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.
As others have pointed out - exhaustively - pick any branch of science. That is positive evidence for naturalism.
Without additional evidence that would offer a competing scientific construct, there's no reason to have anything else.
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.
WHat is the likelihood that a lawn dart, thrown at your back yard, would hit a particular blade of grass? What would the odds be that it would hit a blade of grass at all?
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?
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).
Incorrect. The drake equation (to which you refer) is essentially a series of guesses. The truth is we do not know what these odds actually are
If you would like to assert 10^173, please offer a source. Most creationist sources are notorious for picking numbers that have no basis in fact.
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.
You're missing the point: we do not have to have all
data to make a judgement about the validity of a concept; you do it all the time in small things in your daily life. We have a vast pile of data, but not enough to answer every question.
Unfortunately for your assertions - the absence of answers for certain specific concepts does not override the vast number of answers we do have.
Allow me to use an illustration:
Gravity exists, you would agree with me, I hope? We understand that gravity is a fundamental force, and we understand how mass and proximity affect its pull. We have even begun to understand how gravity relates to time (thanks to Einstein!). It is quite safe to say that we have a fairly good understanding of the effects of gravity in the natural world.
However, we don't understand at all what gravity actually is
. We can say it's the force matter exerts on other matter, sure, but - well, if electricity can be defined (fundamentally) as a flow of electrons, and light can be defined as quanta of protons making the rounds... we don't have a fundamental definition for gravity in any way, shape or form. We .. just don't know what causes it.
That doesn't invalidate what we do no about gravity - just because there's a gap, there's no reason to a) throw the theory of gravity out as being incorrect or b) say 'god did it'.
Similarly, 'philosophical naturalism' - or 'science' - exists. Though we may have a few holes in our understanding of underlying causes, we have yet to encounter any phenomenon that implies a cause outside of the natural world. When we do, we'll have to rethink it - until then, it stands on the shoulders of every branch of science and every invention on your desk, every convenience of our modern world, and every leap in comprehension made since the harnessing of fire.
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.
I am inclined to agree with you. In what way does this invalidate philosophical naturalism? Why do you posit the cause is supernatural simply because we do not know what it is, yet?
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.
You have not shown why it is /necessary/. The fruit of 'philosophical naturalism' is all around you - let's pick on just one object: the computer you're using to type these replies. That is the end result of millions of man hours devoted to physics, chemistry, biology, and - believe it or not - genetics, all to allow you to say the very core of the disciplines that produced it are invalid, and something you don't have to believe in because it is inconvenient for you.
In your own way, you are the caveman denying fire while waving a torch.
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 ?
Have you picked up a science textbook in the last decade?
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.
The fact that you insert God means that we should simply stop looking when we don't have an immediate answer. Of course, historically, we know that's a terribly bad idea: before Copernicus, the church insisted the Earth was the center of the universe and we didn't need to look for any answers. This wasn't true, but it was still asserted.
Why should man simply accept 'god' and stop? Copernicus and Galileo are both examples of philosophical naturalism coming up with answers that are both at odds with the bible and declared by the church to be incorrect; given just these two precedents among many, why should we believe the notion of 'god' when it is constantly disproved?
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 ?
*sighs* I'm no biologist. But you're quoting Behe, and Irreducible Complexity, which has been debunked on numerous occasions. You could begin your journey of understanding the origin of the flagellum by starting with http://pandasthumb.org/archives/evolution/irreducible-complexity/flagellum-evolution/
- but, hey, there's lots of other places you could begin as well.
You have, in others.
But that is not the issue of this topic. The issue is evidence that leads logically to naturalism. Have any ?
Copernicus, Galilelo, Burnulli (sp), Einstein, Tesla, Edison, Hawking, Curie, Pasteur, Hawke, Babbage, ... shall I go on?
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 ?
Nope. But you do tend to (rather frustratingly) ignore the answers.
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.
Because you can type on a computer, not get polio (as you were likely vaccinated against it) and discuss the nature of the core of stars - all fruit of the philosophical concept you are trying to ignore.
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
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 ?
Why does yours exist without it? Empirical evidence is all we have - 'feeling good' about something does not have the precision necessary to take a man to the moon and back. Philosophical naturalism enables that kind of endeavor.
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.
And you, frustratingly, miss that you yourself - and your ability to make this post - are evidence.