Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Heissonear]

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.


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

It no longer becomes a contention with others who differ. An exchange in proofs and facts. It becomes the value of truth and the potential to be wrong.

Some are just not there yet.

With the limitation of not having proof, like about eternity, some Naturalist have extreme logic. It's like they never grew up.

Facing these limitations like eternity, a possible Creator of this massive universe would require attributes of incredible knowledge and understanding and ability to create untold amount of stars and energy displayed, is remote from envisioning Leprechauns.

Naturalists demand proof, but the physical realm has always existed or not. If not then it could have been Created.

If you have always required proof, then it would be logical to turn to such a vast Creator and ask Him for proof. I would not turn to men, books, religions, and such.

"If you are, prove it to me".

The key is who you turn to. Think about it. Is a Naturalist going to find out by turning to men? By turning to religions?

 

[Tomk80]

Who here has denied that they could be wrong Heissonear? Poster and post number please.

The main problem in this thread is that you do not engage with the points that other people make. Instead, you just raffle of you pity little script and ignore everyone who doesn't produce the exact answers you want to get. That is not a discussion, that's just pathetic behavior on your part.

 

[durangodawood]

Who here has denied that they could be wrong Heissonear? Poster and post number please.

The main problem in this thread is that you do not engage with the points that other people make. Instead, you just raffle of you pity little script and ignore everyone who doesn't produce the exact answers you want to get. That is not a discussion, that's just pathetic behavior on your part.

Nailed it.

I thought the "Naturalist" thread series was pretty good work by Heiss.... until this one.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It no longer becomes a contention with others who differ. An exchange in proofs and facts. It becomes the value of truth and the potential to be wrong.

Some are just not there yet.

With the limitation of not having proof, like about eternity, some Naturalist have extreme logic. It's like they never grew up.

Facing these limitations like eternity, a possible Creator of this massive universe would require attributes of incredible knowledge and understanding and ability to create untold amount of stars and energy displayed, is remote from envisioning Leprechauns.

Naturalists demand proof, but the physical realm has always existed or not. If not then it could have been Created.

If you have always required proof, then it would be logical to turn to such a vast Creator and ask Him for proof. I would not turn to men, books, religions, and such.

"If you are, prove it to me".

The key is who you turn to. Think about it. Is a Naturalist going to find out by turning to men? By turning to religions?

Before you try and do anything else you need to learn how to organise your thoughts and express them clearly. This would save you writing the sort of garbled mush you have presented above. It would also help you to sort out the basic problems of what you are trying to say. It might take you a fair bit of practice though, as you seem to be unused to written communication in English.

 

[Mr Clean]

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

Well, naturalists can make stuff up too, but they can't make it stick very long. Any claim has to be verified, and if it can't then it is quickly dismissed. Creationists don't have the limitation of verifiability...

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

I still don't see how being human is a limitation to understanding everything in the universe...

 

[Heissonear]

When Naturalists fail to add up the dots, particularly lacking years of reflecting historical geology, the here and now may override their awareness of the foundation they stand on. If the foundation is bad then all built upon it is subject to insufficient information.

Not understanding the origin of the physical realm, but becoming experts in its existence,is temporal logic and knowledge.

As mentioned earlier, Naturalism is narrow and confined; if is not natural or physical realm, Naturalists lack additional awareness and information.

As Point 3 lists, Naturalists push all of their chips to the middle of the table and put their trust in their 5 senses, mental capability, and the Scientific Method. Confined to what Naturalism cannot detect.

Learning the limitations of Naturalism is the topic. Start another thread if you have related matter to discuss.

 

[Tomk80]

Since you keep ignoring what other people post in this thread, instead just choosing to rehash your broken record claims, I'll just keep reposting this until you actually engage with the people on this thread.



Who here has denied that they could be wrong Heissonear? Poster and post number please.

The main problem in this thread is that you do not engage with the points that other people make. Instead, you just raffle of you pity little script and ignore everyone who doesn't produce the exact answers you want to get. That is not a discussion, that's just pathetic behavior on your part.

 

[Heissonear]

Avoiding rather than learning limitations? Could not answer and resort to diversion?

 

[Paulos23]

Avoiding rather than learning limitations? Could not answer and resort to diversion?

What the heck wasn't answered about your question?

Care to state it in short form?

 

[Heissonear]

You have put your faith into Naturalism. You now walk by faith.

Is this true?

 

[CabVet]

You have put your faith into Naturalism. You now walk by faith.

Is this true?

No.

 

[Tomk80]

You have put your faith into Naturalism. You now walk by faith.

Is this true?

No, it is not. We have accepted that evidence is our only way of knowing whether a claim is true or not. We have tentatively concluded from the evidence, that this method works in understanding the world around us. This is not walking by faith.



Now, again:
Who here has denied that they could be wrong Heissonear? Poster and post number please.

You have made statements to the effect that "naturalists" deny that they could be wrong. So support your statement.

And another question you keep avoiding:
If not by evidence, how do you know whether something is correct or not? If you want to make the claim that naturalists are incorrect in asking for evidence, you have to show how we are to find out what is true or not in lieu of it.

 

[Paulos23]

You have put your faith into Naturalism. You now walk by faith.

Is this true?

No. We question every step of the way.

 

[Heissonear]

No, it is not. We have accepted that evidence is our only way of knowing whether a claim is true or not. We have tentatively concluded from the evidence, that this method works in understanding the world around us. This is not walking by faith.



Now, again:
Who here has denied that they could be wrong Heissonear? Poster and post number please.

You have made statements to the effect that "naturalists" deny that they could be wrong. So support your statement.

And another question you keep avoiding:
If not by evidence, how do you know whether something is correct or not? If you want to make the claim that naturalists are incorrect in asking for evidence, you have to show how we are to find out what is true or not in lieu of it.

Original post diversion of topic? Can't answer the major questions?

 

[Heissonear]

It is interesting how Point 3 and many others have not been answered.

Fear of speculation? Yes

Why? Purity stance in Naturalism dogma. Yes

Evolutionist have all types of speculations about origin of our solar system, time, and the physical universe.

Naturalists on this forum are mute to this speculation. They repeatedly state: proof please.

They have been caught in their craftiness.

It appears they are in the process of learning about the limitations of Naturalism on the fly. Guys, its goings to take longer than reading a post or two. Months to years of thinking through historical geology and origins of the cosmos may be needed. I guess when I told you of my Naturalistic upbringing and formal education you lacked awareness of understanding Naturalism as a present tense only. That's were you have showed your stance in discussion. Rather temporal on the issue.

It's goings to take some pondering guys. The Day of The Naturalist is here. Some are still needing to learn its limitations.

 

[durangodawood]

...Naturalists on this forum are mute to this speculation. They repeatedly state: proof please.....

You are making that up.

Its about evidence, not proof, as repeatedly stated.

 

[Loudmouth]

With the limitation of not having proof, like about eternity, some Naturalist have extreme logic. It's like they never grew up.

Examples?

Again, our limitations of knowledge is not due to naturalism. It is due to the fact that we are not omnipotent and omniscient. You are not pointing to limitations of naturalism. You are pointing to our limitations as humans.

Facing these limitations like eternity, a possible Creator of this massive universe would require attributes of incredible knowledge and understanding and ability to create untold amount of stars and energy displayed, is remote from envisioning Leprechauns.

It is one in the same. You are inventing a deity for no other reason than you want one to exist. It is no different than a forensic scientist who considers the possibility that a Leprechaun planted all of the evidence at a crime scene.

Naturalists demand proof, but the physical realm has always existed or not. If not then it could have been Created.

Just like Leprechauns could have planted evidence at a crime scene.

If you have always required proof, then it would be logical to turn to such a vast Creator and ask Him for proof.

What creator? Evidence please.

The key is who you turn to. Think about it. Is a Naturalist going to find out by turning to men? By turning to religions?

I would hope that we look at the evidence and follow it where it leads.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolutionist have all types of speculations about origin of our solar system, time, and the physical universe.

Biologists do not study the origin of solar systems.

Naturalists on this forum are mute to this speculation. They repeatedly state: proof please.

Why shouldn't we ask for evidence? Are you saying that we should accept everything that everyone says as being true without questioning it?

Some are still needing to learn its limitations.

I find it interesting that you keep pointing to the limitations of the Naturalist, not Naturalism.

 

[Heissonear]

Naturalists are full of speculations. If you have been one, and hung around them for decades you know this is true.

An internet browse of "evolution" and "solar system", and "universe" will present the evidence.

Naturalists on this forum are mute to this speculation. Why? It is because they have a purity stance in Naturalism dogma. The doctrine of this denomination of Naturalism is centered on "evidence". Without evidence they have no answer if it is true or not. In short, what they know and understand is based on evidence through the Scientific Method.

This type of Naturalism is narrow. Its domain is confined to the natural, the physical realm.

Can they understand the spiritual realm? Can they understand spiritual truths?

Naturalists are also unable to explain a Creator. Some equate this to the same level as belief in leprechauns. Good correlation? Not even close.

Why? It is because they have become debaters. Presenters of words about "what they know". A truth here and a fact there.

But as I presented in earlier threads they have weaknesses, major fundamental weaknesses. They have no evidence of how this physical realm has come about. They have no evidence that there is not a Creator. Their foundation is flawed. A Creator of the physical realm would undermine all that they say and believe. Naturalists here strongly reject the potential of a Creator of this natural world. But they have no evidence.

So they turn to logic. They turn to "we cannot know", "we have no evidence".

The foundation of Naturalism has major limitations and weaknesses. Plain and simple.

 

[Tomk80]

Naturalists are full of speculations. If you have been one, and hung around them for decades you know this is true.

An internet browse of "evolution" and "solar system", and "universe" will present the evidence.

Naturalists on this forum are mute to this speculation. Why? It is because they have a purity stance in Naturalism dogma. The doctrine of this denomination of Naturalism is centered on "evidence". Without evidence they have no answer if it is true or not. In short, what they know and understand is based on evidence through the Scientific Method.

This type of Naturalism is narrow. Its domain is confined to the natural, the physical realm.

You have yet to point out how this is bad. Realizing your limitations is a good thing, not a bad thing.

And you have yet to give any indication how you know any other reality is actually true. How do you know?

Can they understand the spiritual realm? Can they understand spiritual truths?

Do you have any reason to think these "truths" are actually true?

Naturalists are also unable to explain a Creator. Some equate this to the same level as belief in leprechauns. Good correlation? Not even close.

Why would we have to explain a creator, if there is no evidence for a creator existing. Again, how do you know that you are correct when you assert one exists? You keep dodging this question. Time for you to own up and answer it.

Why? It is because they have become debaters. Presenters of words about "what they know". A truth here and a fact there.

As people have explained more than once, it is because you have shown no reason to think a creator exists. Are you going to start doing so at some point?

But as I presented in earlier threads they have weaknesses, major fundamental weaknesses. They have no evidence of how this physical realm has come about. They have no evidence that there is not a Creator. Their foundation is flawed. A Creator of the physical realm would undermine all that they say and believe. Naturalists here strongly reject the potential of a Creator of this natural world. But they have no evidence.

So they turn to logic. They turn to "we cannot know", "we have no evidence".

The foundation of Naturalism has major limitations and weaknesses. Plain and simple.[/quote]
And as we presented multiple time, having no evidence is not a weakness. Recognizing what you do not know is a strength. Just making stuff up as you are doing is a weakness.

Recognizing your limitations is not a weakness. When are you going to drop this false reasoning and actually answer this point?