Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Heissonear]

You keep asserting that, you have yet to support that in any way, shape or form.


And? Again, why is recognizing our limitations a bad thing? Could you give a straight answer to that question? For once?


We don't know. How is recognizing that we do not know a bad thing? How is making something up instead better? Could give a straight answer to that question? For once?

"Why is recognizing our limitations a bad thing"?

You passed over the 15 billion years and eternity thing pretty quick. So, you cannot see when faith/trust/assume/believe is involved in extending Naturalism past 15 billion years and to eternity?

Please stay on this point.

 

[Tomk80]

"Why is recognizing our limitations a bad thing"?

You passed over the 15 billion years and eternity thing pretty quick. So, you cannot see when faith/trust/assume/believe is involved in extending Naturalism past 15 billion years and to eternity?

Please stay on this point.

I can go over it very quickly, because we don't know. We have evidence that the universe is around 15 billion years old (well, closer to 13.8 billion, but hey). There is no faith there, just evidence.
The assumptions behind that are that reality is really real. This assumption cannot be proven, it is a pragmatic assumption that we need to make, because otherwise we just spiral down into solipsism.
The trust involved is that a group of people who check each others work is trying to do the best they can and is not purposefully scamming everyone. This is again an assumption that cannot entirely be proven. However, given that what we know of scientists is that they are quite eager to dismiss each others ideas wherever possible (at least, that is my experience), and given that this would require an immense coordination among scientists to keep "the truth" hidden, the opposite assumption (that all scientists are purposefully dishonest) is untenable and can be rejected.

Extending that beyond is over very quickly as well, because we just don't know. We have a number of hypothesis, none very well supported. So we don't know. When we do not have any evidence one way or the other, saying that we don't know is the only honest answer.

Now, when are you going to answer the question I posed in return? How is recognizing that we do not know a bad thing? How is making something up instead better? Could give a straight answer to that question? For once?

 

[Heissonear]

Well, I have responded quite seriously and exhaustively before - only to learn that you ignored those posts altogether.
You are correct: Seeing pages and pages of the methods and strategies you use in these discussions has ruined my will to engage in serious discourse with you.

It is your foundation problem, Naturalism is based on faith. Facts and evidences can only go back so far in time. Particularly when we state what is eternal.

If you do not state you have faith because you have no evidence and would be guessing - you are not being honest to yourself. No answer is an answer. You have put all of your believe that only through Naturalism can you know for certainty what is true; this includes higher life and is there a Creator.

Quatona, you walk by faith. Isolating yourself in Naturalism is putting your faith that it is what will provide all answers about this existence, past, present, and future.

 

[Paulos23]

It takes personal experience. But you need to go straight to the source.

Who provides the evidence? Who are you really wanting evidence from? "If" He exist then then don't take second hand word.

You see, I tried. Multiple ways. Nothing.

That is the problem with personal experance, it is personal. Unless it can be mesured and put in terms that are easly understod and tested it means nothing to the next person. And I find that what one person trusts on faith doesn't always holds up over time as new evidence comes forth.

So when you say go to the source, a source I have looked for and found no evidence for, I have to take you as a die hard believer that is not interested in testing their own ideas.

As others have pointed out, you keep insisting that because we don't know how the universe was made and that it is a weakness. It is not. To admit you don't know is a strength and helps us define the limits of our understanding. And with that understanding we can go forth and learn.

As far as I can tell, you just replaced I don't know with God, for no good reason other then you can't handle I don't know.

 

[Heissonear]

I

Now, when are you going to answer the question I posed in return? How is recognizing that we do not know a bad thing? How is making something up instead better? Could give a straight answer to that question? For once?

I answered this in the last post. The "How is recognizing that we do not know a bad thing?"

Answers:
1. Point 3 in first post: pushing/placing all of your chips in the middle of the table - is a risk. Another way of stating: only through Naturalism you can understand the existence, past, present, and future.

2. What is eternal, if their is a Creator, is there higher life in our midst: have the Naturalism scientist boys totally missed these items?

Would failing to "recognize" and comprehend these things be bad? Yes, most definitely. So many ramifications for such blindness.

 

[bhsmte]

Objective through posts:

3. Naturalism is a walk of faith


5. It takes a personal "honest investigative questioning" or "try/attempt to know" the "if" a Creator of this massive universe exists. No blind faith, religious doctrine faith, lack of sound logic, superstition, turn to a religion or religious person, deny what we know/the evidences of the physical realm we understand. We add to it the awareness of the spiritual realm and what we spiritually learn.
[/QUOTE]



Maybe it is you who is limited to the truth, because your own mind is not being honest with you, which certain people's minds have a tendency to do.


Item 5 is rational when item 3 is understood. We are not talking about proving our position before others.

Many think that evidence from "personal experience" is error.

It is not if you go to the source. What "if" He is - and He reveals Himself?

You have taken other people's word for this subject too long. And all you have done is rationalize if there could be a Creator. No much firsthand knowing. All mental comprehension and hearing other peoples words. And you think you now have the answer? You have fallen short, even to yourself.[/QUOTE]

Heiss,

If personal experience works for you than go for it. But, don't claim others are limited, because they don't have the personal "mind experience" that you do.

 

[bhsmte]

Have become use to "hearing about" and lack firsthand understanding? You have never went to the source yourself? You deem such foolish? Who is foolish after all, if no honest effort on your part has been performed?

Watching and commenting from the sidelines?

Who are you to claim whether someone has "made an honest effort" at some point in there life to connect with a so called God?

The mind is a powerful thing and depending on one's personal psychology, can convince ones self of just about anything - many of which aren't real.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Mr. Strawberry,

The matter of Naturalism is not a "the messenger" issue. It is not a "qualification" issue.

Out of a state university I worked 18 years for a company with over 40,000 employees and currently 14 years and adding for a company with over 50,000 employees. The entire employment has been in the oil & gas industry. The last 14 years has been in research. Current title is Staff Scientist. Current assignments in microseismic of hydraulic fractures in global shale plays, with emphasis on sweet spot identification within hydrocarbon rich shales. I currently have 55 US Patents and numerous pending and 28 magazine, journal, and technical conference papers. I work intricately with scientists of all backgrounds.

Now, let me hear about you. If you would.

Yeah, I didn't ask for any of that. I asked what your native language was (which you didn't answer - I don't know why) and whether you were going to claim to be a geology teacher (as you sound remarkably similar to another poster here who regularly makes that claim amongst other similar outrageous claims - you remind me of him). Instead you gave me your curriculum vitae and then demanded mine, which would not impress you, but I'm in science. Interesting cv of yours by the way. For all its odd emphasis on employee numbers (I worked for a company with over 1.5 million employees for a bit - are you impressed?) and patents and conference papers, it still doesn't really fit with the gibberish you've been spouting in this thread, which is curious. How would you explain that? The disconnect between what you show in your posts and what is required of you professionally?

 

[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.

 

[bhsmte]

Still looking forward to your answers.

If Heiss has yet to answer, he isn't going to.

This thread has hit the wall and that is what happens when people refuse to respond to straight forward questions that can keep the discussion moving forward. Instead, Heiss rehashes the same statements over and over. They should shut this thread down.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I answered this in the last post. The "How is recognizing that we do not know a bad thing?"

Answers:
1. Point 3 in first post: pushing/placing all of your chips in the middle of the table - is a risk. Another way of stating: only through Naturalism you can understand the existence, past, present, and future.

If you have something better, now would be the time to present it.

If I may continue with your poker analogy -- your problem is that you insist on bluffing long after the time has come for you to show your cards.

2. What is eternal, if their is a Creator, is there higher life in our midst: have the Naturalism scientist boys totally missed these items?

Is there a creator? Isn't that what you're trying to prove?

If you've got a better methodology than naturalism, now is the time to show your cards.

Would failing to "recognize" and comprehend these things be bad? Yes, most definitely. So many ramifications for such blindness.

And how exactly do you "recognize" these things? Show your cards or fold your hand.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is your foundation problem, Naturalism is based on faith.

In other posts you claim that the weakness of naturalism is that it is founded on evidence. So which is it? Faith or evidence? You need to pick one and stay consistent.

Facts and evidences can only go back so far in time.

Since when? I don't see why naturalism can not be used to investigate the era that preceded the initial expansion of our universe. Can you tell us why it can't be used?

200 years ago we had no facts or evidence related to the natural workings of lightning. 200 years ago you would have argued that naturalism can not be used to determine the origin of lightning. Guess what? You would have been wrong. We used naturalism to find the origin of lightning.

Pointing to our current ignorance in no way evidences that we will always be ignorant.

If you do not state you have faith because you have no evidence and would be guessing - you are not being honest to yourself. No answer is an answer. You have put all of your believe that only through Naturalism can you know for certainty what is true; this includes higher life and is there a Creator.

How is saying "I don't know" an act of faith? You have some of the silliest definitions I have ever seen.

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence provided by naturalism is quite limited.

That is because humans are limited. It has nothing to do with the method itself.

Such as "is there a Creator". Let's see your evidence. And let's see your evidence that the physical realm has always existed.

There is no evidence for a creator, so why would I believe that there is a creator? It would require faith to believe that there is a creator in the lack of any positive evidence. Lacking a positive belief is not faith. It is the opposite of faith.

 

[quatona]

It is your foundation problem, Naturalism is based on faith. Facts and evidences can only go back so far in time. Particularly when we state what is eternal.

If you do not state you have faith because you have no evidence and would be guessing - you are not being honest to yourself. No answer is an answer. You have put all of your believe that only through Naturalism can you know for certainty what is true; this includes higher life and is there a Creator.

Quatona, you walk by faith. Isolating yourself in Naturalism is putting your faith that it is what will provide all answers about this existence, past, present, and future.

You don´t even know me, and you have ignored those posts in which I addressed your points.
Telling me what I believe and have faith in is pretty bold.

It is your foundation problem, Naturalism is based on faith. Facts and evidences can only go back so far in time. Particularly when we state what is eternal.

Since I am not making any statements about what´s eternal you apparently are talking to yourself.

If you do not state you have faith because you have no evidence and would be guessing - you are not being honest to yourself. No answer is an answer. You have put all of your believe that only through Naturalism can you know for certainty what is true; this includes higher life and is there a Creator.

No, I haven´t, and you don´t have any grounds whatsoever for telling me what I believe or don´t.

This is basically a preaching thread - which isn´t anything bad per se. It´s just that you pretend it were something else, and that you were seeking a discussion.

 

[pjnlsn]

It is your foundation problem, Naturalism is based on faith. Facts and evidences can only go back so far in time. Particularly when we state what is eternal.

If you do not state you have faith because you have no evidence and would be guessing - you are not being honest to yourself. No answer is an answer. You have put all of your believe that only through Naturalism can you know for certainty what is true; this includes higher life and is there a Creator.

Quatona, you walk by faith. Isolating yourself in Naturalism is putting your faith that it is what will provide all answers about this existence, past, present, and future.

It is unlikely unproven that any deity exists. In this sense, 'naturalism' is likely.

 

[durangodawood]

If Heiss has yet to answer, he isn't going to.

This thread has hit the wall and that is what happens when people refuse to respond to straight forward questions that can keep the discussion moving forward. Instead, Heiss rehashes the same statements over and over. They should shut this thread down.

Looking forward to Heiss's next thread, where he describes his personal journey away from naturalism.... and presumably toward supernaturalism.

This one, with his preachy stonewalling, has hit a dead end long ago. As for me, his arguments go nowhere. Its ONLY personal testimony that I find compelling.

 

[Heissonear]

If you don't like the word "faith" - then put in the word "trust".

You have showed through many comments your trust in Naturalism.

You walk by trust.

Your trust and confidence is in Naturalism.

Buy what you have put your trust in has MAJOR limitations.

1. Is matter eternal or was it created?

2. Is there a Creator?

3. Is there higher life in our midst?

I have firm knowledge and true answers for each. The answers are yes.

The evidence and evidence only scientists (Fundamental Naturalists) have a major limitation and cannot provide true answers to the above questions. Why? Reliance and trust in the 5 senses, mental capability, and the Scientific Method is restrictive.

The "personal experience" or personal opinion" is over emphasised when

1. You don't go to the source

2. Don't understand or detect the source

3. And push the source to the side like it's not there

Then discussion can be about the person, and the experience, understanding, or awareness they have. The issue becomes the thread bearer, the messenger.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

If you don't like the word "faith" - then put in the word "trust".

You have showed through many comments your trust in Naturalism.

You walk by trust.

Your trust and confidence is in Naturalism.

Buy what you have put your trust in has MAJOR limitations.

1. Is matter eternal or was it created?

2. Is there a Creator?

3. Is there higher life in our midst?

I have firm knowledge and true answers for each. The answers are yes.

The evidence and evidence only scientists (Fundamental Naturalists) have a major limitation and cannot provide true answers to the above questions. Why? Reliance and trust in the 5 senses, mental capability, and the Scientific Method is restrictive.

The "personal experience" or personal opinion" is over emphasised when

1. You don't go to the source

2. Don't understand or detect the source

3. And push the source to the side like it's not there

Then discussion can be about the person, and the experience, understanding, or awareness they have. The issue becomes the thread bearer, the messenger.

Everyone trusts naturalism or we couldn't safely cross the road. It's adding extra things without evidential warrant that is at issue. Personal experience is all we have but we need to test our perceptions against objective reality (well not "need" but it certainly seems consistent).

 

[durangodawood]

If you don't like the word "faith" - then put in the word "trust".

You have showed through many comments your trust in Naturalism.

You walk by trust.

Your trust and confidence is in Naturalism.

Buy what you have put your trust in has MAJOR limitations.

1. Is matter eternal or was it created?

2. Is there a Creator?

3. Is there higher life in our midst?

I have firm knowledge and true answers for each. The answers are yes.

The evidence and evidence only scientists (Fundamental Naturalists) have a major limitation and cannot provide true answers to the above questions. Why? Reliance and trust in the 5 senses, mental capability, and the Scientific Method is restrictive.

The "personal experience" or personal opinion" is over emphasised when

1. You don't go to the source

2. Don't understand or detect the source

3. And push the source to the side like it's not there

Then discussion can be about the person, and the experience, understanding, or awareness they have. The issue becomes the thread bearer, the messenger.

So, talk some about going to the source, how to detect the source, and how to deal with the source.

 

[Paulos23]

So, talk some about going to the source, how to detect the source, and how to deal with the source.

That's what I would like to know as well.

But I think we will be disapointed bases on past posts.