3 of 10
3
Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism
Posted: 10 July 2012 11:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6173
Joined  2009-02-26
GdB - 10 July 2012 11:40 PM
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.

I agree, but in the continued absence of evidence against metaphysical naturalism, at what point can we close the search for empirical evidence and say with high degree of confidence that everything is a result of the natural laws of Cause/Effect.
Are we obligated to keep the door open forever? IMO, that is not good science. Even Sherlock Holmes used the method and process of elimination of possibilities…...Just_Cuz_06.gif

[ Edited: 10 July 2012 11:58 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: 11 July 2012 03:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Write4U - 10 July 2012 11:50 PM

in the continued absence of evidence against metaphysical naturalism, at what point can we close the search for empirical evidence and say with high degree of confidence that everything is a result of the natural laws of Cause/Effect.
Are we obligated to keep the door open forever? IMO, that is not good science.

`
What’s wrong with keeping a door open as long as we don’t have an unequivocal answer/explanation for the thing in question?

How does ‘keeping a door open’ negatively affect anything?  To me, all that translates to is “working with the provisional conclusions we’ve arrived at, while staying ‘open’ to the possibility of new evidence

I’m not seeing any real ‘problem’ here.

`

 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: 11 July 2012 03:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6173
Joined  2009-02-26
Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 03:04 AM
Write4U - 10 July 2012 11:50 PM

in the continued absence of evidence against metaphysical naturalism, at what point can we close the search for empirical evidence and say with high degree of confidence that everything is a result of the natural laws of Cause/Effect.
Are we obligated to keep the door open forever? IMO, that is not good science.

`
What’s wrong with keeping a door open as long as we don’t have an unequivocal answer/explanation for the thing in question?

How does ‘keeping a door open’ negatively affect anything?  To me, all that translates to is “working with the provisional conclusions we’ve arrived at, while staying ‘open’ to the possibility of new evidence

I’m not seeing any real ‘problem’ here.

`

Nor do I in principle, but there must come a time where an informed decision can be made IMO. It’s not likely we will ever receive empirical evidence of a FSM. Should we keep the door open to that possibility as well?
In the absence of any identifiable properties, what is the difference?  The problem lies in the vagueness of the extraordinary claim.

[ Edited: 11 July 2012 03:35 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2012 04:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Write4U - 11 July 2012 03:32 AM

but there must come a time where an informed decision can be made IMO.

`
Of course.  Being open to new information doesn’t need to mean paralyzed-by-not-being-able-to-make-a-decision.  We work with what is ‘to the best of our current knowledge’ knowing that that could change/increase at any time.  That’s why I characterized it as ‘provisional’.

It’s not likely we will ever receive empirical evidence of a FSM. Should we keep the door open to that possibility as well?.

Why not?  what is lost or wasted or harmed by merely remaining open to possibilities?  by this i don’t mean we’re all required to dedicate time/deep thought to every hypothesis out there.  And it doesn’t mean that we should consider (much less give weight to) any unproven hypotheses in our decision making ~ it doesn’t really ‘require’ anything of us beyond being willing to listen to/consider any new evidence if/when it’s presented.

`

 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: 11 July 2012 04:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 10 July 2012 08:58 PM

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.

So what evidence do you have to back up your claim , it was a mindless chaotic process ? The expansion rate of the universe was finely tuned in a order of at least one to 10^60. How do you explain that ? Pure chance ? please explain.

So we reached the stage of me being sinful because I don’t believe in your God, have we?

Yes, that is the worst sin of the human being : to ignore its creator.

http://www.gotquestions.org/sin-God-not-forgive.html

Man must come to God through the Lord Jesus Christ alone. “Jesus said to him, ’I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’” (John 14:6). God’s forgiveness is available to all who will come (John 3:16), but for those who will not believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no forgiveness or remission of sin (Acts 10:43).

What are you going to do about that, pray tell, kill me now?

No, God has given us the command to love each other. That i am visiting this site, and exchanging with you, please do not understanding it as nothing else than motivated in love. I am willing to spend my precious time, and share with you about the most precious i have found in my life, which is God.

 

btw. I agree with Kessler (not in meaning), God is an anachronism. Chance, if given sufficient time and trials, becomes certainty.

A chance less than one to 10^50 is said to make it impossible a given event to happen. Chance, our life hosting universe to arise by chance, is less than one to 10^173.

That makes you an arrogant asshole and is the most compelling evidence that your god is a false god.

Sorry if you feel offended, but that is what i believe. I believe anyway that we humans are ALL sinners, i am included.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2012 08:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 03:04 AM

To me, all that translates to is “working with the provisional conclusions we’ve arrived at

Mind show the reasons or evidence for these provisional conclusions ?

[ Edited: 11 July 2012 08:23 AM by Adonai888 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2012 08:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
Adonai888 - 11 July 2012 04:34 AM

The expansion rate of the universe was finely tuned in a order of at least one to 10^60. How do you explain that ?

No evidence required, because the claim is not established.

Adonai888 - 11 July 2012 04:34 AM

Man must come to God through the Lord Jesus Christ alone. “Jesus said to him, ’I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’” (John 14:6). God’s forgiveness is available to all who will come (John 3:16), but for those who will not believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no forgiveness or remission of sin (Acts 10:43).

These claims are also not established. Indeed, they are, like the above claim, almost certainly false given our best present information. The Bible is a hodgepodge of history, myth and tall tales. Using it to establish the incredible is simply a broken epistemology.

Strange for someone who appears so interested in finding out the truth. But then, often that’s how it goes with the religiously credulous.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2012 10:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6173
Joined  2009-02-26
Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 04:27 AM
Write4U - 11 July 2012 03:32 AM

but there must come a time where an informed decision can be made IMO.

`
Of course.  Being open to new information doesn’t need to mean paralyzed-by-not-being-able-to-make-a-decision.  We work with what is ‘to the best of our current knowledge’ knowing that that could change/increase at any time.  That’s why I characterized it as ‘provisional’.

It’s not likely we will ever receive empirical evidence of a FSM. Should we keep the door open to that possibility as well?.

Why not?  what is lost or wasted or harmed by merely remaining open to possibilities?  by this i don’t mean we’re all required to dedicate time/deep thought to every hypothesis out there.  And it doesn’t mean that we should consider (much less give weight to) any unproven hypotheses in our decision making ~ it doesn’t really ‘require’ anything of us beyond being willing to listen to/consider any new evidence if/when it’s presented.

`

I don’t disagree with that, especially in view of the greater issues facing mankind. And I believe that calling someone sinful is an offense of hubris, which does not tend to create an atmosphere of cooperation and coexistence.
RevGlKing is an example of good will. He stated his case with humble authority and did not dwell on the issue of sin but on the issue and desirability of virtue. As a result he and I have had a very productive discussion, leading to a recognition of common virtues, not sins (of the spiritual kind).

[ Edited: 11 July 2012 02:03 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: 11 July 2012 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Adonai888 - 11 July 2012 08:21 AM
Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 03:04 AM

To me, all that translates to is “working with the provisional conclusions we’ve arrived at

Mind show the reasons or evidence for these provisional conclusions ?

`
Could you elaborate?  I’m not sure what you’re talking about specifically ~ I was just talking in general terms.

`


`

 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: 11 July 2012 02:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6173
Joined  2009-02-26
Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 01:49 PM
Adonai888 - 11 July 2012 08:21 AM
Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 03:04 AM

To me, all that translates to is “working with the provisional conclusions we’ve arrived at

Mind show the reasons or evidence for these provisional conclusions ?

`
Could you elaborate?  I’m not sure what you’re talking about specifically ~ I was just talking in general terms.

`

I’ll give one. This universe started with the BB about 13.6 billion years ago.

Adonai, do you maintain that this process happened in 6 earth days, 6000 years ago? And if so, do you really think that makes a more convincing argument in the face of overwhelming evidence against such a notion.

[ Edited: 11 July 2012 02:10 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: 11 July 2012 02:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6173
Joined  2009-02-26

Adonai888
So what evidence do you have to back up your claim , it was a mindless chaotic process ? The expansion rate of the universe was finely tuned in a order of at least one to 10^60. How do you explain that ? Pure chance ? please explain.

Gravity.

And in anticipation of the question of who created Gravity, my answer, it is an inherent property (potential) of mass. One might say that similar to the term “spacetime” one could fashion a term “massgravity”.

You seem to deny the existence of inherent qualities (potential) of things, but insist they were purposely “given” to things. Your foundation for argument here is “irreducible complexity”, which has also been disproven by science. The state of the current universe was an evolutionary process based on some fundamental universal constants. You keep insisting that those constants were personally created by an supernatural entity. Supernatural entity? Please explain its properties and why it would need to create thousands of billions of stars and their planets in order to create just one relatively young star with a planet fit for life and humans to evolve?

Sounds like a Darwinian evolutionary process to me. I personally am convinced there is other life on other planets in the universe, perhaps not human, but life nevertheless. In which case you would need to expand your understanding of god.
btw. The Vatican (Holy See) has accepted evolution as the way things work, but I suppose, if you are a non-catholic, you will reject their concession (clean up) as not acceptable in your backyard.

[ Edited: 11 July 2012 02:55 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: 11 July 2012 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2239
Joined  2007-04-26
Adonai888 - 11 July 2012 04:34 AM

Man must come to God through the Lord Jesus Christ alone. “Jesus said to him, ’I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’” (John 14:6). God’s forgiveness is available to all who will come (John 3:16), but for those who will not believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no forgiveness or remission of sin (Acts 10:43).

Chance, our life hosting universe to arise by chance, is less than one to 10^173.

The calculation of the odds that our universe would exist in a form that allowed life to form is flawed at its very core. Those odds are only accurate if the goal from the start was to create life. To illustrate take a look at a wild field untouched by man. In some areas there are grasses and in others there flowers. Other places grow mushrooms and yet others are barren. What are the odds that each plant would have landed in the exact area where conditions were conducive to its growth. If you count up the individual organisms and the total variety of places they could have ended up the odds are extremely remote and yet there they are. On the other hand if you consider this from a different angle nothing seems strange or remote at all. The plants and animals are where they are because the conditions in those places allowed them to grow there. It wasn’t chance at all, it was the natural outcome of the existing conditions. The same is true for our universe. The universe is not the way it is so that life can exist. Life exists because the universe is the way that it is. If the universal constants were different then life as we know it would not exist here, and we simply would not be here to discuss it. Perhaps life of another sort would exist here or maybe this universe would have been barren. There is no magic here, just simple and obvious logic.

On the flip side what do you think the odds are that Man just happened to be born with original sin that requires him to worship the god who told him about his original sin in the first place? Now that seems like a long shot if ever there was one. It is far more likely that the human creators of the old testament and the religions that arose from it put that in there to lock its believers into a life of servitude to them.

[ Edited: 11 July 2012 02:50 PM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2012 03:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6173
Joined  2009-02-26

And, IMO, McGiver’s excellent posit answers the question about Philosophical Naturalism.

[ Edited: 11 July 2012 03:05 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: 11 July 2012 04:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 01:49 PM
Adonai888 - 11 July 2012 08:21 AM
Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 03:04 AM

To me, all that translates to is “working with the provisional conclusions we’ve arrived at

Mind show the reasons or evidence for these provisional conclusions ?

`
Could you elaborate?  I’m not sure what you’re talking about specifically ~ I was just talking in general terms.

`


`

Its up to you ,elaborate , and show the reasons or evidence for these provisional conclusions that lead to philosophical naturalism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2012 04:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 11 July 2012 02:07 PM

I’ll give one. This universe started with the BB about 13.6 billion years ago.

Fantastic. We have a common opinion in this regard : the Universe had a beginning. What do you think might be the best explanation for the coming into existence of the universe through the Big Bang ?  What might have caused our universe into being ?

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 10
3