Please present a compelling explanation why naturalism is true

[Mjt]

@Puppy I was staying out of this thread due to it making my brain bleed, but really Puppy this is too much.
You know as well as I do that I'M dating Elvis.

[owheelj]

Originally Posted by jireh

do you always swallow food without mastigating ?

please answer : do you believe absolutely nothing has the capability to produce something ? just rely only onces at your own thought, please.

No I don't believe that. I think it's an explanation that sounds reasonable, but because I haven't studied physics to a particularly advanced level, I'm not educated enough to be able to say with authority whether this is true; all I know is what I stated - that at least one respected physicist thinks it's true. I certainly wouldn't accept or reject this claim based on ignorance, but would only express a firm opinion when I felt like I could understand the fine details of the hypothesis, and knew if there was scientific opposition to the hypothesis, and could adequately explain both the opposition and why it was wrong. Since I cannot do that, I am clearly not in a position to be able to rationally express a belief for or against such a notion.

[Iseeyouthere]

Originally Posted by jireh

So why not a intelligent , powerful creator ?

No evidence to back that claim. Unless you have some we haven't seen, we do not accept it.

Btw... which 'creator' are we talking about?

[owheelj]

Originally Posted by jireh

· Faith that a “multiverse” that we can’t see is a rationale for a random universe producing life (Anthropic principle is false).

I know you're just providing these as examples, but I think this one is a common myth amongst the religious that deserves to be corrected. The theory of more than one universe existing has come from a few different fields of physics, independently, and none of those theories were developed due to trying to explain life. Rather they were the consequences of extrapolating out from a series of equations and models, aimed at looking at what we know about the universe and trying to explain more about it. Lawrence Krauss has written about this subject too, in a very interesting book called "Hiding In The Mirror: The quest for alternate realities, from Plato to String Theory." In this book, and amongst other physicists, you will not find faith, or strong belief in this theory. It's something that we can't rule out, and that there is some limited mathematical and scientific evidence for, but I don't think anybody would call it convincing. The important thing to note though, is that it's not a theory constructed because of attempts to explain anything about life.

[Loki]

The probability that the universal constants are exactly as they are and that life arose and developed and ended up with Homo sapiens, one of whom just happens to be me is precisely 1. Precisely 1.

This bullshit argument from lots of zero's is a fundamental misunderstanding of probability, or in jireh's case a regurgitation of apologist effusia without attempt to understand or critique. It's puddle thinking at base, and this has been pointed out to jireh on numerous occasions.

It's also been pointed out to jireh on numerous occasions (and people have pointed him at the relevant papers) that the current understanding shows that universal constants can indeed vary quite considerably and still produce a universe capable of nuclear fusion (and therefore us). Indeed a universe which entirely lacks the weak electromagnetic force would still be quite capable of producing us. Unfortunately jireh doesn't do reading comprehension, or indeed reading at all it would seem of material which might disagree with his preconceptions.

Cosmologists don't say that the universe definitely came from nothing. They generally say that we can't observe outside of the observable universe and so are unaware as to whether there is normal space there; space with differing constants; an infinite volume of spicy pea soup with croutons, nothing, or any other possibility imaginable.

If there was indeed nothing then they suggest that absolute nothing is itself unstable, leading to the formation of virtual particles (and have shown this by experimentally demonstrating things like the Casimir effect) and that models of universes arising from quantum instability closely match current models for the early universe and observable phenomena related to events in the early universe (for example the anisotropy of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation).

Compare this honesty with jireh, who is determined that his cosmic knob-jockey created the universe even though we currently have no way whatsoever of investigating or corroborating his assertions and is prepared to erect any red herring, strawman or other discursive dishonesty he feels might help his proselytizing mission.

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by jireh

the true weak atheist does not show up at atheist forums, to debate atheism. They simply don't care about the issue God at all. Atheists that show up at atheist forums, to defend their position, ara ALL strong atheists, since they are there to defend a case. Even if they don't admit it. And their case IS Religion . Its a faith system.

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/


A Faith Statement might be as follows:
I have complete, non-negotiable FAITH in the following tenets:
· Faith that the supreme intelligence in the universe is me, embodied in my mind.
· Faith that the appearances of design are false.
· Faith that the first life self-assembled from warm chemicals in goo.
· Faith that the universe is a self-induced, random occurrence.
· Faith that a “multiverse” that we can’t see is a rationale for a random universe producing life (Anthropic principle is false).
· Faith that my mind is an assembly of random mutations, with no actual purpose beyond survival of the fittest. (A Meat Machine). Even so, it is the supreme intelligence in the universe.
· Faith that the brain and the mind are one thing, inseparable.
· Faith that there is no intelligence in DNA.
· Faith that if I can’t sense it, it does not exist. (No metaphysical existence).
· Faith that empiricism is the one and only true path to all-encompassing Truth and Enlightenment.
· Faith in Evolution, which is unquestionable; it is non-negotiable truth. See “Heresy”, below.
· Faith that, because Evolution is non-negotiable truth, life has no meaning.
· Faith that after death there are only worms.

Originally Posted by jireh

Strong atheist believe, most probably there is no God.

More strawmanning, of atheism itself, this time???

I've already posted this link once, and you got it in your Welcome New Member message, as well - TGBL:

1. Understand what an atheist is. This is important.

• Atheism is not a religion, nor a statement or position of "faith" or "belief". We do not share a common creed, and we do not acknowledge any of your "holy" books or people as credible.
• Atheists are simply people who accept that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

Funny how it always comes back to credible evidence, jireh...

Oh, and I hope that you have fully read TGBL link, this time. Keeping to it, is a condition of your continued membership here.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

I find it rather comical how theists (ie. religious people) claim "atheism is a religion" as if religion is a bad thing and will somehow discredit atheism.

[Iseeyouthere]

Hehehe... We should totally use that next time someone claims Atheism is a religion... followed up by evidence it is not.
Nice one Croc.

[loubert]

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I find it rather comical how theists (ie. religious people) claim "atheism is a religion" as if religion is a bad thing and will somehow discredit atheism.

I don't know, I always saw it as a "you're just like us, you're no different".

[owheelj]

Originally Posted by Logic please

More strawmanning, of atheism itself, this time???

I've already posted this link once, and you got it in your Welcome New Member message, as well - TGBL:

Funny how it always comes back to credible evidence, jireh...

Oh, and I hope that you have fully read TGBL link, this time. Keeping to it, is a condition of your continued membership here.

I don't understand how those a strawman arguments. Surely a strawman argument is when you take a position your opponent holds, and then distort it to a superficially similar but non-contradictory position, and argue against that. It's a logical fallacy because the strawman argument is logically sound, but doesn't actually disprove the opponents argument.

Here's the wikipedia description;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

Is there another definition of a strawman argument? I would say that jireh is making arguments that are not true, rather than arguments that are true, but don't actually defeat the position he is arguing against.