Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound

Post Reply New Topic

This thread is going in circles.

The opening argument that "Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound" hasn't been elaborated on, at all. Neither there much argument that science is some how more unsuitable to answer certain questions than (what exactly?).

Also what does "Philosophically Unsound" actually mean in practice?

Why don't you simply say you don't like or believe in naturalism? I think that is more accurate.

I also fail to see what the objective of this thread is.

with Lintar but the pack of jackals have seen the possibility of some disagreement as an invitation to launch a cowardly attack. Ineffectual muck-rakers like yourself who can not contribute any reasonable argument simply appear as some blow-fly maggots to consume what you think is a corpse.

Rubbish! You, an impudent, ignorant twerp, presumes to make my questions regarding definitions of terms
into some kind of automatically dismissive summary of the whole possible argument?

I don't know... and I bet that with all your pomposity you don't know either... and you have not lifted a finger to identify or solve the problem.

And why don't you say you like or believe in Naturalism and offer some excuse for your premature dementia?

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.

The "Sacred Cow" is "Evolution" dogma, you silly berk.

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,

It's the vultures that are going in circles. I would like to have had some interesting disagreements with Lintar but the pack of jackals have seen the possibility of some disagreement as an invitation to launch a cowardly attack. Ineffectual muck-rakers like yourself who can not contribute any reasonable argument simply appear as some blow-fly maggots to consume what you think is a corpse.

Rubbish! You, an impudent, ignorant twerp, presumes to make my questions regarding definitions of terms
into some kind of automatically dismissive summary of the whole possible argument?
I don't know... and I bet that with all your pomposity you don't know either... and you have not lifted a finger to identify or solve the problem.

..and even though a couple of posts back I called for it to be shut down, I would still be disappointed if it were.