Finding limitations in Naturalism

[In situ]

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.

Is that it? But we already know that and it has been told all over the first 15 pages.... I don't get it. What was all the points about then?

 

[In situ]

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.

But we already know whether or not you believe in a deity, and what deity, exists is a mater of personal choice... and that "limit" enables a a Naturalist to still believe in a deity without having any conflict. So why would anyone think about that as a limit of Naturalism, unless you have a need to deny god? Or, when thinking about it, perhaps that is what Heissonear assumes; Heissonear assumes that Naturalists default position is to reject the existence of god.... That makes suddenly sense. But his mistake is then that he does not realize that the default position of Naturalism is to say "we don't know!", when we don't know and in particular we do not make up things like "a deity does not exists" and then says "we know that to be true".

So all that big talk about "limits of Naturalism" and that Naturalists does not understand them was just empty words based on a silly Straw Man mixed with the usual logical fallacies.

What this thread then shows at best is Heissonear inability to understand the atheistic perspective and why atheists reach the conclusion they have.

Then again, what was all the points about?

 

[In situ]

When Naturalists fail to add up the dots, particularly lacking years of reflecting historical geology, the here and now may override their awareness of the foundation they stand on. If the foundation is bad then all built upon it is subject to insufficient information.

Not understanding the origin of the physical realm, but becoming experts in its existence,is temporal logic and knowledge.

As mentioned earlier, Naturalism is narrow and confined; if is not natural or physical realm, Naturalists lack additional awareness and information.

As Point 3 lists, Naturalists push all of their chips to the middle of the table and put their trust in their 5 senses, mental capability, and the Scientific Method. Confined to what Naturalism cannot detect.

Learning the limitations of Naturalism is the topic. Start another thread if you have related matter to discuss.

I think the limitations at hand is not related with Naturalism but what you, on a personal a level, choose to believe. If you believe there must be something more to it, something higher, then Naturalism cannot prove such view; nor can it prove the view that god does exist. That is with our current knowledge. I am okay with saying "I don't know", however you seams uncomfortable with that and assumes/asserts there is some other "knowledge" available to determine the issue.

Sure, if this is your asserted truths and you feel comfortable with those assertions, feel free and go ahead with whatever conclusions you like to make. Believe whatever you like to make from them - who am I to tell anyone what to believe or not? But don't go around and accuse Naturalists for being ignorant about the limitations of their own method and in particular don't suspect any Naturalist to accept your asserted truths as being true or "knowledge", because they wont - and you know that already don't you?

I believe this is your inner, concealed, fear; you fear yourself and the conclusion you make from Naturalism; god cannot be proven and this fear you have projected onto Naturalist by making up a (false) story in your head that "Naturalism denies god", which is just a silly thing to say as Naturalism neither deny nor confirm that a god exists. Its default position is neutral. It does not know... and that is the demons you fight with, with your self; you don't know....

Weather or not you choose to believe in a god, what is important is to feel comfortable with your believes. If you feel uncomfortable with the idea of no god, sure go ahead believe a god exists, but you also need to acknowledge that other people my feel just as comfortable living with the unknown and you should not project your own feelings of fear onto other people and in particular you should not make up stories, for yourself, to explain why other people does not believe as you do just to validate your own narratives. Because this only conceals the fact, for yourself, that this is a problem you have with Naturalism and not a problem with Naturalism in itself.

 

[In situ]

If we just decided that God makes lightning, why would we ever do any research to find the real answer?

Because, if now God exists, we wants to find out how God makes lightning, which is part of the reasons Naturalism started in the fist place; Naturalists wanted to a) find evidence for god, and b) understand how god operated in our world in short they wanted to study gods creation.

Unfortunately we know what the evidence leads us to conclude; we see no evidence of a deity which operates in this world - at lest not as we traditionally thought God would operated. It appears like all action can be attributed to pure mechanistic natural laws. If a deity is anywhere to be found it seams that this deity exists as the theory of "everything", or rather 'the laws of nothing', at best...an eternal, necessary deity that cannot do more than necessary things; not an omnipotent being but a necessary being restricted by its own nature. Whatever happen must happen because it is necessary and lawful... at best this deity had no choose but had to create our universe.

That is what the "limitations" of Naturalistic thinking might leads me to speculate - at best - about a deity. If a deity exists, I am convinced, Naturalism one day or the other will find out. Not conclusive, because Naturalism will never be able to do that, but as usually a tentative hypothesis. And if such deity exists then it will be something we not have imagined yet....because if we could we would already had discovered it.

If someone want to step ahead our current knowledge and postulate such deity I am not to say they are wrong in doing so, but I am not the one to be that person. Because I admit; I don't know...

 

[Heissonear]

I think the limitations at hand is not related with Naturalism but what you, on a personal a level, choose to believe. If you believe there must be something more to it, something higher, then Naturalism cannot prove such view; nor can it prove the view that god does exist. That is with our current knowledge. I am okay with saying "I don't know", however you seams uncomfortable with that and assumes/asserts there is some other "knowledge" available to determine the issue.

Sure, if this is your asserted truths and you feel comfortable with those assertions, feel free and go ahead with whatever conclusions you like to make. Believe whatever you like to make from them - who am I to tell anyone what to believe or not? But don't go around and accuse Naturalists for being ignorant about the limitations of their own method and in particular don't suspect any Naturalist to accept your asserted truths as being true or "knowledge", because they wont - and you know that already don't you?

I believe this is your inner, concealed, fear; you fear yourself and the conclusion you make from Naturalism; god cannot be proven and this fear you have projected onto Naturalist by making up a (false) story in your head that "Naturalism denies god", which is just a silly thing to say as Naturalism neither deny nor confirm that a god exists. Its default position is neutral. It does not know... and that is the demons you fight with, with your self; you don't know....

Weather or not you choose to believe in a god, what is important is to feel comfortable with your believes. If you feel uncomfortable with the idea of no god, sure go ahead believe a god exists, but you also need to acknowledge that other people my feel just as comfortable living with the unknown and you should not project your own feelings of fear onto other people and in particular you should not make up stories, for yourself, to explain why other people does not believe as you do just to validate your own narratives. Because this only conceals the fact, for yourself, that this is a problem you have with Naturalism and not a problem with Naturalism in itself.

It appears you reason about Naturalism: it becomes mostly thoughts.

You also appear to desire the "perspective" of Naturalism and Naturalists, and peg everyone in it.

This is what makes "denominations" within Naturalism.

You seek reasoning, no doubt.

And you broadcast what you equate. Step right in and speak right out. It is a forum for all.

But you are not getting any closer to the Spiritual Realm in our midst. In your words it is all boils down to "belief". And you have nothing in hand to know about it in truth and experience.

This thread was only about the limitations of Naturalism to stay on topic and find conclusions. But many honest questions were presented that has caused the thread to include what alternatives there may be to the Scientific Method for detecting a Spiritual Realm, if one exists in reality.

The ones who have found it, and understand it, find it is well beyond "belief".

You too have never went to the Source. I would advise that you do. Second hand information is not what you need.

 

[In situ]

Naturalism is the view that a Creator or God had not and is not needed to explain this physical world we live in. From sickness, to events like lightening, to the physical history of the earth with what we have learned through elements of geology, like isotope geochemistry, sedimentology, paleontology, tectonics, and the like.

This is a non-sequitur.

Naturalism has shown that specific gods are not a cause for certain phenomena, like there is no Thor that causes lightning.... From there you cannot conclude "Naturalism is the view that a Creator or God had not and is not needed to explain this physical world we live in"... Because I can still believe Thor exists, however he is not causing lightning according to the evidence, therefore evidence make me have an adjusted belief of how and what Thor is like, but I cannot from that conclude he does not exists.

Are you prepared to adjust your beliefs about your beliefs accordance to evidence and reality? I don't believe you are....else you would not be attacking Naturalism and making up, sorry for saying this but it is evidently true, crap talk because your argument is a Straw Man cluttered with logical fallacies. At best you are breaking up already open doors because everyone already acknowledge the "limitations".

 

[In situ]

It appears you reason about Naturalism: it becomes mostly thoughts.

You also appear to desire the "perspective" of Naturalism and Naturalists, and peg everyone in it.

This is what makes "denominations" within Naturalism.

You seek reasoning, no doubt.

And you broadcast what you equate. Step right in and speak right out. It is a forum for all.

But you are not getting any closer to the Spiritual Realm in our midst. In your words it is all boils down to "belief". And you have nothing in hand to know about it in truth and experience.

This thread was only about the limitations of Naturalism to stay on topic and find conclusions. But many honest questions were presented that has caused the thread to include what alternatives there may be to the Scientific Method for detecting a Spiritual Realm, if one exists in reality.

The ones who have found it, and understand it, find it is well beyond "belief".

You too have never went to the Source. I would advise that you do. Second hand information is not what you need.

Christ.... can you not just admit it to yourself?

YOU are disturbed by the conclusion YOU makes from Naturalism; there is no such god as you want to believe God to be. Then you explain this contradiction between your beliefs and Naturalism to yourself by making up stuff (i.e. asserting truths). That is finer with me, believe whatever you like, but don't come tell me that I do not know the limitations of Naturalism, because I know them already.

 

[In situ]

You too have never went to the Source. I would advise that you do. Second hand information is not what you need.

A simple observation is: You know nothing about me.... So how can you assert any knowledge about me?

Again you just talk crap... It is pathetic, almost sad, to see how you so obvious struggle with your own denial of your own fears of Naturalism and tries to project that to other people...

I am not saying this to try pull you down, but to try help you come to terms with yourself and what you know. People like you would feel more in peace with yourself and others if you could accepted the real truth: There is NO conflict between Naturalism and the idea of a Creator. But there is a conflict between a literal interpretation of some middle east science illiterate bronze age peoples ideas of creation and what modern Naturalism tells use about reality; that is what you need to come to terms with. Not my "limitations" with Naturalism.

I fine with them and surrendered my ancestors believe in Odin, Valkyries judgments and Valhalla. Therefore I do not believe I ever will have a chance to become an einherjar any more...even thou I would like to be one of them in the halls of Valhalla. Valkyries does not exists.. nor do Valhalla... I "know" this. It is sad to "know" but still true.

 

[Tomk80]

It appears you reason about Naturalism: it becomes mostly thoughts.

You also appear to desire the "perspective" of Naturalism and Naturalists, and peg everyone in it.

This is what makes "denominations" within Naturalism.

You seek reasoning, no doubt.

And here you start being wrong again. We are fine with doubt. We acknowledge it when it is there. That is the whole point. This has been explained to you in many different ways multiple times now. How come you do not understand this?

And you broadcast what you equate. Step right in and speak right out. It is a forum for all.

But you are not getting any closer to the Spiritual Realm in our midst. In your words it is all boils down to "belief". And you have nothing in hand to know about it in truth and experience.

How do you know such a spiritual realm exists? Again you are making assertions here without giving us the slightest reason to believe those assertions are true. This has also been explained to you multiple times now.

This thread was only about the limitations of Naturalism to stay on topic and find conclusions. But many honest questions were presented that has caused the thread to include what alternatives there may be to the Scientific Method for detecting a Spiritual Realm, if one exists in reality.

The ones who have found it, and understand it, find it is well beyond "belief".

You too have never went to the Source. I would advise that you do. Second hand information is not what you need.

More assertions without evidence.

 

[Heissonear]

Christ.... can you not just admit it to yourself?

YOU are disturbed by the conclusion YOU makes from Naturalism; there is no such god as you want to believe God to be. Then you explain this contradiction between your beliefs and Naturalism to yourself by making up stuff (i.e. asserting truths). That is finer with me, believe whatever you like, but don't come tell me that I do not know the limitations of Naturalism, because I know them already.

Once more, a rehash:

1. I was raised a Naturalist. I was a student of the earth by age 5 - I'd come home from the desert with pant pockets full of different rocks and my mom tell me to leave them outside. During upbringing I studied earth sciences and events. It was a no brainer to all around me to go onto college to be a geologist. And for 32 years now I've worked learning and applying natural sciences as an occupation. I understand the science of the earth and cosmos. I work with many types of scientists. Most are Naturalists. There is always more to learn but on this subject I can hold my own with ease.

2. You have presented nothing new to me. In your view I still need to be educated on Naturalism, particularly between Naturalism and any belief in or turn to God. Nice try.

3. The approach you have to the items presented is dogmatic. You speak of a "mature" Naturalism (Scientific Method only Naturalism foundation). In history and modernism it is a new age - The Day of The Naturalist. The maturity, refinement, and pinnacle of Naturalism has come.

 

[Tomk80]

Once more, a rehash:

1. I was raised a Naturalist. I was a student of the earth by age 5 - I'd come home from the desert with pant pockets full of different rocks and my mom tell me to leave them outside. During upbringing I studied earth sciences and events. It was a no brainer to all around me to go onto college to be a geologist. And for 32 years now I've worked learning and applying natural sciences as an occupation. I understand the science of the earth and cosmos. I work with many types of scientists. Most are Naturalists. There is always more to learn but on this subject I can hold my own with ease.

2. You have presented nothing new to me. In your view I still need to be educated on Naturalism, particularly between Naturalism and any belief in or turn to God. Nice try.

Yet somehow, you keep getting things wrong about naturalism. Excuse us if we are not impressed by someone who gets basic issues about naturalism consistently wrong.

3. The approach you have to the items presented is dogmatic. You speak of a "mature" Naturalism (Scientific Method only Naturalism foundation). In history and modernism it is a new age - The Day of The Naturalist. The maturity, refinement, and pinnacle of Naturalism has come.

There is nothing dogmatic about this at all. Evidence and reason are the best methods we have so far to determine whether some phenomenon is true or not. If someone comes up with something better, we'll switch to that. The adherence to naturalism is pragmatic, rather than dogmatic.

If you want us to switch to some other method, you'll have to provide us with something that works better than naturalism. So far, you have failed spectacularly in doing so.

 

[bhsmte]

Once more, a rehash:

1. I was raised a Naturalist. I was a student of the earth by age 5 - I'd come home from the desert with pant pockets full of different rocks and my mom tell me to leave them outside. During upbringing I studied earth sciences and events. It was a no brainer to all around me to go onto college to be a geologist. And for 32 years now I've worked learning and applying natural sciences as an occupation. I understand the science of the earth and cosmos. I work with many types of scientists. Most are Naturalists. There is always more to learn but on this subject I can hold my own with ease.

2. You have presented nothing new to me. In your view I still need to be educated on Naturalism, particularly between Naturalism and any belief in or turn to God. Nice try.

3. The approach you have to the items presented is dogmatic. You speak of a "mature" Naturalism (Scientific Method only Naturalism foundation). In history and modernism it is a new age - The Day of The Naturalist. The maturity, refinement, and pinnacle of Naturalism has come.

I think "rehash" is your middle name!

 

[In situ]

Once more, a rehash:
2. You have presented nothing new to me. In your view I still need to be educated on Naturalism, particularly between Naturalism and any belief in or turn to God. Nice try.

Nope, again you are making stuff up to fit your own description of the world but which has no anchor in our shared reality. What I said is that you assert things about me which simply is not true. I said I believe certain things about you, that you live in a wold of ideas that is contrary to evidence (which implies I believe you know roughly the same things as me about Naturalism), but never have I claimed my beliefs to be true. Never have I suggested you need education about anything in any form. You are making stuff up....

But you have asserts that Naturalist "oppose a Creator". Again this is not true, and you only makes stuff up.

In order to reach your "wisdom" you seams to apply a two value logic to Naturalistic reasoning with the purpose to prove your point. But Naturalism uses a three value logic. For all practical purposes you are excluding facts about Naturalism which contradict your own beliefs. This is called biased reasoning.

In the logic of Naturalism truth can not be established and only a tentative truth is suggested based on observational evidence. Falsehood, on the other hand, can be established. And, assuming you claimed education is as you state it, we both know what Naturalism has to say about the literal interpretation of the Bible in this case. The evidence are there... Then we have the third value; "unknown". Unknown is the value Naturalist assigned to the question of a creator for reason already explained to you which you refuse to accept. In doing so you, to all effect, call Naturalists liars...

The facts are that in your bias reasoning you twist yourself into refusing to see reality as it is and I cannot tell you this in any kind words. You need to hear the reality of what your claims really are; it is crap talk, simply because they are not true.

Stop pretending it is true. Stop having a conversation with yourself and take out your fingers form your ears, open your eyes and start listen to others and try acknowledge what they say is actually what they say and not what you think they say.

3. The approach you have to the items presented is dogmatic. You speak of a "mature" Naturalism (Scientific Method only Naturalism foundation). In history and modernism it is a new age - The Day of The Naturalist. The maturity, refinement, and pinnacle of Naturalism has come.

Again you making up stuff about what I believe and how I reason....

I find it offensive that you take the right to tell me where I been, what I experienced, what I know and what I believe in while in fact you have no idea whatsoever about any of these things.

You think you posses the only truth, you claim you have a some a priori knowledge, which you have not shared, but only vague speak of, and you claim I don't have it. You do not have a conversation, you preach it to me and you treat me, and others, like some ignorant fouls that knows nothing and need to be taught by you and accept your revealed knowledge without questioning it. Does this mean you do not think you can be wrong?

I wonder, with all your knowledge about me, do you know why I have a wolf as avatar, do you know what it symbolize, can you even guess... ?

 

[Heissonear]

Nope, again you are making stuff up to fit your own description of the world but which has no anchor in our shared reality. What I said is that you assert things about me which simply is not true. I said I believe certain things about you, that you live in a wold of ideas that is contrary to evidence (which implies I believe you know roughly the same things as me about Naturalism), but never have I claimed my beliefs to be true. Never have I suggested you need education about anything in any form. You are making stuff up....

But you have asserts that Naturalist "oppose a Creator". Again this is not true, and you only makes stuff up.

In order to reach your "wisdom" you seams to apply a two value logic to Naturalistic reasoning with the purpose to prove your point. But Naturalism uses a three value logic. For all practical purposes you are excluding facts about Naturalism which contradict your own beliefs. This is called biased reasoning.

In the logic of Naturalism truth can not be established and only a tentative truth is suggested based on observational evidence. Falsehood, on the other hand, can be established. And, assuming you claimed education is as you state it, we both know what Naturalism has to say about the literal interpretation of the Bible in this case. The evidence are there... Then we have the third value; "unknown". Unknown is the value Naturalist assigned to the question of a creator for reason already explained to you which you refuse to accept. In doing so you, to all effect, call Naturalists liars...

The facts are that in your bias reasoning you twist yourself into refusing to see reality as it is and I cannot tell you this in any kind words. You need to hear the reality of what your claims really are; it is crap talk, simply because they are not true.

Stop pretending it is true. Stop having a conversation with yourself and take out your fingers form your ears, open your eyes and start listen to others and try acknowledge what they say is actually what they say and not what you think they say.



Again you making up stuff about what I believe and how I reason....

I find it offensive that you take the right to tell me where I been, what I experienced, what I know and what I believe in while in fact you have no idea whatsoever about any of these things.

You think you posses the only truth, you claim you have a some a priori knowledge, which you have not shared, but only vague speak of, and you claim I don't have it. You do not have a conversation, you preach it to me and you treat me, and others, like some ignorant fouls that knows nothing and need to be taught by you and accept your revealed knowledge without questioning it. Does this mean you do not think you can be wrong?

I wonder, with all your knowledge about me, do you know why I have a wolf as avatar, do you know what it symbolize, can you even guess... ?

Promoting wisdom of words for putting things back into perspective - your dogmatic perspective.

Nice try.

Explain to to us again how the elements we are composed of were not created, and there is no Creator. Or do you want to continue to have the discussion centered about me?

You are needing to go back to defense.

 

[CabVet]

Explain to to us again how the elements we are composed of were not created, and there is no Creator.

Elements were formed inside stars.

FORMATION OF THE HIGHER MASS ELEMENTS

Now feel free to move the goal post.

 

[In situ]

Promoting wisdom of words for putting things back into perspective - your dogmatic perspective.

Nice try.

Again you miss the point; I don't care even if you believe the Earth is flat. I am not the one to tell you what you should believe to be true, but you accuse, indirectly, all Naturalist for being liars. You also assert things about me, stuff you just made up to fit your own twisted beliefs. You also tries to give some validity to what you say by referring to your own expertise and claiming that I do not posses sufficient a priori knowledge to understand.

If I recall right you made a comment on one of my comments in another thread about Naturalism and I was curios so I came here to see what you had to say because maybe there was something to what you claimed that was worth listening to, but so far you said nothing but babbling and asserting judgement about others which you have not provided reason for anyone to believed in.

Frankly, I start doubt you have this claimed expertise or even the a priori knowledge you claim to know how to access.

Explain to to us again how the elements we are composed of were not created, and there is no Creator.

Why should I waste my time to explain all these things to you when all information is public available in any university library worth its name? Or are you going to assert it spell TEACHER in my forehead as well? Why don't you do like everyone else that wants to know; open a physics book and go find out for yourself....

Or do you want to continue to have the discussion centered about me?

Centered around you? Have you sunk so deep in your own fantasy that you do not understand what I am telling you?

You keep dodging the real issue; you make up stuff to fit your own beliefs, and that is fine with me as long you do not accuse Naturalists or you pretend you know something about me, my knowledge, expertise, experience or other personal things about me.Those assertion are not facts, but just made up by you...

Therefor, stop deceit yourself in believing these are true things!

and a smiley wont undo your wrong doings....

You are needing to go back to defense.

I wonder who is really on the defense here... me, or you that tries to make Naturalism become compatible with your own beliefs....

As a Naturalist I live in doubt about everything I know; it can all be wrong tomorrow... but I see no need to defend old views if they turn out to be wrong. You on the other hand, what can be wrong in what you know? Just asking....

 

[Heissonear]

Again you miss the point; I don't care even if you believe the Earth is flat. I am not the one to tell you what you should believe to be true, but you accuse, indirectly, all Naturalist for being liars. You also assert things about me, stuff you just made up to fit your own twisted beliefs. You also tries to give some validity to what you say by referring to your own expertise and claiming that I do not posses sufficient a priori knowledge to understand.

If I recall right you made a comment on one of my comments in another thread about Naturalism and I was curios so I came here to see what you had to say because maybe there was something to what you claimed that was worth listening to, but so far you said nothing but babbling and asserting judgement about others which you have not provided reason for anyone to believed in.

Frankly, I start doubt you have this claimed expertise or even the a priori knowledge you claim to know how to access.



Why should I waste my time to explain all these things to you when all information is public available in any university library worth its name? Or are you going to assert it spell TEACHER in my forehead as well? Why don't you do like everyone else that wants to know; open a physics book and go find out for yourself....



Centered around you? Have you sunk so deep in your own fantasy that you do not understand what I am telling you?

You keep dodging the real issue; you make up stuff to fit your own beliefs, and that is fine with me as long you do not accuse Naturalists or you pretend you know something about me, my knowledge, expertise, experience or other personal things about me.Those assertion are not facts, but just made up by you...

Therefor, stop deceit yourself in believing these are true things!

and a smiley wont undo your wrong doings....



I wonder who is really on the defense here... me, or you that tries to make Naturalism become compatible with your own beliefs....

As a Naturalist I live in doubt about everything I know; it can all be wrong tomorrow... but I see no need to defend old views if they turn out to be wrong. You on the other hand, what can be wrong in what you know? Just asking....

A little too dogmatic, in situ?

You cannot prove that what you are composed of was not created. This is about the weaknesses of Naturalism.

 

[HitchSlap]

You cannot prove that what you are composed of was not created.

And you cannot prove it was. So, given we both don't know, what do you think is the most intellectually honest position?

 

[Heissonear]

And you cannot prove it was. So, given we both don't know, what do you think is the most intellectually honest position?

What a predicament. As smart as natural man is, and all the experimentation and wealth of learning man has attained, he still cannot prove that there is no Creator.

The ramifications of this weakness in Naturalism is major.

We are talking about the limitations of Naturalism.

 

[HitchSlap]

What a predicament. As smart as natural man is, and all the experimentation and wealth of learning man has attained, he still cannot prove that there is no Creator.

The ramifications of this weakness in Naturalism is major.

We are talking about the limitations of Naturalism.

I think you're missing the point, as you're the one who needs to demonstrate a creator, not me.

Go on then, demonstrate.