5 of 10
5
Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism
Posted: 12 July 2012 06:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2007-08-31
Axegrrl - 12 July 2012 06:07 AM
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.

`

He probably means this:

Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 03:04 AM

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

Adonai, read this carefully. Is Axegrrl talking about provisional conclusions about an object of research or about naturalism?

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 06:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15
Adonai888 - 12 July 2012 04:39 AM
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.

Grab the popcorn and let’s go to the movies:

Irreducible complexity cut down to size

Explaining how complexity can evolve. I refute bogus criticism of this video at: http://www.youtube.com ***YouTuber Underlings
by QualiaSoup | 6:16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU
~ ~ ~

Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked
A clip from the NOVA production, “Judgment Day.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY
~ ~ ~

Blown Out Of The Water: “Irreducible Complexity”

This is the second in the “Blown Out Of The Water” series, focusing on the already-discredited argument of irreducible complexity.
by DeltaAtheism | 10:52
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Tx6egn2TI

[ Edited: 12 July 2012 07:00 AM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 06:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
GdB - 12 July 2012 06:15 AM
Axegrrl - 12 July 2012 06:07 AM
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.

`

He probably means this:

Axegrrl - 11 July 2012 03:04 AM

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

Adonai, read this carefully. Is Axegrrl talking about provisional conclusions about an object of research or about naturalism?

`
I truly don’t mean to be unkind, but I’m seriously considering that English may not be his/her first language.

When everything I’ve said about philosophical naturalism has been the complete opposite of asserting its truth, one has to wonder.

`

 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 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26

Adonai888
The second law of thermodynamics is a check mate to this science fiction fantasy.

And you seek to replace it with a fairy tale which does not need to acknowledge any laws of physics.

But I was waiting for an answer to macgyver’s analysis. What makes you think that the universe was created for life? Obviously that was not the First intent in the mind of your creator. Perhaps a supernatural afterthought or natural evolution?

The problem here is that you reject the findings of science which have established that universal constants work in a completely neutral mathematical fashion, and insist on citing musings by pseudo scientists on a book written by shepherds, which assumes a loving, caring creator who made all this natural stuff.

So, in the absence of your narrative, let me try to interpret your position on all these matters.

—“Naturalism? no, no, no, can’t be, the second law of thermodynamics forbid the natural functions of the universe. Only when we assume a supernatural emotional, loving God, everything begins to make sense. I must be right, I just feel it in my bones and hear the sweet words of adoration in my head.

Maybe we live in a natural universe now, but when we die we go to heaven! That supernatural place where God will embrace His children and tuck them in at night, safe and sound. That, my poor deluded and scientifically indoctrinated friend, is the true nature and purpose of God.

Bless the Lord who was the living natural embodiment of our supernatural god!. He was a man born from a virgin, how else could he have been a man to begin with. If things were natural and scientific, a child born from a virgin would have been a clone of its mother and female. But in my fairytale I need not question these things, they are Supernatural in origin and that makes everything just the way it is. Don’t make me call you sinner, God and I love you too much!

Just believe in the supernatural fairytale and all will be set right”.—

Am I close?  If not, please guide me through the entire process step by step. From supernatural to natural and back to supernatural again.

[ Edited: 12 July 2012 11:28 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: 12 July 2012 07:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 12 July 2012 11:16 AM

And you seek to replace it with a fairy tale which does not need to acknowledge any laws of physics.

I believe God to be the CREATOR of the laws of physics.

But I was waiting for an answer to macgyver’s analysis. What makes you think that the universe was created for life? Obviously that was not the First intent in the mind of your creator.

So what was it then ?

The problem here is that you reject the findings of science which have established that universal constants work in a completely neutral mathematical fashion

What shall that mean ?

, and insist on citing musings by pseudo scientists on a book written by shepherds, which assumes a loving, caring creator who made all this natural stuff.

If it was not made by God, how did it came to be ?

—“Naturalism? no, no, no, can’t be, the second law of thermodynamics forbid the natural functions of the universe.

I have not made this assertion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 07:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Axegrrl - 12 July 2012 06:11 AM
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.

`


ok. bye bye…..


Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”


Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p.125.

The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life… It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 08:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Axegrrl - 12 July 2012 06:07 AM
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.

`

see your post no.32

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.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 10:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2007-08-31

And you better read post 61.

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 11:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 12 July 2012 07:56 PM
Write4U - 12 July 2012 11:16 AM

And you seek to replace it with a fairy tale which does not need to acknowledge any laws of physics.

I believe God to be the CREATOR of the laws of physics.

Bohm calls it “insight intelligence”, but he was not talking about your god at all. And he knew a thng or two about how it really works.

But I was waiting for an answer to macgyver’s analysis. What makes you think that the universe was created for life? Obviously that was not the First intent in the mind of your creator.

So what was it then ?

  There was no intent to create life at all, let alone human life. As macgyver said the conditions for life evolved naturally in the course of the evolution of the universe.

The problem here is that you reject the findings of science which have established that universal constants work in a completely neutral mathematical fashion

What shall that mean ?

I am afraid that your god , any god, has no emotional investment in the universe and its infinite variety of expression. Which makes any attempt to “contact” a God, a FSM, a Potential field futile and a waste of time. If your delusion makes you happy, great. But I believe more in the conscious intelligence of a slug than in the conscious intelligence of the universe.

, and insist on citing musings by pseudo scientists on a book written by shepherds, which assumes a loving, caring creator who made all this natural stuff.

If it was not made by God, how did it came to be ?

Potential. Potential equals your god in every respect except for emotion and motive.

—“Naturalism? no, no, no, can’t be, the second law of thermodynamics forbid the natural functions of the universe.

I have not made this assertion.

Yes you did (see #56).

I am intrigued by your omission of the last part of my mind meld with you.  Any explanation how Jesus came to be male?
Wait…..(placing two fingers to my temple)  ...... ah yes,.. “as the creator of natural laws, God can change these laws anytime he sees fit. In the case of Jesus God changed Mary’s DNA and gave her a double set of chromosomes. It is all part of fine tuning the universe for human life” and spreading the good word.
Pretty good huh?  I am an Empath and I “know things”.......vahidrk.gif

[ Edited: 13 July 2012 12:49 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: 13 July 2012 12:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Adonai888 - 12 July 2012 08:03 PM

see your post no.32

 

`
Re-read one of the quotes you offered:  “the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life

‘Seem to’ certainly doesn’t equal “fact”.  Neither you nor anyone else in the world can say that “it’s a fact that the variables in the universe have been finely adjusted with the intent of making life possible”.

If you’d said, ‘the fine tuning argument seems plausible to me’, that would be a different thing entirely ~ and something I would definitely ‘keep the door open’ to…...but stating that a speculative hypothesis is ‘fact’ reveals an egregious lacking in your critical thinking skills.  That, or wilful ignorance/dishonesty.

Either way, it ain’t good.

`

 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: 13 July 2012 12:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Adonai888 - 12 July 2012 08:03 PM

see your post no.32

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.

`
And with that, you still haven’t addressed what I’ve asked of you.

Which was:  point to where I’ve asserted that there are provisional conclusions that lead to philosophical naturalism.

Quoting my own words back to me, words that make absolutely NO mention of philosophical naturalism at all, is a complete non sequitur.

Show me where I’ve asserted that any conclusions (provisional or otherwise) lead to or substantiate philosophical naturalism. 
Anywhere.

Can you do that?  Can you just respond to that very simple request?

 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: 13 July 2012 12:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14
Adonai888 - 12 July 2012 07:56 PM
Write4U - 12 July 2012 11:16 AM

 

, and insist on citing musings by pseudo scientists on a book written by shepherds, which assumes a loving, caring creator who made all this natural stuff.

If it was not made by God, how did it came to be ?.

`
Are you seriously offering the argument from ignorance here as a response?

The argument from ignorance/incredulity is categorized as a ‘fallacy’ for very good reason ~ do you understand why?

Do you understand that “how else could it have happened?” does not bolster your argument or any argument?

`

 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: 13 July 2012 12:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14

`
Ponder this Adonais888:

“Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day’s tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in - mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can’t get you; in front of him there’s the forest - it’s got nuts and berries and delicious food; there’s a stream going by, which is full of water - water’s delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here’s cousin Ug and he’s caught a mammoth - mammoth’s are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it’s fantastic…..

Man the maker looks at his world and says ‘So who made this then?’ Who made this? - you can see why it’s a treacherous question. Early man thinks, ‘Well, because there’s only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he’s probably male’. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , ‘If he made it, what did he make it for?’ Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, ‘This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely’ and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ “

-Douglas Adams

 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: 13 July 2012 01:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26
citizenschallenge.pm - 12 July 2012 06:16 AM
Adonai888 - 12 July 2012 04:39 AM
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.

Grab the popcorn and let’s go to the movies:

Irreducible complexity cut down to size

Explaining how complexity can evolve. I refute bogus criticism of this video at: http://www.youtube.com ***YouTuber Underlings
by QualiaSoup | 6:16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU
~ ~ ~

Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked
A clip from the NOVA production, “Judgment Day.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY
~ ~ ~

Blown Out Of The Water: “Irreducible Complexity”

This is the second in the “Blown Out Of The Water” series, focusing on the already-discredited argument of irreducible complexity.
by DeltaAtheism | 10:52
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Tx6egn2TI

Good stuff, especially Dawkins closing comments in link #3. I also love the unambiguos refutation of the bacterial flagellum as examples of irreducible complexity.

[ Edited: 13 July 2012 01:34 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: 13 July 2012 01:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14

Please show me how irreducible complexity has been disproven.

`
Anything that hasn’t been proven doesn’t need to be disproven.

Garden faeries haven’t been disproven….....the flying spaghetti monster hasn’t been disproven…......Thor hasn’t been disproven…..which puts all of them on the same footing as irreducible complexity. 

Well done!

`

 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
 
 
   
5 of 10
5