Author Topic: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality  (Read 2161 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Darwins +96/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #174 on: January 11, 2014, 03:09:25 AM »

^^^ I'm skeptical of your assessment.

So you can empirically prove to me that you think?
Can I empirically observe your thoughts?

Yes.  If however you think the emperical evidence may not be valid then you are taking the position of some form of solipsism.  If you are Christian then you can't take a position of any form of solipsism since that would mean no soul, no body, no sin and thus no Jesus.

You need naturalism to be true Skeptic.  You're on the wrong side of the argument.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 03:12:41 AM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #175 on: January 11, 2014, 03:17:19 AM »
It is certainly true that naturalism is false.

Nobody has ever empirically proven that people can think.

Electroencephalography...you are wrong.
Brain mapping..you are wrong.
Neurology...you are wrong
Magnetoencephalography...you are wrong
Positron Emission Tomography..you are wrong
Intraparietal-sulcus relating to numerical function analysis..you are wrong

« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 03:37:06 AM by Hatter23 »
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 Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +407/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #176 on: January 11, 2014, 04:09:43 AM »
It is certainly true that naturalism is false.

Nobody has ever empirically proven that people can think. Since thoughts are immaterial, this means thoughts can not be material. A memory in your mind of a past event is purely immaterial and not scientifically provable.

Naturalism relies on the assumption that our senses are 100% sensing an external world. Since we can not escape our senses to see what exists outside of them, naturalism is based on faith as well.

I see no need to respond to this post as I cannot be sure my senses perceived it correctly.  I might respond to what I think I see here, only to fins Skeptic was talking about the propagation of bananas.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #177 on: January 11, 2014, 05:09:20 AM »
It is certainly true that naturalism is false.

Can you show this? If so how?

Quote
Nobody has ever empirically proven that people can think. Since thoughts are immaterial, this means thoughts can not be material. A memory in your mind of a past event is purely immaterial and not scientifically provable.

May I mention Descartes? 'I think therefore I am'?

Quote
Naturalism relies on the assumption that our senses are 100% sensing an external world. Since we can not escape our senses to see what exists outside of them, naturalism is based on faith as well.

I'm not quite sure what point you are making here. Sure we have to trust our senses - I imagine you do everyday - but we have moved beyond the senses to use machines, telescopes, microscopes etc, and we have the back up of mathematical theories which predict what we should find and allow us to check what we do find, Sure we can never be perfectly sure of anything but we are fairly sure things are as they are. Of course, it would only take one observation to break that understanding but we are still waiting for that.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6457
  • Darwins +470/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #178 on: January 11, 2014, 06:52:34 AM »
I am late to the table as usual, but I could not help commenting on Mooby’s philosophy
When you say gestalt conclusions, (I had to look up the word gestalt) are you saying you believe all together life makes up god?  Or god is the universe and all matter are the parts?  Or god is local - all human beings together make up god?
None of the above.  I'm saying my beliefs are a product of the gestalt of my knowledge and life experiences.  For example, I do not point to a single life experience and say, "That's why I believe in God."
 

Regardless, it seems you are saying that you are looking at the sum of your experiences. If this is so, then you must at least theorise that others do the same.

If you do that, then “normality” is the average of the sum of all the experienced experiences of humanity. i.e. Everyone has
(i)   their own personal experiences,
(ii)   those that they have experience with others and thus are influenced by those others and
(iii)   those that are given to them second hand.
Each time you experience something, the sum of your experiences changes, and therefore your mode of perception of all experience changes slightly.

However, whereas early change is dramatic[1], as life goes on, it becomes increasingly difficult to move away from the broad average towards which we all tend and that we all experience.

And how does the naturalist know that, say, observation is a valid way to conclude naturalism?

It is not just one naturalist who concludes this way, it is mankind. The conclusion is arrived at by consensus of experience, and, being the same species, we have much the same experiences and, in broad terms are able to understand each other’s emotions and reactions.

This is how we know that our judgement that someone is highly skilled, intelligent, honest or that explanations has a high probability of being true. It is all about probability.

We are not able to see absolute reality[2] but somewhere close to the average reality of all our fellows. This is evolutionarily useful and this brings us into a society of norms - and humans like norms.

It really does not matter if our collective perception is wrong, as long as we are collectively wrong in the same way and thus agree with each other.

   I want to see a ghost.  I've mentioned before that my wife says she sees them (my step daughter and I just shake our heads),
As an aside, tell your wife to go to a good optician. The chances are that she is long-sighted and that, in less than optimal light, her pupils open to gather more light and this then reduces her ability to focus. In turn, this causes peripheral images to be indistinct and then the brain interprets them wrongly – i.e. as, in her case, ghosts.
 1. compare a child's view of life with an adult's
 2. It is difficult to see how this would exist, but mathematics comes close
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 611
  • Darwins +48/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #179 on: January 11, 2014, 07:17:09 AM »
Each time you experience something, the sum of your experiences changes, and therefore your mode of perception of all experience changes slightly.

However, whereas early change is dramatic[1], as life goes on, it becomes increasingly difficult to move away from the broad average towards which we all tend and that we all experience.
 1. compare a child's view of life with an adult's

Exactly.

A person will possibly initially or finally reject a far-fetched tall tale from the Ancient World simply from the far-fetchedness alone. If, when armed with this realization, they set out to honestly explore the origins of a certain tall tale, the sum of their experiences will gradually become more solid and therefore harder to topple. By the time the ten-thousandth idiot who believes this bullshit approaches them, they are going to place an extremely low probability on the chance that this idiot will actually make sense and convince them that the story is actually true. With every passing idiot who doesn't bring a convincing argument, that slim probability decreases even more.

Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3560
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #180 on: January 11, 2014, 11:01:29 AM »
It is certainly true that naturalism is false.

Nobody has ever empirically proven that people can think. Since thoughts are immaterial, this means thoughts can not be material. A memory in your mind of a past event is purely immaterial and not scientifically provable.

Naturalism relies on the assumption that our senses are 100% sensing an external world. Since we can not escape our senses to see what exists outside of them, naturalism is based on faith as well.

Solipsism is the most useless of all thought experiments.



« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 11:15:54 AM by MadBunny »
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 skeptic54768

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2409
  • Darwins +43/-406
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #181 on: January 11, 2014, 11:12:29 AM »
It is certainly true that naturalism is false.

Can you show this? If so how?

Quote
Nobody has ever empirically proven that people can think. Since thoughts are immaterial, this means thoughts can not be material. A memory in your mind of a past event is purely immaterial and not scientifically provable.

May I mention Descartes? 'I think therefore I am'?

Quote
Naturalism relies on the assumption that our senses are 100% sensing an external world. Since we can not escape our senses to see what exists outside of them, naturalism is based on faith as well.

I'm not quite sure what point you are making here. Sure we have to trust our senses - I imagine you do everyday - but we have moved beyond the senses to use machines, telescopes, microscopes etc, and we have the back up of mathematical theories which predict what we should find and allow us to check what we do find, Sure we can never be perfectly sure of anything but we are fairly sure things are as they are. Of course, it would only take one observation to break that understanding but we are still waiting for that.

And how do we see the results from those machines?

With our senses, right? So it doesn't prove a thing.

Back to square one.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +407/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #182 on: January 11, 2014, 11:17:37 AM »
And how do we see the results from those machines?

With our senses, right? So it doesn't prove a thing.

Sorry Skeptic, I disagree.  I think that black dogs are cuter than yellow ones, but even so, I can't see how you can assert that black dogs are by definition more intelligent.

That WAS what you said, wasn't it?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #183 on: January 11, 2014, 11:27:41 AM »

And how do we see the results from those machines?

With our senses, right? So it doesn't prove a thing.

Back to square one.

This depends on the machine doesn't it? some will provide numbers we can calculate with. Other will, yes, need us to look like telescopes. Yet with astronomers looking independently at the same objects round the whole, the sum of all the observations certainly makes it very likely that we are all looking at reality.

By comparison, take a group of people all reading bibles. My bet is that any group of Christians would manage to read lots of different messages from the same texts. That would suggest it's not the senses but muddled brains that is the problem.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6457
  • Darwins +470/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #184 on: January 11, 2014, 11:46:07 AM »
And how do we see the results from those machines?

With our senses, right? So it doesn't prove a thing.

Back to square one.
Allow me to be the next person to tell you that what you said is so bad, it is not even wrong. Have a look at http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26174.msg594490.html#msg594490 to see how we perceive things.

But before that, consider that everyone here will, when presented with an elephant, will see the same thing. You will now begin to realise what a pointless statement you made.

This thread must be demolishing quite a few of your preconceived notions...
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #185 on: January 11, 2014, 11:47:11 AM »
And how do we see the results from those machines?

With our senses, right? So it doesn't prove a thing.

Back to square one.

The Matrix has you, Skeptic.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #186 on: January 11, 2014, 03:12:39 PM »


And how do we see the results from those machines?

With our senses, right? So it doesn't prove a thing.

Back to square one.

No I actually wrote perfect proof, you just didn't reads it because your senses failed to see it. Since you can't trust your senses you'll have to accept that.
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 Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +94/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #187 on: January 11, 2014, 06:26:02 PM »
When you say gestalt conclusions, (I had to look up the word gestalt) are you saying you believe all together life makes up god?  Or god is the universe and all matter are the parts?  Or god is local - all human beings together make up god?
None of the above.  I'm saying my beliefs are a product of the gestalt of my knowledge and life experiences.  For example, I do not point to a single life experience and say, "That's why I believe in God."
 


Mooby, how did you perceive the life experiences that led you to your god belief?
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3560
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #188 on: January 11, 2014, 07:11:39 PM »


Mooby, how did you perceive the life experiences that led you to your god belief?

I've had this conversation with him before.  He just circles the issue with the dictionary game, tries to deflect into thought experiments eg: solipsism, gestalt and so on, or tries to flip the script and demand that you prove the supernatural doesn't exist.


*edit: fixed broken quote
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 01:28:10 AM by MadBunny »
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 Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1142
  • Darwins +66/-23
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #189 on: January 12, 2014, 01:03:04 AM »
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.

Quote
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?
Correct.



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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Correct.

Quote
Just because you can’t understand how something is valid or true doesn’t make it not valid or not true.
Correct.

Quote
You are making an argument from incredulity.
Which argument would that be?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
Saying that observation may not be valid or not true does not show that it is not valid or not true.
Correct.

Quote
Current evidence shows that observation is valid or true.
Which evidence is that?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
How exactly is the word "invalid" different from the phrase "not valid"?
It's not.  I'm using them interchangeably.

Quote
What I mean is that I had meant to provide a contraposition which had a contrapositive.

For example:

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)

Quote
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:[1]

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.

Quote
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?

Quote
Your whole argument seems to be one big "God of the gaps" argument from incredulity.
I am not arguing God in this thread.
 1. Grammatically it's worded backwards: "because" puts q before p, as in q <= p.  For clarity, we should rearrange it so that it reads p => q.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2014, 01:06:52 AM by Mooby »
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1142
  • Darwins +66/-23
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #190 on: January 12, 2014, 01:23:46 AM »
Regardless, it seems you are saying that you are looking at the sum of your experiences. If this is so, then you must at least theorise that others do the same.
Indeed, it is my assumption that at least some people have used some or all of those factors, and probably some other ones I am not smart enough to use.

Quote
If you do that, then “normality” is the average of the sum of all the experienced experiences of humanity.
That's quite an interesting thought, and one I had not pondered before.  I am interested to see where you are going with it.

Quote
However, whereas early change is dramatic[1], as life goes on, it becomes increasingly difficult to move away from the broad average towards which we all tend and that we all experience.
 1. compare a child's view of life with an adult's
I agree with that assessment, at least as a general statement.

Quote
It is not just one naturalist who concludes this way, it is mankind. The conclusion is arrived at by consensus of experience, and, being the same species, we have much the same experiences and, in broad terms are able to understand each other’s emotions and reactions.
Has mankind reached a consensus on naturalism?  And as far as consensuses go, I have never much identified with "normality."

Quote
This is how we know that our judgement that someone is highly skilled, intelligent, honest or that explanations has a high probability of being true. It is all about probability.
That sounds more like probabilism than naturalism.  :P

But anyways, the issue with generalizing to collective observations is you have to first be able to trust that your observation of the group's observation is valid.  If the word is saying "banana" but you are hearing "potato," you will think the word agrees on potato when it really agrees on banana.

Quote
It really does not matter if our collective perception is wrong, as long as we are collectively wrong in the same way and thus agree with each other.
How is that working out for us?  (Bold mine)



Mooby, how did you perceive the life experiences that led you to your god belief?
Oh, loads of different ways.  There really isn't any specific event in my mind that jumps out.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3560
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #191 on: January 12, 2014, 02:00:46 AM »
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.
It seems that honesty isn't one of your 'virtues'.
 You do love moving those goal posts around don't you?
Oh, incidentally you didn't look all that deep.  Found his under 'natural' on the first dictionary site I went to.  Like I said; playing the dictionary game rather than addressing the post.  Did you think this went unnoticed?

a :  occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature :  not marvelous or supernatural -natural causes- 
b :  formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation



You are free however to demonstrate how something that doesn't exist is part of the natural universe, or conversely how something that isn't part of the natural universe does exist.

It's obvious that you won't do this.  I say obvious because when given the opportunity you inevitably try to slide the little challenge right off your plate.

Like the example below where you claim that you believe in purgatory.  Being, you know 'catholic' and all.

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.

So you believe that it exists then?

Cite where I claimed that purgatory was part of the natural world?

Wait, didn't you just say that you believe it exists?
 


Oh?  So you're just choosing to believe a fiction then?
How refreshingly honest of you to admit that you have chosen to believe in something that doesn't exist.  Oh, don't worry I'm sure you'll try to weasel/dodge your way out of this too.

Here, I will generously quote myself.  You're welcome
By proving something thought of as supernatural to exist it becomes defined as 'natural', whether currently explainable or not.

Outside of thought experiments, there really does not seem to be a way around that.


So, are you done trolling, playing dictionary, playing 'move the goalpost' playing obtuse, playing weaseldodge?

If you are, it would be awesome of you were able to demonstrate how you think the Supernatural is part of the real universe while remaining 'supernatural'.

Conversely since I've long maintained that the supernatural doesn't and can't exist given this particular conundrum you're welcome to simply prove that it exists.

You are free however to demonstrate how something that doesn't exist is part of the natural universe, or conversely how something that isn't part of the natural universe does exist.

You won't of course.
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 Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1142
  • Darwins +66/-23
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #192 on: January 12, 2014, 02:35:31 AM »
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.
It seems that honesty isn't one of your 'virtues'.
 You do love moving those goal posts around don't you?
Goalpost hasn't changed.
And unfortunately for you, the natural isn't defined the way you describe.
You have now dodged the subject twice.  Care to go for three?

Quote
Cite where I claimed that purgatory was part of the natural world?

Wait, didn't you just say that you believe it exists?
Correct.  Now where did I claim that it was part of the natural world?
 
Quote
You are free however to demonstrate how something that doesn't exist is part of the natural universe, or conversely how something that isn't part of the natural universe does exist.
The above rides on your incorrect definition of "natural," which you keep dodging.
Your whole line of argumentation falls apart due to your failed definition of "natural."
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +407/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #193 on: January 12, 2014, 03:18:19 AM »
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.

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.

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? 
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #194 on: January 12, 2014, 03:21:49 AM »


In before the lock anyone?
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1236
  • Darwins +94/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #195 on: January 12, 2014, 09:18:37 AM »
Mooby, how did you perceive the life experiences that led you to your god belief?
Oh, loads of different ways.  There really isn't any specific event in my mind that jumps out.

With respect, I did not ask what the experiences were.  I asked how you perceived them.
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3560
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #196 on: January 12, 2014, 01:13:18 PM »



The simple translation of Mooby's replies.



Weasel. Dodge.


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 Mooby

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1142
  • Darwins +66/-23
  • So it goes.
    • Is God Imaginary?
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #197 on: January 12, 2014, 01:33:02 PM »
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.

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?
That works for me. I was asked why I disapprove of naturalism, and I feel that I have explained why.
"I'm doing science and I'm still alive."--J.C.

Offline DVZ3

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1335
  • Darwins +40/-7
  • Gender: Male
Hguols: "Its easier for me to believe that a God created everything...."

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4636
  • Darwins +512/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #199 on: January 13, 2014, 12:15:43 PM »
It is certainly true that naturalism is false.
Oh?  This should be good.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Nobody has ever empirically proven that people can think. Since thoughts are immaterial, this means thoughts can not be material. A memory in your mind of a past event is purely immaterial and not scientifically provable.
You have not proven that thoughts are immaterial, though.  At best, you can argue that we don't know for sure either way whether thoughts are material or immaterial, although the fact that we can create associations between nerve impulses and senses is strong evidence that thoughts are based on similar nerve impulses.

Also, the fact that we can generate rather complex computer operating systems using what amounts to a whole lot of 1s and 0s stored on physical media somewhere supports the idea that thoughts are material in nature.  It's just, in our case, that physical media is our brain.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Naturalism relies on the assumption that our senses are 100% sensing an external world. Since we can not escape our senses to see what exists outside of them, naturalism is based on faith as well.
Incorrect.  Naturalism is based on the axiom that we are sensing an external world.  It does not matter whether that external world is real, a computer simulation, or some being's mind - it is still external to us, and still exists for our senses to detect, therefore validating the methodology of naturalism.

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6457
  • Darwins +470/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #200 on: January 13, 2014, 03:51:48 PM »
Nobody has ever empirically proven that people can think. Since thoughts are immaterial, this means thoughts can not be material. A memory in your mind of a past event is purely immaterial and not scientifically provable.
Did you think when you wrote that?

Quote
Naturalism relies on the assumption that our senses are 100% sensing an external world.
Yeah... and of course, as we were created by God, and we know what a useless job He makes of things, no wonder we cannot think properly. Imagine that, eh? God makes us and The Idiot fails to ensure that we see what He has created!

So what you see is just a complete mess - nothing like the world at all!

Where's your God now?

RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #201 on: January 13, 2014, 04:07:32 PM »

Where's your God now?

In the gap he and Mooby are working on.
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 MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3560
  • Darwins +110/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
Re: Naturalism as a means of establishing reality
« Reply #202 on: January 13, 2014, 04:20:55 PM »
That works for me. I was asked why I disapprove of naturalism, and I feel that I have explained why.

Too bad your explanations consist of: "dictionary!"  "Solipsism!" and "Reasons!"

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.