6 of 7
6
Please present convincing reasons based on scientific findings, that naturalism is more compelling than theism. 
Posted: 01 April 2012 10:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2012-03-29

Philsophical naturalism helds, that the natural world is all that exists. No supernatural power exists.
My initial question was ? what evidence is there for such a scenario ?

The evidence is simply this: The total lack of evidence for the supernatural.

Others do have ignored my patient answers as well. So ??!!  Just because i do not agree with the answers, i am not serious. Is that right ?

‘Others’ may have, VeronicaS did not. Point by point the errors of the information/misinformation you are using to shore up your speculations have been shown to be misguided at best, totally wrong in the main. At no point have you contested the correction you have received, choosing instead to ignore or just assert without explanation that you don’t agree. You are perfectly entitled not to agree, however, your lack of a coherent counterpoint suggests you are doing so based on an emotional attachment to your position, rather than one based on honest observation of the facts presented.

No , naturalism is a philosophic standpoint.

Sure is. One based on observable/testable events. So presenting convincing ‘scientific’ arguments for why its preferable to theistic ‘explanations’ is like saying: ” When eating jelly explain why it doesn’t taste of rocks”. Answer: because jelly isn’t made of stone.
This is why I suggested you explain what is so compelling about the theistic position based on science. There’s actually a discussion to be had there.

because that is not the topic of this thread.


That’s why I presented it as a suggestion.

the scientific facts we know already, are advanced enough, to make secure conclusions about the cause of all that exists. And that conclusion in my view is : the incredible intelligence that we do find in nature, its complexity, its beauty , the molecular machines , like the flagellum, the irreducible complexity as found in the cell, the information stored through dna, the fact that we do have conscience, and many other issues, do point clearly to a powerful creator. no further, new data needed, to make secure conclusion.

And here you are following my suggestion, so no need for the huffy ’ that’s not the thread’ rebuke after all.
Please no ...noooo…not irreducible complexity aaargh i concede defeat!! Really? THE FLAGELLUM!! you have really never been on a non christian site before have you…all debunked many years ago.

If your conclusion is so secure where are all the ” SCIENCE HAS PROVED GOD DID IT! ” headlines?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2012 11:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
Nick C - 01 April 2012 10:59 AM

The evidence is simply this: The total lack of evidence for the supernatural.

So you base your position on a negative. And what evidence do you have either that the universe exists eternally, whithout beginning, or that it had a beginning, but no cause ?

 

‘Others’ may have, VeronicaS did not. Point by point the errors of the information/misinformation you are using to shore up your speculations have been shown to be misguided at best, totally wrong in the main.

sorry, but i do not have seen ANY to me convincing argument so far.

At no point have you contested the correction you have received, choosing instead to ignore or just assert without explanation that you don’t agree.

If no explanation is given from the counterpart, i cannot neither give a counter explanation.

You are perfectly entitled not to agree, however, your lack of a coherent counterpoint suggests you are doing so based on an emotional attachment to your position, rather than one based on honest observation of the facts presented.

I have given a clear rational explanation for why i think theism is true. One is, that codified information, as found in the cell, comes always from a mind. Nobody, neither here, neither anywhere else, has debunked this argument.

No , naturalism is a philosophic standpoint.

Sure is. One based on observable/testable events.

like what testable event, for example ? the origin of the universe ? the origin of life ? macro evolution ? what ?

And here you are following my suggestion, so no need for the huffy ’ that’s not the thread’ rebuke after all.
Please no ...noooo…not irreducible complexity aaargh i concede defeat!! Really? THE FLAGELLUM!! you have really never been on a non christian site before have you…all debunked many years ago.

thats wishful thinking, at best. The argument strands strongly, without any solution on sight for naturalists.

http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Bacterial_flagella_are_irreducibly_complex

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2012 04:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2012-03-29

So you base your position on a negative. And what evidence do you have either that the universe exists eternally, whithout beginning, or that it had a beginning, but no cause ?

In the sense that there is no positive evidence attributing phenomena to a supernatural occasion, yes.
Who is saying the universe exists eternally, or that it had a beginning, but no cause? There are many theories floating around about these subjects, I am unaware of any one claiming to have proved it.

sorry, but i do not have seen ANY to me convincing argument so far

If no explanation is given from the counterpart, i cannot neither give a counter explanation.


You are clearly unable to read. You presented arguments concerning natural sciences culled from your creationist ‘science’ web sites. These were shown to be incorrect. You did not concede they were incorrect..why?

I have given a clear rational explanation for why i think theism is true. One is, that codified information, as found in the cell, comes always from a mind. Nobody, neither here, neither anywhere else, has debunked this argument.

You did? Where? Codified information, as found in a cell, comes always from a mind? It does?! Wow wake up the world girl I had you all wrong….! Do you even understand what the word ‘information’ means in this context?

thats wishful thinking, at best. The argument strands strongly, without any solution on sight for naturalists.

http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Bacterial_flagella_are_irreducibly_complex

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

…..you have shown all along this thread, that your world view is based on wishful thinking, nothing else. No solid ground to back up your claims….

The above was part of your final comment to VeronicaS. The irony ( which you will miss ) is it describes you exactly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2012 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2012-03-30


Lindoia, you swaddle yourself in the comforting security blanket of the supernatural, while remaining willfully ignorant of the true and complete implications of science. To paraphrase the artist Gelett Burgess: “[You] don’t know anything about [science], but [you] know what [you] like.”   
 
I can’t say for sure, but I suspect that in those most personal of reflective moments, when you are almost on the verge of recognizing the truth of the matter, your well conditioned neural pathways kick-in and you allow yourself to be deluged by a mind-cleansing tide of “There is a god, there must be a god, I know there is a god, there must be a god, it is true, it is true, it is true…”


Why do you need to believe it so much?

.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2012 06:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
Pank Ache - 01 April 2012 06:05 PM


Lindoia, you swaddle yourself in the comforting security blanket of the supernatural, while remaining willfully ignorant of the true and complete implications of science. To paraphrase the artist Gelett Burgess: “[You] don’t know anything about [science], but [you] know what [you] like.”   
 
I can’t say for sure, but I suspect that in those most personal of reflective moments, when you are almost on the verge of recognizing the truth of the matter, your well conditioned neural pathways kick-in and you allow yourself to be deluged by a mind-cleansing tide of “There is a god, there must be a god, I know there is a god, there must be a god, it is true, it is true, it is true…”


Why do you need to believe it so much?

.

its just a matter about that our existence leads logically to conclude God as the best explanation.

The same goes to you :

There is no god, there cannot be a god, I know there is no god, there cannot be a god, it is true, it is true, it is true…”


Why do you need to believe it so much?

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2012 06:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
Nick C - 01 April 2012 04:30 PM

Who is saying the universe exists eternally, or that it had a beginning, but no cause? There are many theories floating around about these subjects, I am unaware of any one claiming to have proved it.

please show a theory, which does not fall into one of the two alterantive categories.

You are clearly unable to read. You presented arguments concerning natural sciences culled from your creationist ‘science’ web sites. These were shown to be incorrect. You did not concede they were incorrect..why?

because it was not shown they were incorrect. thats just your baseless assertion.

You did? Where? Codified information, as found in a cell, comes always from a mind? It does?! Wow wake up the world girl I had you all wrong….! Do you even understand what the word ‘information’ means in this context?

Yes , i do know what information means. How about you tell, why i have it wrong ??!!

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2012 07:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2012-03-29

please show a theory, which does not fall into one of the two alterantive categories.

Here’s one: we.    don’t.  know.

because it was not shown they were incorrect. thats just your baseless assertion

The science correcting the ‘creationist science’ is accurate. The ‘creationist science’ was shown to be inaccurate and misrepresented so as to fit a preconceived narrative and confirm that narratives assumptions. The actual science is peer reviewed science presenting the facts as currently understood and making no claims about them, just the facts.

Yes , i do know what information means. How about you tell, why i have it wrong ??!!

How about you explain:

.. that codified information, as found in the cell, comes always from a mind. Nobody, neither here, neither anywhere else, has debunked this argument.

How about this assumption? It suggests you don’t understand. What do you understand ‘information’ to mean in this context? Perhaps then I will be shown to have misunderstood.

its just a matter about that our existence leads logically to conclude God as the best explanation

You know you keep chucking out these sort of statements offering zero explanation as to why its ‘logical to conclude God as the best explanation’..well come on put your money where your mouth is! You are doing poorly at ‘testifying your faith’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 April 2012 08:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29
Nick C - 01 April 2012 07:16 PM

You know you keep chucking out these sort of statements offering zero explanation as to why its ‘logical to conclude God as the best explanation’..well come on put your money where your mouth is! You are doing poorly at ‘testifying your faith’.

Lindoia doesn’t seem to understand the implications of positioning notions of God into explanations of nature. Positioning notions of God, in fact, strives toward truly irreducibly-complex machinations rather than just remaining silent about what we don’t know. This is a boldness that relies on emotional attachment instead of an in-depth peering into the workings of nature. I’m waiting to see a legitimate university offer a college degree in creation science.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2012 03:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
Nick C - 01 April 2012 07:16 PM

please show a theory, which does not fall into one of the two alterantive categories.

Here’s one: we.    don’t.  know.

ok, i see. Making unreasoned assertions, and be willfullingly ignorant. Thats also a way to ignore God.

The science correcting the ‘creationist science’ is accurate.

there is no creationist science. There is just the interpretation of science which leads to creationism as the best answer of given phenomena discovered through science.

The ‘creationist science’ was shown to be inaccurate and misrepresented so as to fit a preconceived narrative and confirm that narratives assumptions. The actual science is peer reviewed science presenting the facts as currently understood and making no claims about them, just the facts.

peer reviewed scientific facts should leave the philosophic implications open to anyone that wants to draw own conclusions, either to creationism, or to naturalism.

How about this assumption? It suggests you don’t understand. What do you understand ‘information’ to mean in this context? Perhaps then I will be shown to have misunderstood.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t287-information-evidence-for-a-creator

What Is Information?

There are several definitions of information currently in use; however, each of these definitions are generally too broad. For example, one definition of information includes symbols with or without meaning, and another includes everything in its definition of information. Imagine sending random symbols as smoke signals to your friend—would Happy Birthday ever get sent to your mother on her birthday? Imagine sending a bunch of smoke signal dots in the air to your friend—would Happy Birthday ever get sent to your mother?

In July 2006, a team of scientists representing various scientific disciplines met to evaluate a definition of information proposed by information scientist Dr. Werner Gitt,4 which is precise and corresponds very well to human languages and machine languages. The team proposed that this definition be called Universal Definition of Information (UDI) and agreed that there are four essential attributes that define it:

Code (syntax): Information within all communications systems contains a code. A code contains a set of symbols and rules for using letters, words, phrases, or symbols to represent something else. One reason for coding is to enable communication. Examples of codes would be the English alphabet, words, and syntax; hieroglyphics; or codes used in computers (for example, C, Fortran, or Cobol).

Meaning (semantics): Meaning enables communication by representing real objects or concepts with specific symbols, words, or phrases. For example, the word chair is not the physical chair but represents it. Likewise, the name “Bob” is not the physical person but represents the real person. When words are associated with real objects or concepts, it gives the word meaning.
For example, aichr and Bbo do not have meaning because they do not represent any real object or concept. However, if in the future one of these character strings were to represent a real object or concept, it would have meaning. Prior to the computer Internet age, the word blog had no meaning; today it is associated with a web page that serves as a personal log (derived from web log) of thoughts or activities. It can also mean a discussion community about personal issues. Another new word with meaning is simplistic. New words are continually being designated with meaning.

Expected Action (pragmatics): Expected action conveys an implicit or explicit request or command to perform a given task. For example, in the statement, “Go to the grocery store and buy some chocolate chips,” the expected action is that someone will go to the store. This does not mean the action will actually happen, but it is expected to happen.

Intended Purpose (apobetics): Intended purpose is the anticipated goal that can be achieved by the performance of the expected action(s). For example, in the statement, “Go to the grocery store and buy some chocolate chips,” the intended purpose might be to bake and eat chocolate chip cookies.

These four essential attributes specify the definition domain for information. A definition of information (Universal Definition of Information) was formulated by using these four attributes:
An encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2012 03:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
nonverbal - 01 April 2012 08:17 PM
Nick C - 01 April 2012 07:16 PM

You know you keep chucking out these sort of statements offering zero explanation as to why its ‘logical to conclude God as the best explanation’..well come on put your money where your mouth is! You are doing poorly at ‘testifying your faith’.

Lindoia doesn’t seem to understand the implications of positioning notions of God into explanations of nature. Positioning notions of God, in fact, strives toward truly irreducibly-complex machinations rather than just remaining silent about what we don’t know. This is a boldness that relies on emotional attachment instead of an in-depth peering into the workings of nature. I’m waiting to see a legitimate university offer a college degree in creation science.

creationism is not science, but a determined interpretation that lead to creationism as the most compelling answer for given facts. Because the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. Because the universe is finely adjusted to make life possible, a fine tuner. Because life comes only from life, a life giver. Because codified information as stored in the cell comes always from a intelligent mind, a intelligent creator. Because objective moral values exist, a perfectly moral legislator of morals. That are logical and coherent conclusions of given prerrogatives.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2012 04:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29
Lindoia - 02 April 2012 03:31 AM
nonverbal - 01 April 2012 08:17 PM
Nick C - 01 April 2012 07:16 PM

You know you keep chucking out these sort of statements offering zero explanation as to why its ‘logical to conclude God as the best explanation’..well come on put your money where your mouth is! You are doing poorly at ‘testifying your faith’.

Lindoia doesn’t seem to understand the implications of positioning notions of God into explanations of nature. Positioning notions of God, in fact, strives toward truly irreducibly-complex machinations rather than just remaining silent about what we don’t know. This is a boldness that relies on emotional attachment instead of an in-depth peering into the workings of nature. I’m waiting to see a legitimate university offer a college degree in creation science.

creationism is not science, but a determined interpretation that lead to creationism as the most compelling answer for given facts. Because the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. Because the universe is finely adjusted to make life possible, a fine tuner. Because life comes only from life, a life giver. Because codified information as stored in the cell comes always from a intelligent mind, a intelligent creator. Because objective moral values exist, a perfectly moral legislator of morals. That are logical and coherent conclusions of given prerrogatives.

You’ve just described irreducible complexity.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2012 04:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
nonverbal - 02 April 2012 04:42 AM

You’ve just described irreducible complexity.

irreducible complexity is just a interpretation of what we see in biology.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2012 06:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29

Oh, that’s right. I forgot to include your magical/spiritual special sauce.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2012 07:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  63
Joined  2012-03-16
nonverbal - 02 April 2012 06:07 AM

Oh, that’s right. I forgot to include your magical/spiritual special sauce.

as long as you do not have any better explanation , your irony is misplaced.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 April 2012 07:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29

What irony? I lack Special Sauce knowledge. Here are three words for you to practice, with which ancient magic can take a back seat:

I don’t know.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 7
6
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed