agapeo

[Sorry dude, I'm not going anywhere with it. This discussion has nothing to do with the historicity of George Washington. I suppose you are trying to equate the testimonial evidence of GW with the testimonial evidence for Jeezus or something. Suffice to say these are not analagous, for reasons that have been hashed and rehashed on this very board.]

In other words -- open mouth and insert foot makes it hard to "bitch slap" someone.

Andrew_theist

Right. Certainly no naturalist has ever attempted to answer whether we are here by plan or by accident.

Let see what you have?

If natural processes created the universe, then you'd have your answers, wouldn't you?

No because some natural process would be responsible for that.

Huh? There are many different versions of the creation of the gods as there are of theisms. Many ancient peoples thought the existence of gods required some explanation. The Voluspa, one of the old norse poems, says that the gods were born after a period of primeval chaos. And that's just one example. If course, in the Greek religion mother earth produced Uranus....

The only issue in focus here is whether a creator designed the universe. What creator is a secondary issue.

Yes, I agree that a universe designed for intelligent beings, with 99% of it useless to them, is certainly a unique design approach. Surprising, even.

This only serves to reveal how little attention you have paid to design theory. Were the universe not as big as it is we would not be here. I am sure this just slipped you’re mind.

Please demonstrate that the universe is designed for intelligent beings, Andrew.

The evidence is the fact we are here.

One needs to be a theist to condemn evil? Damn, were those Buddhists and Confucians confused about things. Billions of people, unaware that they were on shaky ground in opposing evil. Amazing how they erected societies that were better-run than any in Europe until the late 18th century.

Andrew, I'm going to be charitable and assume that you are simply ignorant, and not a raving ethnocentric idiot. I suggest, as a mental exercise, whenever you want to make one of your patented fatuous generalizations, think about whether it applies to religions outside of your own.

What is evil or good Mike? What do we measure them by? Did the standard somehow always exist waiting for a universe to come into existence with sentient beings who might appreciate it? According to naturalism we are not created by the benevolence of some creator we are the result of fortuitous laws of nature and physics, in other words the accidental by-product of a mindless process. We have no right to exist and therefore no other rights. Of course people can condemn acts as ‘evil’ as a matter of opinion, just as others can condone such acts as ‘good’. Who or what standard do you appeal to in order to make such a decision? And what makes you right?

It amazes me that people like you who smear others as being idiots can’t figure out the ramifications of their own philosophy.

In the long run naturalism is a closed system. The only answer it can produce right or wrong is some naturalist explanation. It intrinsically invokes an endless recession of events.

So does theism. Who created god?

Well there’s another brain fart from the person who characterizes himself as an intellectual. If some one did create God the issue of design is settled. The belief of most theists has always been in an uncreated God thus ending the endless recession of events that naturalism suffers from.

For sprited but friendly discussion Please visit <a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

Philosoft

Thanks so much for making it seem like I was the one who brought up George Washington in the first place. No matter. Forgive me for pre-empting your profundity. If you would like to attempt to equivocate the testimony for GW's existence with the testimony for God's existence, don't let me stop you. I was just trying to save you some wasted effort.

joedad

Maybe that's why you cannot accept the accuracy of your own observations. To me, that is hardly the "only issue."

FWIW, in such a discussion as this one, I hold that the most important issue is knowing and understanding the process by which someone came to a conclusion. I used to believe in a creator, but then got used to the initially unsettling and seemingly incongruous notion that the Universe/Cosmos is eternal. Creators and deities subsequently became unnecessary and simply lost their appeal. The evidence did not point to creators but to an eternal cosmos.

Theism is just as much the norm today as once was geocentrism and a flat earth. There is plenty of evidence to come to this conclusion. But there is zero evidence supporting the existence of deities. Theists merely deify the Universe.

joe

Datheron

Andrew_theist,

Not quite true.

The only way we can say that the universe needs to be of this gigantic size is if we assume that God does not interfere, in any shape or form, the processes that has lead up to now. Basically, all he did was start the wheels turning, and then left for happy God-land. If that is the argument, then we have no more than a deistic God that is defined to be a part of nature, and by Occam's Razor, should be promptly cut out.

On the other hand, one has to wonder why an omnipotent God would have created the laws of physics as they are so that our existence hinges on a gigantic universe. The only reason why we "need" one is actually because of probability - many life-friendly planets may have been destroyed or rid of life from some cosmic catatrophe before it has had time to evolve; this is the exact counter-argument to intelligent design! As any engineer will tell you, a good design means efficiency. Having a universe that is less than 10^-10% (probably a lot less, although this is coming off the top of my head) doesn't make for much of a case of anything "intelligent".

Vorkosigan

The only issue in focus here is whether a creator designed the universe. What creator is a secondary issue.

Fine, Andrew. Put up something like evidence for the idea that the universe is an artifact.

This only serves to reveal how little attention you have paid to design theory. Were the universe not as big as it is we would not be here. I am sure this just slipped you’re mind.

There is no "Design theory." There's a group of loosely-related, unsupported claims made by various believers in supernatural entities. But a "theory" -- a testable framework that provides models, suggests reserach avenues and unites data in an explanatory system -- no, there is no "Theory of Design."

In any case, an engineered universe need not be of any particular size. Please submit some evidence for the "rules" governing the structure of Designed universes.

Please demonstrate that the universe is designed for intelligent beings, Andrew.

The evidence is the fact we are here.

So are squirrels. And lightning storms in the clouds on Jupiter. And the great wall of galaxies. Any could be the reason the universe was designed.

And I didn't ask for "evidence." I asked for a demonstration.

process. We have no right to exist and therefore no other rights. Of course people can condemn acts as ‘evil’ as a matter of opinion, just as others can condone such acts as ‘good’. Who or what standard do you appeal to in order to make such a decision? And what makes you right?

Why do I need a "standard?" Why do I need to be "right?"

If you believe that you cannot be a decent person without validation from the fairy sky daddy, then please do not give up your beliefs.

It amazes me that people like you who smear others as being idiots can’t figure out the ramifications of their own philosophy.

Post this in Moral Foundations, and we'll discuss it there.

settled. The belief of most theists has always been in an uncreated God thus ending the endless recession of events that naturalism suffers from.

Like I said, Andrew, please crack open a text on comparative religions. You'd be surprised what "most theists" believe. As I pointed out in the last post, in Norse, Greek, Chinese, and numerous other religious systems, the gods are not uncreated. When you make a generalization like this, it's usually a good idea to run it past several different religious systems and see if it fits them.

Care to take your criticisms of subjective ethics over to the morality board? I'm sure Pompous Bastard or Malaclypse the Younger would be happy to engage this oft-posted and essentially silly concept that subjective ethos are without foundation. Or you could check out the threads on CS Lewis, the Problem of Pain and Mere Christianity, already in progress there.

Michael

madmax2976

<strong> Well then present your arguments that any creator designed the universe. I hope you have something better than Tipler and Barrow.

<strong> So this deity had to create the universe so big? Please explain.

<strong> Complete non-sequitur. The evidence of us being here is evidence that we are here. If you wish to claim more, you'll have to actually argue for your case Andrew, not just assert it.

<strong> What you must show is that your "standards" of determining "evil" and "good" are more valid then ours. Otherwise your just whistling in the wind.

<strong> "Rights" deal with what human values. As long as humans have the ability to value things, then we have the ability to have "rights".

<strong> You didn't finish the question: "What makes us right - to whom? Without that, your assuming there are objective moral facts without first having demonstrated there even can be such a thing. I see all kinds of subjectivity, even among theists, in regards to what's right or not.

<strong> No more than we are amazed at people who make bold claims but can't support them.

What are the rammifications that trouble you? Are they the typical straw man interpretation of subjective ethics I suspect you have, or something substantive?

<strong> The "brain fart" belongs to the one who forgets what he is arguing. You claimed naturalism invoked an "endless succession" of events. Of course you didn't bother to support this claim, as usual, but when Turntonm rightly pointed out the same can be said of your own philosophy, you simply define your God as uncreated. You certainly haven't demonstrated that it is, nor has any other theist ever done so. You completely forget that we could define naturalism in the same manner. Really Andrew, these continued attempts at imposing double standards should be beneath you.

If you think you have an argument that will stand up to analysis, from morality, or wherever, we'll be happy to look at it. Just do it.

Andrew_theist

The "brain fart" belongs to the one who forgets what he is arguing. You claimed naturalism invoked an "endless succession" of events. Of course you didn't bother to support this claim, as usual, but when Turntonm rightly pointed out the same can be said of your own philosophy, you simply define your God as uncreated.

Why would I need to support a claim Turntonm conceded was true? The belief in God being uncreated hardly started with me.

You certainly haven't demonstrated that it is, nor has any other theist ever done so. You completely forget that we could define naturalism in the same manner. Really Andrew, these continued attempts at imposing double standards should be beneath you.

Max you have already bastardized the meaning of naturalism beyond recognition or comprehension. The definition I defend of theism existed long before I came on the scene and is available in any reference.

If you think you have an argument that will stand up to analysis, from morality, or wherever, we'll be happy to look at it. Just do it.

This is where the double standard comes to play. I have provided good reasons to suspect naturalism doesn't account for all we observe. You and Mike and anyone else has yet to provide one compelling reason I should think or believe that naturalism (as commonly defined) can account for all observed phenomena. The double standard is we should accept naturalism on faith unless theism can be proven and demonstrated. I never said there was smoking gun evidence of theism. I have yet to see any smoking guns in your camp either. So why should we accept naturalism by default? I accept the fact I believe in theism without the benefit of knowing it is true. Why can't you accept that naturalism is a belief and you are a believer? Why ask me for a level of evidence that you consistently fail to provide? At least I provide some good reasons based on evidence.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Andrew_theist ]</p>

madmax2976

<strong> Whether Turtonm meant to actually concede such a point is questionable. I think it more likely that his primary goal was to demonstrate your own philosophy is open to the same interpretation.

If you and other theists are able to define a particular deity as "uncreated", then I see nothing that prohibits us from saying that matter and/or energy were "uncreated". You hold no superior ground here.

<strong> Sure. Naturalists are constrained to one particular definition of naturalism and can't disagree with each other, while theists are allowed to have dozens or even hundreds of different views on the nature of the deities they believe in. Notice how you allow yourself to pick your "definition" of theism in order to defend it.

My view of naturalism is very much in line with Richard Carrier, Keith Augustine, Massimo Pigliucci, Mark Vuletic, Alastair McKinnon, Richard Dawkins, all of whom are reputable and hardly crackpots. Don't blame your ignorance of naturalistic views on me Andrew. Try reading some stuff from naturalists, then you'll be better equipped to address it.

Meanwhile, you can keep attempting to mandate what my naturalistic views must be for me and this way I'll be justified in mandating you hold to some ancient Greek or Wiccan views on the nature of deities.

<strong> No you haven't. You've pointed out mystery's and then assumed your hypothesis was the correct answer without demonstrating its the correct answer.

However, it was YOU that attacked naturalism by implying it had no basis for morals. Therefore it is YOU who bears the burden of proof here. You think we are obligated to defend ourselves against your mere assertions? Please.

Defend your attacks or retract them.

<strong> We have provided some very good reasons to assume the truth of naturalism over supernaturalism. That you fail to accept them is beside the point.

<strong> No, you just implied it with your attack against naturalistic ethics.

<strong> When did I ever say this wasn't the case?? I think its perfectly clear that neither of us can actually prove our positions, thus our respective worldviews are beliefs. As I've pointed out numerous times, the debate is about which worldview is more likely. In such a comparison, I believe the evidence shows that theism/supernaturalism lags far behind.

<strong> What I am asking you to do is support your attacks against naturalism. If you can't do that, then you should retract your statments, which would be the honorable thing to do.

Vorkosigan

Why would I need to support a claim Turntonm conceded was true? The belief in God being uncreated hardly started with me.

There isn't anything true about your claim. Also, only some theists, as I have already demonstrated, believe that the gods are uncreated. So you are not defending "theism," but a particular kind of theism. Not only must you attack naturalism, but also all other theisms.

The definition I defend of theism existed long before I came on the scene and is available in any reference.

Quite true, but it is not the only version of theism.

This is where the double standard comes to play. I have provided good reasons to suspect naturalism doesn't account for all we observe.

No Andrew, you have yet to provide ANY reason for naturalism not accounting for all we observe. As far as I know, there is currently nothing naturalism cannot account for. All we've been saying is that there may be an area that naturalism does not account for, but that certainly does not mean your specific theism is true.

Please point out one thing naturalism cannot account for. Demonstrate it with arguments and evidence....do not make unsupported claims. Bear in mind that simply saying "science cannot explain....X" is not an argument against naturalism. You must show that X is inherently impossible to explain under naturalism.

You and Mike and anyone else has yet to provide one compelling reason I should think or believe that naturalism (as commonly defined) can account for all observed phenomena.

Dunno Andrew. Does the success of 500 years of science count for nothing? Your attitude is to refuse to accept naturalism when it clashes with your deeply held beliefs. But your refusal to recognize naturalism is not the same as finding a hole in it.

The double standard is we should accept naturalism on faith unless theism can be proven and demonstrated.

We keep saying -- and I'll say it again here -- it is not "naturalism vs. theism," but "naturalism vs. Christianity vs kikuyu vs ESP vs Cosmic Consciousness vs Greek mystery religions vs Buddhism vs Chinese folk religion vs Taoism vs Old Norse religion vs Hinduism vs...."

You keep repeating this fallacy. There aren't two choices here. Not all theisms are alike, and there are non-theistic non-naturalistic points of view. Even if you blew away naturalism, you'd still have to contend with thousands of other points of view.

I never said there was smoking gun evidence of theism.

So what the hell are you saying?

I have yet to see any smoking guns in your camp either.

The success of science as an explanatory system is powerful evidence for methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. The gun has been smoking for several hundred years. You are simply ignoring it.

So why should we accept naturalism by default?

We don't accept naturalism by default. We accept it because it provides reliable and useful knowledge about the world. No theistic system works, Andrew. No theistic system contains reliable and useful knowledge about the world. Even theists recognized this, Andrew. That is why theists invented methodological naturalism.

I accept the fact I believe in theism without the benefit of knowing it is true. Why can't you accept that naturalism is a belief and you are a believer?

Metaphysical naturalism IS a belief. However, because something is a belief, does not mean that it is unsupported by evidence. You have confused belief with faith. The two are not the same. You hold your belief in spite of evidence, we hold ours because of it.

I believe in naturalism due to the overwhelming positive evidence of the success of science, and the overwhelming lack of evidence for any other view of the world, and the incoherence of theistic concepts.

Why ask me for a level of evidence that you consistently fail to provide?

Open any textbook on the history and philosophy of science off that list I gave you.....there is the level of evidence we hold you to. Your system should be at least as good as science in producing reliable and useful knowledge about the world. But of course, no theistic system is even minimally acceptable in that regard. That is why theists created methodological naturalism, Andrew.

Here's a question I want you to answer: If theism is so good an explanatory system, why did theists create methodological naturalism?

At least I provide some good reasons based on evidence.

Where? None of us here have noticed even a single piece of evidence.

What is the evidence for theism? Note that you must provide positive evidence that there are gods. Even if you completely destroyed naturalism, you would still be arguing against thousands of other belief systems. Even if you demonstrated that the universe was a Designed Artifact, you still would not have demonstrated that there were such entities as gods. So....

Provide positive evidence that there are gods, please.

Michael