9 of 10
9
Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism
Posted: 15 July 2012 02:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 121 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 15 July 2012 05:50 AM
Write4U - 14 July 2012 02:35 PM

your answer admits there is a chance that someone could win, albeit small.

Its said a chance less than one to 10^50 will almost sure never happen.

Depends on the number of players and tries doesn’t it?

Potential has a strange property that once acquired it never goes away,

adquired by who or by what ?


Why don’t you read for once. You insist on remainng ignorant. All your arguments are from ignorance. I am willing to bet that you have used the word potential at least once in your life and most probably often. You have no clue as to the fundamental meaning of the word and its implications, yet you throw around the word god (an indefinable entity) as if you know anything about the concept.
Your god is nothing more than potential, a latent excellence without human emotions and motives.

all it needs is time and it will become reality.

amazing faith you have….

No just a little bit of knowledge about meaning of words. As a Dutchman I have had to read the English dictionary from cover to cover to learn the meaning and essence (a form of potential) of most words. What are the odds that a dutch born and raised person could become a formal english proposal writer? A dictionary and time made it inevitable. I did not become fluent in English by chance or by prayer.

If we consider the number of players in the game and billions of years to play the game, your 10^173 becomes almost certainty.

lets assume you are right, and the only hurdle is chance. When it comes to creating the first life, only chance is not enough. The cell is irreducible complex, therefore chance alone cannot account for the existence of life.

There IS NO irreducible complexity, every complex system can be broken down into seperate parts each of which can and do have their own, sometimes unrelated function. Again, read the refutations of irreducible complexity.

You keep clinging to the notion that nature had just one try at it. What if nature had 10^200 tries at it?

what or who tried ? remember, according to modern cosmology, there was nothing physical at the beginning.

Dynamic properties of even metaphysical potentials are a natural game of trial and error of chance encounters.

A clear example: a photon generated inside our sun is radiated outward from the center, but may take hundreds, even thousands of years before it reaches the surface of the sun. The density of the sun prevents the photon from traveling in a straight line and it is bounced back and forth by chance encouters with other particles. By the time it reaches the surface it may have traveled trillions of miles within the sun itself. But once, per chance, it reaches the surface, it takes 8 minutes to reach the earth. This holds true for every photon generated inside the sun and every star in every galaxy. Yet due to the sheer amount of photons produced inside these suns, there is a steady stream of photons in unimaginable numbers escaping which we feel as sunlight. Chance is a meaningless term when there are an infinite numbers of trials and errors. Sunlight itself is an example. Chance becoming inevitability.

Using your argument, everything in this universe is subject to your odds of 10^173. Look at the universe, my friend. Those odds translated into 100 billion galaxies (and more to come), each containing roughly 100 billion stars (and more to come), almost all having planets (and more to come).

 

how do you know it happened just by chance ?

Because it could and it did.

Your assumption of a created universe that is today what it was yesterday is myopic. The creative and destructive process is ongoing each and every instant in time. If there is a god he will find no rest until the universe ceases to exist, and that will be the death of your god as well.

I believe in a very powerful God. The number of stars is for him peanuts…...

Oh really, can you tell me the number of metaphysical and physical sub-atomic and atomic particles, compund molecules and their possible combinations? Again, odds mean nothing, enough players, enough tries, and enough time will inevitable bring some results.
Finally after many tries we have seen the instantiation of a boson, perhaps the Higgs, a theoretical particle which gives mass (and by extension gravity) to everything. A particle that was predicted by our knowledge of potential. Even before the instantiation of anything, the potential for that instantiation existed in a timeless state before the event.

When our sun goes nova, where will your god be? Will he help and put out the fire? or will he shrug his shoulders and say “Well we had a good run”.

the bible tells us, this universe will not exist forever. And God will create a second heaven, and a second earth, and they will be eternal.

Even assuming that a god had such power, it would admit failure of the first try, wouldn’t it?  And how do you think the 149,000 priviliged people would adapt to a second BB?  God luck with that one.  Or, in case their souls lived in the first heaven, they would be transported to the second heaven?  Can you see the contradictions? But then in your fairytale everything is possible due to the omnipresence of a supernatural being with human emotions, wants, needs, and motives.
Scence is already delving into the possible existence or creation of multiple universes, nothing new there. All very mathematical. No God.
And almost assuredly, not a biblical god, who has the emotional make-up of a chimpanzee, for that matter. Did you know chimpanzees believe thunder and lightning is caused by an “unseen enemy”, i.e. god?  During a monsoon an alpha chimpanzee will run around waving a stick and trashing bushes in order to scare off this unseen enemy which which makes scary noises and throws fire and water at him. Later this god became known as Thor by the Nordic tribes.

“Thor (from Old Norse Þórr) is a hammer-wielding god associated with thunder, lightning, storms, oak trees, strength, the protection of mankind, and also hallowing, healing, and fertility”

What is the difference between Thor and your God?

[ Edited: 15 July 2012 03:04 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2012 04:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 122 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 15 July 2012 02:04 PM

Why don’t you read for once. You insist on remainng ignorant. All your arguments are from ignorance. I am willing to bet that you have used the word potential at least once in your life and most probably often.
You have no clue as to the fundamental meaning of the word and its implications, yet you throw around the word god (an indefinable entity) as if you know anything about the concept.
Your god is nothing more than potential, a latent excellence without human emotions and motives.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/potential

From Late Latin potentialis, from Latin potentia (“power”), from potens (“powerful”); see potent.Existing in possibility, not in actuality.
(archaic) Being potent; endowed with energy adequate to a result; efficacious; influential.

so potential is a adjective. So you can say your X has the potential to create the universe. You cannot say ” potential ” is creating the universe, since it is not something like God.

So once again : What do you want to substitute God for , as creator of the universe ?

btw. i have a clear definition about what i believe God to be :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t79-who-is-god-essence-of-god

God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, He is righteous and just, love, good, free from sin, he is perfect in his character and person, he is righteous in all His attitudes and actions, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end, he is omniscient, omnipresent, limitless in authority, immutable, he is the truth. Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2012 05:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 123 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  345
Joined  2006-11-27

If you want to claim that “existence is God” or “God is potential”, there’s not much to argue with.  It becomes a matter of definition.  If you want to claim God is active and observable through God’s actions, then you must provided evidence, testable, repeatable evidence, before you can expect any rational being to accept your claim.  Simple as that.

 Signature 

If we’re not laughing, they’re winning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2012 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 124 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Jeciron - 16 July 2012 05:15 AM

If you want to claim that “existence is God” or “God is potential”, there’s not much to argue with.  It becomes a matter of definition.  If you want to claim God is active and observable through God’s actions, then you must provided evidence, testable, repeatable evidence, before you can expect any rational being to accept your claim.  Simple as that.

Rather than that, how about answer the question of the topic ? Simple as that…..Maibe God indeed is superfluous….

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2012 03:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 125 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26

Philosophical naturalism is based on the premise that, including a metaphysical component of the universe, there is no reason to assume a form of supernaturalism. The Nature of the Universe is the potential essence of the universe. No matter what event occurs, within or beyond our event horizon, it is a Natural event. IMO

The rest is unfounded speculation.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2012 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 126 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 16 July 2012 03:44 PM

Philosophical naturalism is based on the premise that, including a metaphysical component of the universe, there is no reason to assume a form of supernaturalism. The Nature of the Universe is the potential essence of the universe. No matter what event occurs, within or beyond our event horizon, it is a Natural event. IMO

The rest is unfounded speculation.

And how do you know, THAT is not unfounded speculation ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2012 03:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 127 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4615
Joined  2007-10-05
Adonai888 - 16 July 2012 03:50 PM

And how do you know, THAT is not unfounded speculation ?

Because it works. Philosophical naturalism created the internet.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2012 04:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 128 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  345
Joined  2006-11-27

DarronS is completely correct.  The best reason for accepting the idea of philosophical naturalism is that it is the best, most functional, and most predictive way we have of understanding this existence.  A belief in any kind of supernatural being is inherently more complicated and utterly useless as a predictive tool, since the supernatural is by definition not bound by observable natural laws.  Since the philosophical natualism claims no absolute immutable “God” it isn’t a religious belief in any regular sense and. therefore, has the advantage of being able to adapt and embrace new and better understanding of natural phenomenon.

As DarronS said, “It works”, and when and if it doesn’t it inherently demands that it be corrected. 

Those are my reasons.

 Signature 

If we’re not laughing, they’re winning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2012 04:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 129 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 16 July 2012 03:50 PM
Write4U - 16 July 2012 03:44 PM

Philosophical naturalism is based on the premise that, including a metaphysical component of the universe, there is no reason to assume a form of supernaturalism. The Nature of the Universe is the potential essence of the universe. No matter what event occurs, within or beyond our event horizon, it is a Natural event. IMO

The rest is unfounded speculation.

And how do you know, THAT is not unfounded speculation ?

No, because it is based on evidence and knowledge of function. All things within our Natural Universal, must be Natural by definition.
And if the Universe is a Natural existence, why should it not be logical to assume anything which may still lie beyond our event horizon is also Natural and a part of the Naturalness of the Wholeness.
To assume an unnatural causality other than pure Potential, beyond such absolute limits, is ridiculous.

[ Edited: 16 July 2012 04:53 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2012 08:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 130 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 16 July 2012 04:41 PM

To assume an unnatural causality other than pure Potential, beyond such absolute limits, is ridiculous.

Again, your pure Potential is not something , but is the atribute of something. Again : ” X ” has the potential to create the universe. What is ” X ” ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2012 08:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 131 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Jeciron - 16 July 2012 04:35 PM

DarronS is completely correct.  The best reason for accepting the idea of philosophical naturalism is that it is the best, most functional, and most predictive way we have of understanding this existence.  A belief in any kind of supernatural being is inherently more complicated and utterly useless as a predictive tool, since the supernatural is by definition not bound by observable natural laws.  Since the philosophical natualism claims no absolute immutable “God” it isn’t a religious belief in any regular sense and. therefore, has the advantage of being able to adapt and embrace new and better understanding of natural phenomenon.

As DarronS said, “It works”, and when and if it doesn’t it inherently demands that it be corrected. 

Those are my reasons.

One thing is methodological naturalism, which is a way of doing science. Another thing is philosophical naturalism , which tries to explain how the world really is. Please explain on what ground can you say, human life has more intrinsic value, than a amoeba, for example, or just a rock ?! And : if the natural world is all there is, how can you explain ” will ” ? of what substance is it made of ?  how can conscience be a product of matter ? Based on what objective standard can you say what is good, and what is bad ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2012 08:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 132 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4615
Joined  2007-10-05

Adonai, you really need to study some modern philosophy. All your questions have been answered. There is no objective standard of good and bad. Do you really not understand why people would believe human life has more intrinsic value than an amoeba? If not, you should read Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2012 09:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 133 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
DarronS - 16 July 2012 08:59 PM

There is no objective standard of good and bad.

Do you live according to this worldview ? If this is true, you cannot say, what Hitler did, was wrong.

Do you really not understand why people would believe human life has more intrinsic value than an amoeba?

Thats what i am asking you : based on what can you tell human life has more value, based on your world view ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2012 10:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 134 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14
Adonai888 - 16 July 2012 08:53 PM

Please explain on what ground can you say, human life has more intrinsic value, than a amoeba, for example, or just a rock ?!

`
Nothing really has ‘intrinsic’ value, since ‘value’ is something human beings assign to things.  ‘Value’ isn’t something that happens or exists on its own, it’s given to things.

And most human beings assign the most value to other human beings, mainly due to the fact that we’re members of the same club/tribe.

Actually, the only people I encounter who try to claim humans have “intrinsic” or “inherent” value are dualists, not materialists.

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2012 10:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 135 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 16 July 2012 08:00 PM
Write4U - 16 July 2012 04:41 PM

To assume an unnatural causality other than pure Potential, beyond such absolute limits, is ridiculous.

Again, your pure Potential is not something , but is the atribute of something. Again : ” X ” has the potential to create the universe. What is ” X ” ?

Potential for “X” exists before “X” , just like your god. Prove me wrong.

[ Edited: 16 July 2012 11:01 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
9 of 10
9