2 of 10
2
Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism
Posted: 10 July 2012 02:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
PLaClair - 10 July 2012 02:27 PM

It’s endlessly fascinating how some folks require absolute proof from science

Where do i ask for absolute proofs ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 03:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 10 July 2012 08:42 AM
Write4U - 10 July 2012 05:15 AM

Who says? I believe the current science holds that something can indeed arise from nothing.

If you refere to virtual particles :

John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, “. . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum—nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V’(O)= O, V”(O)>O)” ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

IMO, natural cosmological constants predict that something can (and obviously did) arise from nothing, without outside help.

From absolutely nothing, nothing arises, since absolutely nothing is the absence of ANY thing. To believe, that from absolutely nothing something can arise, is irrational.

Using your argument, how then can a god arise from “Nothing”?  God is something, no?
And if it was possible for God to arise from nothing, why would that not be natural? And if it is natural, then why not call God a natural phenomena? The argument that god always existed as a supernatural entity is the same argument as the the existence of a natural metaphysical precondition to the universe.

IMO, no matter how far we go back and whatever argument is employed, if something arose from nothing it would have to be part of the Nature of the cosmos and therefore natural.

Naturalism is inescapable fact. It encompasses all events and phenomena. Again, the introduction of a foreign agent does nothing other that to make a complicated matter even more complicated. Ockham’s razor, remember.

[ Edited: 10 July 2012 03:49 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: 10 July 2012 04:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 10 July 2012 03:31 PM

Using your argument, how then can a god arise from “Nothing”?  God is something, no?

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/created.html

If something comes into being, it must have been prompted by something else. A book has an author. Music has a music artist. A party has a party-thrower! All things that begin, that have a start, have a cause to their beginning.

Consider the universe. Scientists once held to the “steady-state” theory, that the universe has always existed without beginning.

Cosmological evidence now refers to the “Big bang” as the point in time that the universe came into being. Our space-time-matter-energy universe had a distinct and singular beginning.

Since it did not always exist, but came into existence (had a singular beginning), then some other reality must have caused or created it.1

Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. God however is in a different category, and must be so. God is different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, in that he has always existed, independent from anything he created. God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be. Why must God be this way?

Our universe cannot be explained any other way. It could not have created itself. It has not always existed. And it could not be created by something that itself is created. Why not?

It isn’t coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin.

 

The argument that god always existed as a supernatural entity is the same argument as the the existence of a natural metaphysical precondition to the universe.

No, its not.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t344-must-the-beginning-of-the-universe-have-a-personal-cause?highlight=personal

The cause of the universe must be personal because an impersonal force would be deterministic and mechanistic, not possessing free will. A mechanistic being only operates according to the programming it received from something else. But if the cause of the universe received programming from something else, then we have again not provided the answer to the cause of the universe. We have just found a middle-man. The cause had to make a choice to create and only beings who are personal can make choices.

if something arose from nothing it would have to be part of the Nature of the cosmos and therefore natural.

could you give a example of something that arose or could arise from absolutely nothing ?

Naturalism is inescapable fact.

Prove it.

Again, the introduction of a foreign agent does nothing other that to make a complicated matter even more complicated. Ockham’s razor, remember.

why should Occams Razor be applied in regard of these questions ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 04:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

Prove an intentional God. You are the one making the extraordinary claim. So far I have only heard the stale old words (semantics) of self-evidence, with a touch of supernatural Free Will thrown in.

When you admit that god is a natural condition (the Implicate), then we have something to talk about.

[ Edited: 10 July 2012 05:15 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: 10 July 2012 05:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 10 July 2012 04:53 PM

Prove an intentional God. You are the one making the extraordinary claim.

this thread is about evidence of philosophical naturalism. Have any ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 05:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 10 July 2012 05:28 PM
Write4U - 10 July 2012 04:53 PM

Prove an intentional God. You are the one making the extraordinary claim.

this thread is about evidence of philosophical naturalism. Have any ?

Look around you and back to the beginning. It is all natural! 
The only non natural condition that can be introduced as an argument is “before the beginning” which itself is a contradiction in terms.
Even if we accepted a non natural pre condition, it ended at the beginning.
If not we’d all be supernatural, and if everything is supernatural, it would be natural, no?

IMO, you are confusing a supernatural creative God, with the natural metaphysical condition of Potential.

[ Edited: 10 July 2012 05:49 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: 10 July 2012 06:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  220
Joined  2011-10-01
Axegrrl - 10 July 2012 12:14 AM

`
I don’t have an argument for you, just a general question to toss out there:

Why is there any need to commit to or ‘champion’ philosophical naturalism in the first place?  What’s wrong with just sticking with ‘this is what we have to work with until any compelling evidence comes along to suggest otherwise’?

I don’t think I know anyone (including every atheist/materialist i know) who is ‘committed’ to philosophical naturalism or feels the need to be.


`

I agree.

Also, we mustn’t allow theists to frame the debate in terms of a battle going on between the theistic worldview and the materialistic worldview, with committed defenders on both sides. Personally I don’t have a clue what consciousness is, what numbers are, or where values come from. Still, I feel very strongly that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are a load of old cobblers.

There is often this feeling with non-believers that they have to try to appear strong and confident, and so they end up defending desperate reductive materialistic explanations of everything. But why on earth do we have to pretend that we’ve pretty much figured everything out? I just find the whole thing ludicrous. 

A good example here is consciousness. It’s a very common idea among atheists that mindless matter, when arranged in very complicated ways, can somehow produce subjective experience. Now I personally cannot pretend to believe this. I really don’t know what to say about this issue. It could be that some seemingly crazy theory like panpsychism is actually correct. It just seems to me that more humility is needed. We don’t want to be accused of being fundamentalists who will desperately come up with anything in order to defend the worldview.

 Signature 

“Life is shit, but the graphics is good”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 06:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 10 July 2012 05:36 PM

Look around you and back to the beginning. It is all natural!

So is a piano, a car, a clock.


The only non natural condition that can be introduced as an argument is “before the beginning”

there cannot be a before where is no time. Its rather a question about what could be beyond the universe, or the big bang.

which itself is a contradiction in terms.
Even if we accepted a non natural pre condition, it ended at the beginning.

Only if there cannot exist something in a timeless dimension.

[ Edited: 10 July 2012 06:07 PM by Adonai888 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 06:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 10 July 2012 06:04 PM
Write4U - 10 July 2012 05:36 PM

Look around you and back to the beginning. It is all natural!

So is a piano, a car, a clock.


The only non natural condition that can be introduced as an argument is “before the beginning”

there cannot be a before where is no time. Its rather a question about what could be beyond the universe, or the big bang.

which itself is a contradiction in terms.
Even if we accepted a non natural pre condition, it ended at the beginning.

Only if there cannot exist something in a timeless dimension.

True, and that something is Potential. But as Potential is natural phenomena, it did not have to stop at the beginning. Look around you and back in time, everything is an expression, (the explicate) of potential, (the implicate).

btw. a piano is not a supernatural creation. The piano is already implicate in a tree (wood) and iron ore (steel) and the potential defined by in the natural law of harmonics.

And i’ll answer the next question before it is asked. The creation of the piano is by the natural skills (potential) of the craftsmen, convertiing the tree and iron ore into a musical instrument.

[ Edited: 10 July 2012 07:17 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: 10 July 2012 06:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2588
Joined  2011-04-24
dougsmith - 10 July 2012 01:05 PM
Adonai888 - 10 July 2012 08:51 AM

Evidence does not support your assertion.

Um, isolated quotes from fringe scientists are worthless in this kind of research. And by “fringe scientists” I mean scientists whose opinions are fringe—crank, even—like Linus Pauling’s nonsense about Vitamin C. The fact that he was a Nobel Prize winner is immaterial.

Yes, and even brilliant scientists can be wrong.

In other words Adonai888, a scientist who has religious feeling, does not equal proof that religious metaphysics are scientifically valid.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 07:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2588
Joined  2011-04-24
Adonai888 - 10 July 2012 02:35 PM
dougsmith - 10 July 2012 01:12 PM

For a more scientifically credible account of out-of-body experiences, see Skepdic on OBEs.

from your cited website:

My suspicion is that the neuroscientists are on the right track and that someday we will understand the pathology of the OBE.

thats a tipical biased view. First of all : how does the author know the phenomena has to do with pathology ?

secondly : it is more than clearly evidenced, that people have out of body experiences, since they are able afterwards to report things, they could report only, if they were actually present. A good example we can see here :

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands
Pim van Lommel, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, Ingrid Elfferich

Division of Cardiology, Hospital Rijnstate, Arnhem, Netherlands (P van Lommel MD); Tilburg, Netherlands (R van Wees PhD); Nijmegen, Netherlands (V Meyers PhD); and Capelle a/d Ijssel, Netherlands (I Elfferich PhD)

“During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the ‘crash car’. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: ‘Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are’. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: ‘Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.’ I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient’s prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man.”

Not really convincing evidence of OBE.

People can often accurately describe the look of surgical wards, ambulances, emergency rooms, ect. because many have seen these areas many times in their lives, the same with the actions of medical personell.

Also, many medical practitioners may be reigious/spiritual themselves, and may corroborate an OBE report for personal reasons.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 07:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

Are OBEs journeys into the supernatural?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 08:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 10 July 2012 06:22 PM

btw. a piano is not a supernatural creation.

true. but it was created. why should the universe not be created ?

Either the universe is eternal, or it had a beginning, and must have therefore a cause, since from absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-208/creation-believe-it-or-not-part-1

You see, when you abandon logic and logic says, “Oh, there’s a universe. Hum…somebody made it.” What else would logic say? “There’s a building, somebody made it. There’s a piano, somebody made it. There’s a universe, more complex than a building, infinitely more complex than a piano, somebody…somebody who is very, very powerful and very, very intelligent made it.”

You say, “No, no, chance made it.” Listen, folks, that’s rational suicide, that’s not logical. Logic abandoned leaves you with myth and the enemies of mythology, the enemies of mythology are empirical data and God-given reason. So in order to be an evolutionist and believe that chance makes things happen, you have to do two things: reject the empirical data, and be irrational. But if you love your sin enough, you’ll do it. You see, if you can just eliminate the empirical data, the evidence, and get rid of God-given logic and those two things are the essence of pure science, if you can get rid of those things then mythology runs wild. And as one writer said, “Chance is the new soft pillow for science to lie down on.” Arthur Kessler said, “As long as chance rules, God is an anachronism.” If chance rules, God can’t rule. Chance deposes God. The very existence of chance rips God from His sovereign throne.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 08:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 10 July 2012 08:15 PM
Write4U - 10 July 2012 06:22 PM

btw. a piano is not a supernatural creation.

true. but it was created. why should the universe not be created ?

Either the universe is eternal, or it had a beginning, and must have therefore a cause, since from absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-208/creation-believe-it-or-not-part-1

You see, when you abandon logic and logic says, “Oh, there’s a universe. Hum…somebody made it.” What else would logic say? “There’s a building, somebody made it. There’s a piano, somebody made it. There’s a universe, more complex than a building, infinitely more complex than a piano, somebody…somebody who is very, very powerful and very, very intelligent made it.”

The universe was created in a single moment of total mindless chaos, which after 14 billion years resulted in a 100 billion galaxies, each containing a hundred billion stars. Intelligent Design? Give me a break.

You say, “No, no, chance made it.” Listen, folks, that’s rational suicide, that’s not logical. Logic abandoned leaves you with myth and the enemies of mythology, the enemies of mythology are empirical data and God-given reason. So in order to be an evolutionist and believe that chance makes things happen, you have to do two things: reject the empirical data, and be irrational. But if you love your sin enough, you’ll do it. You see, if you can just eliminate the empirical data, the evidence, and get rid of God-given logic and those two things are the essence of pure science, if you can get rid of those things then mythology runs wild. And as one writer said, “Chance is the new soft pillow for science to lie down on.” Arthur Kessler said, “As long as chance rules, God is an anachronism.” If chance rules, God can’t rule. Chance deposes God. The very existence of chance rips God from His sovereign throne.

So we reached the stage of me being sinful because I don’t believe in your God, have we? What are you going to do about that, pray tell, kill me now?
btw. I agree with Kessler (not in meaning), God is an anachronism. Chance, if given sufficient time and trials, becomes certainty. If you want to perpetuate “it is written” be my guest, but you do not have the right to call me sinful. That makes you an arrogant asshole and is the most compelling evidence that your god is a false god.

[ Edited: 10 July 2012 09:19 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: 10 July 2012 11:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4377
Joined  2007-08-31
Dom1978 - 10 July 2012 06:03 PM
Axegrrl - 10 July 2012 12:14 AM

`
I don’t have an argument for you, just a general question to toss out there:

Why is there any need to commit to or ‘champion’ philosophical naturalism in the first place?  What’s wrong with just sticking with ‘this is what we have to work with until any compelling evidence comes along to suggest otherwise’?

I don’t think I know anyone (including every atheist/materialist i know) who is ‘committed’ to philosophical naturalism or feels the need to be.


`

I agree.

Isn’t it interesting that Adonai888 did not react on this posting? I assume it is because one can try to argument against metaphysical naturalism, but not against methodological naturalism: the view that we postpone our conclusions until we have empirical evidence.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 10
2