Finding limitations in Naturalism

[In situ]

Only 5 points have been presented so far. But the learning has begun. Naturalist are in a confined domain: their flesh and what is natural. And they have no proof or evidence that their is not a Creator.

True, nor do Naturalists have any proof or evidence that their is no such things as unicorns somewhere in the universe, or hobgoblins responsible for creating the heat in the center of the Earth.. .

Your point is?

 

[durangodawood]

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.

What do you mean "go to the source"?

How do you do that?

 

[Paulos23]

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.

Again, how do you go to the source?

Stop being so mistreous. Just answer the questions.

 

[In situ]

Naturalist s have no evidence that the physical realm has always existed. Have you learned such reality?

True, but Naturalists has evidence that suggest it has not always existed so why would a Naturalist need evidence to prove a contradiction?

 

[Loudmouth]

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".

You haven't shown that there are any powers above the natural. Perhaps you should do that first.

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

How?

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.

How? On top of that, how do you determine that what you are glimpsing is real and not imagined.

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.

How do you determine if you have witnessed anything?

Many people claim to have witnessed the power of deities that you do not believe in. How do you explain this?

 

[In situ]

Point 4
Demanding proof and evidence (from others) but major gaps in evidence exists.

"Proofs", or rather evidence, are demanded for claimed knowledge, not everything. If somebody claim a creator exists a Naturalist would then ask for the evidence for such claim of knowledge. What is wrong with such approach in your opinion, or do you mean the failure of Naturalism is not to assert some specific type of knowledge a priori?

 

[bhsmte]

Again, how do you go to the source?

Stop being so mistreous. Just answer the questions.

I believe he means; get your mind to the point, where you will believe or invent just about anything.

 

[Paulos23]

I believe he means; get your mind to the point, where you will believe or invent just about anything.

Been there, done that. Not going back again.

 

[In situ]

The foundation of Naturalism has no solid facts. No information or proof the physical has always been. It could have been created.

I am still, as being "raised" Naturalist by my education system in Sweden, looking for something new to learn from you. You approach the subject as you have a big "secret" to reveal which you need to push out slowly and somewhat cryptic for Naturalists to understand. However, so far all you have stated is pretty basic stuff which we teach our kids in states school...

 

[In situ]

The key is who you turn to. Think about it. Is a Naturalist going to find out by turning to men? By turning to religions?

Well, many people in Sweden (the most atheistic, some 80-90%, and science literate country in the world) do ask such question and we think a lot about it, explores the alternatives and tries but fails to find any answer. What are we doing wrong in Sweden, i.e. what prevents Swedes (read: what is our limitations) to believe their is something more "out there" to what already is?

 

[bhsmte]

Been there, done that. Not going back again.

Yes, I think many have. Some wake up to reality, some don't.

 

[In situ]

I still don't see how being human is a limitation to understanding everything in the universe...

We are biased as humans in our understanding/interpretation of reality by the fact that we are humans... it is not a technological obstacle, but a biological; we may have, and I believe it is likely, that we have cognitive limitation onto how much we can understand and have knowledge about because, and I think it safe to say, we human does not posses all cognitive faculties which possible can be.

But sure we can probably make up a lot of explanations that explains everything and we actually already have one such naturalistic theory. The problem is that it does not only explain everything it also explains anything...

 

[bhsmte]

Well, many people in Sweden (the most atheistic, some 80-90%, and science literate country in the world) do ask such question and we think a lot about it, explores the alternatives and tries but fails to find any answer. What are we doing wrong in Sweden, i.e. what prevents Swedes (read: what is our limitations) to believe their is something more "out there" to what already is?

I believe what you state is also quite true for other european countries; France, UK, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, etc. etc..

IMO, a lot of this has to do with culture and politics as well. The United States is very young compared to these other countries and it was founded with a strong religious base, even with several of its founders not being religious themselves. In the United States, there are social pressures that (I believe) keep many people from actually stating; they are a non-believer and non-believers are viewed as evil with no morals etc. by many. For this reason, I believe many people in the United States claim that they are a believer, but in reality, they have significant doubt at a minimum. Also, politics play a factor as well, as it is virtually impossible for a person to become a political leader of significance, if they claim they are a non-believer.

 

[In situ]

This thread is NOT about evidence that there is a Creator. ... it is not about proving there is a Creator.

Then what is your point with Point 8:

• No evidence that there is not a Creator: no evidence that all that we see and know was not create

???

 

[In situ]

I believe what you state is also quite true for other european countries; France, UK, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, etc. etc..

I am using Sweden as an example because; it is the top most atheistic country in the world and all kids are thought Naturalism as a principle of reasoning about reality and, as well, I am a Swede myself. I am tired of have read 10 pages of cryptic mumbling, vague hand waving and repeating of what already been said like a guru repeating his mantra of "truth" and I want, or at least an attempt to, a clear and practical answer on how to get around the "limits of Naturalism" in order to reach that claimed higher state of knowledge... so far just babbling and stating the obvious which any proper educated teenage kid in Sweden could tell about Naturalism...

 

[In situ]

This thread is NOT about evidence that there is a Creator. This point must not be clear to many commentators. So many posts say "this does not provide evidence that there is a creator". Again, it is not about proving there is a Creator.

Still you keep taunting the Naturalists about it:

You also have no evidence that proves this physical world was not created.

That in the very same post... which make me wonder if you are trolling the Naturalists?

This potential is pushed aside by most commentators. Why?

Stop hiding, the Naturalists have answered the question; your question is a logical fallacy.

Or put in another way, as a rhetorical question, that you may understand better; why have you not provided evidence that Leprechaun does not exists? Why is that, or rather why is it irrelevant that you do NOT have such evidence?

Btw, this is evidence that actually proves that the leprechauns exists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBkQlRuAFlE

 

[In situ]

They strongly oppose and avoid the possibilities of a Creator.

You now claim the Naturalists oppose the idea of a creator, then kindly quote where they have opposed the idea of a creator, because so far I have only seen it been acknowledge as a possibility but not opposed as a possibility.

Or do you suggest to say when a Naturalist asks for empirical evidence of a creator then this is the same thing as opposing a creator...? I am not really getting clear on what it is you regard as "the resistance" in this matter... do you want Naturalists to acknowledge somehow their senses are broken or limited in some way? For the record, if so, Naturalists already done that...

 

[In situ]

Most ... replies that have showed their still needing to learn about the limitations of Naturalism.

THEN TELL US THESE LIMITS!

 

[durangodawood]

THEN TELL US THESE LIMITS!

You cant prove that "the natural" is all there is.

Thats it. And thats all youre going to get, in case you havent noticed in the last 20+ pages.

 

[Loudmouth]

THEN TELL US THESE LIMITS!

The limit is that Heissonear can not convince us that something made up on the spot is as valid as science backed by decades of solid experimentation.