Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Heissonear]

Hey, you're the one who was pretending that subjective experience or personal revelation was a valid alternative. Why so upset that people want to explore that claim? No need to get all defensive if you can't answer my questions - no one is perfect.

There is NO EVIDENCE that you don't owe me $10,000. Got it?

Now relate the above analogy to how the origin of the elements have come about. You have no answer because you have no evidence. So you have no proof that the elements we are composed of were not created, now do you.

So tell about this bright analogy again, since you have no proof to refute you being composed of elements created by the Creator?

 

[BarryDesborough]

"Move along, nothing to see here"

Just that the foundation of Naturalism is based on faith, that's all!

You cannot prove otherwise.

Of course you want to move on. Your foundation has been exposed.

To say the least you have some serious problems continuing your dogmatic evidence only "proof please" push toward Christians on this forum.

Ad hominem is an age old debate tactic. Sweeping major issues under the rug is another.

Debate tactics do not win over truth seekers.

The very elements we are composed of have been created. And you have no evidence otherwise. Just jokes, opinions, and fairy tale bent perception of a Creator. You make it a point to exclude Him at all cost and every opportunity.

Your weaknesses are being exposed.

Talk about a stuck record!

We don't give a pair of flying foetid dingoes kidneys that you think naturalism is based on "faith". Unless and until there is evidence that can be brought to bear on origins, anyone with two or more brain cells to rub together will be agnostic on the subject. That is the definition of agnosticism - we cannot know what we cannot know (yet, at least). We all have our opinions, but that's all they are, unless we have a desperate need for certitude, even if it is illusory.

Tell me, why is "faith" a dirty word for you anyway? I have no faith, 'cept the belief that nothing good can ultimately come from that which is false (such as evolution-denial), but presumably, you have some sort of faith, however misguided it may be. Why are you not berating yourself for it?

 

[Heissonear]

Heiss,

This has all been addressed and questions to you have been ignored. Repeating the samething, while ignoring questions asked of you, is not the way to progress a discussion.

"This has all been addressed" - excuse me, sweeping the foundational problems of Naturalism under the rug is calling it addressed. Are you serious?

You have no proof that you are not composed of matter created by God. If this statement is not true then give us your bright evidence based answer.

Who is ignoring the central point?

 

[durangodawood]

....The very elements we are composed of have been created. And you have no evidence otherwise. Just jokes, opinions, and fairy tale bent perception of a Creator. You make it a point to exclude Him at all cost and every opportunity.

Why should I believe you?

 

[bhsmte]

"This has all been addressed" - excuse me, sweeping the foundational problems of Naturalism under the rug is calling it addressed. Are you serious?

You have no proof that you are not composed of matter created by God. If this statement is not true then give us your bright evidence based answer.

Who is ignoring the central point?

It's very stale at this point Heiss, face it.

 

[Heissonear]

Talk about a stuck record!

We don't give a pair of flying foetid dingoes kidneys that you think naturalism is based on "faith". Unless and until there is evidence that can be brought to bear on origins, anyone with two or more brain cells to rub together will be agnostic on the subject. That is the definition of agnosticism - we cannot know what we cannot know (yet, at least). We all have our opinions, but that's all they are, unless we have a desperate need for certitude, even if it is illusory.

Tell me, why is "faith" a dirty word for you anyway? I have no faith, 'cept the belief that nothing good can ultimately come from that which is false (such as evolution-denial), but presumably, you have some sort of faith, however misguided it may be. Why are you not berating yourself for it?

You know the ramifications of this issue. But you are mute. You are trying to prevent further exposure.

You should be a sincere seeker of truth. But you have chosen rather to hide the major limitations of Naturalism. Again, you know the ramifications of Naturalism based on faith.

If you will not be truthful and honest then I will continue to present the foundation of faith that Naturalists base all their "evidence" on, and the multitude of false premises on.

To start, you are composed of elements that were created by God. You have no evidence that you are not using what was created. You cannot provide any evidence that the elements you are composed of have always been.

Now tell all of us your bright, evidence based answer of how the elements you are composed of were made.

 

[Heissonear]

Why should I believe you?

Reread the thread - your reply is to be based on evidence.

So there is a problem, and you are mute about it. Is that called honesty?

 

[durangodawood]

Reread the thread - your reply is to be based on evidence.

So there is a problem, and you are mute about it. Is that called honesty?

I'm asking for ANY reason why I should believe you.

 

[BarryDesborough]

You know the ramifications of this issue. But you are mute. You are trying to prevent further exposure.

You should be a sincere seeker of truth. But you have chosen rather to hide the major limitations of Naturalism. Again, you know the ramifications of Naturalism based on faith.

If you will not be truthful and honest then I will continue to present the foundation of faith that Naturalists base all their "evidence" on, and the multitude of false premises on.

To start, you are composed of elements that were created by God. You have no evidence that you are not using what was created. You cannot provide any evidence that the elements you are composed of have always been.

Now tell all of us your bright, evidence based answer of how the elements you are composed of were made.

"I don't know" is 'hiding the major limitations of naturalism'.

Right.

"Put your analyst on danger money, baby" - Zaphod Beeblebrox in Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers Guide.

ETA: Mind you, the synthesis of heavy elements was explained by Fred Hoyle, darling of creationists for his 747 (or was it 707?) in a junkyard faux pas. Look up stellar nucleosynthesis. Of course poor old eccentric Fred believed in the Steady State model (he even coined the term "Big Bang" as an attempt to ridicule the theory) and believed that our noses point nostril-downward to avoid infection be space-borne pathogens. Nevertheless, stellar nucleosynthesis is accepted science. Proof that however loopy you are, if you have a good idea that withstands examination, it is accepted. Science places no value on personal authority or charisma. That has been proven to be a false path. It places value on testable ideas that withstand testing. When has religion ever done that?

 

[TLK Valentine]

"This has all been addressed" - excuse me, sweeping the foundational problems of Naturalism under the rug is calling it addressed. Are you serious?

He is -- so kindly stop doing it.

You have no proof that you are not composed of matter created by God. If this statement is not true then give us your bright evidence based answer.

We also have no proof that you are an alien sheepdog named "Bosko."

 

[Tomk80]

Given that Heissonear is just mindlessly repeating his assertions again, I'll just quote my reply to those assertions. Perhaps somewhere in the future Heissonear will actually reply to those points.

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


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


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?



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?

 

[Heissonear]

It's very stale at this point Heiss, face it.

Is the following "very stale"?

You have no proof that you are not composed of elements created by God.

If the above statement is not true then give us your evidence based answer.

 

[Tomk80]

Is the following "very stale"?

You have no proof that you are not composed of elements created by God.

If the above statement is not true then give us your evidence based answer.

Neither do you have proof that we are composed of elements created by God.+

So yes, it is very stale.

 

[Heissonear]

Talk about a stuck record!

We don't give a pair of flying foetid dingoes kidneys that you think naturalism is based on "faith". Unless and until there is evidence that can be brought to bear on origins, anyone with two or more brain cells to rub together will be agnostic on the subject. That is the definition of agnosticism - we cannot know what we cannot know (yet, at least). [\QUOTE]



"Until there is evidence"

1. You have no evidence that the elements you are composed of were not created

Humm, seemed to leave the Creator out. No evidence you didn't.

Do you call this a small defect in your knowledge? Christians on this forum would. Big time.

 

[Heissonear]

Neither do you have proof that we are composed of elements created by God.+

So yes, it is very stale.

Tom,

It is called "ramifications"

The ramifications of your lack of evidence is serious and substantial.

One major ramification is the elements you are composed of. You have no evidence on if they have always been or were created.

Another ramification is you are a agnostic by choice. It is not based on evidence. To break the news to you this is called "faith". You are an agnostic by faith. You walk by faith. No "stale" matter, right?

 

[Tomk80]

Tom,

It is called "ramifications"

The ramifications of your lack of evidence is serious and substantial.

One major ramification is the elements you are composed of. You have no evidence on if they have always been or were created.

Another ramification is you are a agnostic by choice. It is not based on evidence. To break the news to you this is called "faith". You are an agnostic by faith. You walk by faith. No "stale" matter, right?

Stale, stale, stale.

No matter the ramifications, the lack of evidence is there. It doesn't somehow go away because you wish it so.

And again, if there is no evidence, how am I agnostic by choice? In the absence of evidence, what other logical conclusion is there?

 

[Heissonear]

"I don't know" is 'hiding the major limitations of naturalism'.

Right.

Think it though. It may need to be pondered for a while.

It is all in how you want to look at your foundation.

At this point it can be clearly stated before all: "I do not know if the elements I am made of have always existed or if they were created"

On this present day you cannot know if the matter you are composed of and all that surrounds you, including the stars, were not created.

What a predicament for an agnostic!

 

[durangodawood]

...The very elements we are composed of have been created. And you have no evidence otherwise. ...

I'll ask you again: please give me ANY reason why I should believe this.

 

[Heissonear]

Stale, stale, stale.

No matter the ramifications, the lack of evidence is there. It doesn't somehow go away because you wish it so.

And again, if there is no evidence, how am I agnostic by choice? In the absence of evidence, what other logical conclusion is there?

"Logical conclusion"?

1. Without evidence all you have is atheistic logic

2. Without evidence you arrive at a "conclusion" ?

3. Without evidence you call those who believe the matter they are made of, and all that is around them from oceans to stars, were created by a Creator as illogical?

 

[Loudmouth]

Die-hard denial by Naturalists on this forum.

1. Most cannot state their limitations

You claim that human limitations are limitations for naturalism. They aren't. Not knowing something right now does not mean that we can't find the answer later. This simple concept refutes all of your limitation nonsense.

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

People usually do not react well to someone who misrepresents their ideas and beliefs. More importantly, why do you feel it necessary to lie about what peoples beliefs are?

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

What?

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

A creator is just as much an option for me as leprechauns are for you.

Why can't you stray from your script? Why can't you address our posts?