence of the technology which comprises the internet, allowing this conversation to take place at all). These have been ignored. Perhaps he doesn't care. Or, perhaps he doesn't believe them. Either way, it's still a better approach than others I have seen around here. Challenge him, and anyone else with similar arguments, to come up with ways a non-naturalistic viewpoint could help contribute something significant to thsoe things. Originally Posted by JoeBentley "Truth" is a meaningless Navel Gazer term when it's used as some alternative to actual knowledge or understanding. The best idea is the one that most accurately reflects the real world. Because only those ideas allow us to better understand the real world. I realize that. Pretend that I had the word "Truth" in quotes, in those posts of mine. A good test for how accurately an idea reflects the real world is to see if it can be put to practical use.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

8th May 2012, 02:57 PM	#269
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,772	Originally Posted by Wowbagger A good test for how accurately an idea reflects the real world is to see if it can be put to practical use. Yeah. So why is this idea so hard for some people to grasp? And you know what it's not even that it's hard for them to grasp so much as they find the idea offensive.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

8th May 2012, 03:07 PM	#270
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,182	I hate it when I arrive to these threads late and all the good stuff is already said.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

8th May 2012, 03:10 PM	#271
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,182	Originally Posted by Wowbagger Perhaps he doesn't care. Or, perhaps he doesn't believe them. Either way, it's still a better approach than others I have seen around here. Challenge him, and anyone else with similar arguments, to come up with ways a non-naturalistic viewpoint could help contribute something significant to thsoe things. Precisely. For example, one of my favorite responses to creationists who insist that their views are "science" is to say something along the lines of: "Really? Okay, then please explain to me how so-called 'scientific creationism' or 'intelligent design' can be used to create a modern vaccine and/or antibiotic. Evolutionary science does this all the time, so when is creationism going to get into the act?" It's always fun to watch them lamely attempt to change the subject at that point in the conversation
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

8th May 2012, 03:10 PM	#272
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,260	Originally Posted by Wowbagger Perhaps he doesn't care. Or, perhaps he doesn't believe them. Either way, it's still a better approach than others I have seen around here. I would posit that if the results are the same (i.e. GIBHOR ignores anything which contradicts what he'd like to believe), then no approach is better than the other. He won't reply, no matter what approach you take. Feel free to address him directly using your approach and see what result you get.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

8th May 2012, 04:53 PM	#273
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420	Now I'm feeling elitist. "Yes, Virginia, there is a God. He cares about you, has a plan for your life and holds a place for you in the happy-ever-after. Now get back to herding those sheep." Maybe God is a useful psychological remedy.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,420

8th May 2012, 05:14 PM	#274
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,539	Originally Posted by marplots Now I'm feeling elitist. "Yes, Virginia, there is a God. He cares about you, has a plan for your life and holds a place for you in the happy-ever-after. Now get back to herding those sheep." Maybe God is a useful psychological remedy. More like psychological torture, but that's what love is
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

8th May 2012, 05:55 PM	#275
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978	Originally Posted by Dinwar DNA isn't some code--it's a substrate. . I did not say DNA IS a code. I said it CONTAINS codified information, similar to a computer code, or a book. How could it have a " natural " aka non intelligent origin ?
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978