Don't bother trying to troll me. I gave you the Meriam-Webster definition of Naturalism.
I objected to your definition of "natural," not to your definition of "naturalism." Your whole line of argumentation falls apart due to your failed definition of "natural." Good effort on trying to slip that little slight-of-hand under the radar, though.
I'm not the one trying to pretend that the supernatural is part of the real or 'natural' world, that would be you.Cite?
Oh look, in this very thread.
Well first off I'm a Catholic so I believe in purgatory as well.
Cite where I claimed that purgatory was part of the natural world?
You're not doing what? You're not trying to give yourself leeway and justification for believing that there is more to reality than nature because you find naturalism unpalatable?
If you do not feel this thread is the correct place, would you like to begin a new thread where you explain and demonstrate your alternative?
Perhaps at some point. I'm not really trying to win anyone over to adopting it, so I have no real desire to make a thread about it.
But why question?
Because people in this thread are trying to get me to adopt naturalism, and I am not one to adopt world views without question.
I honestly think its now time for you to Put Up - lets hear what the alternative is; lets hear how it operates; lets hear how we differentiate between natural and supernatural.
I'm not making a claim. I'm simply rejecting a claim. I don't have to have a 2016 US presidential candidate in mind to reject the claim that Miley Cyrus will win the election. I don't have to present a model explaining why matter and not anti-matter populates the universe to question the validity of a model that posits it was the result of a farting contest between two monkeys. I don't have to prove that Kurt Cobain definitely committed suicide to question the notion that he was killed by aliens trying to cover up the JFK assassination. My views might be completely wrong, but that doesn't make yours right. Naturalism's validity (or lack thereof) is not contingent on my (or anyone else's) ability to provide viable alternatives.
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?
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.
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.
Just because you can imagine something which is valid or true may actually be not valid or not true doesn’t make it not valid or not true.
Just because you can’t understand how something is valid or true doesn’t make it not valid or not true.
You are making an argument from incredulity.
Which argument would that be?
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?
What evidence is there that we have failed to find such evidence?
Res ipsa loquitur. You're free to prove me wrong by presenting the 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How exactly is the word "invalid" different from the phrase "not valid"?
It's not. I'm using them interchangeably.
What I mean is that I had meant to provide a contraposition which had a contrapositive.
I observe that a triangle has three sides. I observe that an object that has three sides is a triangle.
Yes, I know what contraposition is. Though your example isn't quite how these things are structured in logic. It's more like this:Original
If an object is a triangle, then it has three sides.Contrapositive
If an object does not have three sides, then it is not a triangle.
Or, to use logical notation:
(p => q) <=> (~q => ~p)
If my first observation is not valid then a triangle does not have three sides and subsequently the object with three sides is not a triangle. If only my second observation is not valid, then the object does not have three sides and therefore is not a triangle.
Your earlier structure is making it unclear whether you're talking about a converse or a contrapositive. My point was that taking the contrapositive of your claim (The only reason observation is true is because no one has been able to show that it is not true) gives us an unspported premise:
Rearranging your claim into classic logical structure:No one has been able to show observation is not true => observation is true
The contrapositive of this is:Observation is not true => someone is able to show observation is not true
Or, to put it back to your sentence structure: "Observation is not true only because someone was able to show it is not true." Which, as I said, is an unsupported assertion. And probably a false one, too, since things tend to be true or not true independent of who is able to show it.
But, back to my point on argument from ignorance. The sentence from WikipediaWiki
with your original claim under it:
- It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).
- The only reason observation is true is because no one has been able to show that it is not true
Again, it's a textbook example.
How exactly is the word "invalid" different from the phrase "not valid"?
I'm using the words interchangeably.
Let's try this again. You say this:That something which is valid is simultaneously invalid or is invalid without any proof.
I say this:Using your sharp observation skills, you may be able to clearly see that I define crap as not valid.
Notice how the bold do not match up?
Your whole argument seems to be one big "God of the gaps" argument from incredulity.
I am not arguing God in this thread.