4 of 10
4
Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism
Posted: 11 July 2012 05:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  220
Joined  2011-10-01

It’s funny how fundamentalists unquestioningly accept things like the big bang theory and fine tuning because they fit in with their worldview, but as soon as you get something like evolutionary theory, which doesn’t fit in with their worldview, they turn into radical post-modern skeptics of science.

 Signature 

“Life is shit, but the graphics is good”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2012 05:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Adonai888 - 11 July 2012 04:27 PM
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.

`
Uhm, why is it up to me to elaborate on an assertion that I didn’t even make??  Did you not read my very first post in this thread?  Where I specifically said:

“Why is there any need to commit to or ‘champion’ philosophical naturalism in the first place?  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 have never asserted that there are ‘provisional conclusions that lead to philosophical naturalism’.

`

 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 05:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Adonai888 - 11 July 2012 04:29 PM

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 ?

`
What if it isn’t really possible to determine what is the ‘best’ explanation for something like that?

Nobody knows what ‘caused’ the universe to come into existence, because no one knows anything about the conditions that existed ‘before’ the Big Bang.  Therefore, any ‘explanation’ will be inherently speculative ~ as such, how can anyone determine which speculation is the ‘best’ one’?

`

 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 06:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6055
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 11 July 2012 04:29 PM
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 ?

I have already stated my opinion. Potential (which was completely ignored by you). Potential, “a latent excellence which may become reality”  Others here have heard and discussed it many times before. To them I apologize.
I arrived at this postulate on my own but I was very pleased to find confirmation in David Bohm’s (quantum physicist) theory of the Implicate and the Explicate.

Below is a synopsis, better and more authoritative than mine.

The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.’ Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal

I am confident that the term “insight intelligence” does not indicate a supernatural or intentional God, but is a natural metaphysical state or condition of cosmological and universal constants (potentials), such as Cause /Effect, Action=Reaction, Conservation of Energy, E=Mc^2, and Pi. The list is long, but none of the universal constants are sentient. This has not been a generally accepted theory, but recent scientific discoveries and field theories seem to point more and more to such a possible pre-condition to the universe itself.

But I can see where theists confuse this Implicate state with an intelligent, purposeful god. It seems to work flawlessly and consistently with absolute neutral mathematical precision, but therein lies the rub. These are attributes which cannot be assigned to an emotional god or his creative and destructive endeavors as described in the Abrahamic texts and scriptures.

If you want to delve more deeply into this read:
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#CONTENTS:

[ Edited: 12 July 2012 12:39 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 11:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15370
Joined  2006-02-14
Dom1978 - 11 July 2012 05:10 PM

It’s funny how fundamentalists unquestioningly accept things like the big bang theory and fine tuning because they fit in with their worldview, but as soon as you get something like evolutionary theory, which doesn’t fit in with their worldview, they turn into radical post-modern skeptics of science.

Yep, either that or they start quoting every fringe and crank scientist they can find. One might almost think they have some other motive than finding the truth ...

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2012 11:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4298
Joined  2010-08-15
Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 05:13 PM
Adonai888 - 11 July 2012 04:27 PM
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.

`
Uhm, why is it up to me to elaborate on an assertion that I didn’t even make??  Did you not read my very first post in this thread?  Where I specifically said:

“Why is there any need to commit to or ‘champion’ philosophical naturalism in the first place?  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 have never asserted that there are ‘provisional conclusions that lead to philosophical naturalism’.

`

smiley-eatdrink004.gif

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 04:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 11 July 2012 02:24 PM

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.

Please show me how irreducible complexity has been disproven.

 

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.

This thread is about YOU showing a reasonable alternative to a fine-tuner.

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?

Personally, i believe, God created all the galaxies and stars just for his glory and pleasure. But if you want a more scientific answer, here it goes :

http://www.firstscience.com/<a class=“inlineAdmedialink” href=”#”>home</a>/articles/big-theories/recipe-for-the-universe-just-six-numbers-page-2-1_1230.html

The tremendous timespans involved in biological evolution offer a new perspective on the question ‘why is our Universe so big?’ The emergence of human life here on <a class=“inlineAdmedialink” href=”#”>Earth</a> has taken 4.5 billion years. Even before our Sun and its planets could form, earlier stars must have transmuted pristine hydrogen into carbon, oxygen and the other atoms of the periodic table. This has taken about ten billion years. The size of the observable Universe is, roughly, the distance travelled by light since the Big Bang, and so the present visible Universe must be around ten billion light-years across.
The galaxy pair NGC 6872 and IC 4970 indicate the vastness of the Universe. Light from the bright foreground star has taken a few centuries to reach us; the <a class=“inlineAdmedialink” href=”#”>light</a> from the galaxies has been travelling for 300 million years. The Universe must be this big - as measured by the cosmic number N - to give intelligent life time to evolve. In addition, the cosmic numbers omega and Q must have just the right values for galaxies to form at all.
This is a startling conclusion. The very hugeness of our Universe, which seems at first to signify how unimportant we are in the cosmic scheme, is actually entailed by our existence! This is not to say that there couldn’t have been a smaller universe, only that we could not have existed in it. The expanse of cosmic space is not an extravagant superiority; it’s a consequence of the prolonged chain of events, extending back before our Solar System formed, that preceded our arrival on the scene.
This may seem a regression to an ancient ‘anthropocentric’ perspective - something that was shattered by Copernicus’s revelation that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than vice versa. But we shouldn’t take Copernican modesty (some-times called the ‘principle of mediocrity’) too far. Creatures like us require special conditions to have evolved, so our perspective is bound to be in some sense atypical. The vastness of our universe shouldn’t surprise us, even though we may still seek a deeper explanation for its distinctive features.

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.


http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t232-life-on-other-planets-a-real-possibility

In the 1960s the odds that any given planet in the universe would possess the necessary conditions to support intelligent physical life were shown to be less than one in ten thousand.5 In 2001 those odds shrank to less than one in a number so large it might as well be infinity (10^173)

 

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.

adaptation within the species to the environment ( microevolution ) is a fact. The proponents of Evolution still need to provide compelling evidence, that can be extrapolated to change above species (macroevolution ) So far, that hypotheses has remained just a theory.

[ Edited: 12 July 2012 04:42 AM by Adonai888 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 04:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Dom1978 - 11 July 2012 05:10 PM

It’s funny how fundamentalists unquestioningly accept things like the big bang theory

Who told you i accept the BB without questioning ? There are many flaws in this theory. One of them is star and planet formation. The provided answers are pseudo-science at best. Nobody knows for sure how planets and stars formed for sure. Dark matter is another one. Why do we not observe galaxies forming, why are they all ” ready ” or ” finished ” ? etc etc….. many questions remain open.

and fine tuning because they fit in with their worldview

the fine-tuning is a proven fact. why should we question it ?

, but as soon as you get something like evolutionary theory, which doesn’t fit in with their worldview, they turn into radical post-modern skeptics of science.

Should we accept , what has many flaws , and unproven assertions ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 04:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 05:13 PM

Uhm, why is it up to me to elaborate on an assertion that I didn’t even make??

well , you actually did. Do you not even aknowledge your own writings ?

“Why is there any need to commit to or ‘champion’ philosophical naturalism in the first place?  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.”

this thread is adressed to who endorses this world view. If you are a strong atheist, which believe, God most probably does not exist, than you become automatically a naturalist ( which believes, the natural world ( aka the universe ) is all that exists.

I have never asserted that there are ‘provisional conclusions that lead to philosophical naturalism’.

read your own posts….. or maibe you have a short memory ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 04:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 05:20 PM
Adonai888 - 11 July 2012 04:29 PM

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 ?

[color=white]`[/color]
What if it isn’t really possible to determine what is the ‘best’ explanation for something like that?

Nobody knows what ‘caused’ the universe to come into existence, because no one knows anything about the conditions that existed ‘before’ the Big Bang.  Therefore, any ‘explanation’ will be inherently speculative ~ as such, how can anyone determine which speculation is the ‘best’ one’?

`

There were no physical conditions, since there did nothing physical exist.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t132-the-kalam-cosmological-argument

the universe must have been caused to exist. But caused by what? Some object that the first cause need not be God, but was rather an impersonal in nature. There are, however, good reasons to believe that the cause of the universe was a personal cause with attributes that closely resemble a monotheistic conception of God.

Firstly, it must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused. Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Interestingly enough, this also lends credibility to the notion that the cause was personal, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 04:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 11 July 2012 06:29 PM
Adonai888 - 11 July 2012 04:29 PM
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 ?

I have already stated my opinion. Potential (which was completely ignored by you). Potential, “a latent excellence which may become reality”  Others here have heard and discussed it many times before. To them I apologize.
I arrived at this postulate on my own but I was very pleased to find confirmation in David Bohm’s (quantum physicist) theory of the Implicate and the Explicate.

Below is a synopsis, better and more authoritative than mine.

The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.’ Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal

I am confident that the term “insight intelligence” does not indicate a supernatural or intentional God, but is a natural metaphysical state or condition of cosmological and universal constants (potentials), such as Cause /Effect, Action=Reaction, Conservation of Energy, E=Mc^2, and Pi. The list is long, but none of the universal constants are sentient. This has not been a generally accepted theory, but recent scientific discoveries and field theories seem to point more and more to such a possible pre-condition to the universe itself.

But I can see where theists confuse this Implicate state with an intelligent, purposeful god. It seems to work flawlessly and consistently with absolute neutral mathematical precision, but therein lies the rub. These are attributes which cannot be assigned to an emotional god or his creative and destructive endeavors as described in the Abrahamic texts and scriptures.

If you want to delve more deeply into this read:
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#CONTENTS:

The second law of thermodynamics is a check mate to this science fiction fantasy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 05:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Adonai888 - 12 July 2012 04:53 AM
Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 05:20 PM
Adonai888 - 11 July 2012 04:29 PM

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 ?

`
What if it isn’t really possible to determine what is the ‘best’ explanation for something like that?

Nobody knows what ‘caused’ the universe to come into existence, because no one knows anything about the conditions that existed ‘before’ the Big Bang.  Therefore, any ‘explanation’ will be inherently speculative ~ as such, how can anyone determine which speculation is the ‘best’ one’?

`

There were no physical conditions, since there did nothing physical exist.

`
Wow, your very first comment is a completely unsupported assertion.

To review/recap: none of us knows about the conditions ‘before’ the Big Bang. So you’re simply not justified in asserting that “nothing physical exist(ed)”.

`

 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: 12 July 2012 05:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Axegrrl - 12 July 2012 05:30 AM
Adonai888 - 12 July 2012 04:53 AM
Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 05:20 PM
Adonai888 - 11 July 2012 04:29 PM

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 ?

[color=white]`[/color]
What if it isn’t really possible to determine what is the ‘best’ explanation for something like that?

Nobody knows what ‘caused’ the universe to come into existence, because no one knows anything about the conditions that existed ‘before’ the Big Bang.  Therefore, any ‘explanation’ will be inherently speculative ~ as such, how can anyone determine which speculation is the ‘best’ one’?

`

There were no physical conditions, since there did nothing physical exist.

`
Wow, your very first comment is a completely unsupported assertion.

To review/recap: none of us knows about the conditions ‘before’ the Big Bang. So you’re simply not justified in asserting that “nothing physical exist(ed)”.

`

you are correct. I will rephrase : MOST PROBABLY nothing physical existed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 06:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Adonai888 - 12 July 2012 04:50 AM
Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 05:13 PM

Uhm, why is it up to me to elaborate on an assertion that I didn’t even make??

well , you actually did. Do you not even aknowledge your own writings ?

`
I’ll take your question in earnest (despite the fact it screams poe).....

Please DO point to where I asserted that ‘there are ‘provisional conclusions that lead to philosophical naturalism’.

Please do point to where I defend the assertion of philosophical naturalism.

`

 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: 12 July 2012 06:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Adonai888 - 12 July 2012 04:46 AM

the fine-tuning is a proven fact.

`

*facepalm*

and with that, I’m inclined to not waste any more time engaging you seriously.

`

 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
 
 
   
4 of 10
4