Post #120 - not even close to what is presented in #119.
You are going to need some time to ponder.
You are going to need some time to ponder.
Upvote
0
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.
You are going to have to start answering the objections raised, instead of repeating your own assertions as if that adds some value to the discussion.Post #120 - not even close to what is presented in #119.
You are going to need some time to ponder.
Post #120 - not even close to what is presented in #119.
You are going to need some time to ponder.
Sorry, but Tom was right on in his post. You seam to have this strawman idea of Naturalisum that doesn't exist, and your trying to disprove it to make your claim right without supporting your claim.
Again, how is admitting that you not know this better than making stuff up, as you are doing. You have to answer that question to argue your case, and so far you are studiously ignoring it.Not even close to what Post #119 presents.
The dogma of "evidence only" has made Fundamental Naturalism very confined.
The origin of this physical world you cannot prove or disprove.
Speculation is fine when it is not argued as such. Passing as truth what you do not know to be, as you are doing, is not.Many commentators are hiding (not disclosing) the speculations (non-factual statements) Naturalists have made through the decades about the origin of this physical world.
You are going to have to start answering the objections raised, instead of repeating your own assertions as if that adds some value to the discussion.
Naturalists are full of speculations. If you have been one, and hung around them for decades you know this is true.
Naturalists on this forum are mute to this speculation. Why? It is because they have a purity stance in Naturalism dogma. The doctrine of this denomination of Naturalism is centered on "evidence". Without evidence they have no answer if it is true or not. In short, what they know and understand is based on evidence through the Scientific Method.
This type of Naturalism is narrow. Its domain is confined to the natural, the physical realm.
Can they understand the spiritual realm? Can they understand spiritual truths?
Naturalists are also unable to explain a Creator. Some equate this to the same level as belief in leprechauns. Good correlation? Not even close.
But as I presented in earlier threads they have weaknesses, major fundamental weaknesses. They have no evidence of how this physical realm has come about.
They have no evidence that there is not a Creator.
A Creator of the physical realm would undermine all that they say and believe.
Naturalists here strongly reject the potential of a Creator of this natural world. But they have no evidence.
The origin of this physical world you cannot prove or disprove.
Many commentators are hiding (not disclosing) the speculations (non-factual statements) Naturalists have made through the decades about the origin of this physical world.
One major limitation is there is no evidence that this physical world has always existed. Most all commentators have gotten this.
One major limitation is there is no evidence that this physical world has always existed.
With no evidence about the origin of the physical world you do not have a known foundation in certainty.
You also have no evidence that proves this physical world was not created. This potential is pushed aside by most commentators. Why?
Why do you state leprechauns? Why? Your logic fails you in this reply.
You know that IF this physical realm was created them the attributes of this Creator is immense by what we see around us.
Your own understanding and the Scientific Method cannot prove that this natural realm was not created.
You present jokes but no evidence?
You debate with words but no evidence?
You are learning about how Naturalists have weaknesses and limitations on the fly.
You present jokes but no evidence?
You debate with words but no evidence?
You are learning about how Naturalists have weaknesses and limitations on the fly.
Your posts are making less and less sense by the minute.
That´s not a limitation of naturalism - it´s a limitation all humans have in common.With no evidence about the origin of the physical world you do not have a known foundation in certainty.
That´s why naturalists only study that which allows for evidence.Why? You have no evidence. No proof or evidence about the origin of this physical realm.
Because - as you yourself said - creation vs. non-creation is not the topic of your thread, and you don´t want to discuss it, anyway?You also have no evidence that proves this physical world was not created. This potential is pushed aside by most commentators. Why?
You opened your post by emphasizing that the topic of this thread is not creation or a creator. For some strange reason, however, you time and again push this discussion in this direction. Why is that?Your own understanding and the Scientific Method cannot prove that this natural realm was not created.
Yes, you and I and everyone is completely clueless concerning the question whether the natural realm had an origin and what it was.The origin of the natural realm you cannot prove or disprove.
No, it´s about limitations of human knowledge and investigation.Again, this thread is about the limitations of Naturalism.
This thread is NOT about evidence that there is a Creator. This point must not be clear to many commentators. So many posts say "this does not provide evidence that there is a creator". Again, it is not about proving there is a Creator.
This thread is about the limitations of Naturalism.
One major limitation is there is no evidence that this physical world has always existed. Most all commentators have gotten this.
With no evidence about the origin of the physical world you do not have a known foundation in certainty.
Why? You have no evidence. No proof or evidence about the origin of this physical realm.
You also have no evidence that proves this physical world was not created. This potential is pushed aside by most commentators. Why?
Why do you state leprechauns? Why? Your logic fails you in this reply. You know that IF this physical realm was created then the attributes of this Creator are immense by what we see around us.
Your own understanding and the Scientific Method cannot prove that this natural realm was not created. The origin of the natural realm you cannot prove or disprove.
Again, this thread is about the limitations of Naturalism.