Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Paulos23]

Because answering the questions are not part of the agenda.

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

I think your right. Which is disapointing because I was hoping for something different. Or just some new data to chew on....

 

[Mr Clean]

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.

Heiss - I'm disappointed in you. I crafted, in my opinion, a well thought out and reasoned response to what you were saying. I agreed on a basic level with the limits of naturalism. I went on to explain the basic flaw in your argument. You chose not to respond, and passed up a chance at a real discussion and a real chance to learn.

Reading the post above, I now know that you are not any kind of naturalist, trained or otherwise. You lied to everyone about that, in an attempt to trick people. You are a creationist, and a zealous one at that.

And you never learned the one thing in this entire thread that was your basic flaw - limitations.

For if naturalism has limitations (and it does), then creationism is even more limited. If naturalism is based only on what we can gather with our five senses, then creationism can't be based on anything, because none of the five senses gather anything regarding a "god".

Your tried to build up creationism by limiting naturalism, but instead you only made a better argument that creationism is even more limited than naturalism. Bravo! You've learned what us naturalists have been trying to tell you all along....

 

[bhsmte]

Heiss - I'm disappointed in you. I crafted, in my opinion, a well thought out and reasoned response to what you were saying. I agreed on a basic level with the limits of naturalism. I went on to explain the basic flaw in your argument. You chose not to respond, and passed up a chance at a real discussion and a real chance to learn.

Reading the post above, I now know that you are not any kind of naturalist, trained or otherwise. You lied to everyone about that, in an attempt to trick people. You are a creationist, and a zealous one at that.

And you never learned the one thing in this entire thread that was your basic flaw - limitations.

For if naturalism has limitations (and it does), then creationism is even more limited. If naturalism is based only on what we can gather with our five senses, then creationism can't be based on anything, because none of the five senses gather anything regarding a "god".

Your tried to build up creationism by limiting naturalism, but instead you only made a better argument that creationism is even more limited than naturalism. Bravo! You've learned what us naturalists have been trying to tell you all along....

Nailed it!!!

 

[Mr Strawberry]

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.

And you have no evidence that it was. Bad luck for you.

What a predicament Naturalists are in.

I'd say you are the one with the predicament as you are the one with the religious agenda.

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.

How many times do you have to be corrected on this point? Oh, that's right, you aren't listening.

But many have not found how narrow and confining walking in Naturalism is.

You are the only one who seems upset about it, and we know why don't we...

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!

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is the religious agenda writ plain and simple. Heissonear is making a great song and dance about the limits of naturalism but purely because he wants to start banging on about the holy spirit and God with absolutely no evidence to support his views. Naturalism isn't a problem for us, it is a problem for him, and he knows it and doesn't like it one bit, therefore he has to try and diminish naturalism in an attempt to claim he sees a bigger picture. He doesn't of course, he's just another creationist wriggling and squirming and bawling because the real world presents no evidence to support his religious views.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

How God is watching their every move they are quite unaware.

Just as a little side issue, we actually do know where the idea that our actions are being watched all the time comes from. It is called the theory of mind. We have the ability to see ourselves and our actions from other people's points of view. This is essential for living in a social group that uses language to communicate and talk about other members of the social group. If our status within the group is dependent on reputation which is dependent on what others are saying about us then it is essential we have an internal eye watching ourselves and judging how others perceive our actions. We call it a conscience. You call it God watching our every move. It is just a product of your own mind.

OK, side issue over. Back to the thread.

 

[rjw]

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.

Yes.

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.

I always find that an odd argument to make. Yet I come across it from time to time. Imagine it being practiced in the world outside this forum:-

Person 1
My garden's a mess. I think that terrible storm last night did it.

Person 2
Oh no. Elves did it.

Person 1
Elves? Are you sure? They are just make out. We had a massive storm last night. Didn't you hear it?

Person 2
Yes. But elves did it I say.

Person 1
Where is your evidence for such an outlandish claim?

Person 2
Have faith. By restricting yourself to the natural, you are not taking into account other alternatives.


It makes no sense. Not in the outside world. So why do folk think it makes sense for science. How did the an appeal to the supernatural ever help us understand quantum mechanics to make transistors, evolution to make evolutionary algorithms, relativity to make the GPS etc?

 

[Heissonear]

Many posts from #191 to #203 have a similarity - undermine this thread and the messenger.

Why? It is exposing the fundamental flaws in Naturalism. Particularly its foundation.

So far it has exposed "the faith" Naturalist have.

A few commentators have presented some quite justifiable questions. But they are towards supernatural, rreasons why they should believe there is a god or creator, and the like. I will reply to those threads as time allows.

As far as statements that I'm not a Naturalist or Evolutionist, and never educated in such, but have lied (see post#202), all I can say is nice try. From Post #1 on I have presented my upbringing and former life. It through my many learning experiences including secular taught geology courses that as presented in Point 8 was learned as a pure Naturalist and trained Evolutionist.

I realize exposing the flaws of Naturalism to many can be upsetting, to say the least.

Some replies deserve respectful replies. They will come.

But "nailed it" is revealing, a victory chant. When Naturalists walk by faith and have no evidence there is not a Creator? Quite immature, no?

 

[durangodawood]

...I realize exposing the flaws of Naturalism to many can be upsetting, to say the least.....

Upsetting???

On the contrary... I was really hoping you would provide some good reasons to believe there's something more than "just" the natural world.

 

[bhsmte]

Many posts from #191 to #203 have a similarity - undermine this thread and the messenger.

Why? It is exposing the fundamental flaws in Naturalism. Particularly its foundation.

So far it has exposed "the faith" Naturalist have.

A few commentators have presented some quite justifiable questions. But they are towards supernatural, rreasons why they should believe there is a god or creator, and the like. I will reply to those threads as time allows.

As far as statements that I'm not a Naturalist or Evolutionist, and never educated in such, but have lied (see post#202), all I can say is nice try. From Post #1 on I have presented my upbringing and former life. It through my many learning experiences including secular taught geology courses that as presented in Point 8 was learned as a pure Naturalist and trained Evolutionist.

I realize exposing the flaws of Naturalism to many can be upsetting, to say the least.

Some replies deserve respectful replies. They will come.

But "nailed it" is revealing, a victory chant. When Naturalists walk by faith and have no evidence there is not a Creator? Quite immature, no?

No, nailed it means he "nailed it", as in he spoke in a way that was objective and made perfect sense.

Responses will come in time? I think that time has passed.

 

[Heissonear]

Upsetting???

On the contrary... I was really hoping you would provide some good reasons to believe there's something more than "just" the natural world.

Durangodawood,

From personal experience I have found something more than just the natural world. With time will be presenting the how and the what.

One problem though, it depends on what God does.

He is not an analytical instrument, nor a rock sample that we can control and test as we think. I was just a Naturalist when I learned about its limitations. I lacked information about religions and denominations. I had no bible scriptures knowledge. I thought all Christians were very similar. It was by being just a Naturalist that I was confronted with faith. It happened to be God's choice and timing to "work in me" to put faith (a type of try) in Him. For others I cannot say the circumstances or timing. A true weakness on my part toward how God can and does reveal Himself to others.

 

[durangodawood]

Durangodawood,

From personal experience I have found something more than just the natural world. With time will be presenting the how and the what.

One problem though, it depends on what God does.

He is not an analytical instrument, nor a rock sample that we can control and test as we think. I was just a Naturalist when I learned about its limitations. I lacked information about religions and denominations. I had no bible scriptures knowledge. I thought all Christians were very similar. It was by being just a Naturalist that I was confronted with faith. It happened to be God's choice and timing to "work in me" to put faith (a type of try) in Him. For others I cannot say the circumstances or timing. A true weakness on my part toward how God can and does reveal Himself to others.

I would call myself a "contingent" naturalist. Its my current belief, but only because I've experienced nothing to suggest that there's anything more.

In other words, experience leads, and "belief" (if thats even the right word) follows. So: my beliefs may well be overturned by new experiences.

 

[Heissonear]

No, nailed it means he "nailed it", as in he spoke in a way that was objective and made perfect sense.

Responses will come in time? I think that time has passed.

There is order in learning, no? The alphabet before words? Words before sentences?

Such has been what was presented so far about Naturalism. The agreeable definition. Then learning about its weaknesses. Then the walk of faith required and inability of detecting God or the spiritual realm through the 5 senses.

I didn't even know the abc's about Christianity, bible verses, or other religions when I learned about the need of faith to walk as a Naturalist. I had nothing to turn to. I had new things to learn, but I continued to be truthful to myself. I had nothing to prove. Just some interesting questions as a pure Naturalist, an educated one.

 

[bhsmte]

There is order in learning, no? The alphabet before words? Words before sentences?

Such has been what was presented so far about Naturalism. The agreeable definition. Then learning about its weaknesses. Then the walk of faith required and inability of detecting God or the spiritual realm through the 5 senses.

I didn't even know the abc's about Christianity, bible verses, or other religions when I learned about the need of faith to walk as a Naturalist. I had nothing to turn to. I had new things to learn, but I continued to be truthful to myself. I had nothing to prove. Just some interesting questions as a pure Naturalist, an educated one.

Heiss,

Your true agenda is pretty obvious and has been exposed. You tried a "backdoor" and it blew up on you. When you engage in a one sided manner and ignore legitimate questions, it doesn't do much for credibility.

 

[Paulos23]

Heiss,

Your true agenda is pretty obvious and has been exposed. You tried a "backdoor" and it blew up on you. When you engage in a one sided manner and ignore legitimate questions, it doesn't do much for credibility.

I agree. Hiess, your best option is to get off the point you are trying to get us to agree to and move on to you best evidence, or at least your next talking point/question/lesson.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Durangodawood,

From personal experience I have found something more than just the natural world. With time will be presenting the how and the what.

For the sake of preventing you boring everyone to tears with another rehash of your previous posts, just get on with telling us about your experience of finding something more than the natural world.

Who knows, you might even say something we've not heard before. (The odds are against it, but you never know. Don't say we haven't given you a fair crack of the whip.)

 

[Mr Strawberry]

There is order in learning, no? The alphabet before words? Words before sentences?

Such has been what was presented so far about Naturalism. The agreeable definition. Then learning about its weaknesses. Then the walk of faith required and inability of detecting God or the spiritual realm through the 5 senses.

I didn't even know the abc's about Christianity, bible verses, or other religions when I learned about the need of faith to walk as a Naturalist. I had nothing to turn to. I had new things to learn, but I continued to be truthful to myself. I had nothing to prove. Just some interesting questions as a pure Naturalist, an educated one.

Just out of curiosity, is it a coincidence that your location is relatively close to the Institute of creation research?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

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.

Still looking forward to your answers.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

So you are saying that naturalism would be strengthened if it accepted anything that anyone said as true without requiring any evidence?

So if I said that Leprechauns plant fingerprints at crime scenes this would mean that naturalism would have to disprove my claim, otherwise it would stand as true. Is this correct?

This is the epistemology that you would prefer?

Always wanting proof but not having any to say they do not exist.

Logical fallacy.

Negative proof - RationalWiki

It is one of the most obvious and well known fallacies. I have pointed this out numerous times now. Why do you continue with it?

Have you disproven the claim that Leprechauns plant fingerprints at crime scenes?

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

How does one seek truth if you throw away ever tool that is useful for determining truth? You are not interested in seeking the truth. You are looking to protect a dogma from questioning.

 

[Loudmouth]

Such has been what was presented so far about Naturalism. The agreeable definition. Then learning about its weaknesses.

So far, you have only pointed to the strengths of naturalism.

[qutoe]Then the walk of faith required and inability of detecting God or the spiritual realm through the 5 senses. [/quote]

So the spiritual realm only exists because you believe it exists? This would seem to be a major weakness for supernaturalism.

 

[durangodawood]

....So the spiritual realm only exists because you believe it exists? This would seem to be a major weakness for supernaturalism.

Very curious to about the strengths, if any, of supernaturalism.
.