Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound

Post Reply New Topic

^ The thing is if this is the only incarnation of this universe then the way it is set up with such narrow tolerances makes the probabilities of this happening extraordinarily low. However this does not mean it could not have occurred this way, it just makes us very very lucky. The science is pointing to and predicting multiple universes. Folk like Lintar and David like to see this as not predictions of good science, rather they see it as scientists in a desperate bid to hash together something that keeps them rolling in filthy lucre. As I have repeatedly pointed out to them the multiverse hypothesis, although we have no empirical evidence for it, is based on sound physics. Their atemporal sentient god hypothesis is based upon ancient philosophy that has no practical use and quite frankly, is becoming very shaky on scientific grounds IE we are getting to a point where the gaps are closing around god

What's the contrary position to Naturalism? What's the argument against an all-natural world?

I thought Thales, the first philosopher, introduced naturalism, and all philosophy is just an exploration of that assumption.

Not necessarily. Those narrow tolerances are only an obstacle if we make the assumption that carbon-based is the only possible flavour of life. Who's to say that a Universe entirely incompatible with earthlings would not be far more conducive to an alternative flavour?

I'm not sure if I do have 'theistic prejudices', since I believe I go wherever the evidence or argumentation takes me. I do not believe I ever said that 'God definitely does exist', but perhaps some of my comments were interpreted that way. The truth of the matter is that no one knows for sure, but it must be said that Naturalism, as a philosophical belief, is incomplete and doesn't quite work, and that was the whole point of this thread. The 'God question' is tangenital to this, and I should have stuck to the topic rather than discuss other issues related to it.

You've mentioned once again 'virtual particles'. Did you read the article I linked to about that subject? It turns out they are not what most people think they are, and they do not arise from nothingness. 'All we need is a vacuum...' - No, this is not the case at all. A vacuum is, in any case, not 'nothing', for it has characteristics that make it something (ex. forces, fields), so even if you were right about this, you would (ironically) still be wrong, and for this reason.

Yes, the topic of sentience. I have thus far not mentioned it, because I do not know if sentience would be required. I guess a case could be made for it, but I'm still searching for one that is convincing enough to place much confidence in.

Q: 'What the hell is nature?'
A: The natural world, physical reality, the cosmos, the universe. That which is directly observable, by us.

Statement: '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.'

I don't know what this is about. What 'sacred cow'? The 'sacred cow' you are referring to cannot be the concept of God, because the 'media sycophants' get the arguments for and against God's existence so consistently and hopelessly wrong that they just can't be taken seriously, and should therefore be completely ignored. I recently came across an article in a popular magazine that I think was called 'Knowledge... (something)' titled 'Science vs. Religion', and it was just the most appallingly-ignorant diatribe that I have ever come across. It mentioned S. Hawking and L. Mlodinow's 'The Grand Design' in glowing terms, even though that book is positively atrocious.

'Natural', 'philosophical' and 'supernatural' are not notions that are nebulous. I gave a, very brief, definition of nature above, and for most purposes this definition will do. 'Supernature' would be anything that existed beyond the natural realm.

So... I got the definition wrong because, according to you, 99 percent of people who would class themselves as being 'Naturalists' would not accept it. The premise of Naturalism is itself 'untenable', and that was what I tried to point out here. It is also, and in spite of what you say here, the correct definition of the term. You don't have to take my word for it though, because you can easily check for yourself. Do you accept the proposition that the natural realm (i.e. the physical cosmos, material reality, the 'multiverse' - if there is such a thing) is all there is?

Yes, that 'Jesus H. Christ' comment was a sign of exasperation and frustration, because I am getting nowhere here. The people who run Wrong Planet should make it possible for us to correct and delete comments, because once you write something here you can't take it back.

What?!

Okay, you've completely lost me here.

I think it's fairly obvious that I am just wasting my time here with this 'discussion', because virtually everything I say here is misinterpreted.

If there are any moderators here, could you please close down this thread, because there is no longer any reason to keep it going. I'm outta here!

That's not at all what I wrote. Read it again.



You're conflating Methodological Naturalism with Philosophical Naturalism (an offshoot of the former). Methodological Naturalism does not reject the existence of the supernatural, it merely confines itself to the natural on the basis that the supernatural cannot be usefully measured.



Irrelevant question. We're discussing a philosophical motion, not my personal beliefs.



Not my concern. I do not accept your premise on grounds that I have articulated in a reasonable manner. If you actually want to discuss the subject then that's an obstacle you need to negotiate.



I disagree. There is no shame in issuing a retraction due to a misunderstanding, a factual mistake or an unnecessary outburst.

The "Sacred Cow" is "Evolution" dogma, you silly berk. For once I completely agree with you.

However, the concept of "nature" needs to be defined so we're all thinking, talking about the same thing. This: is a rather indefinite rehash of Materialism. It does not take into account such things as "it is the NATURE of plants to grow and reproduce".

Look, ole fella, I am not siding with the idiocracy; I'm just defending the principle that a good case needs to be "sound" as opposed to "philosophically unsound".

Exactly this.

Lintar read the two paragraphs above. adiffrentname is spot on. You need to understand this if you want to move on.

Regarding the restricted ability to edit posts. Prior to this people were deleting whole chunks of not a complete post after several people had already read it and quoted what had been said. Essentially you now need to be more aware before you post. It also means the mods and others need to be lenient if someone makes an I'll tempered post and then retracts with an apology

Lintar first up all that is needed for virtual particles is a vacuum, and in case you did not see it I acknowledged that a vacuum is still something.

I don't have time right now to look, but I am almost certain that you have stated categorically that the existsnxe of god is axiomatic.

As to you highlighting "if anything" trust me this is not in reference to god, it is simply saying that if the universe is not infinite, then something caused its existence. As I have stated several times if god is atemporal then so can energy be. If we have any form of energy we can have universe's. Which brings me to sentience. Maybe as this has a tight definition I should say there is no reason that any atemporal cause have any purpose or direction. You on the other hand have said that you believe god has an infinite hand in all creation and have implied purpose and direction. Again remove the unnecessary requirement for purpose and direction and energy once again fits the bill.

Adifferentname. Acknowledged everything in the universe is s product of its laws not the the way around. However as I understand it if things were slightly different the place would be so chaotic that what we see as complexity would have no chance of forming.

FWIW, carbon-based life is probably the only wet life possible in this universe. Silicon is the next-best candidate, but Si=Si double bonds don't form nearly as easily, and silicon compounds are less stable than their carbon equivalents.

A universe with entirely different laws - one without the weak force has been proposed, but I guess one where the equivalent of electrons behave very differently in bonding is the most interesting - could, as you suggest, produce very different life. As you may be implying, the anthropic principal biases somewhat towards "best of all possible worlds" interpretations.

Which has nothing at all to do with any kind of science we know about.

Fantastic fictions are substituted for science. There is nothing that goes even close to observation, reason and experiment in this piffle.

You seem to be incapable of forming a coherent argument or following the arguments of other people. If you wish to contribute constructively in this forum then you will need to learn those skills rapidly. As it is, you are standing on the sidelines and spouting non-sequiturs.

For a start, that first paragraph is all hard science.

The second paragraph is not even intended to be a firm factual statement, it's rather a hypothesis based on perfectly reasonable assumptions.

"Hard science" is a gratuitous statement of irrelevant truisms?

A fantastic dream based on perfectly unreasonable speculations.