Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Once again, even if your asinine non-argument against naturalism were granted, the fact remains that 'supernaturalism' is still epistemologically vacuous.

So,

How do you reliably glean information about the 'supernatural'?

By what means or methodology do you demonstrate this information?

How do you discern 'supernatural' information from something you may merely be imagining?

How does your audience discern 'supernatural' information from something you made up?

I look forward to your answers.

Ten pages later... still waiting.

 

[Heissonear]

Once again, even if your asinine non-argument against naturalism were granted, the fact remains that 'supernaturalism' is still epistemologically vacuous.

So,

Ten pages later... still waiting.

"The fact remains that "supernaturalism" is still epistemologically vacuous."

Nice try, once again. What an answer for a real look at the weaknesses and limitations of Naturalism. The foundation of Naturalism is based on faith: NO EVIDENCE to say what you apply the Scientific Method to WAS NOT CREATED.

The whole foundation of Naturalism is one of trust and faith. So you have built your "evidence-based knowledge" of this world from matter and natural properties that were created.

You have no proof otherwise.

Back to square one of this thread. You avoid the major limitations of Naturalism. That can undermine all that you "factually state".

No evidence of origin makes Naturalists walk by faith.

Many Naturalists on this forum need to ponder and face up to this. Enough diversion to other subject matters, please.

It's been 29 pages and I'm still waiting.

You have forgotten that I've been raised and academically trained in Naturalism. I understand Naturalism. And understand when others dodge its major limitations.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

"The fact remains that "supernaturalism" is still epistemologically vacuous."

Nice try, once again. What an answer for a real look at the weaknesses and limitations of Naturalism. The foundation of Naturalism is based on faith: NO EVIDENCE to say what you apply the Scientific Method to WAS NOT CREATED.

Naked assertion and burden of proof fallacy.

The whole foundation of Naturalism is one of trust and faith.

Naked assertion.

Also, it's hilarious and very telling when the faithful use 'faith' as a putdown. By all means, keep it up.

So you have built your "evidence-based knowledge" of this world from matter and natural properties that were created.

Naked assertion.

You have no proof otherwise.

Naked assertion and burden of proof fallacy.

No evidence of origin makes Naturalists walk by faith.

Naked assertion.

Enough diversion to other subject matters, please.

It's been 29 pages and I'm still waiting.

You have 29 pages of responses. You have yet to reply substantially to a single one. The only thing you've done in this entire thread is restate the same naked assertions over and over.

You have forgotten that I've been raised and academically trained in Naturalism. I understand Naturalism.

You might understand it at a superficial level, though I've seen no evidence that you do. More to the point, though, your comprehensive lack of reasoning skills has kept you from actually presenting a coherent case against it.

And understand when others dodge its major limitations...

Back to square one of this thread. You avoid the major limitations of Naturalism. That can undermine all that you "factually state"... Many Naturalists on this forum need to ponder and face up to this...

Once again, even if I allow the absolute best case for you - accepting every rectally extracted naked assertion you've made here, and ignoring your blatant attempt to shirk your burden of proof - 'supernaturalism' is still epistemologically vacuous.

So now is your chance to remedy that fact,

How do you reliably glean information about the 'supernatural'?

By what means or methodology do you demonstrate this information?

How do you discern 'supernatural' information from something you may merely be imagining?

How does your audience discern 'supernatural' information from something you made up?

I still look forward to your answers. Remember not to steal any epistemological groundwork from naturalism when you provide them, lest you internally contradict yourself.

 

[pjnlsn]

"The fact remains that "supernaturalism" is still epistemologically vacuous."

Nice try, once again. What an answer for a real look at the weaknesses and limitations of Naturalism. The foundation of Naturalism is based on faith: NO EVIDENCE to say what you apply the Scientific Method to WAS NOT CREATED.

The whole foundation of Naturalism is one of trust and faith. So you have built your "evidence-based knowledge" of this world from matter and natural properties that were created.

You have no proof otherwise.

Back to square one of this thread. You avoid the major limitations of Naturalism. That can undermine all that you "factually state".

No evidence of origin makes Naturalists walk by faith.

Many Naturalists on this forum need to ponder and face up to this. Enough diversion to other subject matters, please.

It's been 29 pages and I'm still waiting.

You have forgotten that I've been raised and academically trained in Naturalism. I understand Naturalism. And understand when others dodge its major limitations.

It is still true that 'Naturalism' is more likely, in that the existence of any deity is unlikely and unproven.

 

[BarryDesborough]

It is still true that 'Naturalism' is more likely, in that the existence of any deity is unlikely and unproven.

The true picture could be anything at all. It is possible that an Intelligent Entity from Dimension Lambda to the Power of the Root of Minus One did create our universe, even creating it in six days, 6,000 years ago, if that's what floats your boat. It is also possible that the Mutant Star-Goat sneezed the universe out of His Nasal Passages, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster touched us all with His Noodly Appendage.

But in the absence of evidence, it's nuts to believe any of it.

 

[BarryDesborough]

"The fact remains that "supernaturalism" is still epistemologically vacuous."

Nice try, once again. What an answer for a real look at the weaknesses and limitations of Naturalism. The foundation of Naturalism is based on faith: NO EVIDENCE to say what you apply the Scientific Method to WAS NOT CREATED.

The whole foundation of Naturalism is one of trust and faith. So you have built your "evidence-based knowledge" of this world from matter and natural properties that were created.

You have no proof otherwise.

Back to square one of this thread. You avoid the major limitations of Naturalism. That can undermine all that you "factually state".

No evidence of origin makes Naturalists walk by faith.

Many Naturalists on this forum need to ponder and face up to this. Enough diversion to other subject matters, please.

It's been 29 pages and I'm still waiting.

You have forgotten that I've been raised and academically trained in Naturalism. I understand Naturalism. And understand when others dodge its major limitations.

You could try making sense, then I would be able to engage you in discussion.

 

[pjnlsn]

The true picture could be anything at all. It is possible that an Intelligent Entity from Dimension Lambda to the Power of the Root of Minus One did create our universe, even creating it in six days, 6,000 years ago, if that's what floats your boat. It is also possible that the Mutant Star-Goat sneezed the universe out of His Nasal Passages, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster touched us all with His Noodly Appendage.

But in the absence of evidence, it's nuts to believe any of it.

indeed!

 

[bhsmte]

"You could try making sense, then I would be able to engage you in discussion."

Don't hold your breath on this one, we have had 29 pages of this and I'm sure more to come.

 

[BarryDesborough]

"You could try making sense, then I would be able to engage you in discussion."

Don't hold your breath on this one, we have had 29 pages of this and I'm sure more to come.

"Vogon poetry is of course the third worst in the Universe. The second worst is that of the Azgoths of Kria. During a recitation by their Poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent of his poem "Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning" four of his audience members died of internal hemorrhaging, and the President of the Mid-Galactic Arts Nobbling Council only survived by gnawing one of his own legs off. Grunthos is reported to have been "disappointed" by the poem's reception, and was about to embark on a reading of his twelve-book epic entitled My Favorite Bathtime Gurgles when his own major intestine, in a desperate attempt to save life and civilization, leaped straight up through his neck and throttled his brain. The very worst poetry of all perished along with its creator, Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings of Greenbridge, Essex, England,[2] in the destruction of the planet Earth." - Douglas Adams, HHGttG

 

[Johnnz]

The true picture could be anything at all. It is possible that an Intelligent Entity from Dimension Lambda to the Power of the Root of Minus One did create our universe, even creating it in six days, 6,000 years ago, if that's what floats your boat. It is also possible that the Mutant Star-Goat sneezed the universe out of His Nasal Passages, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster touched us all with His Noodly Appendage.

But in the absence of evidence, it's nuts to believe any of it.

Your parody of religious belief aside, naturalism has its own faith basis. For your ilk reason is the prime arbiter of all 'truth'. That raises two issues. a) How do you justify reason apart from using reason without that becoming a circular argument? b) There is an assumption that reason is sufficient to discover and compile all that is knowable. But what if reason has limitations? Philosophers recognise the difference between fact based information and personal knowledge. Michael Polanyi has exposed the fallacy of a truly objective science, social constructivism relativises all knowledge. Maybe, at some point, science will undeniably point to a Creator? That's possible.

John
NZ

 

[BarryDesborough]

Your parody of religious belief aside, naturalism has its own faith basis. Reason is the prime arbiter or all 'truth'. That raises two issues. a) How do you justify reason apart from using reason without that becoming a circular argument? b) There is an assumption that reason is sufficient to discover and compile all that there is knowable. But what if reason has limitations? Philosophers recognise the difference between fact based information and personal knowledge. Michale Polanyi has exposed the fallacy of a truly objective science, social constructivism relativises all knowledge. Maybe, at some point, science will undeniably point to a Creator? That's possible.

John
NZ

What's the alternative? Sacrificing goats and divining the "truth" from their entrails?

 

[Johnnz]

What's the alternative? Sacrificing goats and divining the "truth" from their entrails?

Straw man. How about a decent reply?

John
NZ

 

[Heissonear]

Understanding the origin of matter and natural processes by:

1. No evidence

2. Speculation

3. Leaning on a persons brain

4. Believe in a cause-effect where a Creator is needed as the initial cause

Which defines your position and belief about origin of the physical realm?

 

[Tomk80]

Understanding the origin of matter and natural processes by:

1. No evidence

2. Speculation

3. Leaning on a persons brain

4. Believe in a cause-effect where a Creator is needed as the initial cause

Which defines your position and belief about origin of the physical realm?

None of the above.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Straw man. How about a decent reply?

John
NZ

How about explaining why you think it's a strawman, or even - here's a radical idea - answering?

 

[Johnnz]

Why won't you answer the two issues I raised? They suggested a lens through which you view things, and that leans might well be inadequate. Up to you to show otherwise.

John
NZ

 

[BarryDesborough]

Why won't you answer the two issues I raised? They suggested a lens through which you view things, and that leans might well be inadequate. Up to you to show otherwise.

John
NZ

Who are you posting to? Try using the "Quote" feature.

 

[pjnlsn]

Why won't you answer the two issues I raised? They suggested a lens through which you view things, and that leans might well be inadequate. Up to you to show otherwise.

John
NZ

Does what you wrote matter? Suggestions are many, as well as things that "might" be the case.

 

[Johnnz]

Does what you wrote matter? Suggestions are many, as well as things that "might" be the case.

Does that not apply to your position too?

John
NZ

 

[Johnnz]

Who are you posting to? Try using the "Quote" feature.

Herewith
Originally Posted by Johnnz

Why won't you answer the two issues I raised? They suggested a lens through which you view things, and that lens might well be inadequate. Up to you to show otherwise.

John
NZ
​