Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Loudmouth]

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

I would call it a 200 year proven track record that has resulted in our knowledge increasing by orders of magnitude in just 2 short centuries whereas we wallowed in ignorance for millenia when we used supernaturalism..

You walk by trust.

We follow the evidence.

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

The only limitations you have pointed to are human limiitations, not limitations of naturalism. We have shown you this multiple times. Are you ever going to respond to our replies?

The evidence and evidence only scientists (Fundamental Naturalists) have a major limitation and cannot provide true answers to the above questions.

200 years ago naturalists could not provide an answer for the origin of lightning. Using nauralism, we found that answer. How do you explain this? This is the opposite of what you are claiming.

 

[Davian]

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.

This is obviously a use of the word "true" that I was not previously aware of.

I suppose you are next going to tell us that this "creator" just happens to be a deity, and the particular one you believe in, and he thinks much like you do about the state of the world.

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

4. The source cannot be demonstrated to be anything other than a figment of the imagination.

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

And thus, the message fails.

 

[Heissonear]

This is obviously a use of the word "true" that I was not previously aware of.

I suppose you are next going to tell us that this "creator" just happens to be a deity, and the particular one you believe in, and he thinks much like you do about the state of the world.

4. The source cannot be demonstrated to be anything other than a figment of the imagination.

And thus, the message fails.

It is obvious that you don't agree. Are the replies a little shallow for the listed statements?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Are the replies a little shallow for the listed statements?

It would seem not, as you haven't managed to provide an answer for any of them.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is obvious that you don't agree. Are the replies a little shallow for the listed statements?

Why don't you actually address the statements made by other people instead of repeating the same thing over and over? You know, engage in a discussion with us.

You could start by addressing the history of science. 200 years ago we had not naturalistic explanation for the origin of lightning. 200 years ago you would have said that naturalism is limited when it comes to the origin of lightning. However, over the ensuing 200 years we used naturalism to discover the origin of lightning. It turned out that our ignorance is not the result of a limitation within naturalism. You refuse to address this at all.

 

[Heissonear]

Why don't you actually address the statements made by other people instead of repeating the same thing over and over? You know, engage in a discussion with us.

You could start by addressing the history of science. 200 years ago we had not naturalistic explanation for the origin of lightning. 200 years ago you would have said that naturalism is limited when it comes to the origin of lightning. However, over the ensuing 200 years we used naturalism to discover the origin of lightning. It turned out that our ignorance is not the result of a limitation within naturalism. You refuse to address this at all.

What you want to talk about is your house, what you have built upon the foundation I have singularly presented. That is, stay on the thread topic.

What you present with the history of science in the past two centuries is true. A tremendous growth in knowledge about our physical world has brought great achievements and quality to health, standard of living, understanding the physical world and physical phenomena, exposing superstition and mythical views in religions, and much much more.

Science of the natural world around us has made exceedingly positive improves to millions of people.

But here is the summation - God has showed

1. Ignorance is not blessed

2. He made a natural world where learning about it blesses

3. How the physical realm is not simple but through knowledge and technology people can talk to others who are countries away as they shop, water the lawn, and where recordings can be made to show events at a later time with lifelike reply.

3. A persons life does not consist of materialism

4. Facing limitations like natural resources, man's limitations to stabilize civilizations, governments, and economies.

You say two hundred years of tremendous progress and I fully agree. It is like no other time in history. It has brought to the majority great prosperity all ready. And no ddoubt more to come.

But God has had intentions, purposes, and more. It's not natural man. Its not the Scientific Method. The heavens rule. God's Kingdom is in our midst. In tearing down the old misconceptions and beliefs who thorough out real spirituality? Particularly the ones who only use there natural capabilities?

One of God's "ways" is He has purposed to show physical shadows to point at Spiritual realities.

 

[HitchSlap]

3. A persons life does not consist of materialism

Please name one demonstrable immaterial human interaction.

 

[pjnlsn]

What you want to talk about is your house, what you have built upon the foundation I have singularly presented. That is, stay on the thread topic.

What you present with the history of science in the past two centuries is true. A tremendous growth in knowledge about our physical world has brought great achievements and quality to health, standard of living, understanding the physical world and physical phenomena, exposing superstition and mythical views in religions, and much much more.

Science of the natural world around us has made exceedingly positive improves to millions of people.

But here is the summation - God has showed

1. Ignorance is not blessed

2. He made a natural world where learning about it blesses

3. How the physical realm is not simple but through knowledge and technology people can talk to others who are countries away as they shop, water the lawn, and where recordings can be made to show events at a later time with lifelike reply.

3. A persons life does not consist of materialism

4. Facing limitations like natural resources, man's limitations to stabilize civilizations, governments, and economies.

You say two hundred years of tremendous progress and I fully agree. It is like no other time in history. It has brought to the majority great prosperity all ready. And no ddoubt more to come.

But God has had intentions, purposes, and more. It's not natural man. Its not the Scientific Method. The heavens rule. God's Kingdom is in our midst. In tearing down the old misconceptions and beliefs who thorough out real spirituality? Particularly the ones who only use there natural capabilities?

One of God's "ways" is He has purposed to show physical shadows to point at Spiritual realities.

Firstly, it's unlikely and unproven that any deity exists.

and 3., well yes, but who has said otherwise?

Because the fact that we have minds and they work a certain way doesn't mean they're not made of matter, like everything else is. And yet, it's obvious to everyone that people have emotions, can feel, can sense, etc.

who has said otherwise?

 

[Heissonear]

Please name one demonstrable immaterial human interaction.

A lot was said in post #266. But that was not enough for you. You need more to be answered. Why?

 

[HitchSlap]

A lot was said in post #266. But that was not enough for you. You need more to be answered. Why?

Is this your way of saying you don't have an answer for me?

 

[Davian]

It is obvious that you don't agree. Are the replies a little shallow for the listed statements?

Your replies have been very shallow.

 

[Heissonear]

Is this your way of saying you don't have an answer for me?

"Materialism" as in science has allowed us to have refrigerators, air conditioners, central thermostat and programmable heating units, fine clothes and shoes, cars, computers, tv, fancy supermarkets and restaurants. That type of materialism: physical goods prosperity.

 

[HitchSlap]

"Materialism" as in science has allowed us to have refrigerators, air conditioners, central thermostat and programmable heating units, fine clothes and shoes, cars, computers, tv, fancy supermarkets and restaurants. That type of materialism: physical goods prosperity.

Right. What I'm asking is if you have a demonstrable example of an immaterial human interaction?

 

[Heissonear]

Your replies have been very shallow.

So shallow that you could not answer them! Most Naturalists do not like the topic of this tread- for obvious reasons.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So shallow that you could not answer them! Most Naturalists do not like the topic of this tread- for obvious reasons.

The most obvious reason being that it's utter gibberish.

 

[bhsmte]

So shallow that you could not answer them! Most Naturalists do not like the topic of this tread- for obvious reasons.

Heiss,

Not unlike many other of your elk, you can convince yourself of just about anything, without a shred of evidence.

On top of that, you are absolutely mind boggled, why others can't do the same.

You missed the mark on this thread big time and when you refuse to respond to straight forward questions and choose to just keep repeating yourself, it tells everyone what they need to know.

 

[Davian]

So shallow that you could not answer them!

Pretty much. I will watch from the sidelines until you present something of significance.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Materialism" as in science has allowed us to have refrigerators, air conditioners, central thermostat and programmable heating units, fine clothes and shoes, cars, computers, tv, fancy supermarkets and restaurants. That type of materialism: physical goods prosperity.

I guess we just ignore the billions of children who don't have to suffer through polio because those darn materialist scientists found a vaccine.

 

[Loudmouth]

What you want to talk about is your house, what you have built upon the foundation I have singularly presented. That is, stay on the thread topic.

So you immediately change the subject so you don't have to deal with my post.

A tremendous growth in knowledge about our physical world has . . .

Your argument is based on the claim that our knowedge about the physical world can not grow through naturalism. According to you, if we are ignorant of something about the physical world then we will always be ignorant as it relates to naturalism.

By claiming that our knowledge can grow through the application of naturalism you are refuting your own argument.

But here is the summation - God has showed

1. Ignorance is not blessed

2. He made a natural world where learning about it blesses

3. How the physical realm is not simple but through knowledge and technology people can talk to others who are countries away as they shop, water the lawn, and where recordings can be made to show events at a later time with lifelike reply.

3. A persons life does not consist of materialism

4. Facing limitations like natural resources, man's limitations to stabilize civilizations, governments, and economies.

You say two hundred years of tremendous progress and I fully agree. It is like no other time in history. It has brought to the majority great prosperity all ready. And no ddoubt more to come.

But God has had intentions, purposes, and more. It's not natural man. Its not the Scientific Method. The heavens rule. God's Kingdom is in our midst. In tearing down the old misconceptions and beliefs who thorough out real spirituality? Particularly the ones who only use there natural capabilities?

One of God's "ways" is He has purposed to show physical shadows to point at Spiritual realities.

None of this has to do with naturalism or reality. These are beliefs.

 

[Heissonear]

Throughout this thread most comments by those promoting Naturalism were to:

1. Divert the subject

2. Not discuss the thread focus - real limitations in Naturalism

3. Discredit the person - thread initiator

4. Promote a false consensus to answers - over promoted a "naturalist correct answer"

5. State the question was answered when it clearly was not

6. Say the thread initiator was not answering their questions - when their questions were answered but misunderstood/lacked ability to comprehend answer

7. Lack of giving thought to items they had not yet learned - lack of real pondering before replying

8. Replies were shallow - not evaluating the ramifications if questions were true

9. Rapid Naturalism based replies. (Look at the reply times to major thread Points)

10. False summary to thread