Finding limitations in Naturalism

[pjnlsn]

Does that not apply to your position too?

John
NZ

That it applies to something else doesn't change what it already applies to.

What you wrote was, and was described by you as, generally a combination of suggestions and the listing of things that might be the case. As such it may not matter, for suggestions are many, as well as things that "might" be the case.

 

[Johnnz]

That it applies to something else doesn't change what it already applies to.

What you wrote was, and was described by you as, generally a combination of suggestions and the listing of things that might be the case. As such it may not matter, for suggestions are many, as well as things that "might" be the case.

Please elaborate.

John
NZ

 

[pjnlsn]

Please elaborate.

John
NZ

You seemed to understand what it meant the first time I wrote it.

 

[Heissonear]

"Naked assertions"

Another nice try. You have exposed yourself once again, before all on this forum.

What an answer for replying to the real weaknesses of Naturalism.

The foundation of Naturalism is based on faith. Got it?

There is NO EVIDENCE that what is applied to the Scientific Method WAS NOT CREATED. Got it?

The entire foundation of Naturalism is one of trust and faith. You have built your"evidence-based" knowledge of this world from physical matter and natural properties that were created.

You have no proof otherwise.

Your inability to answer this by use of the Scientific Method is noticeable to all on this forum.

No evidence of origin forces Naturalists to walk by faith.

Enough diversion!

 

[KCfromNC]

Your parody of religious belief aside, naturalism has its own faith basis. For your ilk reason is the prime arbiter of all 'truth'. That raises two issues. a) How do you justify reason apart from using reason without that becoming a circular argument?

When tested against reality, it works. What other justification could one hope for?

b) There is an assumption that reason is sufficient to discover and compile all that is knowable.

Is there now? I think at best there's a working conclusion that naturalism does produce knowledge. Is there any other way of generating knowledge? So far, no one has been able to demonstrate one, but that doesn't mean it is impossible - just that there's no reason to assume there is one.

But what if reason has limitations?

If a frog had wings...

Philosophers recognise the difference between fact based information and personal knowledge. Michael Polanyi has exposed the fallacy of a truly objective science, social constructivism relativises all knowledge.

This is why it is best to keep philosophers working on nonsense like this rather than letting them muck up actual science.

Maybe, at some point, science will undeniably point to a Creator? That's possible.

Talk about baseless assumptions...

 

[KCfromNC]

Wrong origin of source of the experience.

What is the origin of my personal experience that you owe me money, and how do you know?

You have witnessed many things and did not have to make it up what you experienced.

What am I making up, and how do you know this?

You still think negative about personal experience and "God".

Just like you seem to have a negative reaction to my personal experience and your $10,000 debt to me. Funny how that works.

You have second hand experience knowledge, no firsthand understanding. You appear to never been with yourself on this subject. No honest real effort on your part to know "if" He exists.

You got all of that out of a description of my personal revelation that you owe me money? Wow.

 

[Heissonear]

The true picture could be anything at all. It is possible that an Intelligent Entity from Dimension Lambda to the Power of the Root of Minus One did create our universe, even creating it in six days, 6,000 years ago, if that's what floats your boat. It is also possible that the Mutant Star-Goat sneezed the universe out of His Nasal Passages, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster touched us all with His Noodly Appendage.

But in the absence of evidence, it's nuts to believe any of it.

Nice try. You also have no proof - no evidence-based knowledge that the physical matter and natural processes of this world were not created. So you divert the subject. This happens to be about Naturalism and ITS LIMITATIONS.

 

[Heissonear]

What is the origin of my personal experience that you owe me money, and how do you know?

What am I making up, and how do you know this?

Just like you seem to have a negative reaction to my personal experience and your $10,000 debt to me. Funny how that works.

You got all of that out of a description of my personal revelation that you owe me money? Wow.

What an answer to the weaknesses of Naturalism.

It is interesting what Naturalists resort to without having evidence.

There is no evidence that what you apply the Scientific Method to WAS NOT CREATED.

You have built your "evidence-based" knowledge of this world from physical matter and natural properties that were created.

You have no proof that this physical realm was not created.

Your inability to answer this by use of the Scientific Method is obvious.

Enough diversion. This is about Naturalists and Naturalism. Got it?

 

[Heissonear]

"Naked assertions"

Another nice try. You have exposed yourself once again, before all on this forum.

What an answer for replying to the real weaknesses of Naturalism.

The foundation of Naturalism is based on faith. Got it?

There is NO EVIDENCE that what is applied to the Scientific Method WAS NOT CREATED. Got it?

The entire foundation of Naturalism is one of trust and faith. You have built your"evidence-based" knowledge of this world from physical matter and natural properties that were created.

You have no proof otherwise.

Your inability to answer this by use of the Scientific Method is noticeable to all on this forum.

No evidence of origin forces Naturalists to walk by faith.

Enough diversion!

 

[BarryDesborough]

Nice try. You also have no proof - no evidence-based knowledge that the physical matter and natural processes of this world were not created. So you divert the subject. This happens to be about Naturalism and ITS LIMITATIONS.

Your crowing is just empty noise without proof yourself. It's somewhat irritating too. Bzzzt! Bzzzt!

 

[BarryDesborough]

"Naked assertions"

Another nice try. You have exposed yourself once again, before all on this forum.

What an answer for replying to the real weaknesses of Naturalism.

The foundation of Naturalism is based on faith. Got it?

There is NO EVIDENCE that what is applied to the Scientific Method WAS NOT CREATED. Got it?

The entire foundation of Naturalism is one of trust and faith. You have built your"evidence-based" knowledge of this world from physical matter and natural properties that were created.

You have no proof otherwise.

Your inability to answer this by use of the Scientific Method is noticeable to all on this forum.

No evidence of origin forces Naturalists to walk by faith.

Enough diversion!

Isn't this exactly the same as another recent post of yours? What's the matter? Not getting enough attention?

And please use the quote feature consistently. For some reason, this thread will only come up for me in linear mode. Without quotes, it's hard to see who is responding to whom. Thank you.

 

[Heissonear]

Your crowing is just empty noise without proof yourself. It's somewhat irratating too. Bzzzt! Bzzzt!

This is about Naturalism and its weaknesses.

There is no evidence that what is applied to the Scientific Method WAS NOT CREATED. You have no proof to indicate otherwise. Your inability to answer this by use of the Scientific Method is noticeable to all. Got it?

 

[Heissonear]

Isn't this exactly the same as another recent post of yours? What's the matter? Not getting enough attention?

And please use the quote feature consistently. For some reason, this thread will only come up for me in linear mode. Without quotes, it's hard to see who is responding to whom. Thank you.

Enough diversion! Naturalism is based on faith. No evidence of origin forces Naturalists to walk by trust and faith. Got it?

 

[BarryDesborough]

This is about Naturalism and its weaknesses.

There is no evidence that what is applied to the Scientific Method WAS NOT CREATED. You have no proof to indicate otherwise. Your inability to answer this by use of the Scientific Method is noticeable to all. Got it?

Its "weakness" is relative.

There's stuff we don't know. So what? There is a lot less we don't know than when the scientific method first emerged. What has Unnaturalism accomplished?

 

[BarryDesborough]

Enough diversion! Naturalism is based on faith. No evidence of origin forces Naturalists to walk by trust and faith. Got it?

Are you a 'bot? Might just as well be...

If there's no evidence of origin forces, there's no evidence of origin forces. There. Happy now? Going to stop your meaningless bleating?

 

[Tomk80]

Enough diversion! Naturalism is based on faith. No evidence of origin forces Naturalists to walk by trust and faith. Got it?

You seem to be under the impression that repeating your assertions over and over again makes them true. Unfortunately for you, your impression in incorrect.

 

[Heissonear]

It's "weakness" is relative.

There's stuff we don't know. So what?

/QUOTE]

Its weakness is relative?

There is "stuff" we don't know. So what?

You have no evidence that this physical realm was not created. Period.

So what? The entire foundation of Naturalism is based on faith, that's all.

"Weakness" is relative? You have built your evidence-based knowledge of this world from matter with natural properties THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED. You have no proof otherwise. Zero. Got it?

 

[Heissonear]

You seem to be under the impression that repeating your assertions over and over again makes them true. Unfortunately for you, your impression in incorrect.

Tom,

This is about the limitations of Naturalism.

You do not have EVIDENCE of the origin of this physical realm. No EVIDENCE that the physical matter WAS NOT CREATED. Zero.

Your response of "assertion" is EXTREMELY WEAK. You do no provide EVIDENCE THAT IS BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Your inability to answer this by use of the Scientific Method is noticeable to all.

No evidence of origin FORCES Naturalists to walk by faith. The foundation of Naturalism is based on faith. Got it?

 

[BarryDesborough]

It's "weakness" is relative.

There's stuff we don't know. So what?

Its weakness is relative?

There is "stuff" we don't know. So what?

You have no evidence that this physical realm was not created. Period.

So what? The entire foundation of Naturalism is based on faith, that's all.

"Weakness" is relative? You have built your evidence-based knowledge of this world from matter with natural properties THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED. You have no proof otherwise. Zero. Got it?

You really are becoming quite a pain. I have no evidence that Russell's Celestial Teapot does not exist either. And none that it does. Neither do you. Enough of this drivel. I've got better things to do, even if you haven't.

 

[Heissonear]

Are you a 'bot? Might just as well be...

If there's no evidence of origin forces, there's no evidence of origin forces. There. Happy now? Going to stop your meaningless bleating?

"Meaningless bleating"? No evidence of origin FORCES Naturalists to walk by faith. Got it?