Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it

[Godexists]

Philosophical naturalism helds, that the natural universe is all there is. If you believe this to be true, please back up this claim with positive evidence,
aka why does the universe not need a cause, or why does it exist in one form or the other eternally. Please present evidence of how the universe could have been  finely tuned to create life through natural forces ,  chemical evolution, and  abiogenesis. Please do NOT present negative evidence, aka : God most probably does not exist, because the bible is wrong, no evidence for Gods existence etc. 

[screwtape]

I reject your questions and premise.  You are asking heavy duty questions of science.  We've only been really doing science for, what, 150, 200 years. And you seem to be implying that if we cannot answer you misguided questions, then it must be that the supernatural is true.

Here is a simpler way to show your beliefs are true - give one case where a supernatural explanation has been shown to be true.  One case where spirits have been found to be the underlying mechanism of anything.  Naturalism has prevailed a zillion times in this way.  Because our claim is phrased so tenuously it, it is a fragile claim.  Breaking it is easy.  All you need to do is show one single example where we are wrong.  So, do it.

You have demanded that our point of view be established only in a very specific way.  I do not find that to be fair or reasonable.  You are trying to rig the debate, because you think it gives you an advantage.  But the truth, I think, is because you know you have no cases of supernaturalism. 

[Irish]

Philosophical naturalism helds, that the natural universe is all there is. If you believe this to be true, please back up this claim with positive evidence

I look around me and what do I see? Natural things doing other natural things by natural phenomena that we understand to other natural things.  That should be enough evidence right there.

What you're asking though has enough material to fill a whole philosophy section at a library. I really don't think we can hash through it on a forum.

why does the universe not need a cause

The universe has a cause - the Big Bang[1]

why does it exist in one form or the other eternally

It just does.  There's no ulterior reason why the universe exists - it just does.

Please present evidence of how the universe could have been  finely tuned to create life through natural forces ,  chemical evolution, and  abiogenesis.

I reject this statement for the assertion and implication that the universe is finely tuned for life.

no evidence for Gods existence etc.

Well that that's not fair now is it. 

1.	Unless I'm not understanding your question

[wright]

screwtape pretty much nailed it. You're attempting to tilt the playing field in your direction. Not a sign of discussing the issue with an open mind.

I guess it's just possible that you're sincere in asking these questions, though your posting history here suggests otherwise. If you are sincere, then on this site alone you can find the evidence you're looking for in any number of threads on the Science and Evolution subforums.

Science / naturalism has done the heavy lifting in terms of presenting evidence, Godexists. Your turn: present positive evidence for the supernatural.

[12 Monkeys]

I will prove it RIGHT AFTER you come up with undisputable physical evidence that God exists in anything other than a believers mind

[Azdgari]

The natural world is that which makes sense, can be understood, and is coherent with other things that make sense.

The universe makes physical sense.  Therefore, the universe is natural.

There's philosophical naturalism for you.  Is it possible for something to exist which cannot make sense, cannot be understood, and is incoherent with the rest of reality?  I suppose so, if it was completly isolated from natural reality.  If it could affect the universe, then it would do so to an unpredictable degree in an unpredictable manner.  It would basically destroy the universe.

[Ambassador Pony]

bm lol

[Godexists]

Science / naturalism has done the heavy lifting in terms of presenting evidence, Godexists.

This thread is about you presenting it here. Just pick one issue, and present the evidence 

[Godexists]

I reject your questions and premise.  You are asking heavy duty questions of science.  We've only been really doing science for, what, 150, 200 years. And you seem to be implying that if we cannot answer you misguided questions, then it must be that the supernatural is true.

Where did i make that assertion ?

Here is a simpler way to show your beliefs are true

This thread is about YOUR beliefs, not mine.  If you have evidence for your case, you should be able to present it, or no ?

[jaimehlers]

I hold that there is no 'outside' to the universe.  This is because we must have evidence to show that something exists; if there is such evidence, it[1] must at least be able to interact with the universe.  Because of this interaction, we can show that it must be part of the universe.  Even if it were to interact in some way which we don't understand, it would still be part of the universe.  So by extension, it must be natural, as it interacts with other things via the natural laws of the universe.

In short, I can logically exclude the concepts of the "supernatural" and "outside the universe", because by the logic I used above, for something to interact with the natural things that exist within the universe, it must also be a natural thing that exists within the universe.  It can still be very powerful, and it can still be something we don't understand, but it must be natural and exist within the universe[2].

1.	the 'something'
2.	though, it may prove necessary to expand our conception of what "the universe" is

[kin hell]

bm

[kcrady]

The evidence for philosophical naturalism is: every single thing we have ever discovered and validated about how Universe works, including the history of how it has worked in the past.

What's your evidence in favor of your god of choice?

[jdawg70]

Philosophical naturalism helds, that the natural universe is all there is. If you believe this to be true, please back up this claim with positive evidence,
aka why does the universe not need a cause, or why does it exist in one form or the other eternally. Please present evidence of how the universe could have been  finely tuned to create life through natural forces ,  chemical evolution, and  abiogenesis. Please do NOT present negative evidence, aka : God most probably does not exist, because the bible is wrong, no evidence for Gods existence etc.

When you say 'natural', what do you mean by that?

[Astreja]

I am satisfied that science makes fairly consistent predictions about the nature of reality, and that it regularly makes adjustments to accommodate any new data that may be found.

Similarly, I am of the opinion that if any gods are eventually found they will eventually be explained by science and will therefore become part of a naturalistic worldview.   

[HAL]

Philosophical naturalism helds, that the natural universe is all there is. If you believe this to be true, please back up this claim with positive evidence,

I don't know that the universe is all there is.

aka why does the universe not need a cause, or why does it exist in one form or the other eternally.

I don't know.

Please present evidence of how the universe could have been  finely tuned to create life through natural forces ,  chemical evolution, and  abiogenesis.

I don't know the answer to this either.

[Godexists]

I am satisfied that science makes fairly consistent predictions about the nature of reality, and that it regularly makes adjustments to accommodate any new data that may be found.

Similarly, I am of the opinion that if any gods are eventually found they will eventually be explained by science and will therefore become part of a naturalistic worldview.   

God does not make part of a naturalistic worldview by definition.

[Grimm]

Philosophical naturalism helds, that the natural universe is all there is. If you believe this to be true, please back up this claim with positive evidence,

Sure!  It begins with the statement:  "In the entirety of human endeavor, we have yet to discover a single event, principle, or thing that can be confirmed to have a supernatural cause.  While there are a number of events (innumerable, really) where we can honestly say we don't know what the cause of the event was, we cannot positively state that the cause was supernatural."

Bluntly - we haven't yet found any evidence of god in the small things, so it becomes reasonable to suspect that there are no gods in the large things - just answers we haven't found yet.

May I counter with the question: "Given the current state of human knowledge, how can we make any positive assertion of the existence of any particular god?"

The absence of knowledge does not allow one to simply fill in the 'gap' with the concept of their choice.

aka why does the universe not need a cause,

Inasmuch as the question has meaning, we can assume the universe was 'caused'.  We're fairly familiar with the series of events up to a picosecond or so after the Big Bang; thus far, all explanations are natural.  Given time, it is likely we will uncover the 'cause' with purely naturalistic explanations.

What right do you have to claim that a god is the proximate cause of existence?

 or why does it exist in one form or the other eternally.

In truth, the universe has changed a great deal over the last fourteen billion years.  I'm not sure what you mean by this question, what the dichotomy you're referencing is, or.. really what you're asking here.

Would you be willing to clarify?

Please present evidence of how the universe could have been  finely tuned to create life through natural forces ,  chemical evolution, and  abiogenesis.

The universe is in no way 'finely tuned to create life'.  In fact, the vast majority of the universe is, as best we understand, inimical to life to an incredible degree.  However, we can safely say that the universe is in its present configuration entirely due to the interaction of natural forces within it.

To that extent, the universe itself is explanation of its existence; to-wit:  we observe what is, and in explaining what is, we come to understand how it came to be.  Thus far, there is no requirement for God as a proximate cause despite holes in our knowledge;  we don't yet understand abiogensis, for instance, but are making strides.

May I ask:  Why is it that our lack of understanding immediately predecates a god?  Does that mean that a tribesman, who does not understand the principles of flight, is right to assume airplanes fly because a god carries them through the skies? 

Do you understand, say, Boyle's law?  If you do not, is it right for you to say that a God causes air to get cold when its pressure drops?  Should someone who does not understand what Boyle explained about partial pressures assume a god causes the seizures in a diver that dives too deep on Nitrox?

Similarly, why should we assume a God when we have a phenomenon we do not yet understand?  Do you posit that we have reached the absolute limits of human knowledge and endeavor?

Please do NOT present negative evidence, aka : God most probably does not exist, because the bible is wrong, no evidence for Gods existence etc.

There's no reason to.  The universe's existence is prima face evidence of the existence of nature, and natural law. 

[Godexists]

The universe is in no way 'finely tuned to create life'.  In fact, the vast majority of the universe is, as best we understand, inimical to life to an incredible degree.

Without fine-tuning, there would be no universe at all. Even the elementary forces are finely tuned. So is the expansion rate of the universe..... The vast majority  cannot host life, but our earth can, and that is due to a incredible arrangement , which is finely tuned. The odds this to be due to chance are so big, that chance becomes a bad explanation.

However, we can safely say that the universe is in its present configuration entirely due to the interaction of natural forces within it.

based on what can you make that claim ?

To that extent, the universe itself is explanation of its existence; to-wit:  we observe what is, and in explaining what is, we come to understand how it came to be.  Thus far, there is no requirement for God as a proximate cause despite holes in our knowledge;

So how can we based on what we do know confidently say, the universe is the result of purely natural forces ?



 

we don't yet understand abiogensis, for instance, but are making strides.

Over sixty years of research have brought us quit far. So we know fairly sure that naturalistic answers do not withstand scrutiny. 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110211053608AAMLCdl

Dr. Monty White:

1. There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller in his experiment.

2. The next problem is that in Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

3. The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.

4. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from?

May I ask:  Why is it that our lack of understanding immediately predecates a god?

So you admit there is a lack of understanding, therefore you have no solid base to conclude philosophical naturalism is true. Did i understand that correctly ?

Similarly, why should we assume a God when we have a phenomenon we do not yet understand?

I have not brought God into the game in my inicial post, have i ?



 

Do you posit that we have reached the absolute limits of human knowledge and endeavor?

My initial question has not gone to agnostics, but to the ones, that held that philosophical naturalism is true.

There's no reason to.  The universe's existence is prima face evidence of the existence of nature, and natural law.

It seems you do not know the claim of philosophicla naturalism : namely the natural world is all there is  ( aka no God required )

[ParkingPlaces]

Godexists

You guys sure love labels, don't you. Find a name for it then attack. Must you guys keep it so simple?

How do you distinguish between numbers that could be only chance and numbers that could not be? What is the dividing line between for you between just plain old ordinary statistically acceptable and major anomalies? Are the words "Gosh!!!", "WOWWWWW!", "Holy Crap!" and/or "That's IMPOSSIBLE!" involved?

What are the odds that you and your easily impressed brethren are swayed by your predilections rather than actual information? Based on what I have observed, that number is about 100%. You just love to pick and choose a few select bits of information that are composed of misunderstood or outdated sources, pretend they are from somewhere unbiased (Yahoo answers, which I do trust was the actual source of your little cut and paste, but the source of that same exact passage is at a much more biased site, answersingenesis.com) and then sit triumphant at your keyboard, knowing that you have smashed all of biology square in the face with your keyboarding skills.

You also ignore more modern ideas about biogenesis, such as black smokers at the bottom of the ocean, which right now seems more likely. Mostly because you are too lazy to look for something new in the boiler-plate department from fundy sites. (Hence you are boring us).

Since most of us here at WWGHA appreciate the consistency of scientific discoveries that seem to confirm a naturally occurring universe, we are obviously going to be at odds with those of you who give credence only to wild assed guesses. And who have to read incredulity into everything because that science stuff is just too hard to learn about anyway. So you shouldn't be so frickin' surprised that our answers don't meet your standards. We aren't very good at being that shoddy.

Dismiss science all you want. If your hopes about reality insist on religion and if you continue to cave in to your fear of death, there is no way for us here to change you in any way. Your vested interest in your fantasy world excludes us. You have to proclaim that a lack of oxygen would ruin the whole thing (without knowing even what that really means) because you have no ability to absorb content from real sources. And since you lack any ability to understand that you are wrong, or even accept that you could maybe, sort of, kinda, if you squint a lot, be a little tiny tiny tiny bit wrong, even, then nothing we can say or link you to or suggest will ever dent your fundy skull.

We have to live with that fact. That you are unreachable via information. That is why our responses are meaningless to you. I guess we'll just have to live with it.

[Astreja]

God does not make part of a naturalistic worldview by definition.

I must reject your "definition" of your god, then, as patently useless.  You have declared your god to be something elusive and remote which can neither be confirmed nor falsified by experiment or observation.

By your own definition, your alleged god is now permanently banned from having any interaction with the physical universe, as that interaction would automatically make it party to, and part of, a naturalistic worldview.

And a god that cannot interact with its creation might as well not be there at all.

[Grimm]

GE .. you kinda skipped my questions, leaping straight to your proofs.  I"d appreciate an answer: they're not facetious, and not an attack.  They are the counter-questions to the objections you raise; if you're going to target 'philosophical naturalism', then you need to explain how the holes you're going to attempt to plug with 'god' deserve 'god'.  Do you understand?

The universe is in no way 'finely tuned to create life'.  In fact, the vast majority of the universe is, as best we understand, inimical to life to an incredible degree.

Without fine-tuning, there would be no universe at all. Even the elementary forces are finely tuned. So is the expansion rate of the universe..... The vast majority  cannot host life, but our earth can, and that is due to a incredible arrangement , which is finely tuned. The odds this to be due to chance are so big, that chance becomes a bad explanation.

Please explain how you compute these odds?  What is the likelihood of life in the universe?  How many other planets have life (understanding that we discovered the first extrasolar 'rocky planet' in December of 2010)?  Does life exist only in the 'habitable zone', or is that limited to earth-like life?  By what presupposition do we assume that we are special?

The odds may be astronomical, but the truth is simply that we do not know the odds.  No one does - we have a sample size of 1, and, until last year, a limited scope of understanding.  As our understanding grows, we'll come to understand the odds quite a bit better than we do.

Again, our understanding continues to grow.  Why do we need to leap to 'god' in any sense when we continue to learn?

However, we can safely say that the universe is in its present configuration entirely due to the interaction of natural forces within it.

based on what can you make that claim ?

The sum of human knowledge to-date.  Again, we understand the expansion of the universe back to about a picosecond before the big bang until now; every single observable fact points to the truth of the theory we've designed to explain the universe as it is.  If a competing fact enters evidence, it will have to be incorporated into the model, which will require rewriting the model.

However, so far, we've accounted for all available facts.

To that extent, the universe itself is explanation of its existence; to-wit:  we observe what is, and in explaining what is, we come to understand how it came to be.  Thus far, there is no requirement for God as a proximate cause despite holes in our knowledge;

So how can we based on what we do know confidently say, the universe is the result of purely natural forces ?

Not knowing everything is not a bad thing; defining what we do not know is how we know where to look for answers.  Putting 'god' into the holes is unnecessary.  As far as we know, the universe that exists is as a result of natural processes - if we discover evidence that this is not the case, we'll have to sort that out.  So far, that has not happened, and based on the history of human discovery, it is unlikely to happen.

we don't yet understand abiogensis, for instance, but are making strides.

Over sixty years of research have brought us quit far. So we know fairly sure that naturalistic answers do not withstand scrutiny. 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110211053608AAMLCdl

Dr. Monty White:

<snip for length>

The fact that one experiment can be falsified is a good thing - falsification is the basis of science.  However, using your experiment as an example:

- the experimenter did generate amino acids, the basis of life, spontaneously.

Scientists will debate the validity of the experiment re: the applicability of it to early earth, and that's fine!  That kind of dissent is good in science; it leads to more experimentation, more data, more understanding, and, eventually, comprehension.  It causes our knowledge to 'self-correct'.

In the end, however, it's just one study by one researcher.

Do you know the story of the Manhattan Project?  When developing 'atomic explosives', do you think the team immediately sprang the bomb, fully formed, straight from theory without intervening failures?   Do you think that the first babbage machine (which led to modern computers) went straight from concept to prototype without intervening piles of junk?  Do you think that there weren't hundreds of failures by hundreds of men before the Wright brothers flew?

Why must the acquisition of knowledge be perfect immediately or be invalid?

We do more experiments.  We learn more.  We close more gaps.  So far, there is no need for God.

May I ask:  Why is it that our lack of understanding immediately predecates a god?

So you admit there is a lack of understanding, therefore you have no solid base to conclude philosophical naturalism is true. Did i understand that correctly ?

Nope.  We have quite a solid base - your narrow sphere of abiogenesis (for instance) isn't enough to preclude the truth of the theories that have led us to researching it.  That's just one small piece of the puzzle; given that every other aspect of biology has a natural explanation, why do I need God to fill in the spot we don't know yet, but are learning?

Similarly, why should we assume a God when we have a phenomenon we do not yet understand?

I have not brought God into the game in my inicial post, have i ?

You have, in others.  You ask this entire question because you want to insert a supernatural cause into a gap in knowledge.  I freely admit the gap, but my question remains:  why should we insert god (or the supernatural) into it?

 

Do you posit that we have reached the absolute limits of human knowledge and endeavor?

My initial question has not gone to agnostics, but to the ones, that held that philosophical naturalism is true.

All scientists are agnostic toward science - we know it works, but we also know it can be disproven by additional knowledge at any time.  This concept of "philosophical naturalism" - which you have not yet defined - if it exists by evidence, has validity.  The idea that the universe is all there is (if that's your definition) is backed up by empirical evidence that is simple:  we have yet to find anything that isn't part of the universe.

What's the problem here?

There's no reason to.  The universe's existence is prima face evidence of the existence of nature, and natural law.

It seems you do not know the claim of philosophicla naturalism : namely the natural world is all there is  ( aka no God required )

that's precisely what I said above:  there is no reason to insert God into the current understanding of the universe. 

[Godexists]

God does not make part of a naturalistic worldview by definition.

I must reject your "definition" of your god, then, as patently useless.  You have declared your god to be something elusive and remote which can neither be confirmed nor falsified by experiment or observation.

By your own definition, your alleged god is now permanently banned from having any interaction with the physical universe, as that interaction would automatically make it party to, and part of, a naturalistic worldview.

And a god that cannot interact with its creation might as well not be there at all.

you have missunderstood my sentence.

[Azdgari]

Perhaps you poorly stated it.  Personal responsibility, and all that.

What do you mean by "supernatural" and "natural" for example?

[jaimehlers]

Without fine-tuning, there would be no universe at all. Even the elementary forces are finely tuned. So is the expansion rate of the universe..... The vast majority  cannot host life, but our earth can, and that is due to a incredible arrangement , which is finely tuned. The odds this to be due to chance are so big, that chance becomes a bad explanation.

First off, you're playing semantics games.  The universe is not "fine-tuned" in any sense which humans normally use the term.  What that argument means is that the rules the universe works by lie within a range that allows for intelligent life to eventually develop.  There is no real justification to say that chance isn't a good explanation; there could be a googleplex (or more) of universe that formed and died where the constants don't add up right, and as far as life in this universe is concerned, none of them would matter.

And as far as life on Earth being "an incredible arrangement", you tried to posit that nonsense before, and it fell completely flat.  In fact, some of the basis for your argument was provably wrong, such as the fact that Sol is not located between two galactic arms, but instead on the outskirts of the Orion Arm, with 15,000 stars being within 100 light-years of us.

based on what can you make that claim ?

Based on the fact that we have never observed anything that has not ultimately come down to the interaction of natural forces that Grimm cited.

So how can we based on what we do know confidently say, the universe is the result of purely natural forces ?

A better question is, how can anyone confidently say that the universe is the result of a "creator's" personal attentions, based on what we actually know?  The thing that you don't seem to understand is that science has no vested interest in a particular answer to the questions we face.  Unlike you and other creationists, who have that vested interest of "proving" that some creator exists in order to validate your own beliefs.

Over sixty years of research have brought us quit far. So we know fairly sure that naturalistic answers do not withstand scrutiny. 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110211053608AAMLCdl

The thing is that Yahoo Answers depends on users answering those questions.  When it comes to complicated scientific questions, there's no guarantee whatsoever that the people answering will be competent to answer.

Dr. Monty White:

He is a young earth creationist who earned his PhD for researching the kinetic theory of gas (ala, physics).  This in no way makes him competent in the field of biology, certainly not in evolutionary biology.

1. There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller in his experiment.

Given that White doesn't think the Earth existed for more than 6,000 years, of course there's "no proof" that he would accept.  The fact remains that scientists came up with that combination of gases based on working backwards.

2. The next problem is that in Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

It isn't just ozone that blocks the ionizing effects of ultraviolet radiation; virtually all gases do.  Thus the gases that were used in the Miller-Urey experiment would also have blocked ultraviolet radiation, so there's no reason to expect that without free oxygen, there would have been too much UV radiation for amino acids to form.

3. The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.

This might be a relevant point...if we hadn't already discovered that right-handed amino acids are in fact used by life-forms, though left-handed amino acids are used the most by far.  For example:  http://www.hhmi.org/news/waldor20090918.html

"Many bacteria produce various D-amino acids (the mirror images of the more common L-amino acids) to govern the chemistry of their cell walls. The illustration shows the mirror image forms of L- and D-methionine with Vibrio cholerae, the cause of cholera."

4. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from?

The "information" contained in DNA is nothing more than base-pair triplets which are used to manufacture amino acids.  Since there are only four base pairs (Adenine + Thymine, Guanine + Cytosine), it is not exactly difficult for the 4! combinations of these base pairs to have come about purely by chance over time.  By the same token, DNA strands can quite easily get longer as organisms mutate and speciate.

So you admit there is a lack of understanding, therefore you have no solid base to conclude philosophical naturalism is true. Did i understand that correctly ?

The reason we conclude that philosophical naturalism is true - specifically, that it is provisionally true - is because we haven't found any countervailing evidence that disproves it.

My initial question has not gone to agnostics, but to the ones, that held that philosophical naturalism is true.

Which is really beside the point; you didn't answer his question.

It seems you do not know the claim of philosophicla naturalism : namely the natural world is all there is  ( aka no God required )

Indeed.  However, even if you were able to disprove philosophical naturalism (say, come up with some evidence that there is something outside the universe that we know), it would not make the belief in God true.

[Astreja]

you have missunderstood my sentence.

I misunderstood nothing, Godexists.  You have an absurd concept of deity -- You have a god that supposedly interacts with the physical world, yet which cannot be detected by any empirical observation and leaves no trace.

If your god did exist, but outside this universe (wherever that "outside" might actually be in practical terms), there should be easily-detectable energy imbalances where it interacts with matter/energy in the physical universe.

And if it were to do that for even one second of eternity, it would automatically become a physical phenomenon.  Either it can be explained by current science, or the data can be analyzed to expand our science to include naturalistic gods.

I am of the opinion that your god simply does not exist.  It can drop in to see Me any time now if it feels a need to disprove My assertion.  Not holding My breath, though.

[Godexists]

GE .. you kinda skipped my questions, leaping straight to your proofs.  I"d appreciate an answer: they're not facetious, and not an attack.  They are the counter-questions to the objections you raise; if you're going to target 'philosophical naturalism', then you need to explain how the holes you're going to attempt to plug with 'god' deserve 'god'.  Do you understand?

No God so far in the equation. If you stick not philosophical naturalism, it must be self evident, and not with " Gods existence cannot be proven, or " there is no evidence " therefore naturalism is true ". Read my introductory post again. I am asking for positive evidence for naturalism.

Please explain how you compute these odds?  What is the likelihood of life in the universe?

the odds are too big, to make naturalistic explanations plausible.

Lee Smolin Wrote (Three Roads, p202)

One can estimate the probablilty that the constants in our standard theories of the elementary particles and cosmology would, were they chosen randomly, lead to a world with carbon chemistry. That probability is less than one part in 10220.

 

How many other planets have life (understanding that we discovered the first extrasolar 'rocky planet' in December of 2010)?  Does life exist only in the 'habitable zone', or is that limited to earth-like life?  By what presupposition do we assume that we are special?

http://www.reasons.org/philosophyreligion/worldviews/anthropic-principle-precise-plan-humanity

In the 1960s the odds that any given planet in the universe would possess the necessary conditions to support intelligent physical life were shown to be less than one in ten thousand.5 In 2001 those odds shrank to less than one in a number so large it might as well be infinity (10^173).

The sum of human knowledge to-date.

So do we have enough data on hand, or don't we ? above you stated the contrary. It seems that when the wind blows against the atheist world view, that card is used : " we don't have enough data on hand ". But in other instances, the oposit is claimed....... not very coherent, in my view.


 

Again, we understand the expansion of the universe back to about a picosecond before the big bang until now; every single observable fact points to the truth of the theory we've designed to explain the universe as it is.  If a competing fact enters evidence, it will have to be incorporated into the model, which will require rewriting the model.

However, so far, we've accounted for all available facts.

The Big Bang theory points to a beginning of the universe. Therefore it needs a cause. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives. Before you mention virtual particles : they do NOT arise from absolutely nothing.

Not knowing everything is not a bad thing; defining what we do not know is how we know where to look for answers.  Putting 'god' into the holes is unnecessary.

So far, you have not shown, why it is unnecessary. Just baseless assertions will not convince me.



 

As far as we know, the universe that exists is as a result of natural processes - if we discover evidence that this is not the case, we'll have to sort that out.  So far, that has not happened, and based on the history of human discovery, it is unlikely to happen.

again, thats just a baseless assertion. where is your evidence to back up your claim ?

We do more experiments.  We learn more.  We close more gaps.  So far, there is no need for God.

As said: when the data does not fit the pre established world view, " we do need more experiments " is the answer. That way, God can be always excluded.
The fact that you do not aknowledge the inherent and very clear problems with abiogenesis, which do lead any honest thinker to the conclusion , that naturalism has not the answers today, and will never have, speaks for itself. In the same way as you would never believe, my words written here cannot be result of " natural " processes, in the same way the codified information in DNA cannot have random natural processes as origin.

Nope.  We have quite a solid base - your narrow sphere of abiogenesis (for instance) isn't enough to preclude the truth of the theories that have led us to researching it.  That's just one small piece of the puzzle; given that every other aspect of biology has a natural explanation, why do I need God to fill in the spot we don't know yet, but are learning?

Please explain the flagellum in natural means. How did it evolve ?

You have, in others.

But that is not the issue of this topic. The issue is evidence that leads logically to naturalism. Have any ?

You ask this entire question because you want to insert a supernatural cause into a gap in knowledge.

I am not searching the God of the gaps. I am searching for wellfounded reasons to conclude naturalism. Hard time to answer that question ?

I freely admit the gap, but my question remains:  why should we insert god (or the supernatural) into it?

that is the wrong question. my question is : why does it convince you, philosophical naturalism is true ? you need a answer, that stands by its own.

All scientists are agnostic toward science - we know it works, but we also know it can be disproven by additional knowledge at any time.  This concept of "philosophical naturalism" - which you have not yet defined

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism

Philosophical naturalism is essentially the logical result of methodological naturalism, the doctrine which assumes that there is no way to contact, detect, or otherwise empirically observe the supernatural. Methodological naturalists believe the scientific method to be the only way to determine the truth. Because supernatural, intelligent forces, if they exist, are claimed to be unpredictable and hence unrepeatable, these naturalists must ignore the possibility of supernatural or magical intervention in the physical world.
Philosophical naturalists take these beliefs one step further and reject the existence of the supernatural altogether, citing the utter lack of empirical evidence. Due to the absence of scientific evidence backing up religion, most philosophical naturalists are also atheists.

- if it exists by evidence, has validity.  The idea that the universe is all there is (if that's your definition) is backed up by empirical evidence that is simple:  we have yet to find anything that isn't part of the universe.

Why does your epistemology be based only on empirical evidence ?

that's precisely what I said above:  there is no reason to insert God into the current understanding of the universe.

you still miss to present the evidence to back up this claim.

[Godexists]

I misunderstood nothing, Godexists.  You have an absurd concept of deity

You misunderstood it, as you second sentence proves. This thread is not about God, but about positive evidence for naturalism. God is not needed in the equation to make a case for naturalism.

[Hatter23]

Philosophical naturalism helds, that the natural universe is all there is. If you believe this to be true, please back up this claim with positive evidence,

Take a brick repeatedly slam it into your forehead, does it hurt? Then it exists.

You are then by saying  prove "all there is" are going to the ever so lame reversal of burden of proof. If there is something beyond the natural universe, you are the one who needs to show evidence. How many times does this need to be explained to you?

[Boots]

From the top.

Philosophical naturalism helds, that the natural universe is all there is. If you believe this to be true, please back up this claim with positive evidence,

I won't say "I'm certain there is nothing but the natural universe" because we haven't seen everything.  This is called "keeping an open mind."  However, I lean heavily toward the principle you're describing.  My "positive evidence" would be

* medicine/biology
* meteorology/climatology
* computer science
* engineering/physics
* mathematics
* space travel
* agriculture
* genetics

I'll stop there, because I believe you probably get the point.

aka why does the universe not need a cause,

I reject this as a stipulation for rejecting the supernatural.  It's like you're asking "why does a rock need to be grey, and not bright orange with puce polka-dots?"  I couldn't even give a guess why the universe doesn't need a cause.  I DON'T CARE.  It's a wholely meaningless question that has ZERO bearing on my life, the life of my children, or, as far as I can tell, the furtherance of the human race.  But I'll answer it anyway: sh1t happens.

or why does it exist in one form or the other eternally.

what the what?? I don't even know what you mean here--but I'm going to take a stab and guess you mean "why is the universe the way it is."  Um, because it is?  See "sh1t happens" above.

Please present evidence of how the universe could have been  finely tuned to create life through natural forces ,  chemical evolution, and  abiogenesis.

I reject this question as backwards.  Looking at a completed thing, you are presupposing that the environment was specifically tailored *in order to* create that thing.  You are not taking into account the possibility that the thing was created *because of* the environment, rather than the environment created *for* the thing.  Typical mysical theistic self-centeredness.  Like "Trees are green because God knew green was most pleasing to our eye," instead of "because there's so much green in the world, we evolved to like it"

Please do NOT present negative evidence, aka : God most probably does not exist, because the bible is wrong, no evidence for Gods existence etc.

Every single thing for which we have an explanation is thru natural causes.  Gravity.  Magnetism.  Snowstorms.  INsects.  Digestion.  Disease.  Flight.  Emotions.  Even the "white light" at the end of a tunnel for near-death experiences.  ALL of them have natural explanations.  That is why I believe that there is no reason to believe supernatural *any*thing exists.

As an aside, I've also outgrown invisible friends.