Creator: supernatural vs natural (posts from 'fine detail in the gospels).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon:

Fails to grasp the difference between books containing reasoning and argument and books containing assertions of religious truths.

Caricature of theological books and Dawkins, Hitchens, antitheist wankfodder etc.

Fails even to attempt to find a logical path from a connected universe to "God".

Rich coming from someone who cannot avoid the leap of faith in any of his own positions.

Essays yet another non sequitur (there is no “then”), moves to gibberish (“what is the wonder of”), tries an unqualified assertion (“It can’t be the science”) while failing to grasp that science provides explanatory models but isn’t itself the phenomena it describes, and finishes with another non sequitur (there’s no reason for the "numimous" not to be explicable with the tools of science, at least in principle).

In which Hillside's forgets about Prof Cox and wonder and Douglas Adams enjoyment of the garden. Ignorance of Lewis's showing that the numinous is just proto religion.
The scientific method does not require wonder or enjoyment

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you name one? I have never come across a sensible, rational argument nor have I been presented with any credible evidence.

Tyson's speculation (it isn't a theory or even a hypothesis) is explicitly naturalistic. Attempting to link it to theology is either extremely stupid or extremely dishonest.

Not being funny would you unfailingly know a rational argument if you came across one?
vis. To call an argument whose central tenets have been the central tenets of theology for centuries explicit naturalism calls that into question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is just an admission of gullibility, and poor reasoning ability.

And scientism, humanism, physicalism, agnosticism, the poor use of the concept of unknown unknown you retreat into to end debate new atheism and the arrogance that seems to attract, The claim that you can find no reasons for belief or even consideration of God are all good reasons then?

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which the Lieutenant…

Caricature of theological books and Dawkins, Hitchens, antitheist wankfodder etc.

Hopes (wrongly) that assertion and insult constitute argument.

Rich coming from someone who cannot avoid the leap of faith in any of his own positions.

Hopes (wrongly) that lying about his interlocutor will validate his mistakes.   

In which Hillside's forgets about Prof Cox and wonder and Douglas Adams enjoyment of the garden.

Fails to grasp that experiencing the numinous, the transcendent, the deeply moving etc does not exclude them from naturalistic causes.     

Ignorance of Lewis's showing that the numinous is just proto religion.

Hopes (wrongly) that insult will get him off the hook of failing to show an argument from Lewis that isn’t false.

The scientific method does not require wonder or enjoyment

Collapses (again) into gibberish – the scientific method is a means of investigating and modelling reality. When that reality involves deep feelings there’s no reason a priori for excluding science from being able to explain their cause.

All of which shows that (as someone said to me recently), there’s no point in arguing with someone you have to educate first – especially when he’s uneducable.

[Maeght]

And scientism, humanism, physicalism, agnosticism, the poor use of the concept of unknown unknown you retreat into to end debate new atheism and the arrogance that seems to attract, The claim that you can find no reasons for belief or even consideration of God are all good reasons then?

Reasons for what?

[Stranger]

Not being funny would you unfailingly know a rational argument if you came across one?

Nobody's perfect - however I have good reason (exam results and other independent tests) to regard my abilities in that respect to be more than adequate.

vis. To call an argument whose central tenets have been the central tenets of theology for centuries explicit naturalism calls that into question.

There is exactly one similarity: the concept of the intelligent creation of a universe. Everything else is contradictory.

Tyson's speculation is explicitly naturalistic - it is based on the way our technology (computational ability) has advanced and speculates that more advanced technology still might well enable, ordinary, mortal beings to create full simulations of a (not the) universe.

Suggesting a link to theology is one of the most ridiculous religiously motivated claims I have ever heard.

I think it is probably even more absurd than literal, six day creationism...

ETA: And once again, this demonstrates that you are prepared to grasp any straw that might lead to any sort of 'god' at all. You seem to have no commitment to a single notion of god. The 'god' of the Tyson speculation (ordinary mortal beings) could not be more different from the 'god' of Feser's 'argument' discussed on the other thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody's perfect - however I have good reason (exam results and other independent tests) to regard my abilities in that respect to be more than adequate.

There is exactly one similarity: the concept of the intelligent creation of a universe. Everything else is contradictory.

Tyson's speculation is explicitly naturalistic - it is based on the way our technology (computational ability) has advanced and speculates that more advanced technology still might well enable, ordinary, mortal beings to create full simulations of a (not the) universe.

Suggesting a link to theology is one of the most ridiculous religiously motivated claims I have ever heard.

I think it is probably even more absurd than literal, six day creationism...

ETA: And once again, this demonstrates that you are prepared to grasp any straw that might lead to any sort of 'god' at all. You seem to have no commitment to a single notion of god. The 'god' of the Tyson speculation (ordinary mortal beings) could not be more different from the 'god' of Feser's 'argument' discussed on the other thread.

Exactly one? tailored to your argument. It still fails the explicitly naturalistic test on the strength of that.

Look I don't mind lending the intellectual property of the church to others. There is a moral issue when they claim it as there own and then accuse the originator of trying to steal it back.

I expect arrests for the above......but not PZ Myers. Ha Ha.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Look I don't mind lending the intellectual property of the church to others.

In which the Lieutenant tries to be funny - and fails.

[Stranger]

Exactly one? tailored to your argument. It still fails the explicitly naturalistic test on the strength of that.

Are you really stupid enough to think that because people first thought of universe creation as a ('supernatural') miracle, that means that now we can think of a fully natural way in which it might be done, that natural way automatically becomes not natural?

Really, seriously?

By that 'logic' most of modern medicine is not naturalistic either...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which the Lieutenant tries to be funny - and fails.

Look HIllside, the ideal cheap assertions that comprise the new atheism are done.
NDG Tyson has seen to that.
What is needed to salvage what can be salvaged is that somehow history can be revised. That is going to take turdpolishing of a magnitude several powers of ten greater than we have yet seen.
Don' be so sad.......Cometh the hour cometh the man.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you really stupid enough to think that because people first thought of universe creation as a ('supernatural') miracle,

They may have first thought that although the appearence of the term and notion of the supernatural comes much later, but the idea of an intelligent creator of a universe has been around for centuries. Nice try and certainly encouraging for the tremendous spin new atheism has to desperately apply to the problem it faces.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you really stupid enough to think that because people first thought of universe creation as a ('supernatural') miracle, that means that now we can think of a fully natural way in which it might be done, that natural way automatically becomes not natural?

Really, seriously?

By that 'logic' most of modern medicine is not naturalistic either...

Or it means the definitions and concepts of natural and supernatural have been flawed. Atheism has got to justify why for centuries it was against the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe, why it now accepts it and then publicly acknowledge and offer apologies for it's past.

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which the Lieutenant…

Look HIllside, the ideal cheap assertions that comprise the new atheism are done.

Hopes that mischaracterising the arguments that undo him as “cheap assertions” is itself the only cheap assertion in play here.

NDG Tyson has seen to that.

Hopes that continuing to lie about this will help him.

What is needed to salvage what can be salvaged…

Fails to grasp that his ludicrous claims are in fact probably unsalvageable.

…is that somehow history can be revised. That is going to take turdpolishing of a magnitude several powers of ten greater than we have yet seen.

Collapses yet again into incoherence.

Don' be so sad.......Cometh the hour cometh the man.

And finishes with the triple Salchow of gibberish.

Moderator: content removed.

[Stranger]

Are you really stupid enough to think that because people first thought of universe creation as a ('supernatural') miracle,

They may have first thought that although the appearence of the term and notion of the supernatural comes much later, but the idea of an intelligent creator of a universe has been around for centuries.

I note the dishonest editing of my argument and the fact that you didn't provide an answer to it. The non-naturalistic or 'supernatural' was your claim - you were attempting to apply it to a fully naturalistic argument just because theists had thought of the effect first.

Here is what I said, if you want to provide an actual answer:

Are you really stupid enough to think that because people first thought of universe creation as a ('supernatural') miracle, that means that now we can think of a fully natural way in which it might be done, that natural way automatically becomes not natural?
...
By that 'logic' most of modern medicine is not naturalistic either...

Nice try and certainly encouraging for the tremendous spin new atheism has to desperately apply to the problem it faces.

I don't care about 'new atheism' (whatever you think it is) but if you think that attempting to co-opt Tyson to the theist cause is a threat to anything, you're even dafter than I thought.

I really am totally gobsmacked at the utter stupidity of it. Is it perhaps your ploy to put forward such a totally, mindlessly, idiotic argument for god that it makes all the other, flawed and hopeless arguments seem sensible in comparison?

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which the Lieutenant...

Or it means the definitions and concepts of natural and supernatural have been flawed. Atheism has got to justify why for centuries it was against the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe, why it now accepts it and then publicly acknowledge and offer apologies for it's past.

Fails to grasp that atheism would only have to "answer to" falsifying the arguments for a supernatural creator - something that's trivially easy to do. The clue is the "theism" in "a-theism". 

[Stranger]

Or it means the definitions and concepts of natural and supernatural have been flawed.

Why and in what way?

Atheism has got to justify why for centuries it was against the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe, why it now accepts it and then publicly acknowledge and offer apologies for it's past.

Atheism (rightly) rejected the stories about 'gods' creating the universe because they came without evidence or reasoned argument.

Tyson's speculation (which is very far from universally accepted), about ordinary mortal beings using technology to create universes, has a reasoned basis (it follows from certain assumptions).

There is nothing to apologize for - the propositions and supporting arguments are different.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why and in what way?

Atheism (rightly) rejected the stories about 'gods' creating the universe because they came without evidence or reasoned argument.

Tyson's speculation (which is very far from universally accepted), about ordinary mortal beings using technology to create universes, has a reasoned basis (it follows from certain assumptions).

 nothing to apologize for - the propositions and supporting arguments are different.

Atheism has rejected the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe for, well, forever having bundled it with 'The supernatural.
Theism has postulated intelligent creation for centuries
I think you need to study the definitions of naturalism and supernaturalism.
To pass this off as a minor tweek is the height of delusion.

Not all atheism realise the ramifications of the idea. PZ Myers does.

For New atheism to survive now is the time for Turdpolishers and Tophatted linguistic breakdancers bustin' their funky moves.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Tyson's speculation (which is very far from universally accepted), about ordinary mortal beings using technology to create universes, has a reasoned basis (it follows from certain assumptions).

Tyson if he is proposing it cannot guarantee either ordinariness or mortality if the intelligent creator is not of this universe.
His reasoned basis is no different from people who have said we can build and make things here what if the whole show was built? theology is replete in its history with reference to artists, makers, builders, creators, intelligent etc.

Atheism has put away these ideas in the past because they know where they logically lead and what happens when the genie is out of the bottle. PZ Myers and all that.

[Stranger]

Atheism has rejected the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe for, well, forever having bundled it with 'The supernatural.

Atheism has rejected the stories of gods creating the universe for the very good reason that they came without supporting evidence and without reasoned arguments.

Theism has postulated intelligent creation for centuries

Theism has postulated evidence and reason free stories for centuries.

I think you need to study the definitions of naturalism and supernaturalism.

Why? If you have a point to make regarding them, then do so.

To pass this off as a minor tweek is the height of delusion.

I'm not passing anything off as a minor tweak. The theistic stories and Tyson's speculation are qualitatively different.

It's much like theistic stories of people being miraculously cured of leprosy having bugger all to do with the modern medical treatment of the disease.

Not all atheism realise the ramifications of the idea. PZ Myers does.

Trying to pass of Tyson's speculation as an argument for god is beyond stupid - and if PZ Myers (or anybody else) thinks it's sensible, he's a fool.

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which the Lieutenant,

Atheism has rejected the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe for, well, forever having bundled it with 'The supernatural.

Keeps on lyin’ lyin’ lyin’ – atheism is merely what results when the arguments of theists are found wanting. Any supernatural “bundling” is the province of the theists who attempt them.

Theism has postulated intelligent creation for centuries

Selectively ignores the “supernatural” bit.

I think you need to study the definitions of naturalism and supernaturalism.

Fails to grasp that the job of definition is for those who would posit a supernatural.

To pass this off as a minor tweek is the height of delusion.

Tries some more gibberish.

Not all atheism realise the ramifications of the idea. PZ Myers does.

Misrepresents PZ Myers.

For New atheism to survive now is the time for Turdpolishers and Tophatted linguistic breakdancers bustin' their funky moves.

And finally collapses again into incoherence. 

[Stranger]

Tyson if he is proposing it cannot guarantee either ordinariness or mortality if the intelligent creator is not of this universe.

Its whole basis is technology. I really can't believe I'm having to argue about a speculation, based on a set of (arguable) assumptions and an extrapolation of our technology, being compared with supernatural fairy tales.

It really is a mark of the utter desperation of theist straw clutching.

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which the Lieutenant…

Tyson if he is proposing it cannot guarantee either ordinariness or mortality if the intelligent creator is not of this universe.

Yet again tries a negative proof fallacy. Tyson cannot guarantee anything, any more than the Lieutenant himself can – the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy included. That’s why Tyson’s speculation has nothing whatever to do with the conjectures of theism.

His reasoned basis is no different from people who have said we can build and make things here what if the whole show was built? theology is replete in its history with reference to artists, makers, builders, creators, intelligent etc.

And supernatural gods remember?

Atheism has put away these ideas in the past because they know where they logically lead and what happens when the genie is out of the bottle. PZ Myers and all that.

Fails to grasp that all “atheism” has actually done is to falsify the claims of theists, and that nothing Tyson said leads anywhere near those claims.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

It really is a mark of the utter desperation of theist straw clutching.

Though handily he's got barns full of the stuff what with all those straw men he continually attempts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Atheism has rejected the stories of gods creating the universe for the very good reason that they came without supporting evidence and without reasoned arguments.

No atheism also rejected God, the intelligent creator of the universe and not just the stories about him.

There is strong evidence that atheists did not understand the purpose of the stories and caricatured religion ignoring ANY argument.

Tyson is not a modern treatment. More the same treatment out of a different bottle. Poor and desperate analogy on your part.

I think you misunderstand PZ Myers has argued that this is a form of intelligent design theory.....which I don't think we can deny.

The state of play is this.

An intelligent creator of the universe has been a feature of theology for centuries.

A creator not dependent on the universe it creates is part of the definition of the supernatural

It is not part of the definition of natural.

Therefore we cannot assume ordinaryness or mortality in the intelligent creator.

[wigginhall]

As per Stranger above, yes, I think it is desperate, that speculation about aliens is connected with God.   But then Christianity has never been shy of refurbishing the idea - there is the classic view, rather austere, the causeless Cause, 'without body, parts or passions',  then the despotic tribal god of the Hebrew bible (OT), then something more loving in the NT, but still with a thuggish ability.   In modern times, the ground of all being, which came from Tillich, then the God of 'weak theology', who is not omnipotent.   Maybe Vlad's intelligent alien shows the final collapse of theism.