Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Heissonear]

Learning the limitations of Naturalism. Let's hear it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Learning the limitations of Naturalism. Let's hear it.

Are you saying that a limitless epistemology that accepts all claims as true is preferrable to an epistemology that requires evidence, reason, and logic?

Are you saying that in a court of law the prosecuting attorney must prove that Leprechauns did not plant the defendant's fingerprints at the crime scene?

 

[Heissonear]

The limitations of Naturalism. Let's hear it.

 

[Tomk80]

The limitations of Naturalism. Let's hear it.

As people already stated, the only limit is not being able to make stuff up and then pretend it is true.

The only other limitation, that we may be wrong in our conclusions, holds for all other epistomological systems and therefore is not specific to naturalism.

 

[Loudmouth]

The limitations of Naturalism. Let's hear it.

The limitations is that Naturalism needs to refer to things that are real and not made up.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The limitations of Naturalism. Let's hear it.

You'd have to tell us something first, so far all you've done is ramble vaguely about naturalism being limited and nothing at all about alternatives. Frankly, I don't think you have anything new to say.

 

[durangodawood]

The people who DO believe in a creator.... did they arrive at that belief without any evidence?

Well, DO they?

 

[TLK Valentine]

As people already stated, the only limit is not being able to make stuff up and then pretend it is true.

The only other limitation, that we may be wrong in our conclusions, holds for all other epistomological systems and therefore is not specific to naturalism.

I can see how some people around here would find that very limiting.

 

[Heissonear]

The limitations is that Naturalism needs to refer to things that are real and not made up.

Point 6
Eternity and eternal things.

Any limitations explaining this?

1. Does eternity exist? If you don't know (have evidence) you have a limitation.

2. Are the natural elements always been, they have no beginning?. If you don't know them you have a limitation.

3. Did a Creator create the physical world? If you don't know then you have a limitation.

As Point 6 lists, Naturalist have a limitation of explaining what is eternal.

 

[Loudmouth]

Point 6
Eternity and eternal things.

Any limitations explaining this?

1. Does eternity exist? If you don't know (have evidence) you have a limitation.

2. Are the natural elements always been, they have no beginning?. If you don't know them you have a limitation.

3. Did a Creator create the physical world? If you don't know then you have a limitation.

As Point 6 lists, Naturalist have a limitation of explaining what is eternal.

All of these are limitations of our current knowledge, not a limitation of naturalism.

 

[Davian]

Point 6
Eternity and eternal things.

Any limitations explaining this?

1. Does eternity exist? If you don't know (have evidence) you have a limitation.

2. Are the natural elements always been, they have no beginning?. If you don't know them you have a limitation.

3. Did a Creator create the physical world? If you don't know then you have a limitation.

As Point 6 lists, Naturalist have a limitation of explaining what is eternal.

Are you a naturalist, then?

 

[bhsmte]

The evidences Naturalists stand on are natural and temporal. They are based on their 5 senses and through leaning on their own natural brain. They are carnal evidences. Naturalists have major limitations about man's existence.

Naturalists cannot prove there is no God, a Creator of all that we see and know. They have no proof against His existence.

Naturalists do not have evidence or proof about eternal things. They avoid discussion about the eternal.

Naturalists do not know if the physical realm has always been. And even more significant, if there is an eternal Creator. They cannot prove He does not exist, and His immense capability to bring this creation about.

Many Naturalists avoid these limitations. Many divert the topic because of such weaknesses. They avoid their weaknesses. They do not openly discuss them. It takes someone else to bring their limitations to light.

Naturalists have the least in wisdom about the Creator.

The world view of Naturalists is narrow and confined. Ask about the ever present God of this Creation and they often say, evidence please.

Precisely, you simply saying; "the ever present God" is a wild reach and it is a huge assumption you choose to make. If you want to make it, knock yourself out, but don't claim others are narrow minded because they choose to use logic and reason.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Point 6
Eternity and eternal things.

Any limitations explaining this?

1. Does eternity exist? If you don't know (have evidence) you have a limitation.

2. Are the natural elements always been, they have no beginning?. If you don't know them you have a limitation.

3. Did a Creator create the physical world? If you don't know then you have a limitation.

As Point 6 lists, Naturalist have a limitation of explaining what is eternal.

Is English your first language? As well as showing problems writing it, you don't appear to be able to comprehend it as evidenced by your inability to glean anything from the many answers you've been very indulgently given explaining why your questions are, at best, a list of whines about not being allowed to make stuff up. Unless you are going to show some indication of (a) understanding this, and (b) being able to hold a constructive two way discussion, you are just going to end up being regarded as another tedious time waster.

 

[Mr Clean]

The evidences Naturalists stand on are natural and temporal. They are based on their 5 senses and through leaning on their own natural brain. They are carnal evidences. Naturalists have major limitations about man's existence.

But it's still evidence. Hard facts. Empirical data that can be reproduced time and time again. This is where you run into the logic brick wall. You cannot dismiss facts without a reason to do so. Is the means and methods of collecting data are sound, and repeatable, then there is nothing wrong with it. You dismiss scientific discoveries because you want to, not because there is a reason to...

Naturalists cannot prove there is no God, a Creator of all that we see and know. They have no proof against His existence.

False logic by you Heiss. You cannot prove something that doesn't exist. You can only prove something that does exist. If you cannot prove that a god exists, then the logical conclusion is that a god does not exist.

Naturalists do not have evidence or proof about eternal things. They avoid discussion about the eternal.

Then eternal things must not exist. You want to talk about something eternal, then prove that something eternal exists...

Naturalists do not know if the physical realm has always been. And even more significant, if there is an eternal Creator. They cannot prove He does not exist, and His immense capability to bring this creation about.

More factless dribble. It doesn't matter if space-time has always existed or not when talking about a god. Either space-time has always been, or it hasn't. Neither one is proof of a god existing. And we've covered the "cannot prove he does not exist" fallacy already...

Many Naturalists avoid these limitations. Many divert the topic because of such weaknesses. They avoid their weaknesses. They do not openly discuss them. It takes someone else to bring their limitations to light.

They aren't limitations. Everything you claim as being a limitation is either pure conjecture or irrational conclusions on your part. Your comments are no more a limitation on science than the Loch Ness Monster is.

Naturalists have the least in wisdom about the Creator.

Actually, believers are tied for first in that category. You guys don't have any more wisdom than a scientist does.

The world view of Naturalists is narrow and confined. Ask about the ever present God of this Creation and they often say, evidence please.

Evidence which, to date, has not been forcoming. If you can't prove it does exist, then it doesn't exist. Not a hard concept to grasp no matter how you spin it...

 

[Mr Clean]

The above is from post 71. It has been edited to provide what true to heart Naturalist learn about their limitations. Before or without being a believer in a Creator.

Why has a Naturalist not posted the limitations they have learned so far? Why?

No off topic replies, please. This is stating what limitations Naturalists learn. Please state them.

Thank you.

You keep saying that we are limited by our five senses. Explain how we discovered the Higgs Boson then...

 

[Mr Clean]

Point 6
Eternity and eternal things.

Any limitations explaining this?

1. Does eternity exist? If you don't know (have evidence) you have a limitation.

2. Are the natural elements always been, they have no beginning?. If you don't know them you have a limitation.

3. Did a Creator create the physical world? If you don't know then you have a limitation.

As Point 6 lists, Naturalist have a limitation of explaining what is eternal.

Maybe I am not asking you in the right way Heiss. If man does not know whether or not time will go on forever, and man does not know whether or not the universe will last forever, and man does not know if a god exists or not, in what way is he limited by the lack of that information.

What is being limited?

 

[quatona]

Only 5 points have been presented so far. But the learning has begun. Naturalist are in a confined domain: their flesh and what is natural. And they have no proof or evidence that their is not a Creator.

A major weakness. The very foundation Naturalist stand on has no proof. The foundation is based on belief.

All this seems to be a long-winded way of saying "the claim that there´s a creator is unfalsifiable".
Indeed, it is. Which is major weakness of this claim.
Seeing as producing unfalsifiable claims is about the easiest thing in the world, I am not very concerned with the fact that I can not falsify them. Particularly not, when they aren´t even relevant, for any intent or purposes.

 

[sfs]

As people already stated, the only limit is not being able to make stuff up and then pretend it is true.

Nah, naturalists can do that too, with exactly as much impact on reality as non-naturalists.

The only other limitation, that we may be wrong in our conclusions, holds for all other epistomological systems and therefore is not specific to naturalism.

The limitation seems to be that naturalists are human. That is indeed a limitation, but one that it's hard to escape.

 

[Heissonear]

Maybe I am not asking you in the right way Heiss. If man does not know whether or not time will go on forever, and man does not know whether or not the universe will last forever, and man does not know if a god exists or not, in what way is he limited by the lack of that information.

What is being limited?

I appreciate this particular reply. I've asked a few straight forward questions but have had this and only a couple of others that gave a straight to the point reply.

Limited by lack of information is basically where as Naturalist we find ourselves. Like limitation of information about the origin of this universe. As a Naturalist we have a reply. We cannot lay out straight forward facts. We have no evidence. It is a position we cannot definitively state and know for certain.

An a Naturalist my reply would be like yours. It would center on the physial has always been or has not. If it has not I would have no confidence or proof for why not.

Being a true to heart Naturalist I would question other possibilities. I have no foundation of truth to stand on to explain. But know one or the other has occurred.

Notice I have not inserted a Creator or need for a God up to this point. That is not the upbringing or pivot point for Naturalists. It appears like the last resort, which is factual. Why take a leap towards a Higher Life cause?

I appreciate your reply.

The foundation of Naturalism has no solid facts. No information or proof the physical has always been. It could have been created.

The replies stating it would be pretending is to me avoiding the weak position they have.

There is no need to pretend. We can be open about our limitations.

I guess when some are use to proving off-center religious people incorrect that there is a carry over in discussion about their position: facts and weaknesses.

 

[Loudmouth]

Limited by lack of information is basically where as Naturalist we find ourselves.

That is where we ALL are, naturalist and supernaturalist alike. Our lack of knowledge is not due to naturalism.

Like limitation of information about the origin of this universe. As a Naturalist we have a reply. We cannot lay out straight forward facts. We have no evidence. It is a position we cannot definitively state and know for certain.

200 years ago we did not have a reply for what matter was made up of, how gravity worked, what the fundamental forces of nature were, how the sun worked, how many planets were in our solar system, or even what caused infectious disease. We filled all of these gaps in our knowledge by using naturalism.

Being a true to heart Naturalist I would question other possibilities.

How do you determine which possibilities to question?

If you arrive at a crime scene do you consider the possibility that the victim was killed by Leprechauns?

The foundation of Naturalism has no solid facts.

The foundation of naturalism is the facts.

No information or proof the physical has always been.

Just as one point in history there was no information or proof that infectious disease was caused by a physical lifeform, or that matter was made up of small particles.

It could have been created.

Just like the murder victim could have been killed by Leprechauns.