(April 8, 2025 at 1:57 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(April 8, 2025 at 10:43 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: I meant that unlike atheists who deny there is any evidence our universe was intentionally caused I don't deny there is evidence to support belief in naturalism. Most if not all atheists deny there is a shred of evidence, data or reason to think it was intentionally caused. They are to cowardly to admit otherwise.

I really want to respond postively to this post, because you're taking al lot of heat, but you had to throw in that bit at the end.

Yeah it was a rude editorialization. I should say intellectually dishonest and I can prove that all day long. They accept facts that support their view as evidence in favor of what they believe. When theists do the same its circular reasoning.

(April 8, 2025 at 2:29 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(April 8, 2025 at 1:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: mainstream science operates under the framework of methodological naturalism, seeking natural explanations for phenomena, without considering supernatural or divine interventions.

The irony of this they don't think mindless natural forces, minus any plan or intent or a physics degree causing a universe to exist with the all the conditions for life to exist is a miracle. Causing things to happen intentionally isn't miraculous.

(April 8, 2025 at 2:36 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 8, 2025 at 2:29 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

The irony of this they don't think mindless natural forces, minus any plan or intent or a physics degree causing a universe to exist with the all the conditions for life to exist is a miracle. Causing things to happen intentionally isn't miraculous.

You miss the point, as usual. To claim a supernatural explanation of something is not to explain it at all and, even worse, to rule out any possibility of its ever being explained. Because anything ‘supernatural’ must by definition be beyond the reach of a natural explanation. It must be beyond the reach of science and the well-established, tried and tested scientific method that has been responsible for the huge advances in knowledge we have enjoyed over the last 400 years or so. To say that something happened supernaturally is not just to say ‘We don’t understand it’ but to say ‘We will never understand it, so don’t even try.’

(April 8, 2025 at 11:58 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: @Sheldon

Quote:Among creationists maybe, but certainly not among scientists. The term remains a metaphor used to describe the astonishingly narrow parameters of certain characteristics of the universe, and that if they altered even a vanishingly small amount, then the carbon life we know of, could not have emerged. So what? The universe is almost entirely hostile to life, you don't seem to be reading anything into that, could your bias be more obvious.

My 'bias' 

Is why your arguments are unreasonable. 

Quote:The best evidence the universe wasn't intentionally caused would be our non-existence.

A spectacularly stupid piece of circular reasoning. 

Quote:Would you expect mindless natural forces to cause a universe chalk full of mathematical equations that describe the universe?

Oh dear it's chock full, not chalk (sic) full ffs. Mathematics is a human creation, so I have no idea what you're asking here? The word mindless is also redundant, since you have shown you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence that natural phenomena have intent behind them. You simply keep repeating your same error in reasoning. You are using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and asking others to disprove, or offer alternatives to your unevidenced claims. 

Quote:Is E=MC^2 a metaphor for the relationship between energy and matter? 

Did anyone say it was? You surely can see how desperate your straw man rhetoric is becoming now? Rather than address the facts I presented you offer yet another moronic straw man. 

Do you accept that the scientific term fine tuning describes entirely natural phenomena? 

Yes or no? 

If not then please link the peer reviewed research you think evidences the supernatural? Then explain why this news has escaped not just the entire scientific world, and every global news network. but the entire theological world as well? Nothing on the Catholic Herald, take a look if you don't believe me, no news that the Templeton foundation have celebrated the claim of their $1m prize for scientific evidence of the supernatural? 

Quote:Wouldn't it surprise you in the least bit if the laws of physics written into the fabric of spacetime dictate that stars going supernova create the very matter necessary for planets and humans to exist? 

Can't say it would no, but then as I've explained, I would believe this, as with all claims, only if sufficient objective evidence demonstrated it to be true. 

Quote: Would you think to yourself (all alone in your thoughts) if mindless lifeless forces came into existence somehow it wouldn't surprise me if they stumbled upon the formula to accidentally cause something unlike itself to exist...life and mind.

Pure gibberish there, fair play? What one imagines, and what is objectively true are not necessarily the same. try and understand once and for all, that possibility must be demonstrated, and though imagining something "might be possible" is a starting point for all discovery, it is utterly meaningless until what you imagine has been properly reliably, and objectively evidenced. 

Quote:

Quote:You have cited only one person, and even your example does not believe a deity exists, so that's a bit of comedy gold right there. And as I evidenced earlier, atheism rises sharply among scientists, and is almost universal among elite scientists, like The National Academy of Science, where 93% are atheists and agnostics. Are you saying they are not best placed to know if the scientific evidence indicates the universe was fine tuned by a creator deity? Seriously you ought to have the integrity to admit at least to yourself, when your arguments are so absurd they are comedic.

They don't dispute the universe is fine-tuned for life

Oh dear, fine tuned is a scientific term used as a metaphorical description of entirely natural physical characteristic of the universe, only creationists misrepresent it as scientific evidence of anything supernatural, and no amount of repeating this creationist lie, will change this fact. Do you imagine I am guessing this, and haven't done the due diligence, or that I will change my mind if you keep repeating your lie? 

Quote:Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include... Neil deGrasse Tyson...That would leave intent and design as the cause. 

Comedy fucking gold...he's an atheist. You are taking the opinions of some scientists, and adding your own biased, unevidenced,  and superstitious conclusion, and lying to pretend they endorse it. I, unlike you, fact check claims, you can't bluff your way passed me, so do please stop lying. 

Quote:I took Hawkings name off because it causes some people to have intense heart burn.

Who the fuck is Hawkings (sic)? Do mean Stephen Hawking by any chance? Given he was a lifelong outspoken atheist, and did not believe in the supernatural, I can only imagine the heartburn was from laughing as hard as I just did. Can you really believe you can bluff us with such idiotic mendacity? 

Quote:

Quote:No it doesn't, that's a lie. 
Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Its the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a Creator of the universe. 

It's, not its (sic). Thank you for admitting you lied at least. 

Quote:What does that leave to cause a universe to exist?

Sigh, argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Go and learn what it is, and what using it means. No one needs an alternative to your snake oil, in order to disbelieve your claims about it. 

Quote:So called weak atheists who lack belief in the existence of God, don't deny or dispute God exists, they simply lack that belief. If people who call themselves atheists don't deny God exists why should theists? 

Sigh, straw man fallacy, I never claimed theists should do this. You can believe the moon is made of cream cheese if it makes you happy. However, when you try to peddle your superstitious snake oil here, anyone is free to withhold belief. Nice tap dance away from your previous mendacity though. 

Quote:Its certainly fortuitous to humans that mother nature provided all the things necessary for life. 

It's not its, and you are marvelling at way the design of the hole fits the puddle again. I tire of explaining evolution to you, and that you're putting your clapped out pony behind your cart. The claim it is fortuitous is of course a subjective one. 

Quote:Natural forces we know of can't plan to intend anything to happen. 

Who said they could? 

Quote:Suppose tomorrow some startling new evidence comes forth and the majority of scientists conclude the universe was intentionally caused to exist. They don't say who or what, just that it was intentionally caused. Would that be a horrible day for you?

Why would it? Unlike you I don't start with a belief I prefer, and bend facts to suit it, I start with the facts and bend belief to suit those facts. 

Quote:Can you deny its possible our existence was intentionally caused 

I don't need to deny anything, I merely subject the claim to the same critical standard I subject all claims, can it be supported by sufficient objective evidence? It's your claim, the burden of proof is yours. I will believe it is possible if and when it can be objectively demonstrated. Why do you keep making the same error over and over again? Atheism is not a belief, it is not a claim. 

Quote:knowing in a few dozen years we maybe able to cause virtual people to exist in a virtual universe. 

I don't know this, this is just another sweeping unevidenced claim you have offered, and "may be able to" is semantically identical to may not be able to. 

Quote:No doubt some of the virtual people will believe there existence was intentionally caused. Would they be wrong?

Their existence, not there (sic) existence, and you are asking a hypothetical question, that your hypothetical scenario has already answered. Though tellingly you should be asking how would they know either way, it speaks volumes your first instinct is not to look for sufficient epistemological justification for belief, even in this bizarre hypothetical. 


What is the best reason you think you have that any deity exists, and why? I can't really give you much more latitude than that, to be fair....off you go, enthral us

(April 8, 2025 at 1:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 8, 2025 at 12:11 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: Bullshit
They are committed to empiricism and falsifiability, stuff you dont bother with. You are committed mainly to logical fallacies and strawmen, q.e.d.

While not all scientists subscribe to naturalism, mainstream science operates under the framework of methodological naturalism, seeking natural explanations for phenomena, without considering supernatural or divine interventions.

Take your foot out of your mouth and wash it off for god's sake.

You asked AI for an answer, really!? Ok....From your link: Methodological naturalism is based on the scientific method, critical thinking, evidence, and falsifiability.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific...rspectives

Quote:At the core of modern scientific practice method is the idea that the value of a hypothesis, theory, or concept is best determined by its ability to make falsifiable predictions that one can test against empirical reality. This means that supernatural entities or concepts that are meaningless or logically contradictory cannot be included in a scientific hypothesis

"Redding" mine: Ergo, supernatural entities that arent meaningless or contradictory can.

(April 8, 2025 at 10:31 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: I believe the universe was intentionally caused to exist by a being capable of doing so. I 'm a philosophical theist.

Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1] It represents belief in God entirely without doctrine, except for that which can be discerned by reason and the contemplation of natural laws.

Lets have a look at the very next sentence from the Wikipedia article you quoted.

Quote:Some philosophical theists are persuaded of God's existence by philosophical arguments, while others consider themselves to have a religious faith that need not be, or could not be, supported by rational argument.

Philosophical theism has parallels with the 18th century philosophical view called Deism.


....

Philosophical theism conceives of nature as the result of purposive activity and so as an intelligible system open to human understanding, although possibly never completely understandable.

Bolding mine.
If you had read (which you obviously didnt) what Sheldon wrote here, you would have understood (which you are obviously incapable of or unwilling to) that your standard for believing a proposition is much lower than the one of people using the scientific method. These people, by the way, are called scientists*. Their methodology is based on skepticism, falsifiability and empiricism**. Yours is based on.....philosophical arguments and faith. Science, aka methodological  naturalism is in the business to demonstrate what ideas match reality, your flavor of Deism...isnt.

And now, please demonstrate why anyone should accept your proposition that
#1 a supreme being exists
#2 nature is a result of purposive activity
beyond "ipse dixit" and queuing up logical fallacies. Good luck. And no, im not gonna put my foot out of.... your ass.


* In colloquial terms: You are a philosopher who claims to have a better understanding of the universe than scientists, which is absurd. Since philosophy deals with ideas and arguments, while science deals with evidence. Philosophy deals with what could be true, and science with what we can currently demonstrate to be true. While its not impossible that the universe is fine tuned, there is no good empirical reason, based on evidence, to think so. Much less in your case, using one logical fallacy after the other.


** If your supreme being would be falsifiable instead of meaningless (or contradictory) and if nature being a result of purposive activity could have been established and not falsified (yet), then #1 and #2 could be part of a scientific theory.

(April 8, 2025 at 1:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 8, 2025 at 12:11 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: Bullshit
They are committed to empiricism and falsifiability, stuff you dont bother with. You are committed mainly to logical fallacies and strawmen, q.e.d.

While not all scientists subscribe to naturalism, mainstream science operates under the framework of methodological naturalism, seeking natural explanations for phenomena, without considering supernatural or divine interventions.

Take your foot out of your mouth and wash it off for god's sake.

Fuck me?

Supernatural claims provide no data for science to examine? 

Which bit of that is too complicated for you to understand? 

Lets try a metaphor then, I know how religious apologists love those to an annoying extent:

Science has never studied unicorns. 

Now listen carefully Drew...

Is this because...

a) There is an innate bias in the methodologies of science against unicorns?

or

b) There are no fucking unicorns to study?

Now take your time on this one, as the simplicity of the task belies your inability to understand it fully thus far. 

You are peddling a risible global conspiracy again, if you do it again I may have to resort to mocking you with memes.

(April 8, 2025 at 1:57 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(April 8, 2025 at 10:43 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: I meant that unlike atheists who deny there is any evidence our universe was intentionally caused I don't deny there is evidence to support belief in naturalism. Most if not all atheists deny there is a shred of evidence, data or reason to think it was intentionally caused. They are to cowardly to admit otherwise.

I really want to respond postively to this post, because you're taking al lot of heat, but you had to throw in that bit at the end.

I both feel your frustration, and admire your restraint, sadly I took the bait. I may have to have a word with myself at some point.

(April 8, 2025 at 2:36 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: The irony of this they don't think mindless natural forces, minus any plan or intent or a physics degree causing a universe to exist with the all the conditions for life to exist is a miracle. Causing things to happen intentionally isn't miraculous.

Are your arguments here aiming to prove a Prime Mover only? 

Do you have steps that get us from a God that intentionally creates the universe, to the Christian God specifically? 

Do you conceive of this creator as a "personal God"? I've never been quite clear on how a Prime Mover and a Personal God go together. 

Thanks.

(April 8, 2025 at 2:27 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 8, 2025 at 11:06 am)Sheldon Wrote: Oh dear, firstly and for the second time it is too much, not to (sic) much, and the idea you know what most, let alone all, atheists think is too stupid a claim to do anything with but point and laugh.

If you think you have evidence the universe was created by a deity using supernatural powers, then present it, but you will need to a lot better than misrepresenting scientific terms like fine tuning, as this scientific term explains only natural physical attributes of the universe. It does not evidence anything supernatural, this is the core error you started with, and haven't the integrity to address. 

The term fine tuning is a metaphor, like the term the big bang, nether are meant literally, and neither idea, nor any established scientific idea, has ever evidenced anything supernatural. The scientific term differs from the theological argument using that term, the apologetics argument from fine tuning, points at the natural physical characteristics of the universe, and then uses an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, namely "we can't explain X, therefore god did it."

Nothing Drew has presented, goes beyond the use of that fallacy.

Quote:This is hardly saying much, since the existence of the natural physical universe, and natural causation, is an objective fact, one might as well deny the rotundity of the earth.

Bullshit. What natural causation caused the universe to exist? 

Is English your first language? Do me a favour and highlight the text in my post, where you imagine I claimed "natural causation caused the universe to exist"?

Quote:It wasn't like anything like the natural forces that came into existence since they didn't exist yet. 

I think that may have answered my first question anyway. Can I have that in English please? 

Quote:Whether intentionally or the result of mindless natural forces the universe (spacetime matter) began to exist. That's creation. I didn't think I needed to tell you this.

Dishonest semantics, I was obviously responding to your claims for a creator, I didn't think there'd be any need to explain that, but I have always been something of an optimist, it seems it was misplaced here. 

Quote: The scientific term differs from the theological argument using that term, the apologetics argument from fine tuning, points at the natural physical characteristics of the universe, and then uses an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, namely 

Man, are you grasping at straws. Big bang isn't a metaphor its a catchy name the person who first proposed BB theory and it stuck. It wasn't initially big and it didn't cause a bang since there was no medium for sound to travel through.

Am I being played by a sarcastic genius? The only other alternative is that I am kicking a helpless puppy. 
Be a dear and explain to me what you think the word metaphor means, only this " Big bang isn't a metaphor ..."It wasn't initially big and it didn't cause a bang..." Is once again comedy fucking gold. 
Do you (Drew) accept that the scientific term fine tuning, describes entirely natural characteristics of the physical universe? 

Quote:

Quote:"we can't explain X, therefore god did it."

The contention it was intentionally caused does explain why we live in a universe that caused life to exist.

Wow!, lets try bullet points. 
1. This does not address your use of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, at all. 
2. Your claim (god did it) has no explanatory powers whatsoever, obviously, so wtf are you talking about?

Quote:The counter explanation is multiverse did it. 

False dichotomy fallacy, I am done explaining why, physician...heal thyself...

Quote: However as I pointed out fine-tuning is indicative of things caused by intent. 

I don't believe your claim, please demonstrate something beyond repetition of your claim, that this is true. 

Quote:

Quote:The term fine tuning is a metaphor, like the term the big bang, nether are meant literally, and neither idea, nor any established scientific idea, has ever evidenced anything supernatural.

Are you ignorant or lying? Fine-tuning isn't a metaphor its a scientific term that describes things that requires several components in specific values and ranges to cause something to happen. 

Please offer a single peer reviewed scientific citation, that the scientific term fine tuning describes anything but natural characteristics of the physical universe? Oh, and Bullwinkle, if you start with the ad hominem I am definitely your huckleberry. Nothing I love more than indulging in vituperation. 

Quote:A laptop is

Man made, unlike the universe, so another false equivalence fallacy. Damn it, I explained it to him. Pearls before swine...

Quote:You're still in denial as to why so many scientists subscribe to multiverse theory.

Nope, this is a bare faced lie, since I have made no claims, or even mentioned multiverse theory. 

Quote:They believe as you do it wasn't intentionally caused so multiverse did it.

Straw man fallacy, I have expressed no such belief. You're consistent, I'll give you that, sadly not in a good way.

(April 8, 2025 at 2:31 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 8, 2025 at 1:57 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I really want to respond postively to this post, because you're taking al lot of heat, but you had to throw in that bit at the end.

Yeah it was a rude editorialization. I should say intellectually dishonest and I can prove that all day long. They accept facts that support their view as evidence in favor of what they believe. When theists do the same its circular reasoning.

More comedy gold, and atheism is still not a belief...and that's confirmation bias not circular reasoning, fuck me, you can Google the definition of a circular reasoning fallacy in seconds...this has to be a windup...surely?