Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound

Post Reply New Topic

The first or second sentence?

Evidence is interpreted in the light of what is already known. Don't tell me you didn't know this!

Scientists make claims, 'science' does not. Science itself is merely the method we use, not the beliefs we hold. A belief may be considered to be scientific if it was arrived at via the method. However, this, in and of itself, does not therefore mean that the so-called humanities subjects are therefore useless or irrelevant, simply because the facts they relate to us were not uncovered this way.

Clear?

Where has 'The Walrus' gone? Maybe he is busy, but he DID say that the cosmological arguments were useless and wrong, easily refuted and a joke.

Well... come on then. Refute them. Explain to me why I am wrong to even take them seriously. I expect a well-argued, concise and cogent refutation. Start with the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, that's one of the better ones. It goes something like this:

1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause [A version of PSR - that's the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason'].
2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3) The universe exists.
4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4).

This is from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/leibnizs ... nd-the-psr

Ok, I'll start off to help you along. Premise two is presumptuous, or at least it appears that way. Why must the explanation be God? Well, that is due to how the concept of God is actually defined in the first place. That is, it (not 'He' - silly anthropomorphism) has certain... 'characteristics', let's call them, that simply must apply if we are to consider the idea at all seriously, and if the concept is to have any value at all to us. For instance, it must contain within itself the reason for why it is; that is, it must be a necessary entity that is as essential to us as mathematical truths like, 'All triangles have three sides'. A triangle is what it is, and is defined to be the way it is, for that is how the concept is understood by us. (This is why it is silly to ask, 'If God is omnipotent, can he create a triangle with four sides?' Omnipotence does NOT include the ability to do the logically impossible). Mathematical truths are absolute, non-contingent, and are what they are irrespective of all else.

'God' must also, in order to qualify for the 'job description', be transcendent. The laws of nature cannot confine it, for the laws themselves were created by 'God'. God does not exist within the universe, for the same reasons why a painter will not be found on the canvas, a novelist will not be a character within the novel.

'An actual infinity of moments cannot be traversed' - J. P. Moreland. Yes, he is a Christian theist, but he is still right about this. There must be something, and it doesn't matter if we call it 'God', that really is timeless and immaterial, for our physical reality certainly is not. Saying that 'oh, it just popped into being from nothing', or 'we believe reality to be inexplicable'... well, both of these answers are just plain stupid, and I need not take them at all seriously.

So... God is the timeless and immaterial substrate that supports physical reality, without which there really would exist nothing, that is the ultimate explanation for all we know (because it short-circuits the infinite regress problem), and which cannot not exist, for it is necessary and therefore has no causal agent.

So if I understand you correctly God need not be sentient. Rather it just needs to fulfil a purpose.

That's logical and transcendent..

Interesting, how many humans through history

have come to similar conclusions, independently.

Obviously, in some way it is an inherent human ability, too,

to come to these similar conclusions about

existence.

And truly that's just common sense, for folks who have it.

But without a doubt, not all humans share that ability, equally,

AS documentation here does tell A fuller
story of that; I for one, have seen anywhere.

It's quite a challenge to communicate 'common sense'

here at all.

But I like challenges...

And truly as irrefutable fact and metaphor
THAT is the '8888 LB Gorilla' sitting square in
the middle of this forum, for now at least...

And heck no; that's certainly not directed at any
one person here, alone.

And only experience can TEACH THAT.

Overall, it's a so-called 'left-brain' 'limitation',

where math and verbal abilities often excel to greatness,
and interpretive skills associated with human 'right-brain'
potential often do 'miserably FAIL'.

I AM NOT A WORD PERSON,

overall, (believe that or not);

BUT HELL YES,

I AM A 'RIGHT-BRAIN', 'DUDE'..

Give me a complex abstract human

emotional oriented code, AKA human metaphor,

and I WILL break IT down..AND EXPAND IT TOO..

I suggest, Arty, that you are not understanding anything. You're flailing about looking for red herrings and straw men.

Whether or not the necessary uncaused First Cause is sentient or not has not yet been approached in this discussion, nor is it particularly relevant to whether Naturalism is philosophically sound or unsound.

However, a good logical case can be made which requires that the First Cause is also necessarily sentient.

I think you're jumping to conclusions that may well be quite right but are not shown to proceed from sure premises. To logically prove something you must have a sure and certain premise against which to test it (as in scientific method) for it to be "philosophically sound".

Please elucidate

No. Let's deal with the matters in hand and first.

For one thing, I will contend that any empirical "proof" will have some element(s) of uncertainty (commonly called experimental error) owing to the very nature of measurements and the great variety of unavoidable external influences always present.

In philosophy, however, if you start with a certain, sure, (as in "Established beyond doubt or question; definitely known" (dictionary definition)) premise(s) and you make no errors of logic the result is also certain and can be another premise for another investigation.

Now comes the bit that is positively detested by egomaniacs who like to think that they can start with any remotely plausible assumption (premise) that will lead to the answer they are seeking.

The chain of conclusions/premises must come from, and never contradict some very basic premise(s) that we will call "self-evident". A basic self-evident truth is one where a proposition has only one alternative which is its contrary and that contrary is self-contradictory and thus absurd. The first, and most basic, prime example of which is "I exist".

Whoever can, or whoever will, think about that for a while.

I don't mind trying to put some of these basic common sense matters into words that can be analysed and understood by anyone willing to do so but I get pissed off going to some trouble to explain something only to have it dismissed with some fatuous irrelevant assertion.

I will continue if there is some intelligent interest in the subject.

Surprise surprise, once again when asked to back up a statement David refuses to do.so. this time it is for the noble cause of keeping a thread on subject. Thing is real excuse or not David always refuses to back up his claims.

No doubt if he responds to this post it will be some sort of asinine put down or a rework of the above pust.

Just pathetic David. You clearly do not have the courage of your own convictions to put the rationale for your beliefs up for public scrutiny.

It depends on what you mean by complimentary alternatives. Are you suggesting that there are other methods of "knowing" that are verifiable without observation and experiment, are you suggesting that there are other methods to accurately predict future events, or to predict what should exist and where to find it? If you are then please elaborate.

If you are referring to anecdotal evidence, then if used in conjunction with what we know to be plausible, then I agree that we can get an idea from this kind of evidence. However if someone or a group say they experienced an event that appears to contravene the known laws of nature, do I think this should be taken at face value with no corroborating evidence? No I don't. to do so would be to ignore all that we know of hallucination, group hysteria, etc.

A good example of appropriate use of anecdotal evidence is in the field of herbal medicine. Whilst there are many concoctions that are nothing but snake oil, there are other remedies that although there have not been rigorous double blind studies, it can be reasonably stated that they work, Chamomile for sleep and pain for example. But this anecdotal evidence does have some observational corroborating evidence.

Every time studies have been done on supernatural claims, eg clairvoyance. They (the claims) have never been verified.

I'd say it's a measure of both. From my perspective, the discussion is bogged down by circular reasoning and unsubstantiated claims - but I can accept the possibility that comprehension failures are a factor too.



Let me stop you there. We've entered the realm of knowledge vs belief, which is something of a red herring. Characterising atheists as materialists is wrong in the first instance. Do you wish to argue against materialism or for the existence of a god or gods?



That depends entirely on the branch of naturalism these alleged naturalists subscribe to. If you're arguing against baseline naturalism, all you need to demonstrate is that supernatural forces can affect the natural world. If you're arguing against hardline naturalism, you need to demonstrate that supernatural forces exist in the first place.



Well no. It hasn't been scientifically demonstrated to be untrue - which is not even remotely the same thing.



How have you arrived at this conclusion? The scientific method is perfectly adequate as a means of measuring whether supernatural forces can operate in the natural world.



Please elaborate on this.



What is a scientistic assertion? Who made this assertion? The test of the scientific method is in its results and in the self-correction of science. Knowledge and understanding are found in the refinement of ideas, not the dismissal of findings that you find ideologically incompatible with your philosophical worldview.



You haven't really demonstrated that this is the case.



What useful discoveries have been made starting with the idea that "nothing is objectively real"?



So your position is effectively "You cannot prove that you are not a construct of a solipsist fantasy therefore God exists"? And you're arguing that the scientific method, rather than philosophy, is the wrong tool for the job?



If you stop there, you and I can simply agree and move on. The degree of plausibility is irrelevant if neither of us is making a positive claim.



You don't "know" anything. Solipsist construct, remember?



Now we've arrived at the heart of the matter. One does not study apples to disprove the existence of oranges. Rather, one examines the specifics of the positive claim that is made. It would be irrational to begin with "God may or may not exist" and then go on to claim that a specific god, with specific characteristics, positively exists.



Define what you mean by "atheistic arguments that work". Explain why you believe the LCA is credible. You're not really making a case to be argued against here.



God exists, YouTube theists like to proclaim, whilst at the same time asserting that all other gods are fictional and that the true path to enlightenment and truth can only be found if you follow their specific deity.

Seriously, you're suggesting that Youtubers are somehow representative of atheists? Why should we care about the claims of vloggers? Are these vloggers making a genuine positive claim, or are they simplifying their position for effect? Are they making a genuine argument or is "God does not exist" shorthand for "I have yet to be convinced of the existence of any specific deity"? Are they making a philosophical statement on the nature of existence? What does any of this have to do with materialism or naturalism?



A sentient First Cause is central to the argument put forward, as it's an essential component of the LCA. Perhaps you've failed to understand the "matters in hand"?

It's time to either piss or get off the pot.

Science succeeds. Philosophy fails....

'Science succeeds. Philosophy fails....'

And truly, if a person is a human being, per humanity and a full emotional life, science FAILS AT ACCURATELY MEASURING THE EXPERIENCE OF HUMAN BEING, AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN HEART/SOUL, IS THE IRREFUTABLE WINNER, IN FACT,
EVIDENCED AS SUCH BY ME.

AND TRULY WHEN THE DUST HITS THE ROAD AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE IS EITHER 'SOUL/HEART' OR NOT, or 'sum' approximation of IT.

AND YOU MY FRIEND, HAVE BEEN 'COLD HEARTED/SOULED' ENOUGH

TO STATE THAT IT IS YOUR OFFSPRING'S PROBLEM IF THEY AREN'T STRONG ENOUGH TO PULL THEIR BOOT-STRAPS UP IN potential future, TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES. To be clear you suggested that in words to that effect and LACK OF 'affect'.

And truly that IS A MEASURE OF 'SOUL/HEART', IN WHAT IT EVEN FRIGGING MEANS, IN HUMAN METAPHOR.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, there is NO WAY YOU CAN POSSIBLY more fully UNDERSTAND WHAT I JUST ASSERTED, AS IT MAKES little to NO SENSE WITHOUT A 'SOUL', OR A tiny one like the Grinch before he grows one 10 TIMES BIGGER THAN THE AVERAGE GRINCH, like me...

AND that MEANS unconditional LOVE, where empathy and love is the prize for all, whether OTHERS are strong or not, OR CANNOT PULL THEIR FRIGGING BOOT-STRAPS UP WHEN THEY ARE WEAK, and or experiencing tough times, for economic or health reasons.

And frigging HELL YES, IT EXISTS, FOR FOLKS WHO CAN SIMPLY AND COMPLEXLY FEEL THE NUANCES OF IT, per fully experiencing WHAT HUMANITY CAN BE; SOUL/HEART THAT IS. YES, 'HUMANITY METAPHORS' INCLUDE HEART, AND THE EXPRESSION OF HEART AND/OR SOUL IN HUMAN SPIRIT.

AND FRIGGING HELL NO, SCIENCE HAS NO TOOL TO ACCURATELY MEASURE A SOUL, HEART, OR EVEN SPIRIT;

The Human Soul, Heart, and spirit, is a non-repeatable 'experiment', and an experience that varies AT LEAST AS MUCH, AS frigging snowflakes between each human being, OR FRIGGING FINGER PRINTS, as it is NEVER EVER IDENTICAL.

BUT SURE SCIENCE CAN MEASURE A FINGER PRINT, AS IT IS OBSERVABLE, WHEREAS EMOTIONS ARE EXPERIENCED INTERNALLY, AND WHEN NOT EXPRESSED THROUGH SOME MEANS OF COMMUNICATION, VERBALLY OR NON-VERBALLY, ARE FOR PRACTICAL INTENTS AND PURPOSES FRIGGING INVISIBLE,

OR THAT METAPHOR NAMED 'SUPER-NATURAL'; I mean DUH, common sense friend, with or without-out that ONE COULD ONLY 'HOPE' I GUESS,

AND only IF THEY EXPERIENCE THE EMOTION OF HOPE.

NAH, THIS AIN'T THE STUFF FOR THE WIMPY SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO FIGURE OUT.

IN FACT, NO 'ROBOT' WILL EVER BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING 'INVISIBLE' LIKE HUMAN EMOTIONS, EXPERIENCED INTERNALLY THAT ACTUALLY, can be measured partially by the actions HUMAN internal EMOTION EMOTES;

OTHERWISE KNOWN AS HUMAN COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE EMPATHY EXPERIENCED INTERNALLY AND EXPRESSED FULLER FOR ALL OTHERS; again the HUMAN metaphors of heart and soul, expressed as SPIRIT.

BUT words and cognitive empathy EXPRESSED do give an 'indication' for those of us, WITH A SOUL/HEART, TO DISCERN IF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING HAS A HEART/SOUL FULLER EXPERIENCED AND EXPRESSED, IN THE METAPHOR OF HUMAN SPIRIT.

AND WITH A REALLY BIG HEART/SOUL, A FIFTY THREE YEAR OLD FIVE-YEAR SHUT-IN MAN CAN PROGRESS TO what folks in his local METRO area call a LEGEND OF DANCE, AND PRESS 930 LBS, 14 TIMES SLOWLY, WITH HIS LEGS, over a period of 87 seconds, LIKE A 'NINJA' WITH his hands raised over his head, AT AGE 54.

AND YES, the only person in the entire world now, in the land of Google, who can DO 930LBS THIS WAY; THAT YOU CAN FIND THE EVIDENCE FOR WITH A SIMPLE google SEARCH ON THE TERM, '930 LBS'. NO ONE CAN DO HEAVY LEG PRESSES LIKE THIS, evidenced as such, in the BIG GOOGLE 'WORLD RECORD BOOK', WITH THEIR HANDS RAISED IN THE AIR, as most people use their arms for leverage, to do 'amazing' feats of foot like this....

And in case you haven't perused THAT EVIDENCE, I WILL PROVIDE THAT EVIDENCE AGAIN HERE. I do not want to trouble you with a search..

THAT MY FRIEND IS GENERATED BY HEART/SOUL, NOT A FRIGGING WIMPY SCIENCE TEXTBOOK...... OR A BONY SCIENTIFIC METHOD..

YES, THIS IS AN EXPRESSION IN SPIRIT OF HOW BIG MY SOUL/HEART IS; ENJOY, IF you can or will...



CASE CLOSED..

for now..

And as, I have stated once before with you; you once asked Alex here how he got connected to gorgeous gals in photos here.

I'll show ya how it's done friend, with some pointers, and over 200 photos of gorgeous gals for photographic evidence, in case you have not perused or pursued that evidence.

http://katiemiafrederick.com/2014/12/09/gods-muse-of-dance/

Yes, human heart and soul, FULLY EXPRESSED LIKE I DO IT, IN THE HUMAN SPIRIT OF DANCE IN NON-VERBAL DANCE, HAS ITS BENEFITS, LIKE A FRIGGING TITANIUM CREDIT CARD THAT NEVER RUNS OUT IN ATTRACTING the opposite SEX.

I mean seriously, if you knew you could grow a soul/heart, like this when you are 54, AND FULLY EXPRESS IT IN NON-VERBAL SPIRIT, AND ACCOMPLISH WHAT I DID AND DO IN THOSE OVER 200 PHOTOS WITH GORGEOUS GALS, what would you have done TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN, AS I KNOW THIS SPEAKS YOUR LANGUAGE, OF 'HUMAN JOY'..

HUMAN HEART, SOUL, AND SPIRIT, IS REAL BABY, AND FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE IT, WE MAKE REAL MIRACLES HAPPEN, WITH EASE, LIKE A FEATHER FLOATING IN THE HEAVEN OF NOW.

AND THAT'S INCREDIBLE, TO STATE IT IN RIPLEY'S TERMS OF 'BELIEVE IT OR NOT'.

REAL HUMAN STRENGTH IS IN THE EMOTING POWERS OF THE HUMANS EMOTIONS OF RELATIVE HUMAN FREE WILL, FAITH, HOPE, AND BELIEF, expressed through the real human emoting powers of imagination and creativity

through human PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE IN ALL INNATE INSTINCT AND INTUITION, AND WHO KNOWS IF YOU STILL HAD THESE HIGHER HUMAN POTENTIALS EXPRESSED MORE FULLY,

IN YOUR 70'S LIKE I HAVE IN MY 50'S, YOU MIGHT STILL BE DOING WHAT I CAN AND JUST DO NOW, or even more, as I for one, certainly do NOT HOLD 'ALL THE MARBLES' OF FULLER HUMAN POTENTIAL IN HEART AND SOUL, EXPERIENCED AND EXPRESSED AS SPIRIT.

WHY NOT; 20-SOMETHING YEAR OLD DUDES CANNOT COME CLOSE TO WHAT I CAN ACCOMPLISH WITH A MEGA GRINCH HEART, AT 54...

AND THE FABULOUS Jack LaLanne, DID MANY MORE amazing physical achievements with human heart, and soul, more fully in tow, and expressed in toes of feet in human feats, in the potential of human spirit, more fully experienced and expressed in physical way, than I do now, in his 60's....

AND HELL NO, THE bony SCIENTIFIC METHOD, WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PROVE HOW I DO IT BABY.

AND WITH THAT SAID, HERE'S A LITTLE SONG; THAT kinda expresses what I do with heart, soul, and spirit, FULLER in HUMAN POTENTIAL tow, with 'magic toes', of feats of foot EXPRESSED IN HUMAN PHYSICAL SPIRIT.

Except, I'm drug free baby, with the higher power of GOD aka known as those emoting human emotions behind me like a frigging Hurricane of SPIRIT FLOW! OR TSUNAMI; TAKE YOUR PICK..



Remember; wink..

AND THANKS FOR THE 'dark inspiration', "RUVE' BABY"..

LET'S FACE FACTS AND METAPHOR.

THERE ARE TWO WORLDS, THE WORLD(S) OF SCIENCE IN SYSTEMIZING MIND, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS AUTISTIC WITH A U, TO THE EXTREME,

AND THE WORLD(S) OF ART IN ARTISTIC MIND WITH A R MORE FULLY EXPERIENCED IN HUMAN POTENTIAL LIKE

ME.

THE TWO CAN WORK TOGETHER FOR 'GENIUS' LIKE ME, LIKE A HUMAN ROCKET IN FLOATING FEATHER POWER, FIRMLY PLANTED ON TERRESTRIAL EARTH, IN 'REAL HUMAN GENIUS', PER FULLER HUMAN POTENTIAL OR


THE TWO MAY NEVER MEET TO CREATE 'REAL HUMAN GENIUS' IN FULLER HUMAN POTENTIAL, SO FAR BEYOND STANDARD IQ THAT STANDARD IQ BECOMES CHILD PLAY, FOR CHILDREN WITH NO IMAGINATION OR CREATIVITY, MORE FULLY SOUGHT, FOUND, EMPLOYED, DEVELOPED, UTILIZED AND PRACTICED IN REAL PLAYTIME, NOW, BABY...

LIKE THIS RUVE' BABY....

AND THE CASE REMAINS...
OPEN..

WITH NO PERIODS.............

FOR ME, AT LEAST..............

*Edit, 88 seconds not 87 seconds, to be pedantic..

And here we have the reason for your adamant assertion in the face of all experiments and intricate observations, along with the verifying math, that the world of science has got it wrong. You start with the self evident truth that God exists, then move onto the "fact" that everything moves to higher entropy and therefore in your flawless logic, Evolution cannot have occurred and the only explanation therefore is the world and everything in it was created by God.

Trouble is David there are few if any truly self evident truths. And most certainly God is not one of them ie It may exist but its existence is NOT self evident, in fact the probability of its existence is very low, so your logic fails immediately due to a false premise. Secondly you vastly underestimate the intricacies of the second law of thermodynamics (you still have not responded to my frequent requests to falsify the maths I provided you).

As an aside, I generally think that "I exist" is self evident, but as your new BFF will rightly ask you, Prove it.