Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Tomk80]

"Logical conclusion"?

1. Without evidence all you have is atheistic logic

Atheistic logic? You're babbling again. Logic is logic, regardless of whether you're atheist or theist.

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

We do not know is not a conclusion. The question remains unanswered. And that is fine. There is nothing wrong with not being able to answer a question.

Pretending to have an answer when you don't, on the other hand, is dumb.

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?

Yes. Since you have no evidence for a creator, you have no reason to believe a creator exists. Your belief has no evidential basis and is therefore illogical.

 

[Greg1234]

BarryDesborough: "A materialist, like a non-materialist, gathers data. It's the same data"

But thats the thing, it's not.

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:" (Deut 30:19)

 

[Shemjaza]

BarryDesborough: "A materialist, like a non-materialist, gathers data. It's the same data"

But thats the thing, it's not.

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:" (Deut 30:19)

I'm not sure "I have an old book, I believe it is true. It says I have more data then you." counts as data or evidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

And you still have no proof that you don't owe me $10,000 - but for some reason you're not willing to pay up. Why not? Perhaps "you can't prove it isn't" actually doesn't tell us much about the nature of reality after all. If you think it does, time to put your money where your mouth is. Let's see how much you really believe what you're spouting off about.

 

[Greg1234]

Shemjaza: "I'm not sure "I have an old book, I believe it is true. It says I have more data then you." counts as data or evidence."

So you say.

 

[durangodawood]

So you say.

So you say.

 

[Paulos23]

Shemjaza: "I'm not sure "I have an old book, I believe it is true. It says I have more data then you." counts as data or evidence."

So you say.

If it was true you should be able to colaberate it with sources outside the Bible.

 

[HitchSlap]

If it was true you should be able to colaberate it with sources outside the Bible.

This is exactly what they hope you won't do, as outside sources do not corroborate the bible, and in most cases, contradict it.

 

[Paulos23]

This is exactly what they hope you won't do, as outside sources do not corroborate the bible, and in most cases, contradict it.

And that is the point of my statement. Though if they did have some outside source I would love to hear it. New evidence is always good, provided that it stands up to examination.

 

[HitchSlap]

And that is the point of my statement. Though if they did have some outside source I would love to hear it. New evidence is always good, provided that it stands up to examination.

Agreed.

 

[Heissonear]

And that is the point of my statement. Though if they did have some outside source I would love to hear it. New evidence is always good, provided that it stands up to examination.

We have a Source, the Creator. He illuminates verses in the Bible to people every day. And before the Bible came about He still gave the same illumination. It is called writing it on peoples heart.

A Naturalist leans on his own understanding FOR ALL INFORMATION. The funnel is the Scientific Method. The Naturalist becomes blind to what does not filter through the funnel.

Like I said earlier, a Naturalist is the one who knows the least about the Creator.

You cannot prove that there is no Creator; or that the elements you are composed of were not created. You call this a human limitation and not a Scientific Method limitation. You are wrong. Everything that the Creator does outside the Scientific Method you will not receive.

Some have mentioned it requires a too big of a step. This Is not true. It requires going to the Source.

I think you have turned to other things long enough; like what men say. Even what "people" say about the supernatural. It is like you are listening to people and turning to some type of supernatural event in the physical realm. The result is you remain completely unaware of the Kingdom of God in our midst. Point blank right in front of you and every where you go.

 

[bhsmte]

We have a Source, the Creator. He illuminates verses in the Bible to people every day. And before the Bible came about He still gave the same illumination. It is called writing it on peoples heart.

A Naturalist leans on his own understanding FOR ALL INFORMATION. The funnel is the Scientific Method. The Naturalist becomes blind to what does not filter through the funnel.

Like I said earlier, a Naturalist is the one who knows the least about the Creator.

You cannot prove that there is no Creator. Or the elements you are composed of were not created. You call this a human limitation and not a Scientific Method limitation. You are wrong. Everything that the Creator does outside the Scientific Method you will not receive.

Some have mentioned it requires a too big of a step. It is not true. It requires going to the Source. I think you have turned to other things long enough; like what men say. Even what "people" say about the supernatural. It is like you are listening to people and turning to some type of supernatural event in the physical realm. The result is you remain completely unaware of the Kingdom of God in our midst. Point blank right in front of you and every where you go.

Heiss,

These questions were posed to you numerous times (you can find them in post 281). Please answer them, while we are young!

Originally Posted by Eight Foot Manchild
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?

I look forward to your answers.

 

[Loudmouth]

We have a Source, the Creator. He illuminates verses in the Bible to people every day. And before the Bible came about He still gave the same illumination. It is called writing it on peoples heart.

How can we know if this is true or not true?

A Naturalist leans on his own understanding FOR ALL INFORMATION.

So you are saying that you let other people do your thinking for you?

The funnel is the Scientific Method. The Naturalist becomes blind to what does not filter through the funnel.

How can you blame a naturalist for not seeing something that is made up?

Like I said earlier, a Naturalist is the one who knows the least about the Creator.

And the least about fairies, leprechuans, dryads, the Easter Bunny, etc.

How are we supposed to know about something that no one can show to exist?

You cannot prove that there is no Creator;

Burden of proof fallacey, AGAIN!!

You call this a human limitation and not a Scientific Method limitation. You are wrong. Everything that the Creator does outside the Scientific Method you will not receive.

The same thing for everything that Leprechauns do.

 

[Paulos23]

We have a Source, the Creator. He illuminates verses in the Bible to people every day. And before the Bible came about He still gave the same illumination. It is called writing it on peoples heart.

The Bible? The freaking Bible?

Many of us have read the Bible, studied it. For some of us it is the one of the reasons we are athiests.

You need to do better then that. Is the any other evidence you have?

A Naturalist leans on his own understanding FOR ALL INFORMATION. The funnel is the Scientific Method. The Naturalist becomes blind to what does not filter through the funnel.

Most of us tag it for later study. What information do you think we are missing?

Like I said earlier, a Naturalist is the one who knows the least about the Creator.

You cannot prove that there is no Creator; or that the elements you are composed of were not created. You call this a human limitation and not a Scientific Method limitation. You are wrong. Everything that the Creator does outside the Scientific Method you will not receive.

And again you have yet to prove that there is a Creater. Apsence of evidence is not evidence of apsence, but without any evidence I have no reason to assume it is there.

Some have mentioned it requires a too big of a step. This Is not true. It requires going to the Source.

Going to a supernatrual being is not a big step? From claiming we have limits to that is bigger then Grand Cannon.

I think you have turned to other things long enough; like what men say. Even what "people" say about the supernatural. It is like you are listening to people and turning to some type of supernatural event in the physical realm. The result is you remain completely unaware of the Kingdom of God in our midst. Point blank right in front of you and every where you go.

And this is where you disapoint me. You make a claim and don't back it up. You go on with some mumbo jumbo and then claim I am blind.

What a disapointment.

 

[HitchSlap]

We have a Source, the Creator. He illuminates verses in the Bible to people every day. And before the Bible came about He still gave the same illumination. It is called writing it on peoples heart.

I've read the bible. It's just about wrong on everything: gravity, germ theory of disease, cosmology, evolution, history, geography, lifespans, morals, financial planning, politics, relationships, geology, genetics and sexual reproduction, just to name a few.

As for spiritual "illumination" and writing things on peoples hearts, I'm calling your bluff.

Please name just one demonstrable "spiritual" thing you have information about, that I, as an non-believer cannot understand naturally.

 

[BarryDesborough]

We have a Source, the Creator. He illuminates verses in the Bible to people every day. And before the Bible came about He still gave the same illumination. It is called writing it on peoples heart.

A Naturalist leans on his own understanding FOR ALL INFORMATION. The funnel is the Scientific Method. The Naturalist becomes blind to what does not filter through the funnel.

Like I said earlier, a Naturalist is the one who knows the least about the Creator.

You cannot prove that there is no Creator; or that the elements you are composed of were not created. You call this a human limitation and not a Scientific Method limitation. You are wrong. Everything that the Creator does outside the Scientific Method you will not receive.

Some have mentioned it requires a too big of a step. This Is not true. It requires going to the Source.

I think you have turned to other things long enough; like what men say. Even what "people" say about the supernatural. It is like you are listening to people and turning to some type of supernatural event in the physical realm. The result is you remain completely unaware of the Kingdom of God in our midst. Point blank right in front of you and every where you go.

You still prattling?

 

[durangodawood]

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

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

Well.....?
.

 

[Heissonear]

Heiss,

These questions were posed to you numerous times (you can find them in post 281). Please answer them, while we are young!

Originally Posted by Eight Foot Manchild
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?

I look forward to your answers.

Answer them I will. But to do justice, since the answers will be critically examined, I will reply to all 4 questions when I have more time.

To start in part, a brief reply to question # 1:


You are currently looking for "head knowledge" about an event brought about by powers above the natural, physical world. That is not the way to "reliably know".

Why? The work is power that is above the natural. The event in the physical is one thing but encountering power from above is what you should witness, not a physical outcome.

When you see the "power" you can the discern if it is natural or not.

You will also have a small glimpse from "where" the power has come from. A real domain beyond and significantly above the natural we are so use to.

For those whose then say to the above reply "evidence please". My reply is like before - you must go to the Source, the Creator. You need to witness Him, not people and their words. You need to witness the His power from above, not listen to others experiences.

Second hand info is not what you should seek. So far that is all you have done and now have in hand.

 

[In situ]

And those are . . . ?

We Swedes...
"Sweden's investment in R&D as a percentage of GDP the second-highest in the world." -- WP

"Sweden tops other European countries in the number of published scientific works per capita" -- WP

 

[TLK Valentine]

Answer them I will. But to do justice, since the answers will be critically examined, I will reply to all 4 questions when I have more time.

To start in part, a brief reply to question # 1:


You are currently looking for "head knowledge" about an event brought about by powers above the natural, physical world. That is not the way to "reliably know".

Why? The work is power that is above the natural. The event in the physical is one thing but encountering power from above is what you should witness, not a physical outcome.

When you see the "power" you can the discern if it is natural or not.

You will also have a small glimpse from "where" the power has come from. A real domain beyond and significantly above the natural we are so use to.

For those whose then say to the above reply "evidence please". My reply is like before - you must go to the Source, the Creator. You need to witness Him, not people and their words. You need to witness the His power from above, not listen to others experiences.

Second hand info is not what you should seek. So far that is all you have done and now have in hand.

The answers to these questions are (or would be) the foundation of your argument against naturalism.

Why are you waffling?