Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound

Post Reply New Topic

Your straw men are becoming less credible with every attempt. I have never heard such a lame, incomprehensible "definition" of God from even the nuttiest armchair "philosopher".

Oh and David just so you cannot keep acting dumb Particle Physics

Here's another that might interest you, Lintar.

SCIENCE SCAMS
Excerpt from:

http://www.principia-scientific.org/tra ... grows.html

So you post an article which essentially says sweet FA. It talks about a number of peer reviewed papers yet does not name any of them. And givea zero credence to the fact that the journals have discovered the fraudulent behavior and are doing something about it. In other words the system of checks and balances would appear to be working.

Once again David produce something of substance. At the very least answer my questions above

You have to be kidding, you want us to go back to scholasticism and Aristotelian methods. Because after all using these methods produced so much knowledge

And of course forming the basis for all knowledge is the self evident axiom, that of a sentient God.

I didn't actually post a definition of god there.

If Lintar does not believe that God is transcendent, eternal, and a creator then of course my argument falls down, and I apologise for straw manning him. However, I am fairly sure that I could find quotes from him affirming that he does believe in a god that possesses those qualities if I searched this thread.

You don't need to 'search the thread', because I basically did support the transcendence and atemporality of 'God', both here and elsewhere.

Premise one above: 'All acts require time'. Yes 'acts' do require this, and there was a time when I myself viewed this point as being a real problem for theism, but no longer do I see it as a problem, because the conventional view that 'God' (or whatever you want to call it) made a decision to create, acted, we had a 'bang', and since then has had nothing to do with its creation, is no longer accepted. For the majority of Western theologians currently in the business (ex. J. P. Moreland, W. L. Craig, D. B. Hart et cetera), God isn't just responsible for the 'Big Bang' of creation, but for every single moment of that creation, everywhere. God 'sustains in existence' reality, as they might say; it forms the ultimate foundation for it. Absent the existence of God, there would really be nothing at all.

An example to illustrate: The computer I am now using exists as it does, in the spatial relationship to the floor that it has, due to the existence of the table upon which it rests. The displacement from the floor that the computer has in this example can be considered to be a contingent effect of the simultaneous existence of the table (i.e. the contingent cause), that allows this state of affairs to be. If it were possible for the table to suddenly dematerialise, the computer (and anything else upon it) would go crashing to the floor, and this relationship, this physical system, would no longer exist. The effect of the computer being where it is in space is one that is not subsequent to the presence of the table, but is simultaneous in time, and therefore atemporal.

This is an example of what is known as atemporal causality.

God 'exists outside of time' in the sense that a) it is not in any way limited by it, b) is ultimately responsible for the existence of it, and c) is eternal in the sense that it transcends all physical phenomena within our universe, including it.

God did not exist in the sense that it (or He - whatever) was passing the time away, and then one sunny morning decided, 'Hey, I know what I will do to relieve the tedium. I'll create a physical cosmos'. Being eternal does not mean 'having existed, or existing, for an infinite amount of time'. It means existing without the necessity for time, which is something that all that we know of that is limited by the passage of it cannot do.

Point 1) 'Have we? as far as I am aware the "Big Crunch" hypothesis is still alive, although the "cold death" hpothesis seems more likely'

Your point being... ? I fail to see the relevance of the 'Big Crunch' to the issues I raise here. Besides, the Big Crunch idea is as dead as Steady State.

Point 2) 'Given the above description of multiverses I am drawn to the conclusion that you have not really read up on the subject, and do not fully understand how the hypothesis works. I am not going into what would, by necessity, be a very lengthy explanation, but trust me the concepts of virtual particles not to mention multiverses are not mere brain farts thought up by someone musing about physics.'

Actually, I have 'read up on the subject', and what I state about the multiverse hypothesis is accurate. Yes, I also know about virtual particles, so your condescending attempt here to imply that I am some kind of Creationist yokel who simply has no idea about the subject, is misguided. By the way, if you yourself knew anything about virtual particles you would not be using them here to demonstrate that they are an example of something that can come from literally nothing.

Point 3) 'Belief has little to do with it, acceptance of the evidence whether you like it or not is what is important. The evidence and the predictions coming from cutting edge particle physics point to what you are choosing not to believe.'

The 'cutting edge' of particle physics isn't at this point in time pointing anywhere so far as the thread topic goes (i.e. that naturalism is philosophically unsound). Yes, I know that reality exists the way it does regardless of what anyone would like to believe about it. Don't be so damned patronising in your responses!

Point 4) 'Magic has nothing to do with it and the fact that we are beginning to understand the process and make predictions about it means that it may not be inexplicable'

A universe just popping into existence, from literally nothing, IS magic. How could it not be?

Point 5) 'Again you are determining as fact, a belief that it would appear fly's in the face of what is becoming known. For someone who is very quick to jump on others for making absolute claims you would appear to very comfortable with them'

So now we are resorting to personal attacks, are we? Nothing that I have stated here 'flies in the face of what is becoming known'. This particular claim of yours is false, otherwise you would have presented some evidence (ex. a link to an article) to substantiate it.

Point 6) 'Once again you are drawing absolute conclusions where they are not warranted. To do this you are assuming that this is the only universe, which is a massive conclusion. Why should this be the only one. As I have said the argument used to be that God made the earth for us because the probability that such a place could exist was "astronomically low" then we discovered the galaxy, then we discovered the observable universe and suddenly the probability that earth like planets exist whilst still highly improbable, become very very plausible. To make the claim that you seem to be doing that the chance that this universe exists in the manner it does is so vastly improbable is to make the same mistake.'

So where are all of these other universes you believe in? Where is the evidence for them? Oh yes, that's right - there is no evidence for them! None whatsoever! The multiverse hypothesis is PURELY hypothetical. Why are you using it to support an argument of yours? If I were in your position, I wouldn't. I would try a different approach, rather than resort to something that is purely speculative.

Point 7) 'So yes I agree if you belief there is an objective purpose and direction to the universe, that life has a reason other than life itself, that there is only one universe. Then yes the probability for the existence of god becomes near to 1. But to do this you are making massive assumptions and you are denying predictions coming from experiment and observations which would seem to refute some of your most fundamental assumptions. As many have pointed out before the physicists making these predictions and grappling with the issues are no fools, and the suggestion that they are involved in some group clandestine cover up is simply asinine'.

A clandestine cover-up? Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else here? Where are the 'assumptions' you speak of? What have I specifically (and unreasonably) assumed? I have simply used what we know to be true, using logic, to demonstrate that, given the accuracy of the premises, must inevitably follow. I am not a conspiracy-theorist.

Virtual particles explained: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-a ... -are-they/

Quote: 'The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.'

A 'disturbance in a field' is NOT nothing! Is a field 'nothing'? Is a disturbance within it also nothing?

'Nothing' is no more and no less an absence of anything, non-being, no-thing-as-such, a complete absence of all.

You know, not only am I surprised (and deeply disappointed) by the poor quality of philosophical argumentation displayed here by the atheists, but also horrified by their lack of scientific understanding! They seem to think that 'science', rather than scientists, give suppor to their contention that we do not need God, they don't understand much (if anything) about virtual particles, don't know the difference between a purely philosophical argument and a scientific one, seem to think that scientific arguments automatically nullify philosophical ones, believe that an entire physical reality can just spring into existence from literally nothing, even though everything we have thus far discovered about the nature of reality tells us that this is impossible, and make contentious claims for which they never actually provide any evidence.

Really sad. I really did hope for a challenge, but instead ended up with cliches, unsupported (and unsupportable) claims - ex. the 'multiverse', ad hominem attacks, loopy logic, and a failure to grasp basic philosophical concepts.

Oh well.

Talking of poor philosophy. Making absolute claims based on what you believe to be self evident axioms surely has to take the first prize. The idea that there must be a sentient creator that is beyond time and space is not self evident, has no evidence and as such is an entirely innapropriate basis for logic over scientific discovery and predictions. The concept of multiverses is not some fairy tale dreamt up to explain the unknown. Much of what we do know is beginning to predict that this is not the only universe. As to me supposedly making personal attacks, all I am doing is pointing out a level of hypocrisy in your approach to this debate.

It's been 11 pages and we've still not established a common definition of Naturalism. Perhaps you should climb down off that soap box, respond to my previous response to yourself and accept responsibility for failing to provide a solid premise to argue either for or against in the first place.

We haven't even got started yet, and you're already making excuses and heading for the door. If you want to contend any point made by an individual, do so using reasoned arguments. Flouncing around, waving your hands and denouncing everyone as "poor arguers" on the basis of your prejudice is most definitely not a sound philosophical argument.

Oh, and your argument for philosophical purity, as if philosophy can exist in a vacuum, is an idiotic one.

I have tied a string on my finger, Lintar, to remind me to disagree with you about act and time once we've sorted this Naturalism vs. philosophy business to some definite fundamentals that we agree on and/or some specific whats, whys and hows that we agree to disagree on.

I still think that the notion of "Naturalism" is too vague; somewhat because in its common usage it can mean anything from a bug collector, taxonomist, nudist, a style of painting or other art, etc. I'm not sure I'd like to mount a case that "nudism is philosophically unsound" except as a purely entertaining amusement. I think that the term "Materialist" is much less ambiguous and its "philosophical" definition can even be applied to its socio-economic usage without any violence to its definition.

You still use the term "supernatural" which, once again, is too vague because, in common usage, it can "mean" anything from a magician's tricks to a fortune-teller's guile, séance, mucking with Ouija thingys, Voodoo, and the outright demonic. I think that if we are talking philosophy (natural science) we should be talking about "metaphysics" which is not necessarily "unnatural" or "supernatural"... simply nature that is beyond the merely physical. e.g. organic life which is in the physical but beyond the merely physical.

And, a couple of times, you've referred to science and philosophy as though they were somehow distinct and separable. I don't think they are. A man I once knew, who was professor of philosophy at a prestigious University in your neck of the woods, defined philosophy as: "The search for truth using the scientific instrument known as logic". Logic is, itself, metaphysical... no one can get a chunk of it and examine it with an electron microscope or any other gadget that can detect physical attributes.

I look forward to your contradictions, concerns, clarifications, and comments.

Yair, well, you could have offered a definition of Naturalism; but, perhaps, that would have exposed you even more for not knowing what you're talking about. Hecklers and obscurantists are always egotistically smug because they never have to know what they're talking about... just stifle anyone who might.

Grandiose, glib, gratuitous assertions do not make a reasonable case for anything but for their proponent being a reliable party hack.

There have been several attempts made to "get started" but the hecklers have done their best to make a reasonable discussion impossible. I hope you will be ignored from now on.