Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound

Page 11 of 13 [ 201 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

01 Apr 2015, 6:57 am

Just to detach myself from the idiotic accusations;
"Particle Physics"; Sometimes sub-atomic elements have properties like a particle and sometimes they have properties like a transverse wave.

"Particle Physics"? It's a nonsense supposed to make the accuser look clever to himself and his sycophants.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Apr 2015, 4:37 pm

Oldavid wrote:

Ok so you are better equipped to give this area of Physics a name than the people who actually work in it. Yes David we know some particles act like a wave , especially when you are looking for them to look this way, and the converse is true. Stop obfuscating and answer the question. Or are you once again going to refuse to actually back up your claims with corroborating evidence.

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

01 Apr 2015, 6:06 pm

Oldavid wrote:

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.

Could have? Do you actually read the threads you participate in, or are you just here to troll?

Quote:

Hecklers and obscurantists are always egotistically smug because they never have to know what they're talking about... just stifle anyone who might.

Thankfully, you're just not that effective at heckling, so it hasn't detracted too much from the discussion.

Quote:

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

Does this mean you're going to abandon their use in favour of forthright debate? If so, you're off to an abysmal start.

Quote:

There have been several attempts made to "get started" but the hecklers have done their best to make a reasonable discussion impossible.

Quote these "several attempts".

Quote:

I hope you will be ignored from now on.

As a result of this half-assed, sorry excuse for a smear campaign? Do you truly think the denizens of PPR are so gullible?

Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Apr 2015, 7:44 pm

adifferentname wrote:

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.

Yes, I have! If you really had read all the comments here, you would have picked up on this. I also provided a link to a website explaining it. 'Failing to provide a solid premise...' - You must be joking!

Jesus H. Christ, it's like talking to brick walls here!

Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Apr 2015, 8:12 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

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.

The accusation of hypocrisy I do not understand. I do, I will admit, become exasperated by inane questions and false accusations here, and I tend to be very blunt, but a hypocrite? No, I don't think so. Provide an example of hypocrisy.

My claim about the lack of evidence, or even reason to believe, in the 'multiverse' I stand by. String theory is also a dead end, for it has not come up with anything that can actually be tested since it first appeared within the field of physics. Atheists often say they don't believe in God due to a perceived lack of evidence, and yet they will happily accept something like the Multiverse Hypothesis, even though there is no evidence for it. Isn't this an example of hypocrisy?

Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Apr 2015, 8:21 pm

By the way 'ArthurDent', do you still want to talk about 'virtual particles', or have you given up on the idea that they just magically appear from nothing? You haven't mentioned them since I provided that link to the article about them, and the direct quote from it. Do you maintain that an entire universe can just pop into being, uncaused and without explanation? If you don't actually believe this is possible, then what are the alternative(s), in your opinion? Do you agree that, whatever may or is responsible for what there is, that this 'something' must be, as I stated before, necessary (i.e. must contain within itself the reason why it is, and be capable of circumventing the infinite regression issue)?

(Sound of crickets chirping)

Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Apr 2015, 8:28 pm

Oldavid wrote:

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.

Ok, it's 'still too vague'. How about this definition then: Naturalism is the philosophical (not scientific) paradigm that has as its central premise the view that nature is all there is. There are no 'supernatural' realms, the scientific method can (ultimately) account for all that really exists, and if it cannot, then the entity/process/phenomenon et cetera in question is not real. Very similar, if not identical to, the philosophy of Logical Positivism.

Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Apr 2015, 8:37 pm

Just a quick note: To all here whom I may have (inadvertently) offended, well... what can I say? I'm direct, to the point (which many interpret as being 'rude'), can't handle dishonesty, ambiguities, am easily exasperated by people who just don't seem to get the point of a discussion or argument, and don't like having to constantly repeat myself.

In other words I am, unlike many here I've noticed, someone who has A.S. I'm sorry, but you will just have to accept and get used to the way I express myself; I can't help it. I'm just not used to dealing with people, either in reality or online. Sorry

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Apr 2015, 9:36 pm

Lintar once again you are making absolute assumptions based upon your theistic prejudices. You believe that something cannot have existed infinitely be it the universe or what (if anything) lies beyond. However you are quite prepared to allow for an infinite God, which you conveniently ascertain does not have any of the characteristics of physics as we know it. The point of virtual particles is that a vacuum can and does produce them, and these particles can become actual particles. So whilst technically a vacuum is something, you cannot give yourself a free pass by saying god is not made of the same stuff and therefore exists completely separate from nature. This is just a defence against the idea that if god can always have existed why not a vacuum. Essentially you are moving the goalposts, because it is clear that all we need is a vacuum and we have a universe, no need for a sentient creator

Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

02 Apr 2015, 2:07 am

Lintar wrote:

Righto. Let's go with the definition of Naturalism that is somewhat similar to ideological Materialism;

Quote:

Naturalism is the philosophical (not scientific) paradigm that has as its central premise the view that nature is all there is.

BUT, now we're stuck with another problem... what the hell is this "nature" that is supposed to be all there is? Perhaps it is the magical stuff that comes from nowhere and does everything for no reason.

Effectively back to square 1.

You seem to think that because the credulous media sycophants are all in a tither because their Sacred Cow has been kicked in the ..... the job is all done.

We're still saddled with nebulous notions of "nature", "philosophical not scientific", and what constitutes "supernatural" that must be excluded..

An old bloke told me once; "Yair! You can get a fair way into a bog if you hit it fast enough."

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

02 Apr 2015, 5:56 am

Lintar wrote:

adifferentname wrote:

You have not provided an undisputed definition of Naturalism. The definition you've put forward isn't even supported by the website you linked. So, yes, you've failed to provide a solid premise that is accepted by both sides of the debate. This has been brought up several times and by several people.

Let me phrase it another way, so you'll understand the problem.

You have provided a definition of Naturalism that is not applicable to the majority of Naturalists. The version of Naturalism you're arguing against is probably one which 99% of people reading this thread would agree is untenable. In other words, your false premise has no value as as subject of debate.

Quote:

Jesus H. Christ, it's like talking to brick walls here!

Ironic, considering you still haven't responded to the post I mentioned.

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

02 Apr 2015, 6:23 am

Lintar wrote:

Atheists often say they don't believe in God due to a perceived lack of evidence, and yet they will happily accept something like the Multiverse Hypothesis, even though there is no evidence for it. Isn't this an example of hypocrisy?

No. This is not an example of hypocrisy. If all theists were willing to call their various beliefs "hypotheses" atheists would be willing to accept them as such.

Quote:

I don't see anyone complaining that you've offended them, nor would it be relevant if you had. Your accusations of dishonesty, however, are unwarranted and unfounded.

Quote:

In other words I am, unlike many here I've noticed, someone who has A.S.

Why is your armchair diagnosis of people based purely on textual discourse relevant here?

Quote:

I'm sorry, but you will just have to accept and get used to the way I express myself; I can't help it. I'm just not used to dealing with people, either in reality or online.

You're preaching tolerance in a discussion where nobody has criticised the manner in which you express yourself. On the other hand, you have thrown around blanket accusations of dishonesty, incomprehension and intolerance. That is to say, this is an example of hypocrisy.

Lintar wrote:

If this is the position you wish to oppose, you'll have to accept that there's no useful debate to be had here. Your premise remains flawed.

izzeme
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Apr 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,665

02 Apr 2015, 7:47 am

Lintar wrote:

Lacking arthur; i do trust the notion of 'virtual particles', it has been shown to be possible; creating an entire universe is, from that point, just a matter of increasing the involved energy from "near zero" to "near infinite". also, the universe started as a 'soup' of subatomic particles, so it's not like it was "boom, stars-n-shit"

I will not agree with you that something must be responsible for the universe, as i do not accept your notion that infinite regression is an issue, so it doesn't nessecarily have to be circumvented; the cyclical universe hypothesis provides an alternative to infinite regression, as does the multiverse (and those two aren't mutually exclusive either)

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

02 Apr 2015, 4:41 pm

Lintar wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

Oldavid wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

OK, using what I think is your definition of "God":

1) All acts require time
2) God exists outside of time
3) Therefore, God cannot act
4) Creating the universe is an act
5) Therefore, God did not create the universe

The concept of a transcendent, eternal God that created the universe is self-contradictory.

(When I was first genuinely introduced to the concept of an eternally transcendent God, I was struck by how well it fitted with the idea of a perfect God, and I definitely see how that would appeal to people. However, perfection, eternity and transcendence are incompatible with creation)

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".

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.

Au contraire, the computer was not suspended in the air waiting for the table to be placed under it, and they did not simultaneously materialise.
But criticising the analogy is besides the point. You might be able to argue that there is a logical need for a First Cause, though only if you disregard several other equally likely possibilities, but I haven't seen any evidence or logical requirement for a sustaining cause. There is simply no reason to suppose that some supernatural brane holds this universe up (as far as I am aware - I must admit to giving little regard for cosmology because it is so detached from my life. If someone like Dent believes that this is necessary then I will cede that your "god" exists, but again, it's quite a hollow victory - you may as well define "God" as "a featherless biped", so detached is your definition from the common understanding).

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

02 Apr 2015, 4:46 pm

Hey, what am I being accused of believing? I simply do not know what if anything caused the universe. All I am saying that if something did cause the universe it does not require sentience, and some possible mechanisms are already known,

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

02 Apr 2015, 4:58 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

If you're talking to me, I wasn't accusing you of believing anything, merely saying that you seem to know more about the science of this than I do.

Page 11 of 13 [ 201 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

Jump to:

Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound Post Reply New Topic

Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound