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

[Stranger]

The excusing /celebration of ignorance of theology is a lousy basis for any sensible debate on what theology has argued and how long it has been arguing it.

How long theology has be arguing about anything is totally irrelevant. You did not answer my point, that there is no sense at all in bringing theology into a debate until you establish that said theology is about something real.

In fact, once again, you haven't answered any of my points. Well done Sir Robin.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladastrophe,

Cut the crap. You've just had your ludicrous claim comprehensively dismantled by having the qualitative differences between what NdGT (actually) said and the assertions of theology explained to you - deal with that.

Oh, and while you're at it: why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT? Didn't Jesus have something say about bearing false witness?

Diversionary Hillside I'm asking whether you are saying that NDGT doesn't apply his Idea  to this universe.
I never mentioned theology but somehow it appears in your answer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladastrophe,

Entertainingly paranoid.

Asking you to account for your quote doctoring and misquoting isn't "paranoid". Why don't you just explain why you think it's acceptable?

The Chalmers quote in its entirety doesn't help your case.

The Chalmers quote without your doctoring destroys your assertion.

Your own saunter through the statement was a bit like the town band.

At the word naturalistic you are in full strike drum going cymbals clashing trumpets blazing.
By the time you reach the word version the drum stops the march step breaks discordant toots and by the time you get to the main movement ....the term God hypothesis the band is behind the town hall, hats off , having a smoke.

Seek help.

So once again: why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT? Didn't Jesus have something say about bearing false witness?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladastrophe,

Diversionary Hillside I'm asking whether you are saying that NDGT doesn't apply his Idea  to this universe.
I never mentioned theology but somehow it appears in your answer.

You're asking me precisely as a diversionary tactic. Your case was dismantled point-by-point a few posts ago (Reply 753) - deal with it or don't.

Oh, and yet again: why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT? Didn't Jesus have something say about bearing false witness?
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladastrophe,

You're asking me precisely as a diversionary tactic. Your case was dismantled point-by-point a few posts ago (Reply 753) - deal with it or don't.

Oh, and yet again: why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT? Didn't Jesus have something say about bearing false witness?
 

Great
And while you are enjoying that
NDGT will still have proposed the likelihood of an intelligent creator of the universe in a latter day version of Paley.
Charmers will call it a naturalistic version of the God hypothesis.
Myers will presumably still be calling NDGTs speculation intelligent design and creationist and Stranger will still be bamboozled over whether an intelligent creator of the universe is the same or qualitively different from an intelligent creator of the universe.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

This thread contains posts removed from the 'fine details in the gospels' thread where this discussion developed, but on a wholly separate topic.

The relevant posts, with a couple of off-topic exceptions, have been move to here so that those involved can continue their discussion. 

Gordon

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Moderator:

This thread contains posts removed from the 'fine details in the gospels' thread where this discussion developed, but on a wholly separate topic.

The relevant posts, with a couple of off-topic exceptions, have been move to here so that those involved can continue their discussion. 

Gordon

Thanks Gordon.

An intelligent creator of the universe has never been a staple of naturalism and is positively ruled out of some forms e.g. Stenger who used the term ten years ago having apparently failed God.
I think some atheists wont like it because they think it is religion.

[Stranger]

An intelligent creator of the universe has never been a staple of naturalism...

So what?

...and is positively ruled out of some forms e.g. Stenger who used the term ten years ago having apparently failed God.

Reference? Link?

I think many atheists don't like it because they think it is religion.

It's not a question of liking anything - it's a question of evidence and/or reasoning. NdGT has put forward a proposal that has bugger all to to with the supernatural or religion. Unfortunately for his speculation, his arguments aren't all that much better than those for religion and god (as PZM pointed out).

Now, how about you stop running away from all the points you've totally failed to address?

[Stranger]

An intelligent creator of the universe has never been a staple of naturalism and is positively ruled out of some forms e.g. Stenger who used the term ten years ago...

As you should know by now (if you ever bothered to pay attention), it is impossible to rule out anything unless it is testable and falsifiable. Here is a short article by Victor Stenger (who I assume you mean) in which he points this out: The God Hypothesis

Here we must be clear that we are not talking about evidence against any and all conceivable gods. For example, a deist god that creates the universe and then just leaves it alone would be very hard to falsify.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what?

Reference? Link?

It's not a question of liking anything - it's a question of evidence and/or reasoning. NdGT has put forward a proposal that has bugger all to to with the supernatural or religion. Unfortunately for his speculation, his arguments aren't all that much better than those for religion and god (as PZM pointed out).

Now, how about you stop running away from all the points you've totally failed to address?

Reference? Link?

Not aware of Stenger, the author of "God, the failed hypothesis?" That's an encouraging sign that New Atheism hasn't had as big an impact.

Stenger says there is no evidence for a creator.(article by Stegner for huffpost to follow)

Tyson is just a modern version of Paley's watchmaker who's idea Dawkins poo pooed.

[Stranger]

Stenger says there is no evidence for a creator.(article by Stegner for huffpost to follow)

See above (#158).

Tyson is just a modern version of Paley's watchmaker who's idea Dawkins poo pooed.

Utter drivel. It's a totally different argument.

Now, all these point that you keep running away from...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

See above (#158).

Utter drivel. It's a totally different argument.

Now, all these point that you keep running away from...

Both rely on your notion of extrapolated technology.
So Paleys argument is built on the sophistication of 19th century technology, Tysons on the sophistication of 21st century technology.

For goodness sake Stranger, throw the towel in.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would have preferred the more accurate title for this thread:

Intelligent creator of the universe: natural or super natural.
May I add that All those years ago whenI started on the boards I'd never imagined that we'd get as far as arguing whether the intelligent creator of the universe was natural or supernatural and that Bluehillside would conced that there was a reasonable argument for an outside of the universe.

[Stranger]

Both rely on your notion of extrapolated technology.
So Paleys argument is built on the sophistication of 19th century technology, Tysons on the sophistication of 21st century technology.

FFS Vald, have you even read either?

Paley's argument starts with (supposedly) finding signs of design in our universe.

NdGT claims no such evidence - it's purely speculation about advanced technologies' abilities to simulate universes and concluding that there would more simulations than real universe(s).

So totally different premises, arguments, and conclusions...     

For goodness sake Stranger, throw the towel in.

I take it this is some sort of joke? Your 'arguments' are obviously wrong, desperate straw clutching and you are clearly too scared to address the actual points that have been made to you.

[Stranger]

An intelligent creator of the universe has never been a staple of naturalism and is positively ruled out of some forms...

I take it you are withdrawing the "positively ruled out" claim, in the light of #158?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I take it you are withdrawing the "positively ruled out" claim, in the light of #158?

I don't suppose Stegner seriously entertained the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe.
I fail to see how you can miss that.

[Stranger]

I don't suppose Stegner seriously entertained the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe.
I fail to see how you can miss that.

I didn't - and you didn't claim that he didn't take it seriously, you claimed he had "positively ruled out" the idea. For once in your life, why not just admit you were wrong?

I don't take the idea seriously either. God(s) seem no more than fantasy and NdGT's speculation, nothing more than science fiction. Now, all these points you've been running away from...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't - and you didn't claim that he didn't take it seriously, you claimed he had "positively ruled out" the idea. For once in your life, why not just admit you were wrong?

I don't take the idea seriously either. God(s) seem no more than fantasy and NdGT's speculation, nothing more than science fiction. Now, all these points you've been running away from...

I already said that I excised the naturalistic version part of natural version of the God hypothesis out because it was not relevant to Chalmers saying that there was a God hypothesis.

I felt that was necessary for focus.

I now realise that such a move does not prevent antitheists focusing on the natural version of part but that the whole does not offer any succour to those thinking that there isn't a God hypothesis or those thinking that the Tyson speculation is not connected with it.

I don't think it is naturalistic because it concludes with a transcendent intelligent creator.

[Stranger]

I now realise that such a move does not prevent antitheists focusing on the natural version of part but that the whole does not offer any succour to those thinking that there isn't a God hypothesis or those thinking that the Tyson speculation is not connected with it.

I'm not aware that anybody has ever claimed that there isn't a god hypothesis or, more accurately, god hypotheses, many of which don't really qualify as hypotheses in the scientific sense because they are not testable or falsifiable.

Tyson's speculation (once again) is similar only insofar as it shares some of daft features of the 'arguments' for god.

I don't think it is naturalistic because it concludes with a transcendent intelligent creator.

Once again: it is explicitly naturalistic; based on naturalistic assumptions and without any reference to the supernatural whatsoever. Its intelligent simulators are natural beings in a natural universe (or another simulation).

Your claim is absurd.

What is more, you are still ignoring many of the points raised (#141). Instead, you have responded to detailed posts with bland accusations that you have then failed to back up or clarify (#143).

[ippy]

Vladastrophe,

You're asking me precisely as a diversionary tactic. Your case was dismantled point-by-point a few posts ago (Reply 753) - deal with it or don't.

Oh, and yet again: why did you doctor the Chalmers quote and misquote NdGT? Didn't Jesus have something say about bearing false witness?
 

Yes Blue I've just given up on some responses from Vlad, due to this diversion tactic of his, because I couldn't be arsed on this, one of many, occasions.

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not aware that anybody has ever claimed that there isn't a god hypothesis or, more accurately, god hypotheses, many of which don't really qualify as hypotheses in the scientific sense because they are not testable or falsifiable.

Tyson's speculation (once again) is similar only insofar as it shares some of daft features of the 'arguments' for god.

Once again: it is explicitly naturalistic; based on naturalistic assumptions and without any reference to the supernatural whatsoever. Its intelligent simulators are natural beings in a natural universe (or another simulation).

Your claim is absurd.

What is more, you are still ignoring many of the points raised (#141). Instead, you have responded to detailed posts with bland accusations that you have then failed to back up or clarify (#143).

A transcendent Intelligent creator outside the universe has been termed supernatural by naturalists.
What you are proposing is a definition change. A linguistic fiddle to bring this out of a category your ilk created itself and into the one it' supports!

That is the mother and father of strawman and goodness knows what else.

That aside you have a transcendent intelligent creator of the universe? Are you now going to ban all discussion? Must we like the caricature Christians of antitheist imagination accept that as bald brute fact or can we speculate reasonably further. If the latter then I must warn that there may be material upsetting for those of a Goddodging disposition.

My own opinion is that as soon as you accept a transcendent intelligent creator of the universe you have put up the white flag to theism.

As an aside on Paley

Myers declares Tysons speculation as Intelligent design the judge in the Dover trial declared intelligent design as Paley's argument.

Have a nice day.

[floo]

As I have said so often before, if or when science discovers what actually brought the universe into being it will be a natural cause with no god/intelligent designer involved. But of course I could be wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Further to my previous post I would add that if you say an intelligent creator of a transcendent intelligent creator of the universe is a reasonable speculation then you have to accept at least deism is too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I have said so often before, if or when science discovers what actually brought the universe into being it will be a natural cause with no god/intelligent designer involved. But of course I could be wrong.

I'm sure you are not the only one who would put it that way.

[Stranger]

Vlad, your posts are getting more and more absurd.

A transcendent Intelligent creator outside the universe has been termed supernatural by naturalists.

Silly word games. It really is a stretch to call the universe simulators "transcendent" - there is no suggestion that they are not subject to physical laws in their own universe.

Which "naturalists" have said that anything like a technological universe simulator is supernatural?

What you are proposing is a definition change. A linguistic fiddle...

Pot, kettle, black.

That is the mother and father of strawman and goodness knows what else.

Once again you demonstrate a total lack of understanding of fallacies and logic.

That aside you have a transcendent intelligent creator of the universe? Are you now going to ban all discussion? Must we like the caricature Christians of antitheist imagination accept that as bald brute fact or can we speculate reasonably further.

You can speculate all you want Vlad, but speculation is not, per se, a reason to take anything seriously. For that, we need logic or evidence.

If the latter then I must warn that there may be material upsetting for those of a Goddodging disposition.

Who is dodging god? In order to dodge something, you have to think that it is more than a fantasy - which I don't.

My own opinion is that as soon as you accept a transcendent intelligent creator of the universe you have put up the white flag to theism.

And I should value this opinion, why?

As an aside on Paley

Myers declares Tysons speculation as Intelligent design the judge in the Dover trial declared intelligent design as Paley's argument.

I really don't see what you think you can gain by putting forward such utter nonsense. As I have already pointed out, the arguments that lead to "intelligent design" are completely different - as are the intelligent designers that they conclude. Your attempts to connect concepts through the isolation of individual words and phrases is bizarre - is it some sort of joke?

Further to my previous post I would add that if you say an intelligent creator of a transcendent intelligent creator of the universe is a reasonable speculation then you have to accept at least deism is too.

Firstly, I don't accept NdGT as 'reasonable' speculation. It just about makes it into the category of science fiction.

Secondly, even if I did, I wouldn't have to accept that a (supernatural) deist god would be reasonable. The reasonableness of each has to be entirely based on the arguments put forward (assuming no actual evidence). There is no speculation about a deist god (that I'm ware of) that has any logical connection with the NdGT speculation.