Author Topic: Natural Explanation Vs Magical  (Read 9899 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #116 on: March 29, 2014, 10:08:40 PM »
Hey median : "Can I say that God is a valid explanation for our universe and so is the Big Bang. That they are not opposed one from another but work together to make the whole truth?"

You can say that but it wouldn't be any different from saying that "Blark" and the Big Bang are the cause of the universe. The term "God" doesn't refer to anything. It's just a word, made-up in an attempt to satiate credulity (like kids use the word "Santa"). "God" (the big mystery word) isn't an explanation for anything. It's just a filler for when people don't understand how things occurred. If you disagree, then please coherently define the term and then demonstrate what sound evidence there is for it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Disciple of Sagan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
  • Darwins +60/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Current mood: Malcontent
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #117 on: March 29, 2014, 10:13:01 PM »
Found this pertinent to the topic at hand (the 1st answer in particular):

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130818041752AAFfgWC

The cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff.

The only thing bigger than the universe is humanity's collective sense of self-importance.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #118 on: March 29, 2014, 10:13:18 PM »

So it could be argued that a single photon's (or other elementary particle's) interaction is uncaused.

Foxy, my question then back to you is 'Is that uncaused interaction natural in your view ? and if so under what definition of natural?'

Or, it could be the case that the cause is yet to be discovered and is, as is yet, unknown. In either case, what justification is there for calling any of that "non-natural"?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Disciple of Sagan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
  • Darwins +60/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Current mood: Malcontent
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #120 on: March 29, 2014, 10:39:36 PM »

Good one.

http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_why_is_our_universe_fine_tuned_for_life

Thanks for the link, median. I'll have to check it out tomorrow, as my "pay as you go" Wi-Fi is about to run out.
The cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff.

The only thing bigger than the universe is humanity's collective sense of self-importance.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #121 on: March 29, 2014, 11:41:17 PM »
First off, you're appealing to time to describe timelessness. Next all you're saying timelessness is is simultaneity but where things can logically contradict. In the context of what we are discussing, that just means that god simultaneously created the universe and didn't create the universe, even though that means the universe/space time has always existed too. I really don't think you understand the implications of what you are suggesting, but are just clinging to that lack of understanding regardless.
I know! I told you I didn't understand it fully yet. :) I might never understand (all) the implications. I understand some thou. Logic need time. Without it there is no logic anymore (I think, I'm not sure, I never experience the absence of time)
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #122 on: March 29, 2014, 11:49:09 PM »
Quote
Hey median : "Can I say that God is a valid explanation for our universe and so is the Big Bang. That they are not opposed one from another but work together to make the whole truth?"
No. You cannot. Statements with reference to the supernatural in them are never really acceptable:
Which do you prefer:
1. "My computer crashed because it has a virus."
2. "My computer crashed because it has a virus and a goblin cursed it. They are not opposed one from another but work together to make the whole truth."
I know which I think is better.
I will take 2. It make more sense if we agreed on the fact that goblins and curses are real.
For the discussion about the existence of God : http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21563.650.html
You're worth more than my time

Offline junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2036
  • Darwins +72/-83
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #123 on: March 30, 2014, 06:29:23 AM »
junebug, simple things become more complex in nature all the time. That is why the natural world is so full of stuff to study and discover. Nature is all about cycles of simple things becoming more complex, then becoming simple again and complex all over again.

One easy example. Simple seeds grow into complex plants. The tiniest seed can grow into a huge tree, which is a complicated living thing that transforms energy from the sun and water from the soil into wood, leaves, fruit and of course more seeds.

Another example. Simple sand and clay sediment under heat and pressure form rocks and then break down into sand and sediment again. Mountains build up slowly from simple layers of earth and sometimes erupt as complex volcanoes. The volcanic lava breaks down into soil, which build up into mountains again.

Yet another example. A simple drop of water, frozen under the proper conditions, becomes the incredibly complex crystal we see as a uniquely beautiful snowflake.

Still another example. Simple raw ingredients like sugar, salt, milk and flour when combined with heat become much more complex things like bread, cake, cookies, etc.

One more example. Tiny human egg and sperm cells meet up and, under the right conditions,  become complex fetuses and then are eventually born as even more complex babies and then grow into teenagers (the most complicated of all)  and then (very slowly) become normal adults.

I am sure you can come up with lots of examples of your own if you think about it.

Intelligent beings plant the seeds and grow fuel for our bodies.

Weather related nature is to me signs of the intelligence of our creator, IMO.  Condensation is a major factor in us being able to inhabit this planet. 

Intelligent beings discovered baking. 

Just as we have learned to manipulate matter on our planet, I believe God learned how to manipulate the universe into a life giving place.

I can not conceive how a complex human body could very very slowly produce.  The reproduction system in my mind had to start out with a fully grown woman and man.  In my opinion several grown women and men or else incest is implied.  ickity ickity oooo

How did humans reproduce before the reproduction system was fully formed?  Any sexual reproducing creature?
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_paine.html#XXwlhVIMq06zWg2d.99

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #124 on: March 30, 2014, 06:59:35 AM »
Intelligent beings plant the seeds and grow fuel for our bodies.
Before this and after this, plants used and continue to use seeds as their primary purpose, which is to reproduce. Essentially, we eat plant embryos. We eat a lot of things. Most things we eat do not want to be eaten (some do.)

Quote
Weather related nature is to me signs of the intelligence of our creator, IMO.  Condensation is a major factor in us being able to inhabit this planet.
Condensation takes place with or without us, it is a combination of humidity (of any gas or liquid) and its temperature. It really doesn't matter if there is a deity - it will happen anyway.

Quote
Intelligent beings discovered baking.
I think that would be "humans" - again, nothing to do with gods.

Quote
I can not conceive how a complex human body could very very slowly produce.
I see your problem. You are looking at it from the wrong end.

Imagine a 10,000 piece jigsaw of a seascape that is complete. You may well say: How was that done? It is impossible. Yet you know how it was done - someone did it.

So let is take something else that doesn't require human interference, my old friend: "The cornflake analogy"

If I asked you to sort out all the cornflakes in a pack into size without touching them or opening the box, you would think it was impossible. But just because you think that it is impossibly difficult, does not mean that it can only be done by magic/a supernatural being:

Creationist: Design requires a designer – it couldn’t arise by random chance!
Me: Would you say that order requires an orderer?
Creationist: Yes.
Me: So why is it that all the small cornflakes send to settle at the base of the box?  Do you think it’s because God put them there?
Creationist: No – it must be, well, gravity pulling the small flakes down.
Me: Wouldn’t gravity have pulled the large flakes down as well?  Why do the small flakes fall further?
Creationist: I don’t know.
Me: It’s because small flakes fall through large gaps, but large flakes can’t fall through small gaps.  The flakes sieve themselves.  Random shaking of the box coupled with a non-random filtering law (which we might call “the furthest-falling of the smallest” or “the persistence of the largest”) leads to an ordering of flakes over time, with no intelligent input required.  Random shaking is analogous to random mutation, and “the survival of the fittest” (Natural Selection) is analogous to “the persistence of the largest”.  Cornflakes and living things are both self-ordering systems, filtering out smaller flakes and deleterious mutations respectively.  Cornflakes become more organised over time, and organisms become better-adapted.
Creationist: There must be more to it than that?  There must be!  There has to be!
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/11/30/on-the-origin-of-specious-arguments/
Dr Robert Stovold


In other words, just becasue you personally do not understand, do not imagine that the only answer has to be "magic."

Quote
How did humans reproduce before the reproduction system was fully formed?  Any sexual reproducing creature?
They did not, but our evolutionary ancestors did reproduce, otherwise we would not be here. Your point sort of proves evolution, doesn't it? We must have arisen from earlier, simpler beings.

Here's a plausible idea:

In the beginning of life on earth, there was a chemical molecule that was capable of catalysing another molecule. The two got together and the system became self-replicating as long as there was a supply of a third chemical. Fortunately there was. Then the chemicals attract another and the whole thing grows. Buts of it drop off and new sets arise. Eventually there are a lot of these. Some attract chemicals that react best in bright light and so those units find themselves chemically attracted to light.

These form cells. Eventually those that make best use of resources are most numerous. They join with other cells and each cell takes on a particular function to keep the whole creature going.

These little creatures then find themselves in different environments and those that survive are a little different from their ancestors becasue of the environmental adaptations.

The whole thing then keeps on going through bacteria-like things, to jelly-like things to worms, fish, reptiles mammals and then us. And every generation has reproduced.

OK?
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 06:40:03 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2036
  • Darwins +72/-83
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #125 on: March 30, 2014, 08:22:24 AM »
Then why are there still worms, fish, reptiles and other mammals, most of which survive abundantly in the sea and land w/o poverty and unnecessary violence?  They only kill to eat and protect their offspring.  They do not need money and riches to survive.  Their biggest problems are humans.  There are no courts among any other creature.

Even a mole has enough sense not to destroy all the bulbs so it has food year after year.

Why would a life source evolve a creature that will destroy it?  (like the scientist that created nukes and many other pollutants)

To me humans are the only creatures capable of moral corruption.  How does evolution explain this?

Quote
Condensation takes place with or without us, it is a combination of humidity (of any gas or liquid) and its temperature. It really doesn't matter if there is a deity - it will happen anyway.

How many planets out there does this happen on just like on our Earth?

Quote
If I asked you to sort out all the cornflakes in a pack into size without touching them or opening the box, you would think it was impossible. But just because you think that it is impossibly difficult, does not mean that it can only be done by magic/a supernatural being:

I do not believe in magical or supernatural god/gods.


Quote
They did not, but our evolutionary ancestors did reproduce, otherwise we would not be here. Your point sort of proves evolution, doesn't it? We must have arisen from earlier, simpler beings.

I do not see how and you have not successfully pointed out how my point proves evolution.  My point implies us beginning as many fully grown adults with a complete reproduction system, digestive system, neurological system, etc...





Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_paine.html#XXwlhVIMq06zWg2d.99

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #126 on: March 30, 2014, 10:13:00 AM »

So it could be argued that a single photon's (or other elementary particle's) interaction is uncaused.

Foxy, my question then back to you is 'Is that uncaused interaction natural in your view ? and if so under what definition of natural?'

Or, it could be the case that the cause is yet to be discovered and is, as is yet, unknown. In either case, what justification is there for calling any of that "non-natural"?

median, there may be a billion or more unknown causes, all yet to be discovered and yet still there must be either a first one among all of them or else an eternal existence/universe (no beginning).

Can you agree with this ?

Those two logical options cover all possible scenarios.

I'm not sure why you are not seeing this.  I am not trying to trick you.  I am not claiming a God from this logic.  But surely you must acknowledge that there must be either a first event or else no beginning ?



Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #127 on: March 30, 2014, 10:41:18 AM »

median, there may be a billion or more unknown causes, all yet to be discovered and yet still there must be either a first one among all of them or else an eternal existence/universe (no beginning).

Can you agree with this ?

Those two logical options cover all possible scenarios.

I'm not sure why you are not seeing this.  I am not trying to trick you.  I am not claiming a God from this logic.  But surely you must acknowledge that there must be either a first event or else no beginning ?

It doesn't matter!!! That question doesn't concern me since we do not have anything reliable to say about what may or may not have "come before" our current local universe. In just talking about it like this you are attempting to reduce it down to simplistic terms, of which all are ignorant. You theists want to use that proposed dichotomy to start talking about even bigger mysteries which you can't even begin to demonstrate. And even if I agreed, for the sake of argument, that "eternal/finite" was the dichotomy it wouldn't get us even one step closer to knowing anything more about the cause of our space/time, the current mysteries that have yet to be discovered, etc, etc. There are likely an entire host of unknown things, many of which are likely to be counter-intuitive. Thus, we shouldn't pretend that we can just have the answer right now.

I'm not sure why you keep harping on this point, unless at some point along these lines you are going to insert, "Ah! See! That must be God b/c an actual infinite is impossible!"
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #128 on: March 30, 2014, 11:08:41 AM »
You have raised several questions
1:
Then why are there still worms, fish, reptiles and other mammals,
I hear this a lot. I see it as a question that shows really limited critical skills when it comes to thought. I hear it mainly from people who read the above bit about cornflakes and ask why there are still big bits of cornflakes... : )

The answer is because, some of those creatures found life excellent where they were and circumstances, for them, did not change. Evolution had driven them to a point at which all their needs were satisfied. Other creatures (that became us) were not so fortunate and were caused to change and adapt or die.

2:
Quote
most of which survive abundantly in the sea and land w/o poverty and unnecessary violence?  They only kill to eat and protect their offspring.
Now this is a common misconception about animals and comes mainly from people who believe "Bambi" is a documentary.

It is really, really wrong. Tribes of Chimps attack other tribes and kill them. Hyenas steal the kills of leopards and will kill leopard cubs so as to reduce later competition. Wild dogs drive out the old, unproductive members to die of starvation and, if the elderly try to come back, they kill them. Stags fight to the death for the privilege of being head of the herd. Hamsters eat their own young if they become worried or food is short. The list goes on and on and on. Violence is not just for food, it is for breeding and property rights. Think about it - that is why man is violent - he wants to assure his own future against those who want to assure theirs at what he sees as his expense. Just like animals.

This is a good place to ask you, "You do believe that humans are in fact nothing more than animals. don't you? I mean we are not as different from a panda as we are from a tree. Pandas are animals, we are animals - just animals with airs and graces."

3:
Quote
They do not need money and riches to survive.
You are really very naive: If food runs out in the area, they die. If food runs out in the area and they have money, they can import the stuff. If they get sick they die or are killed by others: If they had money, they could go to a veterinarian.   

4:
Quote
Their biggest problems are humans.
No. Not really. Animals in captivity live far longer than those in the wild. For most wild animals humans are a relatively minor threat.

5:
Quote
There are no courts among any other creature.
Have you never heard of "legal eagles"?

On a serious note, there are courts: they are severe and savage. Their punishments are death and injury. The trial is by ordeal. You think you should be top-dog, so you challenge the top dog and fight until one of you slinks away to die.

6:
Quote
I do not see how and you have not successfully pointed out how my point proves evolution.  My point implies us beginning as many fully grown adults with a complete reproduction system, digestive system, neurological system, etc...
You think humans arrived on a fully formed planet with fully formed everything and Satan buried fossils to fool us? You do not see a species of animals having similarities and all, say, species of mammals having similarities, and all life having related DNA as perhaps hinting at something?

You would think it reasonable if we had never invented or thought of a car that suddenly a fully equipped Ford Mustang would appear on earth, devoid of anything that led up to that car and its technology and design.

I explained, very briefly how life evolves. You have never read anything worthwhile on the subject of evolution and prefer magic... OK... I don't suppose that you are going to harm yourself, but,please, don't tell anyone else this as if it is real... they might believe you and thus suffer a life of ignorance and superstition.

« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 06:41:15 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Disciple of Sagan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
  • Darwins +60/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Current mood: Malcontent
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #129 on: March 30, 2014, 11:46:42 AM »
The answer is because, some of those creatures found life excellent where they were and circumstances, for them, did not change. Evolution had driven them to a point at which all their needs were satisfied.

Sharks, for instance. From what I've learned, they have been around for an estimated 300-400 million years and have remained virtually unchanged during that span. Why? Because upon evolving millions of years ago in to the form we are used to seeing today, they became the perfect predator. No need for further changes.

If you're interested, junebug, this is a pretty fascinating article (with photos) of the 12 oldest animal species on earth.
http://www.pawnation.com/2013/04/22/12-oldest-animal-species-on-earth/12
The cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff.

The only thing bigger than the universe is humanity's collective sense of self-importance.

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #130 on: March 30, 2014, 11:56:13 AM »


I'll have one more try but then I will probably give up.  I think it should be obvious to everyone why this is so significant by the end of point 5 -


1. A first event or an eternal existence are not natural since they are not caused.  I'm not stating a dogma here - just basic common sense and logic.  That does not mean Hey Presto God of the Bible - of course it doesn't.  That is not the point at all.

2. But what it does means is that we need to acknowledge that not everything that has ever occurred is natural.

3. If the first event could not have been natural and nor can an eternal existence (no beginning) be natural then we quickly realise that all natural events have stemmed from non natural origins.  Yes, all.  Again this is common sense and logic only.  No dogmas of any kind are required here.

4. The term 'natural' can only describe that which follows from some origin - ie what results - given X then Y follows.  Y is then natural while the original (first) X always remains not natural.  [I'm not pushing for 'supernatural' here - there may be lots of better words for this than that word.]

5. The origin of existence cannot be natural.  And by corollary anything that later results from those origins, although they can be called natural, none of them (not one) has been fully or properly explained while the origin remains unexplained.



Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #131 on: March 30, 2014, 12:45:54 PM »
I'll have one more try but then I will probably give up.
Oh, good, because you are genuinely flogging a dead horse

Quote
1. A first event or an eternal existence are not natural since they are not caused.
So, basically, you are saying that it is magic? 
Quote
I'm not stating a dogma here - just basic common sense and logic.  That does not mean Hey Presto God of the Bible - of course it doesn't.  That is not the point at all.
I should be able to sue you for saying it is "common sense and logic" - That was either a lie or a deception. That is absolutely the last thing that is "common sense and logic".

Actually, the uncaused cause, is magic... In fact, it is saying, "I have no idea where gods came from. No idea at all. So I have made one up. I know the idea is stupid but I have to believe this on faith alone, otherwise your questions defeat me, so bear with me as i explain why I pull stuff out my arse and explain why there is a god."

Quote
2. But what it does means is that we need to acknowledge that not everything that has ever occurred is natural.
This is as good as saying, "Magic is real." This was OK 1,000 years ago and more, but today you say that in a science lab or research institute and the men in white coats appear.

You are suggesting that there are things that will never ever be understood and that these things happen. Well, they said that of thunder and lightning, they said it of disease, they said it about travelling faster than 30mph. They were all wrong. They were wrong because we don't believe in magic.

Quote
3. If the first event could not have been natural and nor can an eternal existence (no beginning) be natural then we quickly realise that all natural events have stemmed from non natural origins.  Yes, all.  Again this is common sense and logic only.  No dogmas of any kind are required here.
Dogmas are essential. You make a statement, without the slightest shred of evidence, that God has existed for ever, which is utter nonsense however you look at it, and then you have the audacity to say "no dogma is required here"! You have presupposed a god! You have said, "Magic is real."

Quote
4. The term 'natural' can only describe that which follows from some origin - ie what results - given X then Y follows.
So gods are unnatural? Or as we say, "Magic and can do magic things" like fairies and goblins and wizards.
Quote
Y is then natural while the original (first) X always remains not natural.  [I'm not pushing for 'supernatural' here - there may be lots of better words for this than that word.]
So although there was magic that magicked ants into existence, ants are no completely natural...

Wouldn't it just be easier to leave out the magic in all of this? We can then say, "Ants are natural." Instead of saying, "Something magic magicked ants into existence and now ants are natural because we think they are; although the very first ant was magic, ants that came later were not."

Look - can you get your brain together and ignore this "magic?"

Quote
5. The origin of existence cannot be natural.
Who said that? Where is this shown? Is there any evidence at all for this outrageous statement?
Quote
And by corollary anything that later results from those origins, although they can be called natural, none of them (not one) has been fully or properly explained while the origin remains unexplained.
But that means that you do not think that anything has been explained. You say a god that is of non-caused existence[1] does some magic and makes magic things that you call natural after they have been around for a while? Instead of natural, don't you mean "common; accepted; normal?"

Seriously, if you believe that nothing caused god to exist, you need to be able to explain how this is possible. You can't because it is nonsense, pure nonsense, and you know it.

Anyway, I am glad that you are not going to burden us with this ridiculous theory involving magic again.
 1. I can't believe I am writing this utter garbage
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 01:36:23 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1442
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #132 on: March 30, 2014, 01:10:31 PM »


I'll have one more try but then I will probably give up.  I think it should be obvious to everyone why this is so significant by the end of point 5 -


1. A first event or an eternal existence are not natural since they are not caused.  I'm not stating a dogma here - just basic common sense and logic.  That does not mean Hey Presto God of the Bible - of course it doesn't.  That is not the point at all.

2. But what it does means is that we need to acknowledge that not everything that has ever occurred is natural.

3. If the first event could not have been natural and nor can an eternal existence (no beginning) be natural then we quickly realise that all natural events have stemmed from non natural origins.  Yes, all.  Again this is common sense and logic only.  No dogmas of any kind are required here.

4. The term 'natural' can only describe that which follows from some origin - ie what results - given X then Y follows.  Y is then natural while the original (first) X always remains not natural.  [I'm not pushing for 'supernatural' here - there may be lots of better words for this than that word.]

5. The origin of existence cannot be natural.  And by corollary anything that later results from those origins, although they can be called natural, none of them (not one) has been fully or properly explained while the origin remains unexplained.

Your first assumption is wrong.

In the beginning the whole universe worked, like those photons, completely without causality. Just as photons are no different when they appear to follow definite patterns, the universe is today no different than it was at the beginning, if you look deep enough. That is why experiments can been done now, which show what the early universe was like back to a very very very small fraction of a second after the Big Bang. As you saw with those photons, non causality is no less natural than causality.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #133 on: March 30, 2014, 01:38:41 PM »
Your first assumption is wrong.

In the beginning the whole universe worked, like those photons, completely without causality.
I'm surprised at this. I would prefer, "We do not know." unless you have evidence.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #134 on: March 30, 2014, 01:45:09 PM »
I'll have one more try but then I will probably give up. 

No, don't just give up. Stop using this fallacious line of reasoning altogether and amend your beliefs (i.e. - admit ignorance and be agnostic about it).

1. A first event or an eternal existence are not natural since they are not caused.  I'm not stating a dogma here - just basic common sense and logic.  That does not mean Hey Presto God of the Bible - of course it doesn't.  That is not the point at all.

As Greybeard said, this is NOT "common sense and logic". You are talking to someone with degrees in philosophy. I'm sorry, this line of reasoning is not logical. And even if it was common sense, this wouldn't mean anything because science often demonstrates things that are counter-intuitive (meaning "common sense" is bullshit and meaningless to explain such things). You are just grasping at straws here in order to hang-on to your assumed theology. It isn't working b/c you have built in assumptions (i.e. - confirmation biases) that you are clearly unwilling to give up and which are propelling you to make false assumptions.

If all of existence encompasses multiple universes, for example, then such universes ARE natural - because they are part of what is, in a global universe/totality of what exists (i.e. that which exists and can be demonstrated through evidence and sound reasoning). Your claim that it's "non-natural" is an equivocation. You are attempting to artificially limit what phenomena are to be included in the natural order. But that attempt fails because it is ultimately based in your ignorance. It is, in essence, a god of the gaps fallacy; wherever you don't understand something you jump to "It can't be natural!" instead of admitting ignorance. Sorry, that is irrational.

2. But what it does means is that we need to acknowledge that not everything that has ever occurred is natural.

WRONG. No-it-does-not-mean-that. It does not mean that whatsoever. That is what it means for you, because you want to smuggle in your supernaturalism and assumed theology (basically "magic did it"). You have neither coherently defined what "non-natural" means or demonstrated anything of the sort has taken place. All you have is one big fat argument from incredulity fallacy. But just because you, personally, cannot understand how a given phenomena could be a natural occurrence doesn't in any way imply that non-natural magic is a sufficient explanation. Again, you should be admitting ignorance instead of catering to your religious assumptions by trying to redefine what 'natural' means.

3. If the first event could not have been natural and nor can an eternal existence (no beginning) be natural then we quickly realise that all natural events have stemmed from non natural origins.  Yes, all.  Again this is common sense and logic only.  No dogmas of any kind are required here.

100% false. Your dogma is shining through very brightly here because you are attempting to define your way into victory. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you can't demonstrate the supernatural, or "non-natural", then you have no basis for saying the beginning of our local universe was non-natural - nor do you have any basis for claiming that existence as a whole is not natural. Over and over, all you have here are assertions and equivocations in terms.

4. The term 'natural' can only describe that which follows from some origin - ie what results - given X then Y follows.  Y is then natural while the original (first) X always remains not natural.  [I'm not pushing for 'supernatural' here - there may be lots of better words for this than that word.]

NOPE! That is your equivocation fallacy. That is NOT a sufficient definition for what is to be included in the term natural, sorry. And you are in fact trying to smuggle in the supernatural here. You're just trying to do it subtly by calling it "not natural" or by trying to withhold yourself from putting a label on it. We're not buying it dude. You can't just describe that which is commonly referred as supernatural and then attempt to argue that you aren't talking about the supernatural (when in fact you are). That is called intellectual dishonesty. 

5. The origin of existence cannot be natural.  And by corollary anything that later results from those origins, although they can be called natural, none of them (not one) has been fully or properly explained while the origin remains unexplained.

This is merely another one of your many assertions, which you have backed up with nothing but even more assertions (oh, and an equivocation fallacy). You didn't demonstrate that existence cannot be natural. What you did was appeal to another argument from ignorance/incredulity and an attempt to define your terms to suit your extended assumptions. You basically done what theists ultimately do:

Well, it can't be natural.
Why not?
Because, I define natural this way (b/c I say so)
This definition is insufficient and ignorance based.
It can't be natural! Only our existence is natural! It can't be natural! (b/c I say so).
So, b/c you took someone else' word for it (and were gullible) we should be too?

All you've presented is one big "b/c I say so" (ad hoc) argument. It doesn't work and your personal incredulity is not a valid excuse for saying that our local universe, and perhaps any other existence beyond, is not natural. Again, just because you personally can't understand how something could be the case in nature (be it quantum mechanics, parallel universes, or anything else) does not give you any license to just assert that it must be "not-natural".
« Last Edit: March 30, 2014, 01:47:14 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1442
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #135 on: March 30, 2014, 03:42:57 PM »
Your first assumption is wrong.

In the beginning the whole universe worked, like those photons, completely without causality.
I'm surprised at this. I would prefer, "We do not know." unless you have evidence.

We do know. The early universe was entirely quantum. Much of it spent the first three minutes winking in and out of existence as the laws of physics formed and finally trapped some of the quantum particles in the universe. Ordinary matter only started to form three minutes after the Big Bang during the photon epoch. That was when the "something from nothing" might be said to have taken place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1442
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #136 on: March 31, 2014, 05:15:44 AM »
Theists who argue about first cause are coffee table philosophers. They assume that the universe began fully formed and argue how that happened. The modern level of causality and non causality in the universe was a process which took about three minutes. As this happened quanta were slowly trapped in the net of causality which created mass and then the "something appeared from nothing" creating matter, first as plasma (like the sun's atmosphere) then after several hundred thousand years, ordinary matter in the form of hydrogen and helium.

Lawrence Krauss' theory of a universe from nothing is a consistent description of how universes begin "because they can" without causality. No theory of the universe which claims causality for the Big Bang has any evidence to support it whatsoever, whether it is a god or a scientific explanation such as a rebounding universe. The evidence is going in the direction of Krauss with self assembling causality and zero energy of creation.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #137 on: March 31, 2014, 08:31:15 AM »
Your first assumption is wrong.

In the beginning the whole universe worked, like those photons, completely without causality.
I'm surprised at this. I would prefer, "We do not know." unless you have evidence.

We do know. The early universe was entirely quantum. Much of it spent the first three minutes winking in and out of existence as the laws of physics formed and finally trapped some of the quantum particles in the universe. Ordinary matter only started to form three minutes after the Big Bang during the photon epoch. That was when the "something from nothing" might be said to have taken place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
In the beginning the whole universe worked... completely without causality.

I see nothing in the article to suggest the revolutionary idea of there being no cause. The nearest is
Quote
The instant in which the universe is thought to have begun rapidly expanding from a singularity is known as the Big Bang.
which does not speak of a cause or lack of cause.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2726
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #138 on: March 31, 2014, 08:54:41 AM »
We do know. The early universe was entirely quantum.

Yes, but the quantum rules are made by turtles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3893
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #139 on: March 31, 2014, 09:04:19 AM »

I see nothing in the article to suggest the revolutionary idea of there being no cause. The nearest is
Quote
The instant in which the universe is thought to have begun rapidly expanding from a singularity is known as the Big Bang.
which does not speak of a cause or lack of cause.

I think it boils down to inductive versus deductive. We cannot say whether or not there was a cause. Given that other events in the universe have a cause, the case for a cause is stronger than a case for no cause. However, since time as we know it, began at that moment; the concept of cause and effect may no longer be applicable.

Even if the case for cause is ever so much more slightly strong than the case for no cause, to jump to "a magical transdimental entity did it" is childish.

To use what I said before, what we are dealing with is Shrodinger's Cat.

In other words, Shrodinger's cat being alive or/and dead are claims to consider; that Shrodinger's cat being whisked away by ghosts to a different dimension and being overfed on blue cheese is not.

The third possiblity, however silly, is still within the function of the unknown. Effectively, however, it is such a low probability as to be nil.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1442
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #140 on: March 31, 2014, 10:13:35 AM »
Your first assumption is wrong.

In the beginning the whole universe worked, like those photons, completely without causality.
I'm surprised at this. I would prefer, "We do not know." unless you have evidence.

We do know. The early universe was entirely quantum. Much of it spent the first three minutes winking in and out of existence as the laws of physics formed and finally trapped some of the quantum particles in the universe. Ordinary matter only started to form three minutes after the Big Bang during the photon epoch. That was when the "something from nothing" might be said to have taken place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
In the beginning the whole universe worked... completely without causality.

I see nothing in the article to suggest the revolutionary idea of there being no cause. The nearest is
Quote
The instant in which the universe is thought to have begun rapidly expanding from a singularity is known as the Big Bang.
which does not speak of a cause or lack of cause.

There is nothing revolutionary about it. Causality is the secondary property of the universe which has to be explained, not non causality. The quanta of the early universe had to be trapped by the development of causality before matter could exist. This refutes the assumption made by Dominic that events are "not natural since they are not caused". If anything causality is the property which might be claimed to be unnatural or illusory. Also the first part of his assumption that there was a first cause which created causality is wrong since non causality is creating causality right now.

I was not talking about the Big Bang itself, but about the way the early universe worked. That is why I said experiments can be done to show what it was like. If you want to talk about a cause for the Big Bang itself, you have to show that the universe obeyed a law of causality at that time, and that the particular cause you propose is the correct one.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 10:31:09 AM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Disciple of Sagan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 975
  • Darwins +60/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Current mood: Malcontent
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #141 on: March 31, 2014, 10:28:51 AM »
The cosmos is also within us. We are made of star stuff.

The only thing bigger than the universe is humanity's collective sense of self-importance.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6689
  • Darwins +892/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #142 on: March 31, 2014, 03:02:11 PM »
Yes, but the quantum rules are made by turtles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

A'tuin?




 :)

Yessss! I am a Terry Pratchettarian, too. We need a secret handshake. :D
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #143 on: April 01, 2014, 03:05:34 AM »
First off, you're appealing to time to describe timelessness. Next all you're saying timelessness is is simultaneity but where things can logically contradict. In the context of what we are discussing, that just means that god simultaneously created the universe and didn't create the universe, even though that means the universe/space time has always existed too. I really don't think you understand the implications of what you are suggesting, but are just clinging to that lack of understanding regardless.
I know! I told you I didn't understand it fully yet. :) I might never understand (all) the implications. I understand some thou. Logic need time. Without it there is no logic anymore (I think, I'm not sure, I never experience the absence of time)

Logic needs time? So does that mean your god is illogical? If so, we may have found something to agree on.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3893
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Natural Explanation Vs Magical
« Reply #144 on: April 01, 2014, 07:55:44 AM »
You have raised several questions
1:
Then why are there still worms, fish, reptiles and other mammals,
I hear this a lot. I see it as a question that shows really limited critical skills when it comes to thought. I hear it mainly from people who read the above bit about cornflakes and ask why there are still big bits of cornflakes... : )


Or to be a bit more direct: Since glass is made from sand, if glass exists, does that mean sand no longer exists?
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.