Which was refuted in Reply #85.All I see in Reply 85 is you asking what the definition of "crap" is.
Philosophical naturalism is a inevitable conclusion based on methodological naturalism which is based on observation which is valid or true. All those other things relied on observation which was valid or true.I disagree with the red, but let's focus on the green for now. How do you know your green claim is correct?
You have been provided evidence by means of scientific method which you yourself can attempt to show to be valid or not valid.You simply described the scientific method. You did not establish its validity.
What evidence do you have that there is a lack of evidence?Res ipsa loquitur. You're free to prove me wrong by presenting the evidence.
What evidence is there that we have failed to find such evidence?
It would appear that actually the evidence shows that you would refuse any and all evidence.This is incorrect. I would accept any coherent, non-fallacious argument or evidence.
Yes, observation by scientific method can show that observation is valid or true before becoming invalid or not true, or is currently valid or true. I am not getting what you are trying to say here. How does the scientific method show that observation is valid or true?
Saying that observation may not be valid or not true does not show that it is not valid or not true. Correct.
Current evidence shows that observation is valid or true.Which evidence is that?
You have said that there is no evidence that observation by scientific method has produced a model of reality that is organized crap. It would seem though that your evidence that naturalism is self defeating is a premise with which no evidence currently exists. This means that you may or may not be correct.Yes, I may or may not be correct about naturalism being self-defeating. It currently appears to me that it is. I personally won't consider accepting naturalism until I am confident that it is not.
Scientific method. Observation can be tested, falsified and validated. Predictions based on observation can be made. Hypotheses can be made, tested, falsified and validated. Theories can be made, tested falsified and validated. This has been addressed in reply #’s 34, 35, 37, 38, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 58.
How do we know that observation is valid? Test it. Keep testing forever (or until you die) if you want. If Homo sapiens have actually been around for 200,000 years, then that is 200,000 years of observation and testing observation. 2.5 million years if you count the genus Homo. These days we even have artificial means to enhance our limited natural senses.
I guess if you choose to not be satisfied with this, that is your choice.
I’m tired of your question “How do we know observation is valid”. The problem with continually asking this question is it could allow you to sub in whatever belief you want and if anyone tries to show how your belief is incorrect you can simply respond “how do you know your observation is valid”. “(insert here) of the gaps” argument.
If I were delusional and stated I don’t believe I’m human, and someone said “no, no, no, you are a human, here is the evidence”, I could keep asking “how do you know” over and over in order to keep believing I’m (insert here).
So you are questioning if naturalism is self defeating. So far your argument to show that naturalism is self defeating is that observation may not be valid or true. Well if observation is indeed not valid or not true then all of the things that fared just fine in the centuries where naturalism was a major philosophy will no longer fare well since observation is not valid.My argument is that observation may not be valid or true under naturalism. Someone using a system other than naturalism may conclude observation is valid or true on entirely different grounds.
Two more instances of the use of the word “may”. (insert here) may have been the answer all along.
Okay, I see. Your entire argument is based on “may”. Your argument then fails to persuade me as “may” proves nothing other than implication that humans are capable of imagining that which is not valid or not true.You're shifting the burden of proof. The naturalists in this thread are advocating that I adopt naturalism. In order to do that, they need to show that naturalism isn't self-defeating, and to do that they need to show that accepting naturalism as true does not lead me to conclude that naturalism may be false. So if the may remains, then I cannot accept naturalism.
If “may” is all it takes to show that (insert here) is self defeating, then everything is self defeating. If you do happen to find that (insert here) can show that there is no “may”, please let me know, I would be interested.
Do you have evidence other than a premise with which no evidence currently exists to show that naturalism is self defeating?Yes. I've given you part of it already:
Hurdle The First - Naturalism's methodology does not allow for the acceptance of propositions without evidence. If we accept that observation is valid without evidence, and then use this to synthesize naturalism, then we must reach the conclusion to abandon the proposition that observation is valid since it is held without evidence. Once we do this, we can no longer synthesize naturalism.
Hurdle The Second is the other part of it, which happens after we tentatively establish the validity of observation. I don't really see the point in bringing it up before then, though.
The premise that observation may be not valid in my eyes only proves that naturalism may be self defeating, not that it is self defeating.Oh, I see. The issue is in how we go about accepting something that may or may not be true. If we accept observation is true without evidence, and then we develop a philosophy that says we can't accept things as true without evidence, then we have a contradiction. Of course, you may know of some way where we wouldn't know whether observation is true but somehow still accept it without violating the rules of naturalism, but I currently do not know of any way to do that.
All well and good for (insert here), except there is one problem: we haven’t accepted that observation is valid without evidence.
I did not completely ignore the entire paragraphs. “The problem with all three is they make claims or assumptions which haven’t been or can’t be verified” is a response to your accurate view that all three groups would probably reject the implication that they’re doing something that’s externally verifiable as observation. This is not a red hearing. I did however ignore that you dodged my question and instead I made a statement we both could agree with.The question about whether it's possible to have a thought independent of observation? I did address that: in 1 example, observation is limited to just a single observation of a thought, in the second observation is irrelevant, and in the third observation isn't valid. So yes, someone adopting one of those philosophies could very well claim that they are thinking without experiencing observation.
Currently it hasn’t been (and perhaps can’t be) verified that it is possible to think without ever experiencing observation. People make claims all the time which haven’t been (and perhaps can’t be) verified. You continue to dodge the question, you’re not answering the question, you’re letting someone or something else answer the question.
You could answer “I don’t know”, which would be an acceptable answer. I’ll revise my answer to say “currently no but the possibility of yes exists”.
If you go back to the start of the conversation about "crap," you will see that it is prefaced by "even if." At no point did I ever claim the bold. The bold is still a straw man of my position.
The blue quote is not equivalent to the bold. The bold is a straw man of the blue. In particular, the blue does not contain the bold red.
Whether you identify how something is true or valid won't make it not true or invalid. You are using an appeal to ignorance.I never claimed the bold. The bold is a straw man of my position. Thus, your charge of me using the bold as an appeal to ignorance is invalid.
See following quote:
Ok. I think you have done a good job of showing what you consider the correct method of observation, but I have yet to identify the how it is valid or true.
Again, you are claiming your straw man is an argument from incredulity.
I agree that you have not established that observation is invalid and you have not provided evidence or proof to establish your claim.I have not claimed the bold. The bold is a straw man of my position.
See the following quote:
[Removed for space]
Using your sharp observation skills, you may be able to clearly see that I define crap as not valid.
How exactly is the word "invalid" different from the phrase "not valid"?It's not. I'm using them interchangeably.
At this point I’m not even convinced you have a position.
I’m not really interested in continuing this discussion as it doesn’t appear we’ll get anywhere.
Then this thread is pretty much finished then, is it not? For our part, we are satisfied with naturalism. There may be flaws with it, but it is the best we have got, since no other model is being presented to us.That works for me. I was asked why I disapprove of naturalism, and I feel that I have explained why.
For your part, you have a model that you prefer over naturalism, that you do not wish to share. I really can't see much point in this thread any more, can you?
I would like to thank you for taking the time to discuss.