Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Mr Clean]

Point 4
Demanding proof and evidence (from others) but major gaps in evidence exists.

Gaps in evidence means that there IS evidence, it is just not complete, whereas creationists have NO evidence. Seeing as now naturalists know what proof is because they have some, I'd say creationists ought to be asking how to go about obtaining it instead of complaining when asked for it...

Point 5
No proof or sound answer to the most important question about the natural (universe) - was there a Creator?

Why is that the most important question about the universe? To you it might be. I'd say it is a lot more important to understand the Universal Model so that we can try to get off this rock someday before the sun runs out of fuel and goes dark...

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You present mythology but cannot answer if the physical realm is eternal. Are Naturalist on this forum shallow in Naturalism? Not able to see the bare foundation they stand on? But you demand an answer about mythology?

Your unwillingness to answer the question is very revealing. Perhaps you know that doing so blows up your 'naturalism is no better than making stuff up' schtick.

 

[Heissonear]

Pretty shallow to point at mythology against a Naturalist and geologist.

Still learning about the limitations of Naturalism?

 

[Tomk80]

Pretty shallow to point at mythology against a Naturalist and geologist.

Still learning about the limitations of Naturalism?

Pretty shallow not answering the question because you know it points out your fallacious reasoning.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Pretty shallow to point at mythology against a Naturalist and geologist.

Still learning about the limitations of Naturalism?

Do you know juvenissun? You'd get along famously with him. You could almost be his twin brother.

 

[Tomk80]

Do you know juvenissun? You'd get along famously with him. You could almost be his twin brother.

You noticed as well, eh?

 

[Split Rock]

You present mythology but cannot answer if the physical realm is eternal. Are Naturalist on this forum shallow in Naturalism? Not able to see the bare foundation they stand on? But you demand an answer about mythology?

ANSWER THE QUESTION PLEASE!

 

[Heissonear]

Not wanting to keep on topic - limitations of Naturalism? Adding other content that is not central to Points?

 

[Tomk80]

Not wanting to keep on topic - limitations of Naturalism? Adding other content that is not central to Points?

The question is on topic. Answer it.

 

[Mr Clean]

Not wanting to keep on topic - limitations of Naturalism? Adding other content that is not central to Points?

There are no limitations. Now, about everyone's questions...

 

[Heissonear]

The evidences Naturalists stand on are natural and temporal. They are based on their 5 senses and through leaning on their own natural brain. They are carnal evidences. Naturalists have major limitations about man's existence.

Naturalists cannot prove there is no God, a Creator of all that we see and know. They have no proof against His existence.

Naturalists do not have evidence or proof about eternal things. They avoid discussion about the eternal.

Naturalists do not know if the physical realm has always been. And even more significant, if there is an eternal Creator. They cannot prove He does not exist, and His immense capability to bring this creation about.

Many Naturalists avoid these limitations. Many divert the topic because of such weaknesses. They avoid their weaknesses. They do not openly discuss them. It takes someone else to bring their limitations to light.

Naturalists have the least in wisdom about the Creator.

The world view of Naturalists is narrow and confined. Ask about the ever present God of this Creation and they often say, evidence please.

 

[Tomk80]

The evidences Naturalists stand on are natural and temporal. They are based on their 5 senses and through leaning on their own natural brain. They are carnal evidences. Naturalists have major limitations about man's existence.

Naturalists cannot prove there is no God, a Creator of all that we see and know. They have no proof against His existence.

Naturalists do not have evidence or proof about eternal things. They avoid discussion about the eternal.

Naturalists do not know if the physical realm has always been. And even more significant, if there is an eternal Creator. They cannot prove He does not exist, and His immense capability to bring this creation about.

Many Naturalists avoid these limitations. Many divert the topic because of such weaknesses. They avoid their weaknesses. They do not openly discuss them. It takes someone else to bring their limitations to light.

Naturalists have the least in wisdom about the Creator.

The world view of Naturalists is narrow and confined. Ask about the ever present God of this Creation and they often say, evidence please.

Merely restating your point isn't actually discussing anything. You realize that, don't you?

You have yet to give a single justification why saying "evidence please" is a bad thing. And you definitely have not given a single justification yet why you making stuff up is a better modus operandi.

 

[durangodawood]

The evidences Naturalists stand on are natural and temporal. They are based on their 5 senses and through leaning on their own natural brain. They are carnal evidences. Naturalists have major limitations about man's existence.

Naturalists cannot prove there is no God, a Creator of all that we see and know. They have no proof against His existence.

Naturalists do not have evidence or proof about eternal things. They avoid discussion about the eternal.

Naturalists do not know if the physical realm has always been. And even more significant, if there is an eternal Creator. They cannot prove He does not exist, and His immense capability to bring this creation about.

Many Naturalists avoid these limitations. Many divert the topic because of such weaknesses. They avoid their weaknesses. They do not openly discuss them. It takes someone else to bring their limitations to light.

Naturalists have the least in wisdom about the Creator.

The world view of Naturalists is narrow and confined. Ask about the ever present God of this Creation and they often say, evidence please.

The people who DO believe in a creator.... did they arrive at that belief without any evidence?

 

[Split Rock]

Not wanting to keep on topic - limitations of Naturalism? Adding other content that is not central to Points?

You claimed that not believing in your god constitutes a "belief." I asked you repeatedly if not believing in someone else's god is also a "belief." Your unwillingness to answer my question leads me to believe the answer is "no," which we both know would pull your little House of Cards down around you.

Clearly you are here to troll and waste people's time. Not to worry, I have a remedy for that. You are now on my Ignore list.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

 

[Heissonear]

The evidences Naturalists stand on are natural and temporal. They are based on their 5 senses and through leaning on their brain. They are carnal evidences. Naturalists have major limitations about man's existence.

Naturalists cannot prove there is no God, a Creator of all that we see and know. They have no proof against His existence.

Naturalists do not have evidence or proof about eternal things.

Naturalist do not know if the physical realm has always been. And even more significant, if there is an eternal Creator. They cannot prove He does not exist, and cannot prove He did not bring this creation about.

Many Naturalists avoid these limitations. Many divert the topic because of such weaknesses. They avoid their weaknesses. They do not openly discuss them.

Naturalists have the least amount of wisdom about the Creator, since they have no evidence of Him.

The world view of Naturalists is narrow and confined, limited to physical realm evidences.

The above is from post 71. It has been edited to provide what true to heart Naturalist learn about their limitations. Before or without being a believer in a Creator.

Why has a Naturalist not posted the limitations they have learned so far? Why?

No off topic replies, please. This is stating what limitations Naturalists learn. Please state them.

Thank you.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The above is from post 71. It has been edited to provide what true to heart Naturalist learn about their limitations. Before or without being a believer in a Creator.

Why has a Naturalist not posted the limitations they have learned so far? Why?

No off topic replies, please. This is stating what limitations Naturalists learn. Please state them.

Thank you.

I think you have some problems.

 

[Loudmouth]

Pretty shallow to point at mythology against a Naturalist and geologist.

Still learning about the limitations of Naturalism?

The only limitation you have pointed out thus far is the inability to make something up and pretend it is true without any evidence.

As for me, that is a limitation that is worth having.

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidences Naturalists stand on are natural and temporal.

They are empirical and real.

They are based on their 5 senses and through leaning on their own natural brain. They are carnal evidences. Naturalists have major limitations about man's existence.

So you are saying that we should believe anything anyone says without looking at any evidence? You are saying that this is the best way to go about things? You are saying that we should use Post-Modernism?

Naturalists cannot prove there is no God,

Logical fallacy.

Negative proof - RationalWiki

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

Naturalists do not have evidence or proof about eternal things. They avoid discussion about the eternal.

If we lack evidence then there is nothing to discuss, other than experiments that could allow us to gather evidence in that arena.

Naturalists do not know if the physical realm has always been. And even more significant, if there is an eternal Creator. They cannot prove He does not exist, and His immense capability to bring this creation about.

Logical fallacy.

Many Naturalists avoid these limitations. Many divert the topic because of such weaknesses. They avoid their weaknesses. They do not openly discuss them. It takes someone else to bring their limitations to light.

I will happily admit that "I don't know" is preferrable to "let's make something up just to have an answer". In fact, "I don't know" is one of the most exciting answers for a naturalist. That you would call this a "limitation" only shows how little you understand it.

Naturalists have the least in wisdom about the Creator.

How do you know that it is wisdom, and that it came from the Creator?

The world view of Naturalists is narrow and confined. Ask about the ever present God of this Creation and they often say, evidence please.

So you are saying that we should not limit anything or confine anything, and just believe everything that anyone says without looking at evidence or demanding any evidence. Is that what you are saying?

 

[bhsmte]

Quite the opposite. Who you say does not exist you have no evidence for why. Your position is based on faith.

I understand you are trying real hard here, but your argument is lame.

Choosing not to believe in something without evidence does not involve faith, it involves logic and reason.

Faith, is what you are relying on, to believe in something without evidence.

Nice try though.

 

[AECellini]

Naturalists cannot prove there is no God, a Creator of all that we see and know. They have no proof against His existence.

do you have any proof for the existence of God?

i don't know if anyone here claims that your god doesn't exist, i certainly don't. but i don't have to provide evidence against your gods existence because you haven't adequately provide for your burden of proof.