Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it

[ParkingPlaces]

Finely tuned? How interesting. Come up with a concept. Give it a label. And proclaim it obvious.

Since I was once an electronics technician in the Air Force, I picture "finely tuned" as knobs being turned to optimize something. A concept that works fine when one is, oh, I dunno, tuning something that needs it.

But our existence is merely the byproduct of some pleasant happenstances. Situations arose within the confines of our universe that made life possible, said life was able to evolve, we avoided a variety of possible planetary disasters, and none of the things the universe can do to end it all have happened here yet. We haven't been sucked into a black hole, we haven't been made into crispy critters by a supernova, we haven't been around long enough to die because our sun has gone postal. Which it will someday.

That we are here means that whatever happened was good. Had it not been, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Fine tuning of the sort you imply, Godexists, is not necessary. Let alone possible.

Besides, if this is all the better a fine-tuner can do, he's not very good at it.

You gotta quit being amazed so easily. That is just the sort of thinking that makes David Blaine popular. Stop it.

[Godexists]

So, although you deny that the universe could have always been there in some shape or form[/quote]

thats the latest conclusion of many scientists.

, or that before the Big Bang there was nothing

there was no " before ", since time did not exist.

, or that there might be many universes springing into existence

might be, but what made them spring into existence, if so ?

, nevertheless, you find it perfectly logical that an invisible being, shaped like a man

how could it be shaped as a man, if invisible ? you self contradict yourself. Thats btw. not what theists believe. God in our view is a spiritual being.



 

has lived for ever and ever without ever having eaten breakfast or having a beginning and can magic people, plants and animals (as well as bacteria and viruses, etc.) into existence?

a creator God can do all these things. You are asked at this thread to present a better explanation for our existence. So far, you have not.

And you think that's fine? That sounds normal to you?

What does sound normal to YOU ????

(If you like folk stories and did a little research into The Bible, you would see that, in all probability Yahweh is the son of an older god called El. Yahweh was a son amongst other sons and daughters - these are the "other gods" that you should not serve.)

This topic is about YOUR worldview, not mine. 

[Godexists]

Finely tuned? How interesting. Come up with a concept. Give it a label. And proclaim it obvious.

Since I was once an electronics technician in the Air Force, I picture "finely tuned" as knobs being turned to optimize something. A concept that works fine when one is, oh, I dunno, tuning something that needs it.

But our existence is merely the byproduct of some pleasant happenstances.

It seems you KNOW that ?!! could you specify , how ??



 

Fine tuning of the sort you imply, Godexists, is not necessary. Let alone possible.

Hawking must have got it terribly wrong then, isnt it ? How comes you know it better ? any hard data on hand ?

Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p.125.

The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life… It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty.

Besides, if this is all the better a fine-tuner can do, he's not very good at it.

You gotta quit being amazed so easily. That is just the sort of thinking that makes David Blaine popular. Stop it.

You are not in the position to tell me, what i have to do.

[ParkingPlaces]

Finely tuned? How interesting. Come up with a concept. Give it a label. And proclaim it obvious.

Since I was once an electronics technician in the Air Force, I picture "finely tuned" as knobs being turned to optimize something. A concept that works fine when one is, oh, I dunno, tuning something that needs it.

But our existence is merely the byproduct of some pleasant happenstances.

It seems you KNOW that ?!! could you specify , how ??



 

Fine tuning of the sort you imply, Godexists, is not necessary. Let alone possible.

Hawking must have got it terribly wrong then, isnt it ? How comes you know it better ? any hard data on hand ?

Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p.125.

The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life… It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty.

Besides, if this is all the better a fine-tuner can do, he's not very good at it.

You gotta quit being amazed so easily. That is just the sort of thinking that makes David Blaine popular. Stop it.

You are not in the position to tell me, what i have to do.

Okay, I'm gonna try this again. As I said before, I dislike the implied intelligent intervention, but yep, you can define the universe as finely tuned. If it were not, we wouldn't be here. The difference then, between your stance and mine, is this. You think the fine tuning deliberate. I think that what people perceive as fine tuning is simply the way it is, and if it were not that way, we wouldn't be here to unappreciate our lack of existence.

I'm what's known as prag-f**kin-matic. No force of nature that we have observed appears controlled by anything other than the constants we have found our universe, which go nicely with a whole bunch of variables and other factors. Which just happen to be survivable under certain circumstances. Such as ours.  I am quite happy with that explanation, and see no reason to read anything other than luck into the results.

Every once in a while, someone wins the lottery. We on earth won one big-time.

What are the odds, with 100 billion galaxies, each with an average of 400 billion stars, of no planet being capable of harboring life? I know you want to blame someone besides dumb luck, but first you have to show me some irrefutable reason to reinterpret reality your way. Without invoking astonishment.

[JeffPT]

, or that there might be many universes springing into existence

might be, but what made them spring into existence, if so ?

We have no way of knowing.  If that is the case, then by far the most logical stance is to claim that we don't know yet and wait for the evidence to arrive; don't you think? No, you probably don't.  You'd rather take the word of ignorant desert people who lived 2000 years ago.  Yeah, that's smart.   

No, the most logical stance really is to wait and see.  In the mean time, however, what we can reasonably guess is that the creation of our universe came about through natural causes because everything we see from immediately after the Big Bang to today is explainable without the interference of any outside, supernatural forces.  We have a nearly unbroken chain of natural events leading back 14 billion years... why would anyone think the natural chain of events breaks at the creation of the universe?

, nevertheless, you find it perfectly logical that an invisible being, shaped like a man

how could it be shaped as a man, if invisible ? you self contradict yourself. Thats btw. not what theists believe. God in our view is a spiritual being.

Really?  Genesis 1:27...  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

What bible do you read? 

BTW, when you say God is a 'spiritual being', what exactly does that mean? 

has lived for ever and ever without ever having eaten breakfast or having a beginning and can magic people, plants and animals (as well as bacteria and viruses, etc.) into existence?

a creator God can do all these things. You are asked at this thread to present a better explanation for our existence. So far, you have not.

Any single explanation, no matter how weird, strange, or completely off the wall it is, as long as it is a natural explanation, is a far, FAR better explanation than god.  Why?  Because everything we see in nature; everything we interact with, come in contact with, or observe in any way, functions naturally without the help of any outside, unseen forces.  You know this is the case.  You see it every day.  You live it every moment. We don't say our computers and phones work by magic.  We know that when we eat food, it doesn't magically turn to waste materials.  When we press the gas pedal on our car, there is no supernatural force pushing us along like a spiritual Fred Flintstone.  The moment you turn to magic (the supernatural) as an explanatory factor, you've committed intellectual suicide.   

Let me give you an example of what I mean... You're walking in a snowy wood and a snowball hits you in the back of the head.  You turn around and see your friend laughing at you.  Your brain works quickly and decides on the most probable scenario... this is an easy one... your friend hit you with a snowball.  Now, alternately, a supernatural being COULD have magically appeared behind you, made a snowball, and tossed it at your head, then disappeared into nothingness, but in terms of explanations, that's fucking stupid, isn't it? It's the same with everything else too.  From your car not starting, to winning the lottery, to clogging up a toilet... your brain goes through logical processes to figure out what happened in those events.  A supernatural explanation is the last thing your brain goes to, not the first.   Please understand, a supernatural being popping up and creating the entire universe through magic is just as stupid as a supernatural being magically tossing a snowball at you. 

EVERYTHING works like that.  Just think it through.  When you're sitting at a stoplight, ask yourself why the other people are moving and you're not.  Is it because their light is green and yours isn't or is it because God stops your vehicle with supernatural forces? When your ironing your shirt, why are the wrinkles coming out?  Is it because the steam penetrates the fabric in such a way as to eliminate the wrinkles, or is it that God is inside the iron, magically smoothing your clothes for you. 

When was the last time that something happened to you that the BEST POSSIBLE explanation was supernatural?  My guess is never.  Oh sure, you may try to point to some sort of ridiculous spiritual moment or some such bullshit, but those happen to people of all religions, people who meditate, and also with chemical changes in the brain.  So no, the best possible explanation for those events is still natural. 

As an agnostic atheist, I leave open the possibility of some sort of deity that started everything rolling and does not interfere in any way with the workings of the universe.  I can't deny that possibility.  What I can deny, however, is the Christian God.  That claim is completely unreasonable.  It's just wrong.

[Godexists]

Okay, I'm gonna try this again. As I said before, I dislike the implied intelligent intervention, but yep, you can define the universe as finely tuned. If it were not, we wouldn't be here. The difference then, between your stance and mine, is this. You think the fine tuning deliberate. I think that what people perceive as fine tuning is simply the way it is, and if it were not that way, we wouldn't be here to unappreciate our lack of existence.

I'm what's known as prag-f**kin-matic. No force of nature that we have observed appears controlled by anything other than the constants we have found our universe, which go nicely with a whole bunch of variables and other factors. Which just happen to be survivable under certain circumstances. Such as ours.  I am quite happy with that explanation, and see no reason to read anything other than luck into the results.

Amazing faith in luck, you have then, i must say. Unfortunately, i am unable to share it. Luck as explanation does not seem reasonable to me.

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections", Annual Reviews of Astonomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982)

Every once in a while, someone wins the lottery. We on earth won one big-time.

oh sure we did....

What are the odds, with 100 billion galaxies, each with an average of 400 billion stars, of no planet being capable of harboring life? I know you want to blame someone besides dumb luck, but first you have to show me some irrefutable reason to reinterpret reality your way. Without invoking astonishment.

I have posted the odds already.

http://www.reasons.org/physics/constants-physics/exotic-life-sites-feasibility-far-out-habitats

The data demonstrate that the probability of finding even one planet with the capacity to support life falls short of one chance in 10140 (that number is 1 followed by 140 zeros)

[Godexists]

We have no way of knowing.  If that is the case, then by far the most logical stance is to claim that we don't know yet and wait for the evidence to arrive; don't you think? No, you probably don't.  You'd rather take the word of ignorant desert people who lived 2000 years ago.  Yeah, that's smart.   

Thats not necessary. But i have a mind to reason. And my reasoning mind tells me, that if the universe most probably had a beginning, as scientific data suggests, then it had a cause. That cause must have been beyond, and above the physical universe, since otherwise , if it would make part of it, how could it have been created ? So what properties must this cause have had ?

as posted already :

http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-for-the-Existence-of-God-is-Sound/1/

 the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Interestingly enough, this also lends credibility to the notion that the cause was personal, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists.

No, the most logical stance really is to wait and see.  In the mean time, however, what we can reasonably guess is that the creation of our universe came about through natural causes because everything we see from immediately after the Big Bang to today is explainable without the interference of any outside, supernatural forces.

Again : that is not only not true, but also a unsupported claim. Most of our universe cannot be explained by natural means.  Abiogenesis is just one example. Btw. how could unanimated matter become self conscient ? Ever heard about Einstein's gulf ?

  We have a nearly unbroken chain of natural events leading back 14 billion years... why would anyone think the natural chain of events breaks at the creation of the universe?

the question is, how could these events exist without a causal agent ?

Really?  Genesis 1:27...  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

What bible do you read? 

The bible uses many times a figurative language.

BTW, when you say God is a 'spiritual being', what exactly does that mean?

non physical. Can you show me your thoughts ? can they be seen, smelled ? tasted ? touched ?

Any single explanation, no matter how weird, strange, or completely off the wall it is, as long as it is a natural explanation, is a far, FAR better explanation than god.  Why?  Because everything we see in nature; everything we interact with, come in contact with, or observe in any way, functions naturally without the help of any outside, unseen forces.

The quest is what caused it all into being.

You know this is the case.  You see it every day.  You live it every moment. We don't say our computers and phones work by magic.

Neither do you say, these popped up into being by nothing. Someone created them...... why should it be different with the universe ?

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-208/creation-believe-it-or-not-part-1

You see, when you abandon logic and logic says, "Oh, there's a universe. Hum...somebody made it." What else would logic say? "There's a building, somebody made it. There's a piano, somebody made it. There's a universe, more complex than a building, infinitely more complex than a piano, somebody...somebody who is very, very powerful and very, very intelligent made it."

You say, "No, no, chance made it." Listen, folks, that's rational suicide, that's not logical. Logic abandoned leaves you with myth and the enemies of mythology, the enemies of mythology are empirical data and God-given reason. So in order to be an evolutionist and believe that chance makes things happen, you have to do two things: reject the empirical data, and be irrational. But if you love your sin enough, you'll do it. You see, if you can just eliminate the empirical data, the evidence, and get rid of God-given logic and those two things are the essence of pure science, if you can get rid of those things then mythology runs wild. And as one writer said, "Chance is the new soft pillow for science to lie down on." Arthur Kessler said, "As long as chance rules, God is an anachronism." If chance rules, God can't rule. Chance deposes God. The very existence of chance rips God from His sovereign throne.



 

[Astreja]

I do not accept Hugh Ross as a legitimate authority on whether or not there is extraterrestrial life.  He studied physics and astronomy, but apparently not biology or organic chemistry.

I do believe that there are, at very least, millions of planets out there with some form of life.  The raw materials are actually common ones, made up of only 4 elements (Hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen), and so it isn't all that surprising that nucleobases have already been found in meteorites.

[Astreja]

the question is, how could these events exist without a causal agent ?

So what caused the causal agent?

[Aaron123]

You see, when you abandon logic and logic says, "Oh, there's a universe. Hum...somebody made it." What else would logic say? "There's a building, somebody made it. There's a piano, somebody made it. There's a universe, more complex than a building, infinitely more complex than a piano, somebody...somebody who is very, very powerful and very, very intelligent made it."

Every examples of buildings and pianos are man-made.  We can witness buildings and pianos being made, we can examine the records of building historys, we can recreate buildings and pianos.

You have yet to show us god's universe-making factory.

For that matter, you have yet to show that your god even exists.  All you've ever offered is incredulity and 'gap' arguments.

You say, "No, no, chance made it." Listen, folks, that's rational suicide, that's not logical. Logic abandoned leaves you with myth and the enemies of mythology, the enemies of mythology are empirical data and God-given reason. So in order to be an evolutionist and believe that chance makes things happen, you have to do two things: reject the empirical data, and be irrational.

How ironic you said that.  God IS mythology.

But if you love your sin enough, you'll do it.

Now I know you're projecting.

Non-belief in gods has nothing to do with "loving sin".  It only has to do with lack of evidence.

You see, if you can just eliminate the empirical data, the evidence, and get rid of God-given logic and those two things are the essence of pure science, if you can get rid of those things then mythology runs wild. And as one writer said, "Chance is the new soft pillow for science to lie down on." Arthur Kessler said, "As long as chance rules, God is an anachronism." If chance rules, God can't rule. Chance deposes God. The very existence of chance rips God from His sovereign throne.

Sounds like you feel your god is threatened.  For an all-powerfull being, he sure has insecurity issues!

[Astreja]

Again : that is not only not true, but also a unsupported claim. Most of our universe cannot be explained by natural means.  Abiogenesis is just one example. Btw. how could unanimated matter become self conscient ? Ever heard about Einstein's gulf ?

GE, please learn to differentiate between "cannot be explained" and "has not yet been explained."  Not all that long ago in Earth's history, the gods were getting all the credit/blame for thunderstorms, earthquakes and plagues.  Just because something is a scientific mystery today doesn't mean that it'll always be a mystery.  I, for one, expect to see abiogenesis in the laboratory in My own lifetime.

Can you show me your thoughts ? can they be seen, smelled ? tasted ? touched ?

Brain activity shows up quite well on an EEG.  You wouldn't happen to have the schematics for a God-o-meter, would you?

If chance rules, God can't rule. Chance deposes God. The very existence of chance rips God from His sovereign throne.

Then that cute little "INRI" sign should've fallen right off the cross when they started casting lots for Jesus's robe.   Seriously, though, what kind of god do you worship that has to micromanage everything to the quantum level?  Do you honestly believe that the existence of chance would actually threaten such a being?  And what if your god actually wants its creation to be full of surprises?

[ParkingPlaces]

I have posted the odds already.

http://www.reasons.org/physics/constants-physics/exotic-life-sites-feasibility-far-out-habitats

The data demonstrate that the probability of finding even one planet with the capacity to support life falls short of one chance in 10140 (that number is 1 followed by 140 zeros)

You know why I don't like numbers like this? We're working with a sample of 1. We're not even sure whether or not there is life on Mars or one of Saturn's moons, like Titan or Enceladus. 

These guys are pulling a number out of their ass and you love it. You don't suppose the fact that it is from a site called "Reasons to Believe" has anything to do with my doubt. Well, it didn't. I decided whoever it was (without even looking at your link) was full of crap. Then I went to it and found out my theory was correct.

What are the odds that you would select stats from a highly biased source that you agree with? I'd say less than 1 chance in 10¹⁴⁰. But you still did it, didn't you.

And your little sin quip? What a load of crap. If your entire intellectual life consists of concocting stories that will fit your hoped-forversion of reality, do keep in mind that the rest of us are not required to play along. If you are imagining that we have chosen to be atheists so that we could be bad guys, you haven't a clue. Not one, single 'effin clue.

[Godexists]

I do not accept Hugh Ross as a legitimate authority on whether or not there is extraterrestrial life.  He studied physics and astronomy, but apparently not biology or organic chemistry.

I do believe that there are, at very least, millions of planets out there with some form of life.  The raw materials are actually common ones, made up of only 4 elements (Hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen), and so it isn't all that surprising that nucleobases have already been found in meteorites.

You believe it, but based on what concrete scientific evidence  ? Scientific inquiry and data tells a other story. The more we learn, the more we find out how small chance is, to find a other life hosting planet.

http://www.science20.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets

Infinity was invented to account for the possibility that in a never-ending universe, anything can happen. Life on other Earth-like planets, for example, is possible in an infinite universe, but not probable, according to a scientist from the University of East Anglia.

The mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low because of the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of the Earth. Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.


 http://www.discovery.org/a/14751

 We continue to learn how much must go right to a get just one habitable planet. The list gets longer all the time. Complex life in particular probably needs many of the things that we Earthlings enjoy: a rocky terrestrial planet much like the Earth, with plate tectonics to recycle nutrients and the right kind of atmosphere; a large, well placed moon to contribute to tides and stabilize the tilt of the planet’s axis. The planet needs to be just the right distance from the right kind of single star, in a nearly circular orbit—to maintain liquid water on its surface.

It also needs a home within a stable planetary system that includes some outlying giant planets to protect the inner system from too many deadly comet impacts. That planetary system must be nestled in a safe neighborhood in the right kind of galaxy, with enough heavy elements to build terrestrial planets. And that planet will need to form during the narrow habitable window of cosmic history. (This is to say nothing of having a universe with a fine-tuned set of physical laws and constants to make stars, planets, and people possible in the first place. But that’s another long and complicated story.)

The fact that we inhabit a terrestrial planet with a clear atmosphere and water on its surface; that our moon is just the right size and distance from Earth to stabilize the tilt of Earth’s rotation axis; that the size and shape of the moon and sun match in our sky; that our position in our large spiral galaxy is just so; that our sun is its precise mass and composition: all of these and many more are not only necessary for Earth’s habitability; they also have been surprisingly crucial for scientists to discover the universe.

Those rare pockets of habitability in our universe are also the best overall places for scientific discovery. This is surprising because there’s no reason to assume that the very same rare properties that allow for observers would also provide the best overall setting for observing the world around them. We think the evidence for this “correlation between life and discovery” forms a pervasive and telling pattern, a pattern that not only contradicts the Copernican Principle, but also suggests that the universe, whatever else it is, is designed for discovery.

[JohnKurwa]

I also think that what personally convinces me is that we do not have any indication or rather any influence of anything supernatural on our earth.

why is it the right direction ? do you not expose your bias here ? Why should a world without God be better than one with God ?

I would never state that my point of view is the right one nor do I think in this way. I do not say that a world without God would be better than one with him (there are some points, maybe why did he create AIDS, cancer and let the western world exploit the 3rd world?, but if you think God created everything so he has also done at least one good thing).

I just think it is hard to believe in something that has no actual influence on our existance. Why would you assume that there is a creator? And why would you assume that also your creator came from nothing?

[Graybeard]

, or that before the Big Bang there was nothing

there was no " before ", since time did not exist.

So theist “just know” that God exists and can exist, “outside of time”? Have you any peer reviewed journals that could help us understand this?

, or that there might be many universes springing into existence

might be, but what made them spring into existence, if so ?

I think we can dismiss magic.

, nevertheless, you find it perfectly logical that an invisible being, shaped like a man

how could it be shaped as a man, if invisible ? you self contradict yourself. Thats btw. not what theists believe. God in our view is a spiritual being.

Hey, it’s your god who says we look like him. I’m just quoting the Bible. If you think God’s a liar, then that is a matter for you.

has lived for ever and ever without ever having eaten breakfast or having a beginning and can magic people, plants and animals (as well as bacteria and viruses, etc.) into existence?

a creator God can do all these things. You are asked at this thread to present a better explanation for our existence. So far, you have not.

And you think that's fine? That sounds normal to you?

What does sound normal to YOU ????

Taking your evasion as, “Well, I recognise that is a little far-fetched” I see that you recognise that magical beings without an energy source who poof matter out of nothing is not really believable as it does not coincide with the rest of the physics an chemistry that we do fully understand. So I will ask again, “And you think that's fine? That sounds normal to you?”

Of course, if you can come up with some explanation of how a deity can do all this magic, then my ears and mind are always open to reason.

(If you like folk stories and did a little research into The Bible, you would see that, in all probability Yahweh is the son of an older god called El. Yahweh was a son amongst other sons and daughters - these are the "other gods" that you should not serve.)

This topic is about YOUR worldview, not mine. 

That is my world view. A set of superstitions that arose out of a belief system traceable back to Babylonian myth. To consider any of that the absolute truth is delusional.

[jedweber]

Lets just see the multiverse proposal. First of all, it has no empirical data to be backed up. It seems to be just a silly idea, to avoid a fine-tuner, God.

The people who understand it better than you or I specifically deny that charge. For example:

"That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology." - Stephen Hawking

I admit that I can only take their word on that. The complex mathematics and scientific theories behind it are mostly beyond me. But the salient fact here is that no one is demanding you accept the multiverse theory (or any other particular naturalistic cosmology) on FAITH. Neither I, nor Hawking himself are insisting that it MUST be true!

This is where our worldview differs from yours, despite your efforts to establish a false equivalency.

I think that's what is really behind all your hand-waving on "philosophical naturalism". You want us to declare ourselves absolutely for it, then fail to meet some unattainable standard of "proof," so you can then turn around and say we are just like you - holding a belief which is faith-based and "religious" in nature.

But most of us are not taking the bait. I see no reason to proclaim the absolute truth of philosophical naturalism. As someone said here earlier, I may accept it provisionally, as it seems to be in accordance with everything we have learned so far. But I think all of us here will admit that there is much we don't know, that no one can answer the question of our origins with any certainty, at least for now.

[Godexists]

the question is, how could these events exist without a causal agent ?

So what caused the causal agent?

A eternal God has no cause.

[One Above All]

A eternal God has no cause.

So a causeless cause? And how is that not special pleading?

[Godexists]

You see, when you abandon logic and logic says, "Oh, there's a universe. Hum...somebody made it." What else would logic say? "There's a building, somebody made it. There's a piano, somebody made it. There's a universe, more complex than a building, infinitely more complex than a piano, somebody...somebody who is very, very powerful and very, very intelligent made it."

Every examples of buildings and pianos are man-made.  We can witness buildings and pianos being made, we can examine the records of building historys, we can recreate buildings and pianos.

You have yet to show us god's universe-making factory

if you don't like the logic behind the reason presented, how about you rather show, that the universe was either self-caused, or had no beginning, but exists eternally ? What evidence do you have to back up one of these alternatives ( which are the only ones i can fathom ).


 

All you've ever offered is incredulity and 'gap' arguments.

At this thread, i do not have to show anything. Its abour YOUR worldview, and the justification for it.

How ironic you said that.  God IS mythology.

And you know that HOW exactly ? This thread is becoming a parade of empty assertions without any solid arguments to back up the claims. Where is the so much proclaimed rationality behing the strong atheist world view ??!!

Non-belief in gods has nothing to do with "loving sin".  It only has to do with lack of evidence.

Or maibe with willful ignorance towards the evidence ?

Sounds like you feel your god is threatened.  For an all-powerfull being, he sure has insecurity issues!

what is threatened, is not God. He does not need us, and that we believe in him.

[Astreja]

I do believe that there are, at very least, millions of planets out there with some form of life.  The raw materials are actually common ones, made up of only 4 elements (Hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen), and so it isn't all that surprising that nucleobases have already been found in meteorites.

You believe it, but based on what concrete scientific evidence  ?

The existence of a massive universe; the ubiquity of the chemical elements required for organic life; the discovery of water and/or methane on various planets and moons in this very solar system; the discovery of the aforementioned nucleobases in local meteorites; and the Miller-Urey experiment.

I haven't quoted any more of your reply but am taking the liberty of reporting you for plagiarism, as a quick Google search revealed that your un-quoted text was lifted wholesale from various websites without proper attribution of quoted sections.

GE, it's now obvious that your "understanding" of science is little more than photocopies of Argument from Incredulity foot-stompings and whinings of other petulant believers.

There is nothing more to discuss here.  I hereby declare the naturalistic school to be the winner of this thread.

[Godexists]

A eternal God has no cause.

So a causeless cause? And how is that not special pleading?

why should it be special pleading ?

[ParkingPlaces]

A eternal God has no cause.

We have to prove everything, but you only need to provide a blanket statement based on how you want the universe to be. How convenient.

Sadly I have to head back into the wilds and will not have an internet connection for a few weeks. So I'll have to wait awhile to see how this turns out. Or just remember how it worked with the last five dozen theists who tried to call their thoughts logical. How did that go again? Oh yea...

Bye bye for now, folks. Be good.

[12 Monkeys]

the question is, how could these events exist without a causal agent ?

So what caused the causal agent?

A eternal God has no cause.

Yahweh is just one god in a pantheon of gods....its all in the bible

[Godexists]

I hereby declare the naturalistic school to be the winner of this thread.

And who told you this thread is about " winning " or " loosing " something ?

[Godexists]

We have to prove everything

No. Just present good evidence is enough. So far, i have not seen any.

[Astreja]

why should it be special pleading ?

You cannot claim that everything needs a cause, yet make an exception for your god by making the assertion that it always existed.  If your hypothetical sentient creator can always exist, I think that it's at least as likely that non-sentient matter/energy (or its precursor) could always exist.

At very least, in order for a god to create, it would require energy.  Energy and matter are closely related, so if energy was used to create a universe it could not be creation ex nihilo.

[Godexists]

I may accept it provisionally, as it seems to be in accordance with everything we have learned so far.

So how about go straight to the point, and show finally, what it is that you have learned, that made you conclude philosophical naturalism offers the best explanations ? THAT is what i would like to see.

[Astreja]

And who told you this thread is about " winning " or " loosing " something ?

I did -- I unilaterally declared it to be so, just a few minutes ago. Do try to keep up, GE.   

[Azdgari]

How about this for an answer, GE?

The natural world is that which makes sense, can be understood, and is coherent with other things that make sense.

The universe makes physical sense.  Therefore, the universe is natural.

There's philosophical naturalism for you.  Is it possible for something to exist which cannot make sense, cannot be understood, and is incoherent with the rest of reality?  I suppose so, if it was completly isolated from natural reality.  If it could affect the universe, then it would do so to an unpredictable degree in an unpredictable manner.  It would basically destroy the universe.

We don't see the universe's order getting randomly violated.  Therefore, it is natural.