Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Mr Strawberry]

Only 5 points have been presented so far. But the learning has begun. Naturalist are in a confined domain: their flesh and what is natural. And they have no proof or evidence that their is not a Creator.

Nor indeed do we have proof there isn't a ..... (fill in your own favourite example showing the ridiculousness of this lame old argument).

A major weakness. The very foundation Naturalist stand on has no proof. The foundation is based on belief.

One of the poorer attempts to drag naturalism down to the same level of make believe as religion and thereby pretend that religion is as valid as reality.

 

[Split Rock]

Only 5 points have been presented so far. But the learning has begun. Naturalist are in a confined domain: their flesh and what is natural. And they have no proof or evidence that their is not a Creator.

And you have no proof that there is one.

A major weakness. The very foundation Naturalist stand on has no proof. The foundation is based on belief.

Ahhh... now we see where this winding path has lead us to... a variant on "it takes more faith to not believe in my god than it takes to believe in my god." Nonsense. A lack of belief is not a belief. Does it take more or less faith to not believe in Odin. Please answer this.

 

[Tomk80]

Only 5 points have been presented so far. But the learning has begun. Naturalist are in a confined domain: their flesh and what is natural. And they have no proof or evidence that their is not a Creator.

Why would we need proof there is no creator? The absence of evidence for a creator is more than enough justification not to believe in one.

A major weakness. The very foundation Naturalist stand on has no proof. The foundation is based on belief.

Given that there is no single indication whatsoever that we need anything more than the natural world to explain anything, that foundation is sufficient.

 

[Heissonear]

Naturalist are in a confined domain: their flesh and what is natural.

And bound by time. They are temporal.

In such limitations going back to the beginning of this physical realm is impossible.

Naturalist s have no evidence that the physical realm has always existed. Have you learned such reality?

 

[Tomk80]

Naturalist are in a confined domain: their flesh and what is natural.

And bound by time. They are temporal.

In such limitations going back to the beginning of this physical realm is impossible.

Naturalist s have no evidence that the physical realm has always existed. Have you learned such reality?

Irrelevant. In the absence of evidence for a creator, there is no reason to believe in one.

 

[durangodawood]

Naturalist are in a confined domain: their flesh and what is natural.

We are all in the same domain.

 

[Heissonear]

Naturalist have no evidence that the natural realm has always existed. As a Naturalist we eventually face our weaknesses.

 

[Tomk80]

Naturalist have no evidence that the natural realm has always existed. As a Naturalist we eventually face our weaknesses.

Which is no indication whatsoever that a creator exists or ever existed. I'm fine with not knowing, it's better than just making stuff up. Which is the only alternative you can offer.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Something tells me that "Absolute Truth" will somehow emerge in this thread.

Something tells me it won't.

 

[Paulos23]

Naturalist have no evidence that the natural realm has always existed. As a Naturalist we eventually face our weaknesses.

We don't have any evidence there is anything other then the natural realm (as you call it).

What weakness are you talking about?

 

[Mr Clean]

In such limitations going back to the beginning of this physical realm is impossible.

Only if there is no proof of the beginning. And since we don't know all there is to know, we cannot say that is impossible...

Naturalist s have no evidence that the physical realm has always existed. Have you learned such reality?

Science doesn't claim that the physical realm has always existed. At this time humans don't know if the physical realm has always existed or not.

 

[Heissonear]

There appears to be some Naturalist s that do not want to show their foundation is thorough belief. Maybe re-read the first 3 paragraphs of the first post?

 

[Heissonear]

Only if there is no proof of the beginning. And since we don't know all there is to know, we cannot say that is impossible...


Science doesn't claim that the physical realm has always existed. At this time humans don't know if the physical realm has always existed or not.

Then can you say a Creator did not bring this physical realm into existence?

 

[Tomk80]

There appears to be some Naturalist s that do not want to show their foundation is thorough belief. Maybe re-read the first 3 paragraphs of the first post?

The foundation is pragmatism, not belief.

 

[durangodawood]

There appears to be some Naturalist s that do not want to show their foundation is thorough belief. Maybe re-read the first 3 paragraphs of the first post?

I think you missed this:

Its based on experience, not belief.

When all you experience is natural AND natural explanations are sufficient to explain everything, you might as well come to the contingent-conclusion that our world is essentially natural.

 

[Heissonear]

I think you missed this:

Its based on experience, not belief.

When all you experience is natural AND natural explanations are sufficient to explain everything, you might as well come to the contingent-conclusion that our world is essentially natural.

Points 5 and 6, first post.

 

[Heissonear]

The foundation is pragmatism, not belief.

Point 5 on first post.

 

[durangodawood]

Points 5 and 6, first post.

Nothing about the universe requires a creator.
+
I havent experienced a creator.
=
I have no reason to believe in a creator.

 

[Tomk80]

Point 5 on first post.

And as I already stated, there is nothing that requires us to posit a creator for the beginning of the universe or material world. If we don't whether or how it started, nothing requires us to find an answer. Not knowing and realizing you do not know is fine. Not knowing and admitting that is better than making stuff up.

 

[Loudmouth]

Isn't the whole point of any worthwhile epistemology that it limits what can be called knowledge? Or are we to follow post-modernism where everything is true, even stuff made up on the spot?