Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Loudmouth]

"Logical conclusion"?

1. Without evidence all you have is atheistic logic

With evidence, we still have logic and reason.

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

"I don't know" is not a conclusion. How many more times are you going to lie about this?

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?

We are saying that shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy:

Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many more times are you going to knowingly misrepresent our statements?

 

[Loudmouth]

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!

On this present day, we can't know if leprechauns plant fingerprints at crime scenes when we aren't looking. It is the same predicament.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now relate the above analogy to how the origin of the elements have come about. You have no answer because you have no evidence.

Isn't that way it should be? If you have no evidence shouldn't you wait until you do have evidence before reaching a conclusion?

So you have no proof that the elements we are composed of were not created, now do you.

Just as we have no proof that leprechauns plant fingerprints at crime scenes when we are not looking.

If you don't take leprechauns serioulsy why should we take your unevidenced magical claims seriously?

 

[Heissonear]

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

Number 1: you cannot disprove it

Number 2: Naturalism is based on faith

Number 3: by coincidence the Scientific Method cannot detect the spiritual realm

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

And neither do you. What are the ramifications of that, Bosko?

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?

Funny how only you see faith as a bad thing, Bosko.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Number 1: you cannot disprove it

Number 2: Naturalism is based on faith

Number 3: by coincidence the Scientific Method cannot detect the spiritual realm

Good heavens. are you still here trotting out your failed arguments?

 

[Heissonear]

With evidence, we still have logic and reason.

"I don't know" is not a conclusion. How many more times are you going to lie about this?

We are saying that shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy:

Burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many more times are you going to knowingly misrepresent our statements?

"Shifting burden of proof"

"Knowingly misrepresent our statements"

You have said about origins: "we have no evidence: we do not know"

Just take a look at what is in quotes.

Is the foundation of Naturalism frail or what?

 

[Loudmouth]

Number 1: you cannot disprove it

Burden of proof fallacy, again.

Number 2: Naturalism is based on faith

Naturalism is based on evidence, the opposite of faith.

Number 3: by coincidence the Scientific Method cannot detect the spiritual realm

Yes, just as the Scientific Method can not detect leprechauns.

 

[Heissonear]

Good heavens. are you still here trotting out your failed arguments?

Yea, Team N is still screaming "we don't know" to firm up their foundation. The Scientific Method just isn't enough.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Shifting burden of proof"

"Knowingly misrepresent our statements"

You have said about origins: "we have no evidence: we do not know"

Just take a look at what is in quotes.

Is the foundation of Naturalism frail or what?

No, it isn't. Your ability to address other people's posts is frail.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yea, Team N is still screaming "we don't know" to firm up their foundation. The Scientific Method just isn't enough.

You still can't address peoples' posts. Why is that?

 

[Paulos23]

Number 1: you cannot disprove it

You haven't given evidence that it is true.

Number 2: Naturalism is based on faith

It is based on evidence. Just because we don't know how the universe got here doesn't mean it is based off faith. People have told you this and have given examples.

Number 3: by coincidence the Scientific Method cannot detect the spiritual realm

If the spiritual realm had an effect that could be mesured then it can. Until then, how do you know it is there? Can you show us evidence for the spiritual realm?

Same old arguements, still ignoring responces. I see now you want us to make a very big jump without giving us evidence. Have you nothing to give to support you claim?

 

[Paulos23]

Yea, Team N is still screaming "we don't know" to firm up their foundation. The Scientific Method just isn't enough.

Isn't enough for what? Explaning the universe? It is doing very well there and helping us learn more.

Explaning the spiritural world? What spiritural world? Where is you evidence for that?

 

[durangodawood]

Number 1: you cannot disprove it

Number 2: Naturalism is based on faith

Number 3: by coincidence the Scientific Method cannot detect the spiritual realm

#1 and #3 are reasons why I should consider creation to be possible.

They are NOT reasons why I should believe creation IS true.

 

[Heissonear]

Isn't enough for what? Explaning the universe? It is doing very well there and helping us learn more.

Explaning the spiritural world? What spiritural world? Where is you evidence for that?

Paulos,

Naturalism fails big time by not being able know if the matter we are composed of has always been or is God created.

Look at your hands. Look at the elements the are fundamentally made of. You mean that a Naturalist cannot prove that such matter was not created? You see a car drive by and a Naturalist cannot prove the elements have always been?

Is it no wonder people look for answers to where this physical world came from?

When a person sincerely and honestly looks to see if there is a God of this physical realm - guess what, they will find Him.

People need to go to the Source.

Smart men don't have a clue. Naturalist have fail to find the Creator. On this forum they like to say "what creator". And echo back "where is your proof"? Limited and confined to the Scientific Method.

 

[Paulos23]

Paulos,

Naturalism fails big time by not being able know if the matter we are composed of has always been or is God created.

Look at your hands. Look at the elements the are fundamentally made of. You mean that a Naturalist cannot prove that such matter was not created? You see a car drive by and a Naturalist cannot prove the elements have always been?

Is it no wonder people look for answers to where this physical world came from?

When a person sincerely and honestly looks to see if there is a God of this physical realm - guess what, they will find Him.

People need to go to the Source.

Smart men don't have a clue. Naturalist have fail to find the Creator. On this forum they like to say "what creator". And echo back "where is your proof"? Limited and confined to the Scientific Method.

We do not have evidence that the universe was not created nor do we have evidence that the universe was created. You are stating that the universe is created without evidence. Do you understand why we are asking for evidence?

If you have a source, how do you contact it? If you want us to take that leap of faith you should at least give us that.

 

[bhsmte]

Yea, Team N is still screaming "we don't know" to firm up their foundation. The Scientific Method just isn't enough.

Heiss,

I'm really starting to wonder about your state of mind.

Take a moment and re-read the thread you started, carefully. You will find all of your comments questions have been directly addressed (you just didn't like the answer). Also, you will find a number of direct questions you ignored that you need to answer or your credibility will drop even further than it already has.

Your next post should answer these questions, don't keep running from them!

 

[TLK Valentine]

You still can't address peoples' posts. Why is that?

Nothing of substance to say, I suspect...

 

[Loudmouth]

Paulos,

Naturalism fails big time by not being able know if the matter we are composed of has always been or is God created.

That is a failure of humans, not naturalism. How many times have we said this, and you refuse to acknowledge it?

200 years ago naturalism failed big time in finding a natural cause for lightning. Guess what? We used naturalism to find that answer.

Are you going to address this or not? Or can you not stray from your script at all?

Is it no wonder people look for answers to where this physical world came from?

You are telling them to stop looking for answers. Why would you do that?

Smart men don't have a clue. Naturalist have fail to find the Creator.

Just as they have failed to find leprechauns and Santa Claus.

 

[pjnlsn]

Paulos,

Naturalism fails big time by not being able know if the matter we are composed of has always been or is God created.

Look at your hands. Look at the elements the are fundamentally made of. You mean that a Naturalist cannot prove that such matter was not created? You see a car drive by and a Naturalist cannot prove the elements have always been?

Is it no wonder people look for answers to where this physical world came from?

When a person sincerely and honestly looks to see if there is a God of this physical realm - guess what, they will find Him.

People need to go to the Source.

Smart men don't have a clue. Naturalist have fail to find the Creator. On this forum they like to say "what creator". And echo back "where is your proof"? Limited and confined to the Scientific Method.

It doesn't matter. Nothing and noone knows if matter was always present (in the way I think you mean it) or if there is a God.

The existence of any deity is unlikely and unproven. (even as many of us do believe)