Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Michael]

Well, I don't use the term "faith" I choose to use the term "trust".

Either way you look at it, science will also require that you 'have faith' in the 'unseen' (in the lab). Your "trust" that dark energy has some effect on a photon has no empirical laboratory support. Your faith that inflation has any effect on any photon enjoys no lab tested support. Your faith in exotic matter enjoys no laboratory support either. These are by their nature things that require "faith" on the part of the believer, without experimental support.

If I am naive for trusting science to make progress in explaining the world we live in (as it has for centuries), than it is certainly possible that I am naive and only good old time will be the final determinant of that.

Even I *assume* that astronomers will *eventually* do the right thing and embrace empirical physics some day, just as I have faith that YEC supporters will eventually 'see the light'. I don't think that a temporary misplaced form of faith is a death sentence for either "science', nor religion.

I could go into a long explanation as to why I could label "believers in God" as naive, but will simply let my previous posts on the subject deal with that.

The ironic aspect from my perspective, is that the 'God' that I believe in is perfectly visible. I see him every single day. To have "faith" in God doesn't require me to believe in anything that is "unseen" or that fails to show up in a lab. The only thing I even have to ascribe to the universe in my belief system is "electromagnetism", and "awareness", both of which show up on Earth in a variety of forms. Nothing I believe in requires "faith in the unseen". It all shows up on Earth, including awareness.

Compared to the so called "scientific' explanation of our universe, it's not even close in terms of pure empirical physics. I'm making no leaps of faith in anything "unseen" (in the lab), whereas the so called 'scientific" explanation requires three different (or maybe four now) "leaps of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab).

I have "modest' faith in my beliefs about the universe, but I completely *lack belief* in *any* of the so called "scientific' hypothetical and invisible entities that are described by 'scientists' in relationship to astronomy.

 

[Heissonear]

I'd prefer to hear from the deities themselves, not their fan clubs.

This is the recommended path I would take -the only deviation to physical evidence.

Going to the Source of spiritual matters is critical. This is still the only trust I have toward gaining understanding and experience in the Spiritual Realm and higher life in our midst.

Being skeptical of others spiritual awareness and experience is needed, just like in science the investigations that are questionable and new.

 

[Heissonear]

:

Well, if we're using the physical world as a benchmark, let's start there -- how can we show the "spiritual realm" to be "real,"

Well, I'm certainly not going to accept Heissonear's (or any one person's) word on it without something more substantial to back it up -- are you?

A personal appearance would be a good start -- personally, I'm rooting for the Norse pantheon.

You said it well: do not take anyone's word on the "spiritual realm".

But I think the Norse pantheon may let you down.

 

[BarryDesborough]

You said it well: do not take anyone's word on the "spiritual realm".

But I think the Norse pantheon may let you down.

As will they all, I expect.

Why are you an atheist?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You said it well: do not take anyone's word on the "spiritual realm".

You're right -- I expect more than your say-so. Can you deliver more?

But I think the Norse pantheon may let you down.

Gods always do.

 

[Heissonear]

You're right -- I expect more than your say-so. Can you deliver more?

Gods always do.

It is very simple. That which is physical is physical and that which is spiritual is spiritual.

If you want to know the reality of the spiritual realm you should not receive the witness of man. You need firsthand understanding, not the words of men.

At this point the spiritual world only consists of words to Naturalists. Mere words. Even if the words come from someone who has experience and understanding about the spiritual.

Manmade gods let people down. There are many false gods. To those who understand the spiritual this is rudimentary. Part of the ABC's.

In the Bible you will find verses that say God is Spirit, and the Spirit was the One who created this physical universe. Life in the spiritual is eternal. Life in the physical is temporal.

It is the spiritual that has always been; of which you have yet to physically detect. The Spiritual can and does effort the physical but you will not be experiencing the Spiritual if you only look at what happens to the physical.

To detect (become "aware, have awareness of") takes going to the One who reveals the Spiritual. It takes putting your trust in Him to reveal it. He is always very very near.

Since you do not think He exists and is near, that is how you approach Him. That was how I learned of Him. I "prayed" - "IF you are, and IF there is a Spiritual Realm above the physical realm, I ask you to show me".

Pretty simple, no? In His timing you will experience spiritual reality. In that day and hour YOU will firsthand know and understand that the Spiritual Realm is real, like you know the physical is real; it will be through God given revelation.

Those who follow God through the Spirit are the children of God (Romans 8:14).

Just as we have received life from the physical we learn to receive life from the spiritual. The elements of the earth are referred to as beggarly compared to the composition of the Spiritual Realm.

 

[BarryDesborough]

It is very simple. That which is physical is physical and that which is spiritual is spiritual.

If you want to know the reality of the spiritual realm you should not receive the witness of man. You need firsthand understanding, not the words of men.

At this point the spiritual world only consists of words to Naturalists. Mere words. Even if the words come from someone who has experience and understanding about the spiritual.

Manmade gods let people down. There are many false gods. To those who understand the spiritual this is rudimentary. Part of the ABC's.

In the Bible you will find verses that say God is Spirit, and the Spirit was the One who created this physical universe. Life in the spiritual is eternal. Life in the physical is temporal.

It is the spiritual that has always been; of which you have yet to physically detect. The Spiritual can and does effort the physical but you will not be experiencing the Spiritual if you only look at what happens to the physical.

To detect (become "aware, have awareness of") takes going to the One who reveals the Spiritual. It takes putting your trust in Him to reveal it. He is always very very near.

Since you do not think He exists and is near, that is how you approach Him. That was how I learned of Him. I "prayed" - "IF you are, and IF there is a Spiritual Realm above the physical realm, I ask you to show me".

Pretty simple, no? In His timing you will experience spiritual reality. In that day and hour YOU will firsthand know and understand that the Spiritual Realm is real, like you know the physical is real; it will be through God given revelation.

Those who follow God through the Spirit are the children of God (Romans 8:14).

Just as we have received life from the physical we learn to receive life from the spiritual. The elements of the earth are referred to as beggarly compared to the composition of the Spiritual Realm.

In what way did this "One" reveal the spiritual to you?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is very simple. That which is physical is physical and that which is spiritual is spiritual.

If you want to know the reality of the spiritual realm you should not receive the witness of man. You need firsthand understanding, not the words of men.

Agreed, man -- and my firsthand understanding is that "the spiritual" is a load of hogwash.

At this point the spiritual world only consists of words to Naturalists. Mere words. Even if the words come from someone who has experience and understanding about the spiritual.

Well, we were warned to eschew the witness of man -- are you surprised?

Manmade gods let people down. There are many false gods. To those who understand the spiritual this is rudimentary. Part of the ABC's.

Many? How about all. ABC indeed.

In the Bible you will find verses that say God is Spirit, and the Spirit was the One who created this physical universe. Life in the spiritual is eternal. Life in the physical is temporal.

I've decided not to put that much stock in the words of man, remember?

Firsthand understanding, and all that.

It is the spiritual that has always been; of which you have yet to physically detect. The Spiritual can and does effort the physical but you will not be experiencing the Spiritual if you only look at what happens to the physical.

Firsthand understanding says this is a hogwash.

To detect (become "aware, have awareness of") takes going to the One who reveals the Spiritual. It takes putting your trust in Him to reveal it. He is always very very near.

Went there -- came up empty.

Since you do not think He exists and is near, that is how you approach Him. That was how I learned of Him. I "prayed" - "IF you are, and IF there is a Spiritual Realm above the physical realm, I ask you to show me".

Did that -- got no answer. Firsthand understanding, remember?

Pretty simple, no?

Not to mention ineffective.

In His timing you will experience spiritual reality. In that day and hour YOU will firsthand know and understand that the Spiritual Realm is real, like you know the physical is real; it will be through God given revelation.

Or... I've already got my answer, and the answer is "no."

Those who follow God through the Spirit are the children of God (Romans 8:14).

Sorry -- words of man again.

Just as we have received life from the physical we learn to receive life from the spiritual. The elements of the earth are referred to as beggarly compared to the composition of the Spiritual Realm.

According to the words of man -- pass.

 

[Loudmouth]

Naturalists have tried to understand the spiritual realm and have come up with zero evidence.

Just like naturalists have tried to understand Leprechauns and come up with zero evidence. This puts leprechauns and your supposed creator in the same category.

To miss the existence of the Creator is no small thing.

The same for leprechauns.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're ultimately arguing that the "cause/effect" relationships of such experiences aren't clear to you personally. That's fine, but that's true of just about any hypothetical form of science. The includes the whole of astronomy today, all aspects of SUSY theory (and all other non standard particle physics theories), and probably most aspects of QM.

The thing is, that there is a direct cause/effect relationship between external EM fields and their effect on humans. Those God helmet experiments show that even human thought can be affected by external EM fields. There is at least a "known mechanism" that could be responsible for causing these internal experiences. That's more than can even be demonstrated for most forms of hypothetical physics.

All you are doing is slapping the God label on everything and pretending you are making a point. You might as well claim that it is Santa Claus or Thor, it has the same explanatory value.

 

[Heissonear]

Just like naturalists have tried to understand Leprechauns and come up with zero evidence. This puts leprechauns and your supposed creator in the same category.


The same for leprechauns.

1. Despite having zero evidence, let's say the spiritual realm in our midst does not exist

2. Since we have zero evidence, lets put this realm into a Naturalist perspective.

3. Naturalists are the ones who know the least about the spiritual realm

4. For those who have experience in encountering the spiritual realm, they know it is as real as the physical world. A whole new dimension to life to understand.

5. Naturalists can be narrow and confined to what is only physical

6. Some Naturalists have arrived and are waiting on the rest of humanity to separate from ignorance, superstition, speculation, manmade religion and gods, and wise up to The Day of The Naturalist - where sound reasoning, intellect, and proper use of the Scientific Method establishes what is real.

 

[Paulos23]

1. Despite having zero evidence, let's day the spiritual realm in our midst does not exist

2. Since we have zero evidence, lets put this realm into a Naturalist perspective.

3. Naturalists are the ones who know the least about the spiritual realm

4. For those who have experience in encountering the spiritual realm, they know it is as real as the physical world. A whole new dimension to life to understand.

5. Naturalists can be narrow and confined to what is only physical

6. Some Naturalists have arrived and are waiting on the rest of humanity to separate from ignorance, superstition, speculation, manmade religion and gods, and wise up to The Day of The Naturalist - where sound reasoning, intellect, and proper use of the Scientific Method establishes what is real.

So you want to chance the game and have people's personal experances count? Is that what your trying to get to?

Sorry, science has progressed our understanding by verifiable evidence. Just going off someone's say so hasn't worked out so well.

The reason we focus on the physical is because that is what we have evidence for. If there is a supernatural in our mist does it matter it we can't interact with it. I have found many supernatural claims to be not so concreate when repeated.

So yes that is a "limitation" of Naturalisum. But until the supernatural starts interacting with the physical universe (if it exsists) we have no reason to accept claims of the supernatural without evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. Despite having zero evidence, let's day the spiritual realm in our midst does not exist

So you start your argument by claiming that your conclusion is true. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Either provide compelling evidence for the spiritual realm or withdraw the claim.

3. Naturalists are the ones who know the least about the spiritual realm

What spiritual realm? How can you fault people for not knowing about something that can't be shown to exist?

4. For those who have experience in encountering the spiritual realm, they know it is as real as the physical world. A whole new dimension to life to understand.

Please demonstrate that anyone has experienced the spiritual realm.

 

[Michael]

You're right -- I expect more than your say-so. Can you deliver more?

That depends on how you define "awareness", and how you subjectively define "evidence" of awareness I suppose.

 

[Michael]

1. Despite having zero evidence, let's day the spiritual realm in our midst does not exist

I see no reason to "assume" that "awareness" can be excluded as being a part of a "spiritual" realm. Did anyone fully "physically" define it yet, because I didn't.

2. Since we have zero evidence, lets put this realm into a Naturalist perspective.

3. Naturalists are the ones who know the least about the spiritual realm

Naturalists observe the world around them with something called "awareness". They need a "natural" explanation to explain it's 'cause'. Do they have one?

4. For those who have experience in encountering the spiritual realm, they know it is as real as the physical world. A whole new dimension to life to understand.

Unless your spiritual experiences are quite different from mine, they are experiences of "awareness", are they not? Again, if we're looking for 'natural' explanations, it has to begin with defining awareness in "natural" terms.

5. Naturalists can be narrow and confined to what is only physical

Is awareness entirely "physical"? If so, what prevents awareness from existing at "higher levels" (of physics)?

6. Some Naturalists have arrived and are waiting on the rest of humanity to separate from ignorance, superstition, speculation, manmade religion and gods, and wise up to The Day of The Naturalist - where sound reasoning, intellect, and proper use of the Scientific Method establishes what is real.

Actually the scientific method includes an "observer" that has to be "explained" naturally, and in no way can it preclude the concept of 'higher intelligence' as those other threads that I started on the topic of an Empirical theory of God will demonstrate.

IMO you have a skewed sense of both 'naturalism' and the "scientific method". While naturalism is more akin to empirical experimental (test in the lab) physics, the scientific method in no way limits itself to "demonstrated physics'. The scientific method proposes all sorts of "hypothetical" (no laboratory evidence to support it) entities, including things like gravitons, SUSY particles, etc. The scientific method isn't actually limited to "naturalism" in it's purest sense. Hypothetical entities like inflation cannot even be tested for in a lab "naturally" as far as anyone knows. Science is actually open to 'hypothetical entities", whereas naturalism tends to be limited to empirical tried and true physics.

Even "naturalism" doesn't preclude there from being a "spiritual realm", it simply has to have a defined and described and demonstrated physical *cause*.

 

[bhsmte]

1. Despite having zero evidence, let's day the spiritual realm in our midst does not exist

2. Since we have zero evidence, lets put this realm into a Naturalist perspective.

3. Naturalists are the ones who know the least about the spiritual realm

4. For those who have experience in encountering the spiritual realm, they know it is as real as the physical world. A whole new dimension to life to understand.

5. Naturalists can be narrow and confined to what is only physical

6. Some Naturalists have arrived and are waiting on the rest of humanity to separate from ignorance, superstition, speculation, manmade religion and gods, and wise up to The Day of The Naturalist - where sound reasoning, intellect, and proper use of the Scientific Method establishes what is real.

If personal experiences are to be treated at the same level as objective evidence, then you would need to acknowledge the personal experiences people have of the dozens of other Gods that they worship are just as valid as those from christians.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That depends on how you define "awareness", and how you subjectively define "evidence" of awareness I suppose.

A simple "no" will suffice.

 

[Johnnz]

So you want to chance the game and have people's personal experances count? Is that what your trying to get to?

So, you discount personal experience. How do you live? You accept only the validity of 'objective facts'?

Sorry, science has progressed our understanding by verifiable evidence. Just going off someone's say so hasn't worked out so well.

In it's area of application. History would be outside your purview than?

The reason we focus on the physical is because that is what we have evidence for. If there is a supernatural in our mist does it matter it we can't interact with it. I have found many supernatural claims to be not so concreate when repeated.

Nor can you objectively repeat your enjoyment of an icecream.

So yes that is a "limitation" of Naturalisum. But until the supernatural starts interacting with the physical universe (if it exsists) we have no reason to accept claims of the supernatural without evidence.

How then can you claim 'truth' or even 'evidence' when all that comes from some socially conditioned neuro/chemical process, since there is nothing beyond matter?

John
NZ

 

[Loudmouth]

How then can you claim 'truth' or even 'evidence' when all that comes from some socially conditioned neuro/chemical process, since there is nothing beyond matter?

John
NZ

How do people from many different cultures and beliefs all measure the same value for the weight of a proton?

 

[Johnnz]

How do people from many different cultures and beliefs all measure the same value for the weight of a proton?

That's a question you must answer from within your own presuppositions, one of which I stated in my last sentence.

John
NZ