Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Heissonear]

Heiss,

Your true agenda is pretty obvious and has been exposed. You tried a "backdoor" and it blew up on you. When you engage in a one sided manner and ignore legitimate questions it doesn't do much for credibility.

Background to my agenda/posts:
1. Most commentors are Naturalist on this is specific forum.

2. The Naturalista are possibly on this forum for intentions to overturn Christian ideology who think deity is real and needed, etc.

3. Debating with evidence that Naturalism as the pinnacle of natural understanding about known existence, and no evidence to indicate the supernatural or creator is remotely needed.

4. Since by firsthand experience (I.e. not through a book or person) I know that God exists, by His work from on high of revealing, I would present my experience in life that goes beyond Naturalism (I.e. my first post: God did not set how to become aware of Him per our mind, 5 senses and the Scientific Method - we are not "Saved through Naturalism by the Scientific Method")


True agenda through posts:
1. Define Naturalism

2. Point to the limitations of Naturalism

3. Naturalism is a walk of faith

4. There is a Creator and higher life in our midst

5. It takes a personal "honest investigative questioning" or "try/attempt to know" the "if" a Creator of this massive universe exists. No blind faith, religious doctrine faith, lack of sound logic, superstition, turn to a religion or religious person, deny what we know/the evidences of the physical realm we understand. We add to it the awareness of the spiritual realm and what we spiritually learn.

 

[Loudmouth]

Background to my agenda/posts:
1. Most commentors are Naturalist on this is specific forum.

2. The Naturalista are possibly on this forum for intentions to overturn Christian ideology who think deity is real and needed, etc.

You can believe whatever you want. I am not here to change christian theology or ideology. What I am here to do is point out the major flaws in arguments used by theists when they try to downplay the findings of science.

So far, the only "weakness" that you can point to is that naturalism does not accept every claim as true. We are pointing out that this is actually the strength of naturalism since an epistemology that accepts anything as true is a useless epistemology.

3. Debating with evidence that Naturalism as the pinnacle of natural understanding about known existence, and no evidence to indicate the supernatural or creator is remotely needed.

What supernatural? What creator?

4. Since by firsthand experience (I.e. not through a book or person) I know that God exists, by His work from on high of revealing, I would present my experience in life that goes beyond Naturalism (I.e. my first post: God did not set how to become aware of Him per our mind, 5 senses and the Scientific Method - we are not "Saved through Naturalism by the Scientific Method")

How do you know that you experienced God? People will claim the same for gods you don't believe in, and you will continue on in your disbelief.

3. Naturalism is a walk of faith

Naturalism follows the empirical evidence, the very opposite of faith.

4. There is a Creator and higher life in our midst

Just like there are Leprechauns planting fingerprints at crime scenes since you have been unable to provide evidence demonstrating otherwise.

 

[Davian]

I agree. Hiess, your best option is to get off the point you are trying to get us to agree to and move on to you best evidence, or at least your next talking point/question/lesson.

I think he already presented his best evidence - "personal experience" - back in post #210.

Is that not good enough for you?

 

[Paulos23]

I think he already presented his best evidence - "personal experience" - back in post #210.

Is that not good enough for you?

Personal experience for the existence of God is just that, personal. What is meaningful to Hiess is not nessairaly meaningful to others. I have heard everything to dreams, chance happenings, and frozen waterfalls. Not one bit of it means there is a God to me.

If he wants me to talk his personal experience into consideration, it needs to be in detail and be open to questions. Not saying I will change my mind, but at least I will understand his position more after that.

 

[CabVet]

Personal experience for the existence of God is just that, personal. What is meaningful to Hiess is not nessairaly meaningful to others. I have heard everything to dreams, chance happenings, and frozen waterfalls. Not one bit of it means there is a God to me.

If he wants me to talk his personal experience into consideration, it needs to be in detail and be open to questions. Not saying I will change my mind, but at least I will understand his position more after that.

The one I like the most is near death experiences. Every religions uses them as "evidence" that they are right, yet, people from different religions have near death experiences corresponding to their own religions. If there was such a thing as one "true" religion, all near death experiences would be about that.

 

[quatona]

4. Since by firsthand experience (I.e. not through a book or person) I know that God exists,

 

[bhsmte]

The one I like the most is near death experiences. Every religions uses them as "evidence" that they are right, yet, people from different religions have near death experiences corresponding to their own religions. If there was such a thing as one "true" religion, all near death experiences would be about that.

The mind is a powerful thing!!

 

[KCfromNC]

From personal experience I have found something more than just the natural world.

From personal experience I have found that you owe me $10,000. You have no evidence to prove that this isn't the case. Pay up.

 

[Heissonear]

What supernatural? What creator?


Naturalism follows the empirical evidence, the very opposite of faith.

You are clear. But you have not be honest to yourself.

The evidence provided by naturalism is quite limited. Such as "is there a Creator". Let's see your evidence. And let's see your evidence that the physical realm has always existed.

 

[Heissonear]

Personal experience for the existence of God is just that, personal. What is meaningful to Hiess is not nessairaly meaningful to others. I have heard everything to dreams, chance happenings, and frozen waterfalls. Not one bit of it means there is a God to me.

If he wants me to talk his personal experience into consideration, it needs to be in detail and be open to questions. Not saying I will change my mind, but at least I will understand his position more after that.

It takes personal experience. But you need to go straight to the source.

Who provides the evidence? Who are you really wanting evidence from? "If" He exist then then don't take second hand word.

 

[Heissonear]

[/QUOTE]

Objective through posts:

3. Naturalism is a walk of faith


5. It takes a personal "honest investigative questioning" or "try/attempt to know" the "if" a Creator of this massive universe exists. No blind faith, religious doctrine faith, lack of sound logic, superstition, turn to a religion or religious person, deny what we know/the evidences of the physical realm we understand. We add to it the awareness of the spiritual realm and what we spiritually learn.
[/QUOTE]



Item 5 is rational when item 3 is understood. We are not talking about proving our position before others.

Many think that evidence from "personal experience" is error.

It is not if you go to the source. What "if" He is - and He reveals Himself?

You have taken other people's word for this subject too long. And all you have done is rationalize if there could be a Creator. No much firsthand knowing. All mental comprehension and hearing other peoples words. And you think you now have the answer? You have fallen short, even to yourself.

 

[Heissonear]

Have become use to "hearing about" and lack firsthand understanding? You have never went to the source yourself? You deem such foolish? Who is foolish after all, if no honest effort on your part has been performed?

Watching and commenting from the sidelines?

 

[Tomk80]

Objective through posts:

3. Naturalism is a walk of faith

As has been pointed out multiple times, and you'll ignore this as you have all the other times, it is not. It is a recognition of our limitations as humans.

5. It takes a personal "honest investigative questioning" or "try/attempt to know" the "if" a Creator of this massive universe exists. No blind faith, religious doctrine faith, lack of sound logic, superstition, turn to a religion or religious person, deny what we know/the evidences of the physical realm we understand. We add to it the awareness of the spiritual realm and what we spiritually learn.

Indeed, it takes honest, investigative questioning. No blind faith, no religion etc. That is why evidence is important.

Item 5 is rational when item 3 is understood. We are not talking about proving our position before others.

And both lead naturally to the conclusion that naturalism is the best way of gaining knowledge, given that it recognizes our personal limitations and deals with them.

Many think that evidence from "personal experience" is error.

It is not if you go to the source. What "if" He is - and He reveals Himself?

How do you go to the source. How do you know it is the source and not some personal delusion? If other people go to thie "source" and come to differing conclusions, how do you know which is correct?

You have taken other people's word for this subject too long. And all you have done is rationalize if there could be a Creator. No much firsthand knowing. All mental comprehension and hearing other peoples words. And you think you now have the answer? You have fallen short, even to yourself.

And this is again a blatant misrepresentation (given the many times this has been pointed out, I'd argue a dishonest one as well). And it is self-contradictory. I have not taken other people's word for it, I have looked at the evidence that is there and evaluated it and found no evidence for the existence of a creator.

And hypocrisy of all hypocrisies, because I have not arrived at the same conclusion you did, you suddenly think I should take your ideas at face value? Hypocrite.

 

[Heissonear]

From personal experience I have found that you owe me $10,000. You have no evidence to prove that this isn't the case. Pay up.

Wrong origin of source of the experience.

You have witnessed many things and did not have to make it up what you experienced.

You still think negative about personal experience and "God". You have second hand experience knowledge, no firsthand understanding. You appear to never been with yourself on this subject. No honest real effort on your part to know "if" He exists.

 

[Heissonear]

Just out of curiosity, is it a coincidence that your location is relatively close to the Institute of creation research?

Know of them but no association or contacting them.

 

[quatona]

Watching and commenting from the sidelines?

Well, I have responded quite seriously and exhaustively before - only to learn that you ignored those posts altogether.
You are correct: Seeing pages and pages of the methods and strategies you use in these discussions has ruined my will to engage in serious discourse with you.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Know of them but no association or contacting them.

OK, further 'just out of curiosity' questions:

What is your native language?

Are you going to claim to be a geology teacher?

 

[Heissonear]

As has been pointed out multiple times, and you'll ignore this as you have all the other times, it is not. It is a recognition of our limitations as humans.


Hypocrite.

Thanks for the compliment.

Yes, you and a few other Fundamental Naturalists have pointed out "multiple times". It is not ignored. It is simply wrong.

It is a human limitation. But again, it is a Fundamental Naturalism limitation. The best you can logically state is up to apparent age of the cosmos, some 15 billion years ago. Short of evidence to that 1 billion year point but I'll give it to you.

Does the physical realm continue to exist? Now add time eternity, not just 15 billion short years. Does the physical realm continue to exist? Any evidence?

So you call me a possible hypocrite since faith is required? Come on Tom.

 

[Tomk80]

Thanks for the compliment.

Yes, you and a few other Fundamental Naturalists have pointed out "multiple times". It is not ignored. It is simply wrong.

You keep asserting that, you have yet to support that in any way, shape or form.

It is a human limitation. But again, it is a Fundamental Naturalism limitation. The best you can logically state is up to apparent age of the cosmos, some 15 billion years ago. Short of evidence to that 1 billion year point but I'll give it to you.

And? Again, why is recognizing our limitations a bad thing? Could you give a straight answer to that question? For once?

Does the physical realm continue to exist? Now add time eternity, not just 15 billion short years. Does the physical realm continue to exist? Any evidence?

We don't know. How is recognizing that we do not know a bad thing? How is making something up instead better? Could give a straight answer to that question? For once?

So you call me a possible hypocrite since faith is required? Come on Tom.

I call you a hypocrite because you keep saying that we should accept your personal experience as some sort of evidence, but you simultaneously dismiss our personal experience, or those of others who believe differently from you, because it is not in line with your own personal experience. That is hypocritical. I at least have no other word to describe that behavior of yours. You don't want me to call you a hypocrite. Stop acting hypocritically.

Then, if we ask you how we can find out which of these personal experiences is actually true, you keep ignoring that question. Again and again. And that is downright dishonest. You don't want me to call you dishonest? Start acting honestly.

 

[Heissonear]

OK, further 'just out of curiosity' questions:

What is your native language?

Are you going to claim to be a geology teacher?

Mr. Strawberry,

The matter of Naturalism is not a "the messenger" issue. It is not a "qualification" issue.

Out of a state university I worked 18 years for a company with over 40,000 employees and currently 14 years and adding for a company with over 50,000 employees. The entire employment has been in the oil & gas industry. The last 14 years has been in research. Current title is Staff Scientist. Current assignments in microseismic of hydraulic fractures in global shale plays, with emphasis on sweet spot identification within hydrocarbon rich shales. I currently have 55 US Patents and numerous pending and 28 magazine, journal, and technical conference papers. I work intricately with scientists of all backgrounds.

Now, let me hear about you. If you would.