Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Heissonear]

In Naturalism speculations and clueless conclusions abound. Although in The Day of The Naturalist no reason or evidence of God is conclusive.

Meanwhile, God is always near, very near to us all. His thoughts towards each of us each moment are as high as the farthest galaxies. The magnitude of His thoughts towards us each moment is astronomical.

Can someone say Naturalists are blind to God and the Spiritual Realm in our very midst? The Day of The Naturalist is about the pinnacle of blind men who say they see.

Like HD DVRs are a shadow in our day, there is a Playback Day.

You are reading this from an educated geoscientist. One with a long career in geological and geochemical work. One who possibly knows the rock record and fossil record more than you. One who knows the geologic timescale better than you. One who is not dim but with over 50 US Patents.

Knowledge about nature and history of the earth is not the final word. Let me say it again, knowledge about the physical realm we live in is not the ultimate attainment to understanding our existence on earth. How amazing it is to discuss these things with many of you and the clear unawareness so many have of higher live in our very midst, watching us even now. Can anyone say Naturalists are blind guides? Yes, for sure.

 

[BarryDesborough]

In Naturalism speculations and clueless conclusions abound. Although in The Day of The Naturalist no reason or evidence of God is conclusive.

Meanwhile, God is always near, very near to us all. His thoughts towards each of us each moment are as high as the farthest galaxies. The magnitude of His thoughts towards us each moment is astronomical.

Can someone say Naturalists are blind to God and the Spiritual Realm in our very midst? The Day of The Naturalist is about the pinnacle of blind men who say they see.

Like HD DVRs are a shadow in our day, there is a Playback Day.

You are reading this from an educated geoscientist. One with a long career in geological and geochemical work. One who possibly knows the rock record and fossil record more than you. One who knows the geologic timescale better than you. One who is not dim but with over 50 US Patents.

Knowledge about nature and history of the earth is not the final word. Let me say it again, knowledge about the physical realm we live in is not the ultimate attainment to understanding our existence on earth. How amazing it is to discuss these things with many of you and the clear unawareness so many have of higher live in our very midst, watching us even now. Can anyone say Naturalists are blind guides? Yes, for sure.

And yet, you cannot demonstrate there is more. It is just a feeling you have. I love art - painting, music, dance. I experience moments of awe. I think you are dehumanizing philosophical materialists when you say they are blind - especially since you cannot demonstrate that you can see something we cannot. A blind man can be convinced that there is such a thing as vision. It is easy to demonstrate. Why can you not demonstrate that you can "see" the spiritual? I reckon you cannot, because your experience is subjective - internal - and rooted in material physiology. It just seems "spiritual" to you.

 

[Paulos23]

In Naturalism speculations and clueless conclusions abound. Although in The Day of The Naturalist no reason or evidence of God is conclusive.

Meanwhile, God is always near, very near to us all. His thoughts towards each of us each moment are as high as the farthest galaxies. The magnitude of His thoughts towards us each moment is astronomical.

Can someone say Naturalists are blind to God and the Spiritual Realm in our very midst? The Day of The Naturalist is about the pinnacle of blind men who say they see.

Like HD DVRs are a shadow in our day, there is a Playback Day.

You are reading this from an educated geoscientist. One with a long career in geological and geochemical work. One who possibly knows the rock record and fossil record more than you. One who knows the geologic timescale better than you. One who is not dim but with over 50 US Patents.

Knowledge about nature and history of the earth is not the final word. Let me say it again, knowledge about the physical realm we live in is not the ultimate attainment to understanding our existence on earth. How amazing it is to discuss these things with many of you and the clear unawareness so many have of higher live in our very midst, watching us even now. Can anyone say Naturalists are blind guides? Yes, for sure.

Your doing special pleading. Unless you have evidence for higher entities, God, etc you are just asking us to believe it because you do.

 

[Loudmouth]

In Naturalism speculations and clueless conclusions abound. . .

That statement is followed by . . .

Meanwhile, God is always near, very near to us all. His thoughts towards each of us each moment are as high as the farthest galaxies. The magnitude of His thoughts towards us each moment is astronomical.

Talk about a serious case of projection.

Your entire post is based on speculations and clueless conclusions.

Can someone say Naturalists are blind to God and the Spiritual Realm in our very midst?

Just as much as they are blind to Leprechauns and Fairies.

You are reading this from an educated geoscientist. One with a long career in geological and geochemical work.

So if someone said that you were blind to the ground fairies that make oil and natural gas, what would you say to them?

 

[Loudmouth]

Care to show me the odds of life forming on Earth?

Those odds are impossible to calculate since we do not know enough about how life can start, nor the suite of conditions that will allow life to emerge. That is why I was asking to see your work. As far as I know, it is not possible to calculate the probabilities you are claiming.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ultimately you're right. If that sugar can assemble itself over time, then a Boltzmann brain could *easily* do the same exact thing.

Just like a cosmic teapot could assemble itself somewhere in the orbit of Mars. Therefore, there is a teapot orbiting the sun in the orbit of Mars, right?

 

[Michael]

Of which you also wish it to be so that your gods are eternal. No coincidence there.

Actually....

The laws of physics *insist* that some form of energy has existed eternally in some form or another. Even Alfven posited a 'bang' theory where clumps of matter and antimatter come together and blow apart again, but not all the matter of the universe comes together to a single point. In other words, even in an expansion scenario, the whole notion that anything began at a 'point' is pure speculation. The whole notion that all mass has some special creation data is a pure mythology based on 3 or maybe now 4 different supernatural claims, none of which can be demonstrated on Earth, nor will they *ever* be demonstrated on Earth in most cases.

I was referring to the article you linked to; did you read it?

Yes, I did. It acknowledges that there is a *perfectly natural* way to a higher intelligence to "evolve" in this physical universe, *long, long, long* before humans ever evolved on Earth. The structures of spacetime may have taken this basic shape more than a hundred trillion years ago for all we know.

Compared to the puny supernatural invisible deities of BB theory, you have absolutely *nothing* to complain about.

 

[Tomk80]

In Naturalism speculations and clueless conclusions abound. Although in The Day of The Naturalist no reason or evidence of God is conclusive.

Meanwhile, God is always near, very near to us all.

See, this is where we can stop reading. You need to demonstrate this claim in order for us to accept it. You never even try to. Hence, we can safely completely ignore the rest of what you write.

 

[Michael]

Just like a cosmic teapot could assemble itself somewhere in the orbit of Mars. Therefore, there is a teapot orbiting the sun in the orbit of Mars, right?

How are you trying to claim DNA came to exist anyway? Random chance perhaps? You're amazing. You pick and choose in a completely subjective way which *random actions* lead to intelligence. Talk about blatant double standards. For all you know the universe may be infinite and eternal, but humans evolved only a very short time go by *eternal* standards.

 

[Michael]

Those odds are impossible to calculate since we do not know enough about how life can start, nor the suite of conditions that will allow life to emerge.

That's the whole point. It's not ''impossible" to calculate the odds of macroscopic intelligence. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to *assume* that intelligent life can "randomly form" on a planet in spacetime, then it's entirely possible that a mascroscopic intelligence can form in the plasmas of spacetime.

Humans are a 'Johny come lately' form of life compared to the age of the universe. If redshift is related to mostly inelastic scattering effects ,this physical universe may be *eternal* for all anyone knows.

 

[Loudmouth]

How are you trying to claim DNA came to exist anyway?

I'm not. You are.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's the whole point. It's not ''impossible" to calculate the odds of macroscopic intelligence.

You claim to have calculated the probability. All I am asking for is a rough sketch of how you calculated that probability.

 

[Tomk80]

That's the whole point. It's not ''impossible" to calculate the odds of macroscopic intelligence. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to *assume* that intelligent life can "randomly form" on a planet in spacetime, then it's entirely possible that a mascroscopic intelligence can form in the plasmas of spacetime.

Is possible does not equal to "we can calculate the respective probabilities". For the specific assertion you made to hold (that the probability of one is greater than the other), you need to be able to calculate the probabilities of both. You can calculate the probabilities of neither.

 

[Michael]

That statement is followed by . . .



Talk about a serious case of projection.

Your entire post is based on speculations and clueless conclusions.

How ironic considering the fact that there actually *is* a perfectly "natural" way for God to have formed long before humans, and you personally put your "faith' in 3 different supernatural entities to supposedly "explain" the cosmos.

Just as much as they are blind to Leprechauns and Fairies.

And just as blind to all your invisible magical sky deities as well.

 

[Michael]

I'm not. You are.

If the odds of a macroscopic intelligence can calculated, and the odds of human evolution cannot, then it's more likely a macroscopic intelligence beat humans to the punch.

Spacetime could be *eternal*, and you have no *empirical experimental evidence* to say otherwise.

 

[Loudmouth]

How ironic considering the fact that there actually *is* a perfectly "natural" way for God to have formed long before humans,

Then show that it happened with evidence.

and you personally put your "faith' in 3 different supernatural entities to supposedly "explain" the cosmos.

There is already a thread dedicated to your obsessions.

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

No need to pull another thread off topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

If the odds of a macroscopic intelligence can calculated, and the odds of human evolution cannot, then it's more likely a macroscopic intelligence beat humans to the punch.

You claimed that you did calculate them. I am asking to see those calculations.

Spacetime could be *eternal*, and you have no *empirical experimental evidence* to say otherwise.

Another argument from ignorance.

 

[Michael]

See, this is where we can stop reading. You need to demonstrate this claim in order for us to accept it. You never even try to. Hence, we can safely completely ignore the rest of what you write.

I have tried to provided you with a logical and entirely *natural* way to support that claim. If we live inside of a living organism, then God is as near to us as the atoms in our bodies, the neutrinos that flow through our bodies, and the EM fields that surround our bodies.

How much closer could he get?

Compared to what so called 'science' has to offer us, with its 3 *supernatural* invisible sky entities, you have nothing to complain about in terms of 'evidence'.

 

[Tomk80]

If the odds of a macroscopic intelligence can calculated, and the odds of human evolution cannot, then it's more likely a macroscopic intelligence beat humans to the punch.

Nope. Even if you are correct in your statement that the odds of a macroscopic intelligence can be calculated, which I highly doubt, this still doesn't give you any indication of the likelihood that one beat the other one to the punch. The ability to calculate an odds does not tell you anything about the odds themselves.

Spacetime could be *eternal*, and you have no *empirical experimental evidence* to say otherwise.

Could be =/= is

 

[Michael]

Then show that it happened with evidence.

Right after you show that:

Space expands
inflation isn't a figment of your imagination
Dark stuff actually has some effect on a photon.

Holy Cow. You ask for the moon and you provide no evidence at all that isn't based on pure bait and switch equivocation fallacies and supernatural entities galore.

This topic is about the *natural* world, and you can't even be sure that God isn't *the natural universe*.