Author Topic: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it  (Read 6525 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline on:bread:alone

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • Darwins +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #232 on: July 08, 2012, 02:54:21 PM »
i was discussing creationism vs. naturalism with a friend a few moments ago, and here is what he had to contribute:

Quote
If the assumption is that existence requires a creator, then it should stand to reason that a creator who exists, also must require a creator. If it is not true that existence requires a creator, as in a creator who requires no creator, th...en it would be just as reasonable to assume that existence itself requires no creator, and was not created by one. Certainly it's very remotely possible that some sort of "deity" (not the Abrahamic God) put into motion the process we refer to as evolution, but it seems pretty unlikely, and frankly it seems to be a bit intellectually lazy to make such 100% arbitrary speculations. I might as well say that "it could be" that there is a group of pansdimensional mice who built the earth as a part of a computer system to answer the question of life, the universe and everything. That kind of thinking leads us nowhere...as the possibilities of "what could be" are endless. What we need to focus on is what is, and extrapolate from there...not the other way around.
i'm a street-walking cheetah with a heart full of napalm.

please, check out www.letsgetrational.com

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5675
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #233 on: July 08, 2012, 03:02:58 PM »

Of course its not a God of the Gaps . Because Behe undestands the functioning of blood clotting, or the Flagella, he deduced rationally a intelligent designer as the best explanation for given phenomena.

Of course it is a god of the gaps. To conclude that something can't be broken down any further than Behe has done and claim something to be 'too complex' to have just happened and think it's the magical work of some dude in outer universe, then it is god of the gaps.

It's pretty much god of the gaps at the most basic definition of the word:

Quote
God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Give the definition of irreducible complexity

Quote
Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1]

and

Quote
Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Behe's own definition of the term doesn't include god, but the assumption is there.
 
Quote

please explain, why.

I like this quote regarding IC

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community
One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."

It's pretty fitting. For Behe he is just waving the white flag and giving up on understanding how those systems can work and can be broken down further and are not too complex to have happened through natural selection.

It's pretty much a cop-out. What's even more of a cop-out and poor science is to disguise the term intelligent design as 'real science', and that it should be taught in schools along side evolution. Neither Behe nor anyone else that supports intelligent design have actually given a convincing argument that their positions are scientific. Not one peer-reviewed paper (AiG and the Discovery Institute don't count as peer-review). And not even one major win in court.

 
Quote
I did not say that. A other debater came up with this nonsense.

Actually you did. You created a strawman by turing Gnu's statement:

That proper scientists don't want to waste their time debating with theists. Scientific issues are not settled by debates.

into this

So proper scientists are all naturalists and atheists, and a scientist cannot have faith in God, and be a theist ? what a sick perception......

Way to go. Again, keep building your little army of strawmen.


Quote
This doesn't prove anything. I will admit that WLC is very good at 'winning' debates, but that doesn't mean his position is correct.
Quote
If you think so, you should present the rebuttals to his arguments.....

What good would that get me. I'd just be repeating what others have said. To bad KCrady isn't more active. He seems to be the forum expert of WLC. For example, read his rebuttal:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,11160.0.html

Quote

At this topic, you do not need to prove a negative ( aka why god shall not exist ), but present good reasons for naturalism. Have any ?

Yes I do. I really, strongly doubt that this universe needs some magic man in the sky over-seeing everything. I simply prefer to wait for the findings from the scientific community to come in.

Quote
No, it has not. It is well accepted amongst the scientific community, since its the best theory they were able to come up with, but there are several flaws and unanswered questions.......

And what is wrong with unanswered questions, and flaws. You do know the scientific definition of the word theory, right?

Quote
Theory
A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/glossary.html

There is nothing at all wrong with flaws in science, and there is nothing at all wrong unanswered questions in science. In fact it makes science interesting. Those new discoveries made every day. Will they find Higgs? Blah, blah, blah.  It's like an orgasm.

Sadly for some they want all the answers right away, or they get impatient and begin to ponder if there is some metaphysical sky-daddy controlling the universe. I can name a few on this forum, and I am talking to one right now. As screwtape said eariler we've only been doing science for so long. Our technology is only so good at the moment and we can only do so much.

But hey, if you're unhappy with all the unanswered questions and all the flaws in the BBT, then go for it. Those flaws and unanswered questions don't mean there's a god out there controlling everything.


 
Quote

If it had a natural beginner, then the Big Bang would not be the starting point of the physical universe......

The cyclic model might be the answer for our universe's existence. Then again it might not be. Then again we may never know.

-Emily
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 03:18:09 PM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3948
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #234 on: July 08, 2012, 03:58:33 PM »


Intelligent Design promoters however have a oposite proceeding : they  check the scientific evidence, and search for the best, and most compelling explanation for given phenomena.



Incorrect if they did that they wouldn't be ID promoters, they would be scientists. ID promoters have a foregone conclusion and use an appeal to ignorance just like you do with your Underwear Gnome Theology.

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 on:bread:alone

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • Darwins +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #235 on: July 08, 2012, 04:05:39 PM »
a little highly relevant comic relief:







i'm a street-walking cheetah with a heart full of napalm.

please, check out www.letsgetrational.com

Online Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #236 on: July 08, 2012, 05:31:52 PM »
Now I have told you this, please tell me, "Why is it important to show the Bible is right?"

It is important to find the truth. The journey to find it is individual. its important to present the various and diverging world views, and let people make up their own mind.
Will you please answer the question. "Why is it important to show the Bible is right?" I am genuinely curious. You cannot say, "To find the truth" - What truth? The truth that the Bible is right? If so, all you are saying is,

"It is important to show the Bible is right to show the Bible is right."

I will donate $10 to Benny Hinn if you can tell me what, "The journey to find it is individual." means. If you think we all have our own truth, you can't speak English! We all have a mixture of truth and opinion.

Truth is definitions. 2+2 = 4. Maths and science deals in truths. If we do not know the truth, we say  so - we do not make it up on the hoof.

An opinion is, "There's a big man in the sky who watches everything you do and unless you behave like a Bronze Age Peasant, you will be cast in a fiery pit for ever and ever, amen." (Actually, that is a shitty opinion but some people have that opinion.)

This is really dangerous ->. "its important to present the various and diverging world views, and let people make up their own mind."

You probably are not allowed to breed, so you will not have children. However, I have to tell you that children need to be given accurate information.

If you tell a child:
Eat those berries and they will kill you
Eat those berries and see how good they taste
Eat those berries before they are dark blue and you will not like them

and add, "I'd like you to make your mind up about that." I'd say you're a useless parent.

Small children think adults are always right, you keep telling them there is an invisible deity and you back it up with constant stories, prayers, visits to church, visits to Christian retreats, etc. AND if you tell them the utter garbage you told us about evolution... Has a child a chance to "think for himself."?

HOW CAN THEY MAKE UP THEIR MIND? A child's experience is small. They trust you! You have betrayed them. You have lied to them and deceived them, you have taught them things that are wrong.

Godexists,

Every time you see a child, you will think of this and you will think of your duty to be as honest as possible with that child. You will not inculcate him with mumbo-jumbo. You will think that you have to keep them away from idiots and stupidity, you will want them to become a rounded citizen who knows how to think for themselves and what is superstition and what is real.

If you really want a child to grow up and think for himself, tell him nothing about religion until he is 25 years old and then tell him your story - see what he says.





« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 05:34:03 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #237 on: July 08, 2012, 05:37:49 PM »
GE has run away from the forum:

"That is  my last post at this forum."

Tends to happen, sooner or later...

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7288
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #238 on: July 08, 2012, 05:52:35 PM »
GE has run away from the forum:

"That is  my last post at this forum."

Tends to happen, sooner or later...

Yeah, he chalks it up as a win against the mean atheists.  It was either I stepped in, or we headed to the ER.  Result: probably the same.

Meh...

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3036
  • Darwins +270/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #239 on: July 08, 2012, 10:12:39 PM »
It was either I stepped in, or we headed to the ER.  Result: probably the same. Meh...

I'm relieved that he's finally flounced off, but still curious as to why the existence of atheism bothers him so much.  He never did answer My questions in that regard.

The one thing I can take home from this whole exchange, though, is that I never, ever want to end up like GE.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3617
  • Darwins +119/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #240 on: July 08, 2012, 10:16:35 PM »
The one thing I can take home from this whole exchange, though, is that I never, ever want to end up like GE.


Actually I suspect a lot of Christians would be horrified if they could see how they look from outside of the bubble.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1338
  • Darwins +100/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #241 on: July 08, 2012, 10:53:05 PM »
I'm irked he never was courageous enough to answer my question either ("who is 'more good' ")  It occurred to me today that he CANT' answer that, because the answer does more than make his bible irrelevant, it renders it counterproductive.  I think I'm going to start MORE conversations with that question.
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

Offline on:bread:alone

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • Darwins +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #242 on: July 08, 2012, 11:14:50 PM »
GE has run away from the forum:

"That is  my last post at this forum."

Tends to happen, sooner or later...

an introspective moment of silence for GE...

:::rips gnarly ass:::

hope i don't, ya'know, lose any sleep over his departure or anything...
i'm a street-walking cheetah with a heart full of napalm.

please, check out www.letsgetrational.com

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3036
  • Darwins +270/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #243 on: July 09, 2012, 12:19:39 AM »
Actually I suspect a lot of Christians would be horrified if they could see how they look from outside of the bubble.

The problem for many people is that they're afraid to look from the outside for fear the bubble will burst.

I honestly don't have a good answer for this, either.  If someone is clinging to a viewpoint with tenacity, I think it's because it serves an important function in their life.  In the case of believers, we don't always get any insight into what drives that tenacity.  Frightened of not existing after death? Life-changing spiritual experience?  Just repeating the party line that was drilled into them by a parent or priest, out of duty or fear?  We don't know, and can't assume we know, unless they engage with us and tell us.

And that's what made this whole debate so frustrating:  We were speaking to GE's defenses and prejudices but not to GE himself.  It's almost as if he himself didn't exist.   :(
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Bereft_of_Faith

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 926
  • Darwins +39/-2
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #244 on: July 09, 2012, 01:18:33 AM »

The problem for many people is that they're afraid to look from the outside for fear the bubble will burst.

I honestly don't have a good answer for this, either.  If someone is clinging to a viewpoint with tenacity, I think it's because it serves an important function in their life.  In the case of believers, we don't always get any insight into what drives that tenacity.  Frightened of not existing after death? Life-changing spiritual experience?  Just repeating the party line that was drilled into them by a parent or priest, out of duty or fear?  We don't know, and can't assume we know, unless they engage with us and tell us.

I have a hypothesis:  They are loathe to speak against their god.  They may see that as the 'sin against the holy spirit', for which there is no forgiveness.  No matter how wrong they are, no matter how bad their god looks on paper, they stick by him. 

I wish there was a good way to get some data on this, because it is the one thing that would explain their refusal to accept facts, their apologetics, their apparent lack of logic, their SPAG.  He must not be wrong.  He must not be found wanting in any way... if he is... if I admit even to myself, then I must eventually admit it aloud, and I can never do that.

Even some atheists still toy with the idea of there being 'something'.  Every theist is sure that there is 'something'.  If they are forced, or 'deceived' into speaking against their god, they might very well face eternal consequences.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5380
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #245 on: July 09, 2012, 05:20:16 AM »
Godexists just got his name wrong (like most of them)

God's exits

sexist God

ex st is God

dogiest sx

dogs sex it
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 737
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #246 on: July 09, 2012, 09:24:38 AM »

The problem for many people is that they're afraid to look from the outside for fear the bubble will burst.

I honestly don't have a good answer for this, either.  If someone is clinging to a viewpoint with tenacity, I think it's because it serves an important function in their life.  In the case of believers, we don't always get any insight into what drives that tenacity.  Frightened of not existing after death? Life-changing spiritual experience?  Just repeating the party line that was drilled into them by a parent or priest, out of duty or fear?  We don't know, and can't assume we know, unless they engage with us and tell us.

I have a hypothesis:  They are loathe to speak against their god.  They may see that as the 'sin against the holy spirit', for which there is no forgiveness.  No matter how wrong they are, no matter how bad their god looks on paper, they stick by him. 

I wish there was a good way to get some data on this, because it is the one thing that would explain their refusal to accept facts, their apologetics, their apparent lack of logic, their SPAG.  He must not be wrong.  He must not be found wanting in any way... if he is... if I admit even to myself, then I must eventually admit it aloud, and I can never do that.

Even some atheists still toy with the idea of there being 'something'.  Every theist is sure that there is 'something'.  If they are forced, or 'deceived' into speaking against their god, they might very well face eternal consequences.
In the past year at work, I told 3 three different co-workers I was atheist. These are all religious folk, xians, but different sects.

The catholic said. “Oh my god Mickey, don’t even talk about that.” I sensed a very strong fear about this taboo subject. It seemed reflexive, not cognitive.

The Baptist just looked at me puzzled, shook her head and walked away.

The other person had a look of horror on her face. This person has all kinds of religious (xians) bible god sayings posted all over her office. I told her I’m not a heathen and there is no need to fear me. She smiled softly and went back in her office. This person is very intelligent but she is also very superstitious. 

I agree, they are so conditioned not to speak against their god, it causes them distress when presented with just the notion.

When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3948
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #247 on: July 09, 2012, 10:10:41 AM »
I have a hypothesis:  They are loathe to speak against their god.  They may see that as the 'sin against the holy spirit', for which there is no forgiveness.  No matter how wrong they are, no matter how bad their god looks on paper, they stick by him. 

I wish there was a good way to get some data on this, because it is the one thing that would explain their refusal to accept facts, their apologetics, their apparent lack of logic, their SPAG.  He must not be wrong.  He must not be found wanting in any way... if he is... if I admit even to myself, then I must eventually admit it aloud, and I can never do that.

Even some atheists still toy with the idea of there being 'something'.  Every theist is sure that there is 'something'.  If they are forced, or 'deceived' into speaking against their god, they might very well face eternal consequences.

It is funny, I immediately thought of how Linus treats the Great Pumpkin when reading this.
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 kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1319
  • Darwins +430/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #248 on: July 11, 2012, 07:19:04 PM »
Without fine-tuning, there would be no universe at all.

Ridiculous.  Does your television cease to exist if it is not tuned to Fox News?  We would not be here to observe the Cosmos if it had different constants, though we have no way of knowing whether or not some completely different sort of life might exist under those circumstances.  Life, Jim, but not as we know it.  If it were so that a Cosmos could not exist if it did not have the specific constants ours has, then there could be no "fine-tuning."  The dials would only have one setting.  "Fine-tuning" presupposes a such wide range of possible physical constants available that supernatural intelligent beings are necessary in order to explain how the cosmic dials were set ("fine-tuned") to the very precise and specific values our Cosmos exhibits, "so that life could exist."  If a Cosmos like this one (with the physical and cosmological constants it has) is the only possible Cosmos, there would be no tuning for supernatural beings to do, "fine" or otherwise.

I find it curious that theists seem to like the idea of "fine-tuning" so much.  If supernatural beings have to "fine-tune" a Cosmos in order to make it work, instead of just willing it to work because, magic, it means the powers of the "fine-tuners" are limited.  They can carefully twiddle dials to select a set of physical constants and press their Big Bang button to make a Cosmos, but they are subject to the limits of physics.  The fine-tuners cannot make a life-filled Cosmos with other constants.  If they could, there would be no need for fine-tuning.  They could bake the cake in any number of ways.  If the "fine-tuners" are subject to the constraints of physics, are they really "supernatural?"

Now here's the coup de grace: if a Cosmos like ours (with one, very specific, "fine-tuned" set of physical constants) is the only sort of place that can support intelligent life (hence, the calculation of odds and so forth) then the fine-tuners themselves (assuming they're intelligent life) must also live in a Cosmos just like ours.  If there's such a thing as a "supernatural realm" that is not a Cosmos exactly like ours, governed by the one, specific, extremely precise set of constants and physical properties (the relative strengths of sub-atomic forces, and so on) that ours has, then congratulations: we now have two, different kinds of places that are amenable to the existence of intelligent life.  All probability calculations showing the unlikeliness of a place where life can exist are instantly cut in half.  If there's one "supernatural" realm, how do we know there aren't more?  There could be dozens, or even 6.2 x10996,350,113,081 different "supernatural" realms with different properties, each inhabited by its own God or Pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. 

If you want to try to argue that there's only one, particular possible "supernatural realm" (good luck with that), then who "fine-tuned" it be just that way?  The logic of the "fine-tuning" argument would require a "super-supernatural realm" for the "fine-tuners" of the "supernatural realm," and we're off to the races.  If you want to try to argue that your supernatural entity of preference (e.g. Yahweh) does not require one specific kind of "fine-tuned" supernatural realm for his existence--that he can exist in any and all possible realms or Cosmoses, including ours--then you've got an example of intelligent life that does not require "fine-tuning" to exist, and the whole argument fails.

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.

You realize that by talking about things like elementary forces (e.g. the electro-weak force) and "the expansion rate" of the Cosmos, that you're taking Standard Model physics and Big Bang cosmology as a given, right?  Again, the "fine-tuning" argument assumes that the "fine-tuners" are limited to that as their mechanism.  They can twiddle dials on their Big-Bang-O-Matic to specified values and press the big red button, then wait 14.5 billion years or so for beings capable of worshiping them to appear (perhaps with the occasional subtle tweak of the evolutionary process to cobble bacterial flagella or whatever), but they are ultimately constrained by physics.  The "speak, and it is so," method of Cosmos fabrication is not available to Cosmic "fine-tuners."  They can't make a life-filled Cosmos with any arbitrary set of values, or one without any "constants" at all, held together by pure magic or divine will.  They're limited to one option.  Isn't that blasphemy or something?

Even if our Cosmos was "fine-tuned" by some form of super-intelligence to be exactly the way it is, on what basis (beyond sheer anthropocentric hubris) would we deduce that its purpose has anything to do with us?  Earth is such a teeny, tiny, sub-microscopic little speck compared to the rest of the known Cosmos (not to mention whatever might exist beyond the reach of our instruments), that it isn't even a rounding error.  For all practical intents and purposes, the entire Cosmos is inimical to human life and out of our reach.  This is an inescapable fact.  Do a Google Image search for "Hubble Deep Field."

Form follows function.  If the Cosmos (with one, inconceivably miniscule and insignificant exception) is inimical to human life and out of human reach, it follows that "habitat for humans" is not its function.  Especially if the Cosmic Design Department is a repository of vast, sublime intelligence and incredible capability.  The more intelligent and capable a designer is, the more effectively they are able to craft form to function, and the more elegant and efficient their designs will be at accomplishing their purposes.  From this, it follows that if our Cosmos is exquisitely "fine-tuned" by intelligence for a purpose, then it isn't about us.  We would be like bacteria on a doorknob in the Large Hadron Collider saying, "Hey, the temperature range and atmospheric pressure on this doorknob are 'fine-tuned' to values that let us live here.  That must mean this whole place was built for us!"

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

Can you provide one demonstrable example of an unnatural force?  If not, why should we look to such a thing as an explanation for anything?   

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

So, we can't take your chosen Forum name as evidence of where you're going and what you're arguing for?  Why so cagey and coy?

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

So can we now proceed from the premise that you're "bringing God into the game," or do you want to go back to being slick and evasive? 

So far, the claims of philosophical naturalism have held up extraordinarily well.  Everything from the simple lever to the computer you're reading this on operates on naturalistic principles.  No one rides to work on a flying carpet, no one has yet been able to bring their favorite genie, angel, sprite, faerie, deity or devil to James Randi and win his million dollars.  No one can cast a 10D Lightning Bolt spell or call fire down from the heavens.  How 'bout you?  Can you take the 2 Kings 18 Challenge?
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: Evidence for philosophical naturalism, please present it
« Reply #249 on: July 11, 2012, 10:18:25 PM »
I find it curious that theists seem to like the idea of "fine-tuning" so much.  If supernatural beings have to "fine-tune" a Cosmos in order to make it work, instead of just willing it to work because, magic, it means the powers of the "fine-tuners" are limited

On a similar note, it occurred to me today that applying the concept of irreducible complexity at a bacterial level is kind of absurd. I mean, if the "designer" of this world had the intention of including elements that are irreducibly complex, why wouldn't he just make humans irreducibly complex? Why does ID need to dig down all the way down to the flagellum before it can arbitrarily declare, "See, that's irreducibly complex!"?

In any case, great post (as always), KCrady.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.