Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes. They were answered. And right or wrong, you ignored the answers. So, its clear you arent interested in discussion, and prefer preaching.Nice try. You actually think that the message - Points 3-9 - were answered? The Points were disputed?
You seem to be using the term "Naturalism" in the context of atheism and the idea that only this universe of mind, matter, energy, cause and effect, nature, etc, can exist.Those who grew up a true Naturalist, and particularly when they become academically educated, first-hand learn the weaknesses and limitations of Naturalism.
Any serious seeker of truth speaks honestly within himself. They get serious and real in what they have come to know.
It no longer becomes a contention with others who differ. An exchange in proofs and facts. It becomes the value of truth and the potential to be wrong. And the consequence for being wrong.
On this forum, because of Christian viewers, many Naturalists are defensive. They do not discuss their weaknesses less being attacked and/or proven wrong.
Through my upbringing and early stand in life I found I had to face my weaknesses as a Naturalist. This thread is to focus on such discussion: how Naturalist and Naturalism has real limitations.
I will present a number of points. As they are presented I will try to update this first post.
Point 1
What is flesh is flesh
What is natural is natural
What is physical is physical
Point 2
Leaning on one's own understanding
Leaning on one's own brain capacity
Mankind leaning on their own mental capabilities
Point 3
The risk or gamble of pushing all of their chips to the middle of the table when they put their trust in their 5 senses, mental capability, and careful use of the Scientific Method
Point 4
Demanding proof and evidence but major historic gaps in evidence exists
Point 5
No proof or sound answer to most important answer about the natural - was there a Creator?
Point 6
Eternity and eternal things. Have the elements and physical universe always been? Or has it been a person, a being, a Creator who is eternal? Naturalist do not have proof that it is the physical realm.
Point 7
The Foundation of Naturalism is based on faith. What Naturalists know is built on faith. They walk by faith.
Point 8
No evidence that there is not a Creator: no evidence that all that we see and know was not created.
Point 9
No evidence agaist a spiritual realm in our midst. The domain of Naturalism is narrow and confined.
More points to come with time and discussion about each.
Yes. They were answered. And right or wrong, you ignored the answers. So, its clear you arent interested in discussion, and prefer preaching.
.
No one is stopping you from returning to any of the many posts that addressed your points, and continuing with a discussion.You are still on tangents as answers. Again, nice try but the posts bare witness.
So I'm preaching? Take a look at the Points. It's about the limitations of Naturalism. Of course Naturalist will have a push back.
You may or may not have grown up in a church. But you do not show evidence of growing up a Naturalist. And only a Naturalist. You show mixture. Let's talk Naturalism and its weaknesses.
You seem to be using the term "Naturalism" in the context of atheism and the idea that only this universe of mind, matter, energy, cause and effect, nature, etc, can exist.
Well we do think we know that these things exist. Most theists and non theists seem to accept that these exist. And so they are a common currency (if you like), that we share.
But for "things" beyond this universe?
Well they might exist. But then again, they might not exist.
Any assertion that a specific entity or a specific realm does exist beyond this universe, is more likely to be wrong than the assertion that it does not exist.
However, if dimensions beyond the four we think we know of, do exist, then perhaps it's more of an open question. However it remains hard to know exactly what does exist out there in those possible other dimensions of mathematics and physics, and so assertions which claim to know, are still likely to be wild guesses.
So, as to the question of what lies beyond the universe, I think the best answer is, "I don't know, that's if it's possible to have a 'beyond' the universe". Nevertheless, if you think you have had a signal from out there then two things:-
1) Don't expect to convince any one, unless you can do better than "you cannot prove that I'm wrong".
2) Expect someone else to claim a signal from out there, and to claim that your signal is wrong.
Nice try to present openness.
You continue to show all how confined the domain of Naturalism is! Evidence please! But you have no evidence for countering Points 3-9. None. Again, no evidence. None.
How about that apparent firm foundation on which NaturalismI is built upon? Getting weaker? Will you need to resort to logic since you have no evidence?
Naturalism is the view that a Creator or God had not and is not needed to explain this physical world we live in.
So the foremost base of our discussion centers on Naturalism. From this base, which many Naturalists think and live, we can then discuss its limitations. Including the lack of various evidences Naturalism has.
The definition of Naturalism was the focus of an earlier thread: in order on this thread to know what has limits.
Naturalism is based on what we know through our 5 senses, mental capability/intelligence, and the Scientific Method. In this broad definition would include the various properties of the physical realm, and what we have learned through careful use of science.
Naturalism is the view that a Creator or God had not and is not needed to explain this physical world we live in. From sickness, to events like lightening, to the physical history of the earth with what we have learned through elements of geology, like isotope geochemistry, sedimentology, paleontology, tectonics, and the like.
So the foremost base of our discussion centers on Naturalism. From this base, which many Naturalists think and live, we can then discuss its limitations. Including the lack of various evidences Naturalism has.
I appreciate many points in your reply about the possible limits Naturalist have. And agree other people will have the same limitations.
What is beyond the physical is an open question, particularly for Naturalists. That is why I referred Naturalism to be narrow and confined, since the evidence needs to be through the Scientific Method. Not that the Scientific Method process is wrong. In the present physical world it has and will continue to provide many benefits.
In reply to a signal that is beyond our present natural world your point is clear and right. Why I have limited the topic to Naturalism and its limitations is to discuss this possible signal, if it exists, for another thread. Like with Naturalism, until we know what it is we will have a problem understanding if it has any limitations. In turn, until we understand the limitations of Naturalism we may not understand how something beyond Naturalism detection exists.
In the limitations to be learned - once a true Naturalist - I've tried to present the most basic and important. Being a regular person, being composed of the elements, Point 1 is definitely ultra basic. Point 2 is also ultra basic, particularly for Naturalists. But what appears very basic in some of the other Points, many may still need to ponder. I'm not trying to force any viewpoints. But the "ramifications" behind these seemingly also ultra basic items has major implications. One is Point 7. No doubt there will be many that will disagree. They will state why. But will they be right to say they do not walk by faith? We need to understand the limitations of Naturalism before any signal, higher life, and the like discussion.
That is not the view of Naturalism. We have told you this many times now. There is nothing within Naturalism that rejects the existence of a Creator or God. Nothing.
Those are human limitations, not limitations of naturalism. We have told you this many times, and you continue to ignore it.
Since you state you are not blind then answer the Points in Post #1. You have not answered them. It appears you do not think Naturalism has any limitations. Other than NO EVIDENCE of the origin of this physical world!
You may need to ponder this. For blindness sakes!
They appear to have openness but are really not seeking spiritual reality. It's not there. It's a product of ignorance and superstitions. Equivalent to believing in leprechauns, and the like replies.
Heiss,
Your smoke screen has run its course.
Why do you avoid the many responses to your questions?
Why can't you present logical evidence for your claims?
Another nice try but far from true.
1. You have no evidence for the origin of this physical world.
2. So you resort to "logic"
3. Logic then becomes your defense of Naturalistic origin of the physical we live in
You request "logical evidence". Why? Because you don't have evidence? That is what I'm calling a limitation of Naturalism.
Then you call it a lack of information. Is this not a limitation?
Ate these not answers about your limitations? Where is your stated smoke? List the posts.
There appears to be different forms or denominations of Naturalism. The more recent denomination appears to be a more politically correct type. I'll call it Fundamental Naturalism. This form does not allow open speculation, but rigorously holds they don't know without evidence. The sole test of knowledge is repeatable experimentation.
In both types of Naturalism the natural history of this physical world, the events that commonly occur around us like lightening, only need to be explained by natural processes.
For sure Evident Naturalism not only saw no need for a God to explain events or history, but by all accounts of scientific investigation there is no God
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Fundamentalists are really debaters of Naturalism. They appear to have openness but are really not seeking spiritual reality. It's not there. It's a product of ignorance and superstitions. Equivalent to believing in leprechauns, and the like replies.
Another nice try but far from true.
1. You have no evidence for the origin of this physical world.
2. So you resort to "logic"
3. Logic then becomes your defense of Naturalistic origin of the physical we live in
You request "logical evidence". Why? Because you don't have evidence? That is what I'm calling a limitation of Naturalism.
Then you call it a lack of information. Is this not a limitation?
Are these not answers about your limitations?
It is a limitation. But it is not a weakness. These limitations exist, regardless of which philophical system you hold to. They are not specific to naturalism. Recognizing our lack of knowledge is not a weakness, it is a strength.Another nice try but far from true.
1. You have no evidence for the origin of this physical world.
2. So you resort to "logic"
3. Logic then becomes your defense of Naturalistic origin of the physical we live in
You request "logical evidence". Why? Because you don't have evidence? That is what I'm calling a limitation of Naturalism.
Then you call it a lack of information. Is this not a limitation?
Are these not answers about your limitations?
It is a limitation. But it is not a weakness. These limitations exist, regardless of which philophical system you hold to. They are not specific to naturalism. Recognizing our lack of knowledge is not a weakness, it is a strength.
As people have explained to you multiple times now, the fact that we have no information on something does not suddenly go away because make something up. You want to be able to speculate and then pass of your speculation as truth. Nothing in naturalism prohibits you from speculating. It only forces you to admit that you are speculating, and that you have no way to know whether your speculation is true or not. This is honesty and a strength. Pretending your speculation is true, as you want to do, is dishonest and a weakness.
Many folk have complained about science and how it limits itself to the natural world. They have said that science would be no much better for it, if it extended itself beyond the natural, and went into the supernatural.The definition of Naturalism was the focus of an earlier thread: in order on this thread to know what has limits.
Naturalism is based on what we know through our 5 senses, mental capability/intelligence, and the Scientific Method. In this broad definition would include the various properties of the physical realm, and what we have learned through careful use of science.
Naturalism is the view that a Creator or God had not and is not needed to explain this physical world we live in. From sickness, to events like lightening, to the physical history of the earth with what we have learned through elements of geology, like isotope geochemistry, sedimentology, paleontology, tectonics, and the like.
So the foremost base of our discussion centers on Naturalism. From this base, which many Naturalists think and live, we can then discuss its limitations. Including the lack of various evidences Naturalism has.
I appreciate many points in your reply about the possible limits Naturalist have. And agree other people will have the same limitations.
What is beyond the physical is an open question, particularly for Naturalists. That is why I referred Naturalism to be narrow and confined, since the evidence needs to be through the Scientific Method. Not that the Scientific Method process is wrong. In the present physical world it has and will continue to provide many benefits.
In reply to a signal that is beyond our present natural world your point is clear and right. Why I have limited the topic to Naturalism and its limitations is to discuss this possible signal, if it exists, for another thread. Like with Naturalism, until we know what it is we will have a problem understanding if it has any limitations. In turn, until we understand the limitations of Naturalism we may not understand how something beyond Naturalism detection exists.
In the limitations to be learned - once a true Naturalist - I've tried to present the most basic and important. Being a regular person, being composed of the elements, Point 1 is definitely ultra basic. Point 2 is also ultra basic, particularly for Naturalists. But what appears very basic in some of the other Points, many may still need to ponder. I'm not trying to force any viewpoints. But the "ramifications" behind these seemingly also ultra basic items has major implications. One is Point 7. No doubt there will be many that will disagree. They will state why. But will they be right to say they do not walk by faith? We need to understand the limitations of Naturalism before any signal, higher life, and the like discussion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?