Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Michael]

He doesn't claim that every human is hard wired to the same degree, just as some people don't crave sweets as much as another and or some people have the ability to resist the cravings.

Dennett is not claiming that this hardwiring proves the existanse of a God (he is an atheist), but he tries to explain how some are more prone to believe in the super natural.

It's probably most interesting and noteworthy that one can 'interpret' that hardwiring to mean just about anything.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Well, that adage about "If at first you don't succeed...." comes to mind.



Well for starters, pretty much everyone that claims to have an "experience' of God typically engages in such activity. Most 'experts' on the topic of God also suggest it, including Jesus.



So did Jesus. It was just different 'stuff' than you.

I think you are all just fooling yourselves.

 

[Loudmouth]

More mass was found in plasma in 2012 than was known to exist in the whole of human history prior to that discovery. PC theory stands on it's on empirical merits, and photon redshift is *known* to be *caused by* inelastic scattering, and the movement of objects. PC theory is fine because it's based on pure empirical lab tested physics.

Photon redshift is known to scatter light and is wavelength dependent, both of which are not seen in the redshift data. PC is falsified, and has been for quite some time. You have been shown this on numerous times, but your eyes and ears close each and every time.

This is the denial and dishonesty I am talking about. PC is falsifed. Flat out. We observe exactly the redshift we would expect from expansion. It is supported by all of the evidence.

Please, take your dog and pony show to the thread where it is on topic.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7754178/

The dishonesty and denial is related to attempting to exclude EM fields from cosmology theory.

So says the person who completely ignores expansion and thinks that anything that doesn't happen in the lab doesn't exist.

Again, the highly ironic part is that you *insist* on cause/effect demonstrations between 'awareness' and the 'observation of spiritual experiences', and God, when the observers themselves *say that it's caused by God*.

They have never demonstrated that it is caused by God. They used to say that lightning was caused by Thor. That was false. Time after time we have shown that what was once claimed to be the actions of the supernatural are actually the product of the natural. We need more than an empty claim. We need evidence.

On the other hand you wave at some photon redshift and *insist* that your invisible friends did it, without a *shred* of cause/effect support for your claim. Pure hypocrisy on a stick.

And that is a flat out lie. We have already given you the mechanism and we have shown you the testable effects of that mechanism.

If "empirical data" is based on pure observation alone,

It is based on objective observations. This is a basic concept within science, and you can't even get it right.

The only *honesty* that is lacking is your complete unwillingness to accept *uncontrolled observation* as "empirical data" on the topic of God,

It isn't empirical. That you would even suggest it is means that you either don't understand what empiricism is, or you are being dishonest once again.

When you can speak about empiricism honestly perhaps then we can have a discussion about science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you meditate? Pray? If so, how often? If not, why would you expect to gain any value from that part of the wiring?

Why don't you open your eyes and look to see what is in reality instead of focusig on what your brain can invent?

 

[Michael]

Photon redshift is known to scatter light and is wavelength dependent, both of which are not seen in the redshift data.

FYI, I responded in full in the Empirical Theory of God thread for you. I'll keep this thread focused on the topic.

2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews

Even *if* we didn't discover that light *is more scattered* than the mainstream 'predicted', it wouldn't support your *supernatural* constructs!

The fact you can falsify some other theory does not provide support for your claims *empirically*.

You're still using a blatant double standard. In one instance you wish empirical cause/effect justification for the link between "awareness" and "God". On the other hand you require no cause/effect justification for you cosmology beliefs. Hypocrisy much?

Science isn't limited to pure naturalism, and neither is the topic of God. Even your expectation of experimental support for God is dubious, since you personally don't require that from other fields of 'science'.

 

[Michael]

Why don't you open your eyes and look to see what is in reality instead of focusig on what your brain can invent?

Hard as I might try, I see no 'dark energy' with my eyes. Hard as I might try, I see no "dark matter' with my eyes. Hard as I might try, I 'see' no inflation with my eyes. Invent whatever dark stuff you like but your inventions of the brain have zero effect on even a single photon in any experiment.

When I close my eyes and pray and meditate as Jesus suggested, I can indeed feel the presence of God within me, just as Jesus claimed that I would. Others have experienced this for themselves as well, not just lil' ol' me.

If you personally don't make that effort, well, it's a pity mind you, but it's a personal choice on your part, and it's definitely not a 'reality' for everyone.

At least God has an empirical effect on something on Earth (humans), which is a lot more than you can say for your invisible friends, with or without prayer.

 

[Michael]

I think you are all just fooling yourselves.

Right back at ya.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Right back at ya.

So one can not believe that the electrical force which binds the atom and surges through our brains and connects everything in the universe is the same force.

While one can believe in a nuclear core of the sun even when their experiments show there to be only 1% of the convection required to sustain this theory. Magnetic reconnection no longer has a source in mainstream theory. There is no longer an explanation in mainstream for the electric currents observed on the sun.

Although there are laboratory experiments backing up the EU/PC theories consistent with the 1% convection experiments.

The lab where it is always sunny: Researchers recreate precursor to solar flares | Mail Online

Plasma experiment recreates astrophysical jets - space - 04 July 2005 - New Scientist

The formation soon straightened into a jet because of a simple law of physics - currents flowing in the same direction attract each other, while currents flowing in opposite directions repel each other.

Such a simple law of physics, overlooked time and time again when discussing the universe - 99.99% plasma - an electrified medium. If they were to stop leaving out those electrical forces in their calculations they might find they no longer need all that Fairie Dust to explain the universe.

Just a thought since they want empirical evidence, well they should quit ignoring it then.

 

[Heissonear]

Based on what?


Then demonstrate to us that it does exist.

You are out to prove there is no existence above and beyond the physical. For you it's just never going to be there.

The "based on what" and the "demonstrate to us" I mentioned earlier requires going to the Source, the Creator of all that we see and know. God is Spirit. God is above the natural. God is eternal, not of elements. His knowledge of you this moment and every moment is not shallow but as high as the farthest galaxies. He knows every detail about you. Every moment. HE IS THE ONE TO TURN TO, NOT WORDS OF MEN.

People need to go to the Source for evidence and the demonstration of the Spiritual Realm and what embedded things through His intelligence He has to reveal in the physical realm that reflects aspects of the Spiritual.

I Corinthians 2:4,5 the Apostle Paul stated similar - "not in persuasive words of wisdom [the existence and witness of God] but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power".

It requires the involvement of the Source. It requires the Spirit of God demonstrating His Power - the words of men is not what one needs and should seek.

As God through His Spirit was with Paul to demonstrate what to believe, and where to place one's faith in the current unseen realm, the same exists today. We get glimpses, true spiritual revelations from God, true manifestations of Spiritual Powers from the Spirit of God.

This is what going to the Source will produce. This is what ones inquiring about higher life in our midst should obtain, and not stop short of or settle for anything else. Period.

That is why I have the confidence that I have in kowing of the Spiritual Realm. It is available for all who really seek to know IF such exist. We all do not know at the beginning. It is an obvious uncertainty. It begins as an IF, and big IF. But He is. Many have a relationship with Him that He brings about through Power from above the physical. And many have such faith through His Power.

To then tell these Spirit taught individuals that God does not exist reveals clear unawareness of the higher life in our midst. How people can come up empty handed about the Spiritual Realm through Naturalism.

 

[BarryDesborough]

You are out to disprove there is no existence above and beyond the physical. For you it's just never going to be there.

The "based on what" and the "demonstrate to us" I mentioned earlier requires going to the Source, the Creator of all that we see and know. God is Spirit. God is above the natural. God is eternal, not of elements. His knowledge of you this moment and every moment is not shallow but as high as the farthest galaxies. He knows every detail about you. Every moment. HE IS THE ONE TO TURN TO, NOT WORDS OF MEN.

People need to go to the Source for evidence and the demonstration of the Spiritual Realm and what embedded things through His intelligence has to reveal in the physical realm that reflects aspects of the Spiritual.

I Corinthians 2:4,5 the Apostle Paul stated similar - "not in persuasive words of wisdom [the existence and witness of God] but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power".

It requires the involvement of the Source. It requires the Spirit of God demonstrating His Power - the words of men is not what one needs and should seek.

As God through His Spirit was with Paul to demonstrate what to believe, and where to place one's faith in the current unseen realm, the same exists today. We get glimpses, true spiritual revelations from God, true manifestations of Spiritual Powers from the Spirit of God.

This is what going to the Source will produce. This is what ones inquiring about higher life in our midst should obtain, and not stop short of or settle for anything else. Period.

That is why I have the confidence that I have in kowing of the Spiritual Realm. It is available for all who really seek to know IF such exist. We all do not know at the beginning. It is an obvious uncertainty. It begins as an IF, and big IF. But He is. Many have a relationship with Him that He brings about through Power from above the physical. And many have such faith through His Power.

To then tell these Spirit taught individuals that God does not exist reveals clear unawareness of the higher life in our midst. How people can come up empty handed about the Spiritual Realm through Naturalism.

Carry your own burden of proof.

 

[Michael]

You are out to disprove there is no existence above and beyond the physical. For you it's just never going to be there.

Two quick points:

Naturalism doesn't necessarily attempt to "disprove" anything, it simply seeks to "demonstrate cause/effect evidence" to support a concept. There's no real need to "disprove" anything in naturalism, there is just an expectation of empirical support for every claim.

It's also entirely *possible* that empirical physics ultimately leads us right back to "God". It may eventually give us some clues about "where" God is located, "what" God is made of, "how" God might express himself physically in our world, etc.

Naturalism isn't a threat to God anymore than science is a threat to God. Naturalism is a little more constrained than 'science' in general, but it's certainly not going to "disprove" the existence of an intelligent creator, nor is that it's goal.

 

[bhsmte]

Two quick points:

Naturalism doesn't necessarily attempt to "disprove" anything, it simply seeks to "demonstrate cause/effect evidence" to support a concept. There's no real need to "disprove" anything in naturalism, there is just an expectation of empirical support for every claim.

It's also entirely *possible* that empirical physics ultimately leads us right back to "God". It may eventually give us some clues about "where" God is located, "what" God is made of, "how" God might express himself physically in our world, etc.

Naturalism isn't a threat to God anymore than science is a threat to God. Naturalism is a little more constrained than 'science' in general, but it's certainly not going to "disprove" the existence of an intelligent creator, nor is that it's goal.

Correct.

If God is who many on this board claim him to be, why would science or naturalism be a threat to him?

 

[Michael]

Correct.

If God is who many on this board claim him to be, why would science or naturalism be a threat to him?

Exactly. If one has faith in the existence of God, naturalism will simply lead us to actual answers about God from the realm of physics (eventually).

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly. If one has faith in the existence of God, naturalism will simply lead us to actual answers about God from the realm of physics (eventually).

Yep. Science has figured out things we never thought possible not to long ago and I trust they will continue to do the same in the future.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yep. Science has figured out things we never thought possible not to long ago and I trust they will continue to do the same in the future.

And they most likely will as long as we don't continue to let our pre-conceived notions interpret the data instead of letting the data interpret our ideas. Once people get an idea in their head it is hard to analyze anything without pre-conceived notions wheher they are correct or not. 80 years ago our galaxy was the only thing in existence and our theories were taylored to that belief. 100 years before that the Earth was the center of the universe. Before that it was flat. Only one infalted with the self-worth of their own beliefs could concieve that their is nothing left to discover, that we are close to a theory of everything, that only refining the calculations is all that is left. We thought that 1000 yers ago, they were wrong. We thought that 100 years ago, they were wrong. We think that today, just ask Stephen Hawkings. Once again they will be wrong.

 

[Davian]

And they most likely will as long as we don't continue to let our pre-conceived notions interpret the data instead of letting the data interpret our ideas. Once people get an idea in their head it is hard to analyze anything without pre-conceived notions wheher they are correct or not. 80 years ago our galaxy was the only thing in existence and our theories were taylored to that belief. 100 years before that the Earth was the center of the universe. Before that it was flat. Only one infalted with the self-worth of their own beliefs could concieve that their is nothing left to discover, that we are close to a theory of everything, that only refining the calculations is all that is left. We thought that 1000 yers ago, they were wrong. We thought that 100 years ago, they were wrong. We think that today, just ask Stephen Hawkings. Once again they will be wrong.

But you won't be wrong, will you?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But you won't be wrong, will you?

Might be, but more evidence points to an electrical universe that is 99.99% plasma than one with a clearly defunct thermonuclear core. All you got to do is show how a 1000 year old theory of the sun being a ball of gas is correct, and I'll be happy to show you where it isn't. Or perhaps you would prefer to discuss dirty snowballs called comets in the light of modern discoveries? 100 year old theories overturned by modern space-age science. Do you really think they are correct about the universe when they can't even get a comet or our sun correct? Take the View Master off please.

 

[Davian]

Might be, but more evidence points to an electrical universe that is 99.99% plasma than one with a clearly defunct thermonuclear core. All you got to do is...

No, I am not buying your perpetual motion machines today.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I am not buying your perpetual motion machines today.

I know, you have bought mainstreams perpetual motion machine. A core spinning in the center of the earth against friction for 4+ billion years.

 

[Strathos]

The earth is slowing down, just very slowly.