Author Topic: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it  (Read 6998 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #87 on: July 05, 2012, 10:05:48 AM »
You cannot claim that everything needs a cause,

Thats NOT what i claimed. I said : Everything that BEGINS TO EXIST. needs a cause. See the difference ? Since God is eternal, no cause needed. No special pleading here.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #88 on: July 05, 2012, 10:06:55 AM »
How about this for an answer, GE?


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.


Sure , the universe is natural. But and how about its origin ?

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #89 on: July 05, 2012, 10:08:34 AM »
And who told you this thread is about " winning " or " loosing " something ?

I did -- I unilaterally declared it to be so, just a few minutes ago. Do try to keep up, GE.   ;)

As the thread starter, i set the goals. And the goal of this thread is not to win, or to loose something. Just to clarify some things......

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #90 on: July 05, 2012, 10:09:17 AM »
How about this for an answer, GE?

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.

Works for Me.  What possible use is an incoherent, nonsensical worldview that can't be used for anything practical in the Real World™?  At best it would be an intellectual parlor game.  At worst it would interfere with the advancement of science and reduce the quality of life for untold millions of...

...Oh, wait...
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12553
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #91 on: July 05, 2012, 10:10:23 AM »
Sure , the universe is natural. But and how about its origin ?

You're suggesting that its origin might be incoherent?  That's the alternative to naturalism.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #92 on: July 05, 2012, 10:12:57 AM »
As the thread starter, i set the goals.

GE,  you've already trashed the original goals.  You moved the goalposts by dragging the Kalam argument in here; you've plagiarized other sites; you keep asserting that our evidence is not enough to support our beliefs and hold to a double standard by refusing to support your own beliefs with evidence.  I reject your argument and re-assert that you have lost very, very badly here.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #93 on: July 05, 2012, 10:16:08 AM »
So theist “just know” that God exists and can exist, “outside of time”? Have you any peer reviewed journals that could help us understand this?

Philosophical reasoning does not need to be peer reviewed.



Quote
, or that there might be many universes springing into existence
might be, but what made them spring into existence, if so ?
I think we can dismiss magic.

And replace it with ........  ??



Quote
Hey, it’s your god who says we look like him. I’m just quoting the Bible. If you think God’s a liar, then that is a matter for you.

I don't think God is a liar. I just believe, as many others, that not everything in the bible must be interpreted literally.


Quote
Taking your evasion as, “Well, I recognise that is a little far-fetched” I see that you recognise that magical beings without an energy source who poof matter out of nothing is not really believable as it does not coincide with the rest of the physics an chemistry that we do fully understand. So I will ask again, “And you think that's fine? That sounds normal to you?”

Its a scientific known fact that energy winds down, therefore energy did not exist eternally. There was a starting point, at the Big Bang. You have two alternatives : Either a powerful cause, aka God , created energy, or ............. ??   please present your  alternative.

Quote
That is my world view. A set of superstitions that arose out of a belief system traceable back to Babylonian myth. To consider any of that the absolute truth is delusional.

What is not ??!!

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6826
  • Darwins +555/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #94 on: July 05, 2012, 10:16:13 AM »
A eternal God has no cause.
An eternal universe has no cause.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2781
  • Darwins +80/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #95 on: July 05, 2012, 10:17:15 AM »
if you don't like the logic behind the reason presented, how about you rather show, that the universe was either self-caused, or had no beginning, but exists eternally ? What evidence do you have to back up one of these alternatives ( which are the only ones i can fathom ).

I do not have an answer for that, simply because I do not know.  That is not a confession of weakness.  It is simply my state of knowledge at this point.  Saying "I don't know" does not mean we must say "Magic Man Done It!".



Quote
At this thread, i do not have to show anything. Its abour YOUR worldview, and the justification for it.

So we need to offer how the universe came about, in great details, while all you need to offer is "I can't believe it!  Therefore, a magic man done it!".

I sense an imbalance here...


Quote
Quote
How ironic you said that.  God IS mythology.

And you know that HOW exactly ? This thread is becoming a parade of empty assertions without any solid arguments to back up the claims. Where is the so much proclaimed rationality behing the strong atheist world view ??!!

Again, there is a LACK OF evidence concerning your god's existence.  You're that one that needs to back up the notion that something exists.  I'm not obligated to prove that something does not exists.



Quote
Quote
Non-belief in gods has nothing to do with "loving sin".  It only has to do with lack of evidence.

Or maibe with willful ignorance towards the evidence ?

Again; you're projecting.


Quote
what is threatened, is not God. He does not need us, and that we believe in him.

God does not need us, yet demands continuous worship.  Ok, whatever.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #96 on: July 05, 2012, 10:18:06 AM »
  I reject your argument and re-assert that you have lost very, very badly here.

If you feel so, fine. Its entirely up to you to judge what i wrote, here, and the reasons for your judgement.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #97 on: July 05, 2012, 10:19:00 AM »

An eternal universe has no cause.

And you do have scientific evidence to back up this claim ? Is a eternal universe what you believe, there was in the past ?

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #98 on: July 05, 2012, 10:20:59 AM »

God does not need us, yet demands continuous worship.  Ok, whatever.

He does not demand us to worship him because he needs our worship, but because thats for our own good.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12553
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #99 on: July 05, 2012, 10:21:15 AM »
An eternal universe has no cause.
And you do have scientific evidence to back up this claim ?

That something eternal has no cause?  I thought that that was a point on which the two of you agreed - that something eternal by definition has no cause.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11219
  • Darwins +296/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #100 on: July 05, 2012, 10:22:35 AM »
He does not demand us to worship him because he needs our worship, but because thats for our own good.

Worshiping evil is good for us how?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6826
  • Darwins +555/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #101 on: July 05, 2012, 10:28:34 AM »
So theist “just know” that God exists and can exist, “outside of time”? Have you any peer reviewed journals that could help us understand this?

Philosophical reasoning does not need to be peer reviewed.
On the contrary.
Quote
Quote
, or that there might be many universes springing into existence
might be, but what made them spring into existence, if so ?
I think we can dismiss magic.
And replace it with ........  ??
Anything that isn’t magic.
Quote
I don't think God is a liar. I just believe, as many others, that not everything in the bible must be interpreted literally.
And you have a magic decoder ring so you know exactly which parts of the Bible are literal and which are figurative?

So when God showed Himself to Moses and the rest on Mount Sinai, He was invisible? And Moses, being unsurprised that God looked like him, didn’t comment?
Quote
Its a scientific known fact that energy winds down, therefore energy did not exist eternally.
No, that is something believed by people who believe in magic and invisible beings who can make donkeys talk.

It is scientific knowledge that
Quote
The law of conservation of energyWiki, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system, for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy, but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

In the twentieth century, the definition of energy was broadened. It was found that particles that have rest mass, and those that do not, are subject to interconversions. There can occur creation and annihilation of (ponderable) matter particles, and imponderable non-matter particles. Matter is then not conserved. Matter particles (such as electrons) can be converted to non-matter (such as photons), or even into potential or kinetic energy. In such a transformation process of an isolated system that is alternatively described by these apparently distinct quantities, neither the mass nor the energy changes over time. Conservation of total energy, and conservation of total mass, each still holds as a law in its own right. When stated alternatively, in terms of mass and of energy, they appear as the apparently distinct laws of the nineteenth century.

So your biblical scientists’ state of knowledge is roughly that of someone in the 18th century… they used to burn witches then…
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6826
  • Darwins +555/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #102 on: July 05, 2012, 10:34:36 AM »

An eternal universe has no cause.

And you do have scientific evidence to back up this claim ? Is a eternal universe what you believe, there was in the past ?
You seem surprised. Yet you are happy with an eternal god for which you have absolutely no evidence and neither can you offer any explanation as to how an eternal god might eat, breathe and generally live, let alone how this being can create energy and mass out from nothing or live for ever.

There is/was a line of thought that if the universe were slowing down in its expansion that eventually it would stop and start contracting; contracting all the way down to a singularity and then restart. Even you could see how that would be eternal.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #103 on: July 05, 2012, 10:47:51 AM »
You cannot claim that everything needs a cause,

Thats NOT what i claimed. I said : Everything that BEGINS TO EXIST. needs a cause. See the difference ? Since God is eternal, no cause needed. No special pleading here.

I say it is special pleading. Show us that the universe isn't eternal or God didn't begin....one or the other, or you sre special pleading.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7314
  • Darwins +171/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #104 on: July 05, 2012, 10:48:47 AM »
Godexists - are you a Hugh Ross follower?

I have a very close friend who follows Hugh Ross, and his old-earth creationist model.  We have argued for years, and my conclusion is that this friend cannot accept a young earth, as it does not jive at all with science.  My friend is an analyst by trade, and so he cannot accept things that have no facts or evidence.  Unfortunately, he is unable to accept that there really are no fact or evidence, nor is it possible to falsify the claim that a god is the creator.  Do you understand why people like us are highly skeptical?

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #105 on: July 05, 2012, 10:49:57 AM »

God does not need us, yet demands continuous worship.  Ok, whatever.

He does not demand us to worship him because he needs our worship, but because thats for our own good.

circular reasoning
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3956
  • Darwins +265/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #106 on: July 05, 2012, 10:56:10 AM »

An eternal universe has no cause.

And you do have scientific evidence to back up this claim ? Is a eternal universe what you believe, there was in the past ?

There is a universe, therefore there is naturalism. The Universe as we can see operates on naturalistic principle. We see things have naturalistic causes. We do not have proof of non naturalistic causes. The universe as we know it is an object so it either is eternal, has a naturalistic cause, or it had an non-naturalistic cause. Since we have no documented occurrence of non-naturalistic causes....this put that as a possible origin as so exceedingly unlikely as to be an effectively an impossibility.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #107 on: July 05, 2012, 11:14:47 AM »
You believe it, but based on what concrete scientific evidence  ? Scientific inquiry and data tells a other story. The more we learn, the more we find out how small chance is, to find a other life hosting planet.

Hi, Godexists:  Is anything in this post after these three sentences your own material?  And are the two links you gave the only two sources you used in creating that post?  It is generally frowned upon here to copy and paste large walls of text without putting anything into your own words.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2781
  • Darwins +80/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #108 on: July 05, 2012, 11:21:51 AM »
He does not demand us to worship him because he needs our worship, but because thats for our own good.

Why create human beings so that they're required to butt-kiss a being for their "own good"?  Surely an intelligence designer could make them more self-reliance than that...
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1348
  • Darwins +101/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #109 on: July 05, 2012, 12:05:40 PM »

An eternal universe has no cause.

And you do have scientific evidence to back up this claim ? Is a eternal universe what you believe, there was in the past ?

Why is it that you are able to make the statement that your eternal god has no cause with no scientific evidence to back it up, yet you demand evidence to back up Grey's claim?
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11219
  • Darwins +296/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #110 on: July 05, 2012, 12:07:01 PM »
Why is it that you are able to make the statement that your eternal god has no cause with no scientific evidence to back it up, yet you demand evidence to back up Grey's claim?

Special pleading. Or, as Godexists would (probably) say, the existence of his god is obviously true, and you're an idiot for not seeing that.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #111 on: July 05, 2012, 12:37:38 PM »

An eternal universe has no cause.

And you do have scientific evidence to back up this claim ? Is a eternal universe what you believe, there was in the past ?

Why is it that you are able to make the statement that your eternal god has no cause with no scientific evidence to back it up, yet you demand evidence to back up Grey's claim?

because they are two different questions, being the one directed to me philosophical, while the other scientific.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11219
  • Darwins +296/-38
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #112 on: July 05, 2012, 12:39:26 PM »
because they are two different questions, being the one directed to me philosophical, while the other scientific.

Well, at least I got the special pleading right... According to christian logic, I'm a prophet now.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #113 on: July 05, 2012, 12:40:44 PM »
Why is it that you are able to make the statement that your eternal god has no cause with no scientific evidence to back it up, yet you demand evidence to back up Grey's claim?

because they are two different questions, being the one directed to me philosophical, while the other scientific.

Science and philosophy are not unrelated disciplines.  Quite the contrary, they're strongly related, and in fact, the former derived from the latter.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #114 on: July 05, 2012, 12:42:16 PM »
Godexists - are you a Hugh Ross follower?

I have a very close friend who follows Hugh Ross, and his old-earth creationist model.  We have argued for years, and my conclusion is that this friend cannot accept a young earth, as it does not jive at all with science. 

there are also many things, that do speak against a old earth model. Thats a big issue, many books have been written about this issue. So in the end its a matter not of science, but of personal interpretation of the scientific data, and faith.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #115 on: July 05, 2012, 12:43:41 PM »
I say it is special pleading. Show us that the universe isn't eternal or God didn't begin....one or the other, or you sre special pleading.

upon your logic, why would it not be special pleading, to say the universe is eternal  ?