Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Paulos23]

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.

Just because it can not be demistrated that there is no creater doesn't mean that there is a creator. You need to demistrate that there is a creator to claim that.

And that is what you are missing. Not that we have to disprove a creator, but you also have to prove a creator. You don't get a by because the other side can't prove it, you still have to prove your claim.

Else admit it and just say "I don't know....but I will find out".

 

[HitchSlap]

Just because it can not be demistrated that there is no creater doesn't mean that there is a creator. You need to demistrate that there is a creator to claim that.

And that is what you are missing. Not that we have to disprove a creator, but you also have to prove a creator. You don't get a by because the other side can't prove it, you still have to prove your claim.

Else admit it and just say "I don't know....but I will find out".

No doubt. Think how long the list would be of things that might exist because we can't prove they don't.

 

[Heissonear]

Just because it can not be demistrated that there is no creater doesn't mean that there is a creator. You need to demistrate that there is a creator to claim that.

And that is what you are missing. Not that we have to disprove a creator, but you also have to prove a creator..

Failed once again to keep the discussion to only the limitations of Naturalism.

Naturalist just can't face this weakness. It is that bad.

The other is the Scientific Method is restrictive and confining. It is not applicable to domains beyond the physical realm, particularly if there is a Spiritual Realm in our midst.

 

[Johnnz]

No doubt. Think how long the list would be of things that might exist because we can't prove they don't.

Faith in the capacity of reason to understand all that does exist, or that belief in the adequacy of reason alone to explain everything without the circularity of using reason to arrive at that position is fine, provided you recognise your faith.

John
NZ

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Still waiting on your response to the questions.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Still waiting on your response to the questions.

Is this idiotic thread still going?

 

[pjnlsn]

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.

"Naturalism," if I know what you mean, is still likely, in that the existence of any sort of deity is unlikely and unproven.

 

[Heissonear]

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?


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.


More assertions without evidence.

"We are fine with doubt. We acknowledge it when it is there"

Toward earthly matters about science sure. About existence in the Creator - He is mocked and left out of the public school systems and textbooks. Who are you kidding?


"How do you know such a spiritual realm exists?"

There came a point in time when learning earth science and the limitations of Naturalism that I became open to "if" there was a Creator. And I approached Him, the Creator of the universe we live in, on "if" He was and "who" He was. It was in heart and words within: through openness and through sincere prayer. It wasn't to prove something to someone else; it was to know truth about the most important issue in life. To say the least He gave a "spiritual" reply - through His Spirit. I was "baptized" by His Spirit.

So many people say it is foolish to seek if there is a God. Like it is so primitive or immature. Like we should already know that there is no God or Creator that is detectable.

There are also so many people who have "words of men" about Him. Even words from Naturalists. So many people never singularly seek Him. They never go to the Source and seek the Creator of this Creation. The result is they hear many things and have second or third hand knowledge about Him and the spiritual world.

In Romans 8:14 it says: "For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God"

In John 16:13 it says: "And when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth"

We are to go to and follow Him, not men. The Scientific Method has use in the physical world but it also has limitations. Major limitations on matters beyond the physical.

 

[HitchSlap]

Faith in the capacity of reason to understand all that does exist, or that belief in the adequacy of reason alone to explain everything without the circularity of using reason to arrive at that position is fine, provided you recognise your faith.

John
NZ

Yes, reason alone is adequate. Name one instance it's not.

We all make three fundamental assumptions:

1. Reality exists.
2. We can learn something about reality.
3. Models with predictive capabilities work better than those that don't.

Faith is an assertion of unreasonable convictions and defended against all reason. Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have good reasons for believing. Faith is pretending for grown-ups. "Faith is believing in something you know ain't so."

 

[HitchSlap]

Failed once again to keep the discussion to only the limitations of Naturalism.

Naturalist just can't face this weakness. It is that bad.

The other is the Scientific Method is restrictive and confining. It is not applicable to domains beyond the physical realm, particularly if there is a Spiritual Realm in our midst.

Will you answer the question? I have admitted I cannot prove your god doesn't exist. Now, can you prove he does?

 

[Johnnz]

Yes, reason alone is adequate. Name one instance it's not.

We all make three fundamental assumptions:

1. Reality exists.
I assume you mean matter, logic? You can then also assume that is all that exits, but of course that canst be proven.

2. We can learn something about reality.
Christians have never doubted that. In fact it was the Cappaidocean fathers who set out the foundations for what later became scientific investigation.

3. Models with predictive capabilities work better than those that don't.
Only in certain areas.

Faith is an assertion of unreasonable convictions
Wrong. You are exercising faith in your assumptions
and defended against all reason.
False dichotomy. Faith can have reasonable grounds. Did/will you submit your future partner to some predictive analysis before committing to a long term relationship, or do you 'hope' that it will turn out to be the right decision? Mere credulity is 'belief without reason, but not a well founded faith.

Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have good reasons for believing. Faith is pretending for grown-ups. "Faith is believing in something you know ain't so."

So say you are a believer in the faith of naturalism.

John
NZ

 

[bhsmte]

So say you are a believer in the faith of naturalism.

John
NZ

Johnny,

Look up definition of the word; "faith"

 

[HitchSlap]

So say you are a believer in the faith of naturalism.

John
NZ

No, I didn't say that.

 

[Johnnz]

No, I didn't say that.

You didn't. Its just a logical deduction.

John
NZ

 

[Johnnz]

Johnny,

Look up definition of the word; "faith"

I did. Several meanings given. You just selected the one most convenient to your position.

John
NZ

 

[In situ]

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.

So what?

What I care abut is your claims about me as a person; those are offensive. Are you gonna apologize or not for that?

 

[In situ]

Naturalist just can't face this weakness. It is that bad.

That is a lie...

 

[Tomk80]

That is a lie...

And not just a small one.

 

[In situ]

Several meanings given. You just selected the one most convenient to your position.

Therefore the same could be said about what you selected, can it not?

 

[In situ]

Toward earthly matters about science sure. About existence in the Creator - He is mocked and left out of the public school systems and textbooks. Who are you kidding?

I don't know about you schools system, but they do teach religion in our public school system and no religion is mocked with, but treated with respect. It is up to the kids to decide what they want to believe in.

There came a point in time when learning earth science and the limitations of Naturalism that I became open to "if" there was a Creator. And I approached Him, the Creator of the universe we live in, on "if" He was and "who" He was. It was in heart and words within: through openness and through sincere prayer. It wasn't to prove something to someone else; it was to know truth about the most important issue in life. To say the least He gave a "spiritual" reply - through His Spirit. I was "baptized" by His Spirit.

That just fine with me, so you find harmony in your life doing this. But what makes you think this will/should work for everyone?

So many people say it is foolish to seek if there is a God. Like it is so primitive or immature. Like we should already know that there is no God or Creator that is detectable.

Really? Most people I know about respect others with religious belief, it is even written down in our law system; you cannot treat somebody else different because of their religion. Because of this religious beliefs has a special status which other beliefs system does not benefit from. So how is this even close to mockery of religions?

There are also so many people who have "words of men" about Him. Even words from Naturalists. So many people never singularly seek Him. They never go to the Source and seek the Creator of this Creation. The result is they hear many things and have second or third hand knowledge about Him and the spiritual world.

We are to go to and follow Him, not men. The Scientific Method has use in the physical world but it also has limitations. Major limitations on matters beyond the physical.

So the limitation of Naturalism is that ... I don't get this point straight... people don't get religious, or that people cannot get religious with it?

If so, what is the limitation of a hammer? Does its limitation makes it useless as hammer in some respect?