Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Michael]

Theories based on observation and math are not "pure speculation", are they?

As all that epicycle math demonstrates, I'm afraid to be the bearer of bad news, but yep, it's just pure speculation with a little mathematical window dressing, not unlike numerology. Until you can empirically verify cause/effect relationships in the lab, it remains pure speculation and the math is irrelevant. Look at SUSY today. All the "popular maths" related to SUSY theory have already gone up in smoke. What remains now is an "act of faith" in "some sort" of sparticle, any sparticle, and God help you if it's not a long lived sparticle.

You just call it that because you don't like it.

Nope. I'm just telling it like it is, and if it "bothers" you to think that your entire belief system is based upon "faith in the unseen" (in the lab), oh well, it's not my problem.

I said, you have what the article said backwards. The article states "A particular problem is that most Boltzmann brains will exist in the far future when the universe is no more than an inky void, with a past indistinguishable from the future. This would make our experience of time's arrow highly unusual.

However, if we can demonstrate that the universe has a finite lifespan, that would deny Boltzmann brains the infinite time they need to outnumber us. "

You got what the article said wrong, didn't you?

Nope, not me. Unlike you I *understand* the laws of physics. The energy we use on a daily has existed eternally, and it will always exist. Macroscopic life has has eternity to "beat humans to the punch" in terms of intelligent evolution. Any concept you hold related to a "creation event" as it relates to pure energy is purely an illusion of your own mind.

 

[Michael]

Fundamental Naturalists have yet to learn and admit they walk by faith.

Yep.

They dislike those scientists who point out this truth.

Double yep.

You understand it correctly my friend.

 

[Michael]

Nobody talks about never bothering to ask. You just don't have to answer that question specifically in order to discuss the topic of this thread.

FYI, I'm sorry I missed this post earlier.

I'm also sorry, but I can't discuss naturalism without asking how 'nature' works at a macroscopic level. It's been "in my blood" since the Apollo missions.

Nah, it's just a label that is most likely accurate. That it carries an emotional charge for you, doesn't mean you get to project that onto me.

You walked around both of my points. Your use of that derogatory term is akin to me labeling you 'evil' simply because you're in a minority and/or you happen to disagree with me personally on some random topic. It's a "sleazy" debate tactic to attack the individual, and that is exactly what that term is intended to do.

And that whole point could have been made using any other theory, including those tested in the lab. No point in bringing those topics up at all, and certainly not in the way you did.

False. There was a point for both you and Heissonear from my perspective at least. Heissonear got it, but you apparently haven't understood the point yet. "Science" sometimes requires "acts of faith' in new ideas.

If they are not relevant to the topic at hand, I generally avoid discussing them in the topic at hand. I discussed those here, because they were directly relevant to the assertions made by Heisonnear.

I'm also trying to discuss this topic with Heisonnear, and I'm convinced he understands me now. I really wish that you did. Faith in hypothetical particles or energies in science is no different than faith in God. Both "beliefs" require an act of faith on the part of the "believer". As that epicycle math demonstrates, adding mathematical lipstick to the metaphysical pig might make it mathematically more attractive, but it doesn't make it "right"!

What I stated was that the reason I think your behavior is trolling and pathetic, is because you cannot seem to stop talking about them on topics where they are not relevant.

First you'd have to show me how they are not relevant in *this* thread. You seem to be complaining about something unrelated to our *current* discussion.

And that is where the problem lies. Because even if your pet peeve is true, or would make any sense at all, it directly contradicts his assertions nonetheless. Your pet peeves were entirely irrelevant. Yet you had to bring all of them up.

I wasn't interjecting my opinions for your benefit alone, but alas, only Heissonear seems to hear me.

 

[Davian]

As all that epicycle math demonstrates, I'm afraid to be the bearer of bad news, but yep, it's just pure speculation with a little mathematical window dressing, not unlike numerology. Until you can empirically verify cause/effect relationships in the lab, it remains pure speculation and the math is irrelevant. Look at SUSY today. All the "popular maths" related to SUSY theory have already gone up in smoke. What remains now is an "act of faith" in "some sort" of sparticle, any sparticle, and God help you if it's not a long lived sparticle.

No, you are the bearer of the straw man.

Nope. I'm just telling it like it is, and if it "bothers" you to think that your entire belief system is based upon "faith in the unseen" (in the lab). Oh well. It's not my problem.

You don't know my belief system, do you?

Nope, not me. Unlike you I *understand* the laws of physics. The energy we use on a daily has existed eternally, and it will always exist.

And you think this energy is exempt from entropy? That we get a "free lunch"? Do you want me to buy into this 'perpetual motion machine' of yours?

Macroscopic life has has eternity to "beat humans to the punch" in terms of intelligent evolution.

But you cannot demonstrate this 'eternity' to be true, can you?

Any concept you hold related to a "creation event" as it relates to pure energy is purely an illusion of your own mind.

And now you resort to insults rather than addressing the points being made. Tell us again how those nasty people banned you from those boards where they do "science".

 

[Michael]

No, you are the bearer of the straw man.

Nah. Apparently I'm just the bearer of bad news as it relates to your personal belief system. FYI, you won't be 'truly free' until you give up your faith that 'science' is always right.

And you think this energy is exempt from entropy? That we get a "free lunch"? Do you want me to buy into this 'perpetual motion machine' of yours?

Again, I apologize for being the bearer of bad news to you again, but the laws of physics insist that energy has existed eternally in some form or another. Even "black holes" are something like 98 percent "efficient" at redistributing energy *before* we even discuss Hawking radiation.

But you cannot demonstrate this 'eternity' to be true, can you?

Unless you can demonstrate that the laws of physics are false, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so energy has existed eternally in some form or another.

And now you resort to insults rather than addressing the points being made. Tell us again how those nasty people banned you from those boards where they do "science".

It really wasn't my intent to insult you. My apologies.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And you think this energy is exempt from entropy? That we get a "free lunch"? Do you want me to buy into this 'perpetual motion machine' of yours?

No, we are just expected to buy into mainstreams perpetual motion machine of cores spinning inside planets against friction for billions of years to generate electric and magnetic fields so they can ignore them in space.

But you cannot demonstrate this 'eternity' to be true, can you?

Been 14+ billion years according to mainstream and it ain't ran down yet. As a matter of fact evolutionists would claim it is not tending to entropy, but to complexity and organization. So which is it again? Supernova being detected all the time now that we have the equipment. Galaxies emitting great jets of plasma and energy. A CMB still measured from 14+ billion years ago, unless you are claiming the CMB is not electromagnetic energy? How's that work anyway to keep a constant temperature against entropy? Ahhhh, I see, only mainstream gets free lunches.

 

[Heissonear]

Yep.


Double yep.

You understand it correctly my friend.

I have found it unusual how many Naturalists on this forum have yet to understand this limitation - Naturalism requires faith.

It takes requirements to come to understand this limitation, two being openness and truthfulness to oneself. These are necessary when one explores and acquires understanding about the physical world. In my particular case it was in geology.

 

[dawkins101]

Oh I do so love the "let me teach you threads". Always so "interactive"! So much to learn from the lecturer.

What is flesh is flesh. INDEED!

As Upisoft pointed out we clearly have the "tautology" end of things covered.

But let me skip ahead a few painful posts and get right to what I assume is going to be the basic "weakness" of Naturalism or Materialism or what-have-you-ism:

That one only has their senses to base their experiences on. Which means that there might be something else out there that we are unable to sense using our 5 senses!

THEREFORE there is a supernatural being who has a special fondness for one specific piece of land just to the east of the Mediterranean sea and this supernatural being decided that the only people worth "choosing" out of all the people of the globe would be a small group possibly from the highlands in that area and that ultimately this supernatural being, only a couple million years after he created humans, would decide that humanity needed to be atoned to him so about 2013 years ago He manifested himself as His Son (while still remaining Himself) in order that He would be sacrificed to Himself to atone mankind to Him.

Did I miss a step in there?

You made me laugh harder than I have in a while! Sarcasm strikes again!

 

[Heissonear]

Once again it can be said that when peole walk in Naturalism that speculations and clueless conclusions abound. Although in The Day of The Naturalist they see conclusively no reason or evidence of God.

Meanwhile, God is always near, very near to us all. Every moment of everyday. 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. He hears eeverything we say and watches everything we do. He has always been the God who is near to every person throughout time.

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.

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.

 

[Davian]

No, we are just expected to buy into mainstreams perpetual motion machine of cores spinning inside planets against friction for billions of years to generate electric and magnetic fields so they can ignore them in space.

Been 14+ billion years according to mainstream and it ain't ran down yet. As a matter of fact evolutionists would claim it is not tending to entropy, but to complexity and organization. So which is it again? Supernova being detected all the time now that we have the equipment. Galaxies emitting great jets of plasma and energy. A CMB still measured from 14+ billion years ago, unless you are claiming the CMB is not electromagnetic energy? How's that work anyway to keep a constant temperature against entropy? Ahhhh, I see, only mainstream gets free lunches.

So, you are claiming that the Earth is a perpetual motion machine, and "only mainstream gets free lunches".

Which is it?

Trivia question: how fast does the Earth's core rotate in relation to its surface?

 

[Davian]

Once again it can be said that when peole walk in Naturalism that speculations and clueless conclusions abound. Although in The Day of The Naturalist they see conclusively no reason or evidence of God.

Meanwhile, God is always near, very near to us all. Every moment of everyday. 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. He hears eeverything we say and watches everything we do. He has always been the God who is near to every person throughout time.

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....

According to scripture, when can we expect this "Playback day"?

 

[Michael]

I have found it unusual how many Naturalists on this forum have yet to understand this limitation - Naturalism requires faith.

Even "science" itself is a "philosophy".

Doctor of Philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I actually prefer pure naturalism to explain reality over metaphysical/hypothetical physics, but even that personal "choice" is an act of faith on my part, if only faith that the scientific and empirical methods have value.

"Faith" is actually a necessary element in both science and religion, but apparently that makes atheist rather squeamish.

 

[Heissonear]

According to scripture, when can we expect this "Playback day"?

The Scripture states in Matthew 24 "no one will know the hour" except for God.

All we will receive until then will be "signs".

The Playback Day will be interesting.


Many have asked me to "demonstrate" the spiritual but I am but physical and not the one in control of the spiritual realm and spiritual things. And I cannot "demonstrate God" because I'm a person like you. That is why I have said people need to go to the Source or else all they have in hand are words of men.

In the Playback Day God's presence will be tremendous. If you would like to know about His presence I recommend to not wait until then.

In Hebrews 4 it mentions in our present life He sits on a Throne of Grace - grace being what we cannot do ourselves - but things only He can do.

From my walk through naturalism, natural science education, and realization my walk as a geologist is based on faith, I investigated other places to place faith, since before hand I never did - at least without bias. As mentioned over and over on this thread I have found that He is. It is because of what He did - He revealed Himself. It was through grace.

A progression of advice I would give to those who still wonder "if" He is, would be to approach Him in heart and simple words (prayer) asking "if you are" then show me by your "grace".

It is simple.

It has not been a haphazard thing for the properties of the physical realm to one day provide man with the ability to bring about HD DVR recordings of events, like the NBA or Wimbledon Finals. People in generations past would think observing events again impossible on earth. But this is all a physical shadow of a spiritual reality. But I don't think the physical will ever match the spiritual, and that Day will come for use to determine.


True, I have no "spiritual realm" evidence I can "demonstrate". So I have a significant weakness. This has let many down who have requested demonstration of the spiritual realm is in our midst. However, the way to "know" is through "grace". He is always looking at us, watching every thing we do. He is always with us, and always has been. But because He is near and full of grace it is really up to us to find Him, including our persistence, patience, and dependance. He really does want us to know Him, but by choice, by freewill, and not as a computer.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Many have asked me to "demonstrate" the spiritual but I am but physical and not the one in control of the spiritual realm and spiritual things. And I cannot "demonstrate God" because I'm a person like you. That is why I have said people need to go to the Source or else all they have in hand are words of men.

And yet, in spite of your having gone to "The Source," you have nothing to show for it. interesting.

 

[Heissonear]

And yet, in spite of your having gone to "The Source," you have nothing to show for it. interesting.

For me, "only" a relationship with Him who Created all things; being one of the people who's spiritually shown truths of His Kingdom in our midst.

But what can I "spiritually show" you or "spiritually demonstrate" to you and others in the physical? Nothing but words.

The spiritual show and demonstration is of and by Him. And it comes through grace.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And yet, in spite of your having gone to "The Source," you have nothing to show for it. interesting.

You got a whole universe that declares his invisible qualities, his power and godhood, there is no excuse, what else you want?

 

[TLK Valentine]

For me, "only" a relationship with Him who Created all things; being one of the people who's spiritually shown truths of His Kingdom in our midst.

And still nothing to show for it but your own say-so.

But what can I "spiritually show" you or "spiritually demonstrate" to you and others in the physical? Nothing but words.

My point exactly -- nothing but words.

The spiritual show and demonstration is of and by Him. And it comes through grace.

And manifests in nothing but words.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You got a whole universe that declares his invisible qualities, his power and godhood, there is no excuse, what else you want?

More than someone else's say-so.

 

[Heissonear]

And still nothing to show for it but your own say-so.


My point exactly -- nothing but words.


And manifests in nothing but words.

What do you think that God and His Spiritual Kingdom is doing in our midsts? Only words?

 

[TLK Valentine]

What do you think that God and His Spiritual Kingdom is doing in our midsts? Only words?

According to you, yes.

And not particularly convincing words, at that.