Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Heissonear]

Post #120 - not even close to what is presented in #119.

You are going to need some time to ponder.

 

[Tomk80]

Post #120 - not even close to what is presented in #119.

You are going to need some time to ponder.

You are going to have to start answering the objections raised, instead of repeating your own assertions as if that adds some value to the discussion.

 

[Paulos23]

Post #120 - not even close to what is presented in #119.

You are going to need some time to ponder.

Sorry, but Tom was right on in his post. You seam to have this strawman idea of Naturalisum that doesn't exist, and your trying to disprove it to make your claim right without supporting your claim.

 

[Heissonear]

Sorry, but Tom was right on in his post. You seam to have this strawman idea of Naturalisum that doesn't exist, and your trying to disprove it to make your claim right without supporting your claim.

Not even close to what Post #119 presents.

The dogma of "evidence only" has made Fundamental Naturalism very confined.

The origin of this physical world you cannot prove or disprove.

Many commentators are hiding (not disclosing) the speculations (non-factual statements) Naturalists have made through the decades about the origin of this physical world.

 

[Tomk80]

Not even close to what Post #119 presents.

The dogma of "evidence only" has made Fundamental Naturalism very confined.

The origin of this physical world you cannot prove or disprove.

Again, how is admitting that you not know this better than making stuff up, as you are doing. You have to answer that question to argue your case, and so far you are studiously ignoring it.

Many commentators are hiding (not disclosing) the speculations (non-factual statements) Naturalists have made through the decades about the origin of this physical world.

Speculation is fine when it is not argued as such. Passing as truth what you do not know to be, as you are doing, is not.

 

[HitchSlap]

The origin of this physical world you cannot prove or disprove.

And when we do, using purely naturalistic means, prove or disprove our origins, then what? The gaps just keep getting smaller, don't they?

 

[bhsmte]

You are going to have to start answering the objections raised, instead of repeating your own assertions as if that adds some value to the discussion.

Don't count on it!

He will only answer questions that are beneficial for him to do so and continue to ignore those that will not allow the smoke screen to continue.

Typical behavior when someone wants to dig in and ignore reality. Not unlike many Christians take on the bible; this part is important, this part you can ignore, etc. etc., whatever fits the agenda.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

However, a naturalist does not pretend that those speculations are true if there is no evidence to back them up. We are discussing how we gather knowledge, not how we come up with speculations.

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.

So what is the alternative method? What method are you saying that we should use? Are we to believe anything that anyone says because we should not have limitations like logic, reason, and evidence?

Or are limitations exactly what we need in order to have a functioning epistemology? Can we have knowledge without having a method that spells out requirements of what knowledge is or isn't?

Or is knowledge just whatever we say it is?

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

It is extended to all of reality. It is not the fault of naturalism that people make claims about reality that are not true.

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

What spiritual realm? What spiritual truths? You need to show that these are real things.

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

We have as much evidence for a Creator as we do for Leprechauns, so the comparison is a good one. The only reason that keep talking about a Creator instead of Leprechauns is your personal preference.

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.

How is admitting your ignorance a weakness? I count that as a strength.

They have no evidence that there is not a Creator.

Logical fallacy:

Negative proof - RationalWiki

What can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence--Christopher Hitchens.

A Creator of the physical realm would undermine all that they say and believe.

Leprechauns planting fingerprints at crime scenes would undermine forensic science.

Gravity fairies pushing down on things would undermine Einstein's Relativity.

I could dream up fantasy after fantasy of imagined beings that would foil science, but they are just that . . . imagined beings. Until you can show a creator to be real there is no reason to consider the actions of a creator in reality.

Naturalists here strongly reject the potential of a Creator of this natural world. But they have no evidence.

Just as you have strongly rejected the potential of Leprechauns in the natural world.

 

[Paulos23]

The origin of this physical world you cannot prove or disprove.

This shows how far down the rabbit hole you want to go. So we don't have a clear understanding of the begining of the universe at this time. So what? That doesn't support your position of their has to be a creater. To support that claim you have to give evidence of that claim. Instead you have given us hand waving and wishy washy explenations of how you would like it to be, but no evidence to back it up.

Sorry we are not following your script to go down the rabbit hole with you.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Many commentators are hiding (not disclosing) the speculations (non-factual statements) Naturalists have made through the decades about the origin of this physical world.

Conspiracy theories now is it? I suppose you'd feel you'd let yourself down if you didn't embrace those too.

 

[Greg1234]

Upisoft: "That actually is true. Until we develop an instrument to detect it.... Higgs is recent example..."

The scope of the instrument (eye or otherwise) is subject to the handler's condition.

 

[Heissonear]

This thread is NOT about evidence that there is a Creator. This point must not be clear to many commentators. So many posts say "this does not provide evidence that there is a creator". Again, it is not about proving there is a Creator.

This thread is about the limitations of Naturalism.

One major limitation is there is no evidence that this physical world has always existed. Most all commentators have gotten this.

With no evidence about the origin of the physical world you do not have a known foundation in certainty.

Why? You have no evidence. No proof or evidence about the origin of this physical realm.

You also have no evidence that proves this physical world was not created. This potential is pushed aside by most commentators. Why?

Why do you state leprechauns? Why? Your logic fails you in this reply. You know that IF this physical realm was created then the attributes of this Creator are immense by what we see around us.

Your own understanding and the Scientific Method cannot prove that this natural realm was not created. The origin of the natural realm you cannot prove or disprove.

Again, this thread is about the limitations of Naturalism.

 

[HitchSlap]

One major limitation is there is no evidence that this physical world has always existed. Most all commentators have gotten this.

Krauss '09: "A Universe From Nothing" - YouTube

 

[Loudmouth]

One major limitation is there is no evidence that this physical world has always existed.

That is not a limitation of naturalism. We could, theoretically, use naturalism to determine if the physical world has always existed. There is nothing in the scientific method that prevents us from studying this question.

The limitation you are speaking about is a human limitation, namely the speed at which we gather knowledge.

With no evidence about the origin of the physical world you do not have a known foundation in certainty.

Yes, you do. We don't need to know ultimate origins to understand proximal causes. We never have. We can know that a bacteria causes a specific disease without needing to know the ultimate origin of the energy that condensed into the matter that makes up the bacteria. Frankly, it is ludicrous to claim that we need to know everything before we can know anything.

You also have no evidence that proves this physical world was not created. This potential is pushed aside by most commentators. Why?

Because it is a logcial fallacy.

Negative proof - RationalWiki

There are these things called reason and logic. We like to use them.

Why do you state leprechauns? Why? Your logic fails you in this reply.

This is usually followed by an explanation of why it fails.

You know that IF this physical realm was created them the attributes of this Creator is immense by what we see around us.

Just like IF leprechauns plant fingerprints at crime scenes their attributes are important to study within forensic science.

We can dream up big IF's all day long. The trick is finding a way to determine which of them is true. So far, you haven't offered anything at all.

Your own understanding and the Scientific Method cannot prove that this natural realm was not created.

Logical fallacy:

Negative proof - RationalWiki

 

[Heissonear]

You present jokes but no evidence?

You debate with words but no evidence?

You are learning about how Naturalists have weaknesses and limitations on the fly.

 

[CabVet]

You present jokes but no evidence?

You debate with words but no evidence?

You are learning about how Naturalists have weaknesses and limitations on the fly.

Your posts are making less and less sense by the minute.

 

[Tomk80]

Your posts are making less and less sense by the minute.

That is usually the case when apologists are driven from their standard scripts.

Again, Heissonear, we recognize that we do not know everything. How is this a weakness? It is a strength.

 

[quatona]

With no evidence about the origin of the physical world you do not have a known foundation in certainty.

That´s not a limitation of naturalism - it´s a limitation all humans have in common.

Why? You have no evidence. No proof or evidence about the origin of this physical realm.

That´s why naturalists only study that which allows for evidence.

You also have no evidence that proves this physical world was not created. This potential is pushed aside by most commentators. Why?

Because - as you yourself said - creation vs. non-creation is not the topic of your thread, and you don´t want to discuss it, anyway?
I think naturalists have no problem acknowledging the impossibility of knowing anything that escapes human knowledge and investigation - i.e. is purely speculative. That´s why they are naturalists, in the first place.

Your own understanding and the Scientific Method cannot prove that this natural realm was not created.

You opened your post by emphasizing that the topic of this thread is not creation or a creator. For some strange reason, however, you time and again push this discussion in this direction. Why is that?

The origin of the natural realm you cannot prove or disprove.

Yes, you and I and everyone is completely clueless concerning the question whether the natural realm had an origin and what it was.
Btw. that wouldn´t be any different with "spirtual" or whatever realms.
It wouldn´t even be different with a creator. That an assumed unnatural creator was or wasn´t created by a creator that is beyond the realm of the creator is also purely speculative.

You correctly point out human limitations. I haven´t understood from your OP and I still don´t understand why you call them "limitations of naturalism". Which "-ism" escapes these limitations, in your opinion?

Again, this thread is about the limitations of Naturalism.

No, it´s about limitations of human knowledge and investigation.
Naturalism acknowledges those limitation, while many other "-isms" (like the idea that the natural realm was created by a non-natural entity) pretend purely speculative approaches to be successfully escaping those limitations.

 

[Paulos23]

This thread is NOT about evidence that there is a Creator. This point must not be clear to many commentators. So many posts say "this does not provide evidence that there is a creator". Again, it is not about proving there is a Creator.

This thread is about the limitations of Naturalism.

One major limitation is there is no evidence that this physical world has always existed. Most all commentators have gotten this.

With no evidence about the origin of the physical world you do not have a known foundation in certainty.

Why? You have no evidence. No proof or evidence about the origin of this physical realm.

You also have no evidence that proves this physical world was not created. This potential is pushed aside by most commentators. Why?

Why do you state leprechauns? Why? Your logic fails you in this reply. You know that IF this physical realm was created then the attributes of this Creator are immense by what we see around us.

Your own understanding and the Scientific Method cannot prove that this natural realm was not created. The origin of the natural realm you cannot prove or disprove.

Again, this thread is about the limitations of Naturalism.

Once again, you make the claim that Naturalism is limited. But what you use as an example is a limit of our current knowlage, not the process of gathering knowlage or a limitation of Naturalism. What you fail to see is that the gathering of knowlage from the scientific method is ever increasing over time. What is a limit of knowlage now may not be a limit in the future.

You don't answer the question of a creater but you want us to consiter it without any evidence that there is one or that it is required. Why should we even consider it if you will not address the problem of the creator. Even if Naturalism is limited in the way you claim, it doesn't default to a creator.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's go back 200 years . . .

200 years ago we had no idea what caused Anthrax. We had no naturalistic explanation for this disease. Heissonear would call this a limitation of Naturalism because we had no naturalistic explanation or even evidence for a natural cause.

Is this true? Nope. We actually used naturalism to find the cause of Anthrax, and even more we used naturalism again to find a cure for Anthrax.

Again and again Heissonear fails to understand the difference between the limitations of humans and the limitations of naturalism.