Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Tomk80]

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.

We also have no evidence that it was created. So the best we can say is that we don't know what happened.

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

I don't have to. You are making the claim to know what happened, I don't.

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

Where did I ever deny that I cannot answer the question? I have consistently stated in this thread that since I have no evidence one way or the other, all I can say is that I do not know. How many more times must I repeat this position before you get it right? When are you going to listen to the answers people give you?

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

Stating you do not know is not faith. You have a very unorthodox usage of the term, one that makes the term faith completely meaningless. Got it?

 

[Paulos23]

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?

And there is no evidence that it was created. Why do you assume it to be created without evidence.

Right now, its a big "we don't know" before the Big Bang. And some are questioning if that even happened, but they are questioning with evidence. What you have is a big old assursion with no evidence to back it up.

You want me to even concider the universe was created I need more then "personal experance" and "go to the source". I need hard data. You should know that being in the field you claim to be.

 

[Loudmouth]

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? b) There is an assumption that reason is sufficient to discover and compile all that is knowable. But what if reason has limitations? 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. Maybe, at some point, science will undeniably point to a Creator? That's possible.

John
NZ

So would you argue that the best epistemology is to believe that every claim is true without any reference to evidence, reason, or logic?

Also, how do you explain the fact that you rely on naturalistic theories and technology throughout your day?

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Why do we need faith when we state that we don't know how the universe came about? Faith is a positive beliefe held in the absence of evidence. "I don't know" is not a positive belief.

Again and again you are trying to project your own weaknesses onto naturalists in an attempt to drag them down to your level.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Burden of proof fallacy. How many times have we told you about this?

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Repeating the same failed assertions and fallacies is not helping you.

As I have already shown, you have already refuted your own argument.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why won't you answer the two issues I raised? They suggested a lens through which you view things, and that leans might well be inadequate. Up to you to show otherwise.

John
NZ

How can we answer them without applying reason and logic? How can we determine what is true and not true about the world around us without applying evidence, reason, and logic?

 

[Heissonear]

Burden of proof fallacy. How many times have we told you about this?

"Burden of proof fallacy"

Nice try. Clever. Shift the subject matter. Make it about creation. AFRAID NOT! Please stay on topic.

You are unable to use the Scientific Method to provide EVIDENCE that this physical world has always been. Equally, you are not able to use the Scientific Method to provide EVIDENCE that this physical world has been created. Zero EVIDENCE is zero EVIDENCE.

The entire foundation of Naturalism is based upon trust and faith. What evidence you do generate is on a foundation that you believe that physical matter with natural properties WAS NOT CREATED. You can only say such by faith. It is your belief.

 

[Tomk80]

"Burden of proof fallacy"

Nice try. Clever. Shift the subject matter. Make it about creation. AFRAID NOT! Please stay on topic.

You are unable to use the Scientific Method to provide EVIDENCE that this physical world has always been. Equally, you are not able to use the Scientific Method to provide EVIDENCE that this physical world has been created. Zero EVIDENCE is zero EVIDENCE.

And therefore we say we don't know. As Loudmouth pointed out. As I pointed out. When is this ever going to get through to you? What other conclusion do you want us to reach, based on no evidence?

The entire foundation of Naturalism is based upon trust and faith. What evidence you do generate is on a foundation that you believe that physical matter with natural properties WAS NOT CREATED. You can only say such by faith. It is your belief.

We say we don't know what happened. That is not belief. Again, when are you going to respond to what we actually say?

 

[TLK Valentine]

And therefore we say we don't know. As Loudmouth pointed out. As I pointed out. When is this ever going to get through to you? What other conclusion do you want us to reach, based on no evidence?



We say we don't know what happened. That is not belief. Again, when are you going to respond to what we actually say?

It would seem that Heiss has succumbed to a common lack of foresight:

Plan A -- impress us with the righteousness of his words.

Plan B -- ???

 

[Loudmouth]

"Burden of proof fallacy"

Nice try. Clever. Shift the subject matter. Make it about creation. AFRAID NOT! Please stay on topic.

We are making it about your argument, and the fallacies contained therein.

You are unable to use the Scientific Method to provide EVIDENCE that this physical world has always been.

Just like 200 years ago no naturalist was able to use the scientific method to provide evidence that lightning had a natural origin.

Just because we do not know NOW does not mean that we will never know. Recognizing our ignorance is the first step in finding knowledge. You would rather invent a religious fantasy and not look for answers. I really don't see how that is helpful.

Equally, you are not able to use the Scientific Method to provide EVIDENCE that this physical world has been created. Zero EVIDENCE is zero EVIDENCE.

Why do I need to disprove a claim that is backed by zero evidence? It is not up to me to support your arguments. If you can not support your claims then there is every reason to ignore them.

The entire foundation of Naturalism is based upon trust and faith.

Trust and faith in what?

What evidence you do generate is on a foundation that you believe that physical matter with natural properties WAS NOT CREATED.

Burden of proof fallacy. We don't have to disprove a claim for which there is zero evidence.

 

[Paulos23]

It would seem that Heiss has succumbed to a common lack of foresight:

Plan A -- impress us with the righteousness of his words.

Plan B -- ???

Well, Plan B usally ends up being either dropping it and never come back to the thread, or repeating his words as if doing so will increase their righteousness.

At this point he is not even excepting us agreeing with part of what he is saying if we don't reach the same conclution. He could have worked with us saying 'i don't know' instead of trying to hammer us into agreeing on a point.

Must be important for his script.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, Plan B usally ends up being either dropping it and never come back to the thread, or repeating his words as if doing so will increase their righteousness.

At this point he is not even excepting us agreeing with part of what he is saying if we don't reach the same conclution. He could have worked with us saying 'i don't know' instead of trying to hammer us into agreeing on a point.

Must be important for his script.

This thread wore out a long time ago.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

"Naked assertions"

Yes.

A naked assertion, also called a bald or bare assertion, is an arbitrary statement of truth that is bereft of support.

Ipse dixit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's just about the most basic fallacy one can commit, and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you're unfamiliar with the concept, given that you commit it at least once in just about every post you've made in this thread.

Another nice try.

I not only tried, I succeeded, and you're about to prove me right by committing the exact fallacies I accused you of.

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

You have a strange definition of 'all', and a contradictory understanding of who it is that is being exposed.

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

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

This is still a naked assertion. Got it?

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

This is still a naked assertion and a burden of proof fallacy. Got it?

Of course you don't. You never learned basic reasoning skills, which is why you're about to repeat a number of logical fallacies:

The entire foundation of Naturalism is one of trust and faith.

Naked assertion.

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

Naked assertion.

You have no proof otherwise.

Naked assertion and burden of proof fallacy.

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

Again, you have a strange notion of exactly who is making a fool of himself in this discussion.

No evidence of origin forces Naturalists to walk by faith.

Naked assertion.

Enough diversion!

I agree, no more diversion from you. There is not a single thing you've said here that you didn't already say before and that wasn't already refuted.

Repeating the same naked assertions over and over will not magically make them true. It's time for you to provide some inkling that you a have a clue what you're talking about and actually substantiate your position.

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?

 

[Johnnz]

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? __________________

If you have a prior assumption about the non existence of the supernatural you will not accept the limitations of your 'rational' approach.

Neither personal knowledge i.e. knowledge of another person which cannot be 'proved' or in most cases even known, nor historical knowledge is fully accessible by the rationality of the naturalist position. Judicially, we accept the testimony of witnesses. There are quite different bases for evaluating different kinds of material.

Christian belief in the supernatural is a combination of historical data, deduction from the material world such as its complexity, personal experience and the worldview Christian belief gives to us. particularly and specifically centered in Jesus as God's most significant communication with humanity.

John
NZ

But we live

 

[pjnlsn]

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? __________________

If you have a prior assumption about the non existence of the supernatural you will not accept the limitations of your 'rational' approach.

Neither personal knowledge i.e. knowledge of another person which cannot be 'proved' or in most cases even known, nor historical knowledge is fully accessible by the rationality of the naturalist position. Judicially, we accept the testimony of witnesses. There are quite different bases for evaluating different kinds of material.

Christian belief in the supernatural is a combination of historical data, deduction from the material world such as its complexity, personal experience and the worldview Christian belief gives to us. particularly and specifically centered in Jesus as God's most significant communication with humanity.

John
NZ

But we live

I haven't heard of anything supernatural ever being proven, ever. While many people believe and have believed, for many thousands of years.

 

[Johnnz]

I haven't heard of anything supernatural ever being proven, ever. While many people believe and have believed, for many thousands of years.

By 'proof' you mean?

John
NZ

 

[pjnlsn]

By 'proof' you mean?

John
NZ

Nothing unusual, the ordinary definition.

 

[Heissonear]

Die-hard denial by Naturalists on this forum.

1. Most cannot state their limitations

2. The biggest push back is this walk by faith stuff - it just doesn't seem to set well with every one that replied

3. Many that reply "have to" include the weaknesses of origin by a Creator, etc.

4. For most belief in a Creator is not an option - they put such in the perspective of leprechauns, least probability, etc.

It looks like we learned something about Naturalists and Naturalism!

 

[pjnlsn]

Die-hard denial by Naturalists on this forum.

1. Most cannot state their limitations

2. The biggest push back is this walk by faith stuff - it just doesn't seem to set well with pretty well every one that replied

3. The ones that do have to include the weaknesses of origin by a Creator, etc.

4. Belief in a Creator is not an option - in the perspective of leprechauns, least pprobability, etc.

It looks like we learned something about Naturalists and Naturalism!

As I said before, 'Naturalism,' if I know what you mean is likely in that the existence of, say, a deity of any sort is unlikely and unproven.