Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Loudmouth]

Science restricts itself to the natural because that is about all we can know with what we think is certainty, and can agree amongst ourselves that we know.

It is even broader than that. Science relies on observations. If a deity had a discernable and observable effect on the world around us then it could be a part of science. It is not the fault of scientists that no one can show how deities have any effect on the reality around us.

What Heissonear is complaining about is that we don't put as much weight on faith based claims as we do on evidenced based claims.

Supposing you did get a signal from out there. You still need to be able to interpret it. How can the rest of us, including other supernaturalists know that your interpretation is correct? How can you, for that matter, know that you have it correct, particularly in the case of other supernaturalists who might disagree with you?

Apparently, it is determined by how many followers you can get.

 

[Heissonear]

Originally Posted by Heissonear

There appears to be different forms or denominations of Naturalism. The more recent denomination appears to be a more politically correct type. I'll call it Fundamental Naturalism. This form does not allow open speculation, but rigorously holds they don't know without evidence. The sole test of knowledge is repeatable experimentation.
​

This form exists only in your head as part a psychological condition known as projection. You are projecting your religiously based dogmatic beliefs onto other people.

In both types of Naturalism the natural history of this physical world, the events that commonly occur around us like lightening, only need to be explained by natural processes.
​

They ARE explained by natural processes because we have evidence for them. We don't have any reason to think that they are produced by anything other than the natural processes we are aware of.

For sure Evident Naturalism not only saw no need for a God to explain events or history, but by all accounts of scientific investigation there is no God
​

What God? You have not given us a reason why God should be included as an explanation or a part of the investigation. It is not the fault of naturalists that your supposed god has no discernable effect on the world around us.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Fundamentalists are really debaters of Naturalism. They appear to have openness but are really not seeking spiritual reality. It's not there. It's a product of ignorance and superstitions. Equivalent to believing in leprechauns, and the like replies.
​

What spiritual reality? Show us. .

You say "What God? You have not given us a reason why God should be included as an explanation or a part of the investigation."

And "What spiritual reality? Show us."

It appears you are a Naturalist that has failed to learn about the major limitations of Naturalism.

A weakness of Naturalism is narrow and confined awareness of things like the spiritual realm and the origin of the physical realm. Always wanting proof but not having any to say they do not exist. As listed in Points 7-9 on first post.

So much for seeking truth and choosing to be a debater.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

A weakness of Naturalism is narrow and confined awareness of things like the spiritual realm and the origin of the physical realm. Always wanting proof but not having any to say they do not exist. As listed in Point 3 on first post.

19 pages. Time to walk the walk.

Give me your epistemology of 'supernaturalism'. How do you reliably glean information about the 'supernatural'? By what means or methodology do you demonstrate this information? How do you discern 'supernatural' information from something you may merely be imagining? How does you audience discern 'supernatural' information from something you made up?

When you provide your answer, remember that you've categorically written off naturalist epistemologies, so don't steal anything from them, lest you internally contradict yourself.

Ready? Go...

 

[TLK Valentine]

You say "What God? You have not given us a reason why God should be included as an explanation or a part of the investigation."

And "What spiritual reality? Show us."

It appears you are a Naturalist that has failed to learn about the major limitations of Naturalism.

it appears you are waffling.

A weakness of Naturalism is narrow and confined awareness of things like the spiritual realm and the origin of the physical realm. Always wanting proof but not having any to say they do not exist. As listed in Point 3 on first post.

You've got nothing, have you?

So much for seeking truth and choosing to be a debater.

We seek truth -- and we know someone who doesn't have it when we see one.

Put up or shut up.

 

[Tomk80]

You say "What God? You have not given us a reason why God should be included as an explanation or a part of the investigation."

And "What spiritual reality? Show us."

It appears you are a Naturalist that has failed to learn about the major limitations of Naturalism.

A weakness of Naturalism is narrow and confined awareness of things like the spiritual realm and the origin of the physical realm. Always wanting proof but not having any to say they do not exist. As listed in Point 3 on first post.

So much for seeking truth and choosing to be a debater.

You're just not reading a word anyone writes, are you?

You keep asserting that the limitation of not accepting any and all claims is a weakness. We have demonstrated over and over again that it is not a weakness, it is a strength. You have yet to even address that. As long as you don't, all you are doing is waffling.

Stop waffling.

 

[Heissonear]

19 pages. Time to walk the walk.

Give me your epistemology of 'supernaturalism'. How do you reliably glean information about the 'supernatural'? By what means or methodology do you demonstrate this information? How do you discern 'supernatural' information from something you may merely be imagining? How does you audience discern 'supernatural' information from something you made up?

When you provide your answer, remember that you've categorically written off naturalist epistemologies, so don't steal anything from them, lest you internally contradict yourself.

Ready? Go...

Another tangent from answering the basic items of weaknesses in Naturalism as listed in first Post, Points 7-9.

You demand answers to questions you have not evidence for. And it is now clear your "openness" to learn your weakness is but words and debater. You have continued to ignore your major weaknesses you make in this life toward things you have no evidence for. You also have narrowed and confined your position in life by falling pray to the Day of the Naturalist.

It should not have been tangents but a serious look at your foundation in Naturalism is built on faith, no evidence, no proof, all preference in what you chose to believe. Such has been your freedom in using freewill while the Day of Salvation is near.

 

[Tomk80]

Another tangent from answering the basic items of weaknesses in Naturalism as listed in first Post, Points 7-9.

You demand answers to questions you have not evidence for.

Wrong.

And it is now clear your "openness" to learn your weakness is but words and debater.

This makes no sense.

You have continued to ignore your major weaknesses you make in this life toward things you have no evidence for.

Wrong again.

You also have narrowed and confined your position in life by falling pray to the Day of the Naturalist.

Què?

It should not have been tangents but a serious look at your foundation in Naturalism is built on faith, no evidence, no proof, all preference in what you chose to believe. Such has been your freedom in using freewill while the Day of Salvation is near.

We have seriously looked at the foundations. We have come to the conclusion that it is better to admit that our knowledge his limits, than to make stuff up. This is a strength, not a weakness. And this is one more time that I or another poster has stated this, and no doubt you'll ignore it again, just as you did all other times.

 

[Heissonear]

it appears you are waffling.



You've got nothing, have you?


We seek truth -- and we know someone who doesn't have it when we see one.

Put up or shut up.

Your walk in Naturalism has not taught you the basic weakness - as Points 1-9 in Post 1 list.

You have no proof about the origin of the physical. You have no evidence to disprove the physical realm was not created.

 

[Tomk80]

Your walk in Naturalism has not taught you the basic weakness - as Points 1-9 in Post 1 list.

You have no proof about the origin of the physical.

Neither have you.

You have no evidence to disprove the physical realm was not created.

So?

You show your immaturity as a Naturalist. You have become a debater and a self professed guide to those who have a relationship with the Creator. Such are those who do not yield to the Spirit at work in them.

More waffling.

 

[Heissonear]

You're just not reading a word anyone writes, are you?

You keep asserting that the limitation of not accepting any and all claims is a weakness. We have demonstrated over and over again that it is not a weakness, it is a strength. You have yet to even address that. As long as you don't, all you are doing is waffling.

Stop waffling.

The limitation of Naturalism you pretend to not understand.

"We have demonstrated" no limitations in Naturalism as listed in Point 1 Points 1-9.

I was raised and formally educated in Naturalism, particularly earths natural history. It became quite clear one day in a geology class that Evolution and Naturalism is based on faith, even with all of the "so called facts" I had come to know.

The months that followed and the pondering of such only became clearer. I was not responding to to debaters or guides on a website. I was pondering through logic, the wealth of knowledge I had learned and continuing to learn. Yep, Evolution and Naturalism is a walk of faith. You fail big time in knowing or admitting such. To you your Naturalism stance is strong. How immature. How you have not looked at the errors and weaknesses of Naturalism.

So you will keep debating, being a professing guide to the ignorant in the Scientific Method and Day of the Naturalist.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Another tangent from answering the basic items of weaknesses in Naturalism as listed in first Post, Points 7-9.

You demand answers to questions you have not evidence for. And it is now clear your "openness" to learn your weakness is but words and debater. You have continued to ignore your major weaknesses you make in this life toward things you have no evidence for. You also have narrowed and confined your position in life by falling pray to the Day of the Naturalist.

It should not have been tangents but a serious look at your foundation in Naturalism is built on faith, no evidence, no proof, all preference in what you chose to believe. Such has been your freedom in using freewill while the Day of Salvation is near.

Stop waffling.

 

[Tomk80]

The limitation of Naturalism you pretend to not understand.

I pretend nothing. I understand the limitations of naturalism just fine.

"We have demonstrated" no limitations in Naturalism as listed in Point 1 Points 1-9.

què?

I was raised and formally educated in Naturalism, particularly earths natural history. It became quite clear one day in a geology class that Evolution and Naturalism is based on faith, even with all of the "so called facts" I had come to know.

How is models relying on evidence faith? Here you are making an assertion. You need to back this up.

The months that followed and the pondering of such only became clearer. I was not responding to to debaters or guides on a website. I was pondering through logic, the wealth of knowledge I had learned and continuing to learn. Yep, Evolution and Naturalism is a walk of faith. You fail big time in knowing or admitting such. To you your Naturalism stance is strong. How immature. How you have not looked at the errors and weaknesses of Naturalism.

A whole bunch of assertions from you here, without any reasoning behind them.

We recognize the limits of our knowledge. We recognize that your methods of gathering knowledge are limited by us being people, and that the best we can do is look at the world around us, make models of the world and then test those models, while letting others check those models. We recognize this is not perfect. We just recognize that it is better than any of the alternatives that have been provided by people throughout history.

So far, you have not offered any alternative, so you fail on that point as well.

So you will keep debating, being a professing guide to the ignorant in the Scientific Method and Day of the Naturalist.

You really can't accept it that people won't blindly accept your ignorant assertions, can you? So instead, you just preach and resort to insults. The fact that you do so, should already tell you all you need to know about how untenable your position is.

 

[Heissonear]

Heiss,

Your smoke screen has run its course.

Why do you avoid the many responses to your questions?

Why can't you present logical evidence for your claims?

Still presenting tangents - requesting answers rather than answering the Points 1-9.

Are you not interested in learning the major weaknesses in Naturalism, including how it is a walk by faith. Many Naturalist and Evolutionist fail to learn their foundation is by faith. There is no evidence that their was not a Creator but many preferentially ignore this foundational aspect.

Well I didn't and became open to what other matters people put their faith in. But guess what, God was working in me and wanted me to put my faith in Him.

It was not long before He openly showed me by the baptism of His Spirit that He is, He has been, and always will be. He was never far off or non-existent. I was the fool by what unbelief had done to my life.

As far as the remote galaxies are from us, so is the magnitude of His thought towards us each moment. What we did to the very last detail 20 years ago is like it just happen to Him, from the amount of bacteria in a divot playing golf to where every oxygen molecule I was breathing came from, their entire course in history since he Created them.

Naturalist are so blind to God and how near He is each moment. But they want to be our guides to how this physical realm came into existence. And they don't want to even acknowledge their foundational weaknesses in Naturalism. Such is the Day of the Naturalist. They are running their course before all.

 

[Heissonear]

Originally Posted by Heissonear

Since you state you are not blind then answer the Points in Post #1. You have not answered them. It appears you do not think Naturalism has any limitations. Other than NO EVIDENCE of the origin of this physical world!
​

No evidence of the origin of this physical world? Are you absolutely sure about that?

You may need to ponder this. For blindness sakes!
​

I'm pondering whether you are actually making sense to yourself. .

As hard as it may seem, Naturalism is based on faith. You put your trust that it has always been. But you have no proof.

And you have no proof/evidence that it was not created.

What a predicament Naturalists are in. Limited to their 5 senses, mental inteligence/brain capability, and careful use of the Scientific Method, they presume to be able to detect and learn how this physical existence came about, including if there is a God. But many have not found how narrow and confining walking in Naturalism is. Things from the Holy Spirit they know not of. How God is watching their every move they are quite unaware. They do not understand the power of unbelief. They have failed to put their faith in the one who Created all that we see, hear, and know. And great is His purpose on earth among men!

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Another tangent from answering the basic items of weaknesses in Naturalism as listed in first Post, Points 7-9.

Actually, I didn't say a single word in defense of naturalism. What I asked is that you provide a workable epistemology for the 'supernatural'.

You demand answers to questions you have not evidence for.

Actually, I ask (not 'demand') that you provide a workable epistemology for the 'supernatural'.

And it is now clear your "openness" to learn your weakness is but words and debater. You have continued to ignore your major weaknesses you make in this life toward things you have no evidence for. You also have narrowed and confined your position in life by falling pray to the Day of the Naturalist.

Actually, I didn't say a single word in defense of naturalism. What I asked is that you provide a workable epistemology for the 'supernatural'.

It should not have been tangents but a serious look at your foundation in Naturalism is built on faith, no evidence, no proof, all preference in what you chose to believe. Such has been your freedom in using freewill while the Day of Salvation is near.

Here's the thing: even if I grant every asinine naked assertion you've made here, you're still no better off. Even if naturalism is a flawed epistemology, the fact remains that you have no epistemology.

So...

How do you reliably glean information about the 'supernatural'?

By what means or methodology do you demonstrate this information?

How do you discern 'supernatural' information from something you may merely be imagining?

How does your audience discern 'supernatural' information from something you made up?

I look forward to your answers.

 

[Paulos23]

Heis,

Put up or shut up time.

Do you have evidence that the universe was created? Do you have evidence that there is something outside the universe? If so what?

Your claims that Naturalism is limited, we don't deny this. But you take that as weakness an make claims that you have no evidence for. Why not answer the questions? Why keep on this obvous script that many have seen through?

 

[bhsmte]

Heis,

Put up or shut up time.

Do you have evidence that the universe was created? Do you have evidence that there is something outside the universe? If so what?

Your claims that Naturalism is limited, we don't deny this. But you take that as weakness an make claims that you have no evidence for. Why not answer the questions? Why keep on this obvous script that many have seen through?

Because answering the questions are not part of the agenda.

Waste of 20 pages, this thread has run its course.

 

[pjnlsn]

Still presenting tangents - requesting answers rather than answering the Points 1-9.

Are you not interested in learning the major weaknesses in Naturalism, including how it is a walk by faith. Many Naturalist and Evolutionist fail to learn their foundation is by faith. There is no evidence that their was not a Creator but many preferentially ignore this foundational aspect.

Well I didn't and became open to what other matters people put their faith in. But guess what, God was working in me and wanted me to put my faith in Him.

It was not long before He openly showed me by the baptism of His Spirit that He is, He has been, and always will be. He was never far off or non-existent. I was the fool by what unbelief had done to my life.

As far as the remote galaxies are from us, so is the magnitude of His thought towards us each moment. What we did to the very last detail 20 years ago is like it just happen to Him, from the amount of bacteria in a divot playing golf to where every oxygen molecule I was breathing came from, their entire course in history since he Created them.

Naturalist are so blind to God and how near He is each moment. But they want to be our guides to how this physical realm came into existence. And they don't want to even acknowledge their foundational weaknesses in Naturalism. Such is the Day of the Naturalist. They are running their course before all.

The existence of any deity is unlikely and unproven.

 

[Mr Clean]

MrClean: "But if you are a true to heart naturalist, you can't consider that which has no evidence of being in the first place. A naturalist follows the data."

A materialist builds his own data, his own world, for himself. Materialism distances you from God, therefore your world will consist of ever-deeping physical experinces which you apply to the world at large, including theism. Alternatively, theism brings you closer to God and consists also of what people describe as spiritual experiences or experiences contrary to materialism's endowment. So when a materialist follows the data, its best you realize what you are saying. What I was asking materialists here is what propelled materialism to the point of supremacy where gains from the materialistic lifestyle became the primary arbiter of the information.

Greg, thanks for posting. I wasn't talking to you, but Hiess, but since you answered I will be happy to reply.

This whole thread has been about "naturalism", which is a not-quite accurate synonym for a scientist. Where "materialist" comes from I am not quite sure. It seems materialist (like the "gains from the materialistic lifestyle" you mentioned) references the gain of items/money. If you want to discuss anything I'd be glad to, but I need a little clearer definition of what it is you want to talk about...

 

[durangodawood]

Actually, I didn't say a single word in defense of naturalism. What I asked is that you provide a workable epistemology for the 'supernatural'.



Actually, I ask (not 'demand') that you provide a workable epistemology for the 'supernatural'.



Actually, I didn't say a single word in defense of naturalism. What I asked is that you provide a workable epistemology for the 'supernatural'.



Here's the thing: even if I grant every asinine naked assertion you've made here, you're still no better off. Even if naturalism is a flawed epistemology, the fact remains that you have no epistemology.

So...

How do you reliably glean information about the 'supernatural'?

By what means or methodology do you demonstrate this information?

How do you discern 'supernatural' information from something you may merely be imagining?

How does your audience discern 'supernatural' information from something you made up?

I look forward to your answers.

More tangents from the naturalist as you demonstrate you have failed to assimilate the 9 point outline of naturalist limitations.