Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Heissonear]

As I said before, 'Naturalism,' if I know what you mean is likely in that the existence of, say, a deity of any sort is unlikely and unproven.

Read the first part of The Naturalist thread for conventional meaning.

 

[Johnnz]

Nothing unusual, the ordinary definition.

Do you read and understand posts, or just pick out phrases to make your glib statements? I have given areas all with different 'proofs' or basis for acceptance.

If you want some scientific 'proof' for the supernatural (ie beyond/above nature) then by definition you must look elsewhere, as science cannot do that.

John
NZ

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If you have a prior assumption about the non existence of the supernatural you will not accept the limitations of your 'rational' approach.

I have no such prior assumption. That is precisely the point of asking these questions.

Neither personal knowledge i.e. knowledge of another person which cannot be 'proved' or in most cases even known,

Knowledge that can't be demonstrated is indistinguishable from imagination, or lying.

nor historical knowledge is fully accessible by the rationality of the naturalist position.

You'll have to clarify 'historical knowledge'.

Judicially, we accept the testimony of witnesses.

Which is a terrible problem with our judicial system, especially in cases where it is the entire basis for prosecution. It has been the source of countless horror stories of wrongful conviction.

'Eyewitness testimony' is just about the weakest of all forms of evidence. I can easily accept it for banal claims, but I don't accept it as evidence for extraordinary claims.

Neither do you. You don't believe Muhammad had visions of Jehenna. You don't believe Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni. You don't believe mystics in the slums of Calcutta can cure disease through 'chakra alignment'.

Christian belief in the supernatural is a combination of historical data, deduction from the material world such as its complexity, personal experience and the worldview Christian belief gives to us. particularly and specifically centered in Jesus as God's most significant communication with humanity.

Unlike the OP, you seem inclined to answer these questions sincerely and honestly. Could you take each of them in turn?

 

[pjnlsn]

Do you read and understand posts, or just pick out phrases to make your glib statements? I have given areas all with different 'proofs' or basis for acceptance.

If you want some scientific 'proof' for the supernatural (ie beyond/above nature) then by definition you must look elsewhere, as science cannot do that.

John
NZ

Proof of a deity?

Well, as I said, a valid (i.e. complete) one i've never seen.

 

[pjnlsn]

Read the first part of The Naturalist thread for conventional meaning.

There doesn't seem to be anything specific there

 

[Johnnz]

My replies are in bold

I have no such prior assumption. That is precisely the point of asking these questions.

OK. I have more than once stated that different subject matter requires different criteria for assessment. I am not sure what assumptions are behind your naturalism, but my understanding of that position is generally a denial or agnostic stance of much beyond the material.

Christianity is rooted in History and supremely in Jesus. It is not primarily a philosophical formulation of 'truths' as such. Basic to Christian belief is the inadequacy of the unaided human intellect to get anywhere near comprehending God. We are too small to grasp much of the infinite without Divine help. Augustine stated it "I believe in order to know". That is in total contrast to the post enlightenment story that many moderns, until more recent times, accepted as a matter of course.

Knowledge that can't be demonstrated is indistinguishable from imagination, or lying.

Not necessarily. When I say "I enjoyed that wine. The blackberry and tannin were in nice balance' there is no way you can objectively 'prove' that. But according to you I must be lying or suffering from some imaginative episode.

You'll have to clarify 'historical knowledge'.

Well, do you accept the American Civil War, Napolean's defeat at Waterloo, or that the Roman Empire existed?

Which is a terrible problem with our judicial system, especially in cases where it is the entire basis for prosecution. It has been the source of countleess horror stories of wrongful conviction.

Eyewitness testimony' is just about the weakest of all forms of evidence. I can easily accept it for banal claims, but I don't accept it as evidence for extraordinary claims.

Are you suggesting that eyewitness accounts should be banned from Judicial hearings as they are useless? Or, that all eyewitness accounts are unreliable because some are inaccurate? Remember, our justice system incorporates eyewitness accounts as a standard form of witness.


Neither do you. You don't believe Muhammad had visions of Jehenna. You don't believe Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni. You don't believe mystics in the slums of Calcutta can cure disease through 'chakra alignment'.

Please don't make assumptions about what I believe.

Unlike the OP, you seem inclined to answer these questions sincerely and honestly. Could you take each of them in turn?

I trust that is sequential enough for you to consider.

John
NZ

 

[pjnlsn]

My replies are in bold



I trust that is sequential enough for you to consider.

John
NZ

And yet, and as is closer to the issue, there's no proof of any sort of deity. Nor is such likely. (Even as many of us do and have believed)

 

[Johnnz]

And yet, and as is closer to the issue, there's no proof of any sort of deity. Nor is such likely. (Even as many of us do and have believed)

I'm sorry. Your thinking is stuck in a groove. There is no engagement of concepts. I'll stop with you for now.

Best wishes

John
NZ

 

[Heissonear]

Yes.

A naked assertion, also called a bald or bare assertion, is an arbitrary statement of truth that is bereft of support.

Ipse dixit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's just about the most basic fallacy one can commit, and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you're unfamiliar with the concept, given that you commit it at least once in just about every post you've made in this thread.

I not only tried, I succeeded, and you're about to prove me right by committing the exact fallacies I accused you of.

This is still a naked assertion. Got it?

This is still a naked assertion and a burden of proof fallacy. Got it?

Of course you don't. You never learned basic reasoning skills, which is why you're about to repeat a number of logical fallacies:

Naked assertion.

Naked assertion.

Naked assertion and burden of proof fallacy.

Again, you have a strange notion of exactly who is making a fool of himself in this discussion.

Naked assertion.

I agree, no more diversion from you. There is not a single thing you've said here that you didn't already say before and that wasn't already refuted.

You have no evidence about the origin of physical matter. No evidence that it was not created. No proof that matter has always existed. No proof about one or the other: that means zero evidence.

As a Naturalist you stand and walk by faith. The matter we are composed of has a possibility of being Created. You cannot disprove this by evidence. You have no evidence about the origin of matter and its physical properties. Zero evidence.

Naturalists try to hide this reality. They say instead "we have no way of knowing since we have no evidence."

Hiding the truth about Naturalists walk by faith. It takes a former Naturalist to present this massive weakness.

 

[pjnlsn]

I'm sorry. Your thinking is stuck in a groove. There is no engagement of concepts. I'll stop with you for now.

Best wishes

John
NZ

And?

If you think you've presented a possible proof or something which makes the existence of any sort of deity the likeliest option, then your thinking is stuck in the gutter, while mine may be stuck in some sort of 'groove.'

 

[pjnlsn]

You have no evidence about the origin of physical matter. No evidence that it was not created. No proof that matter has always existed. No proof about one or the other: that means zero evidence.

As a Naturalist you stand and walk by faith. The matter we are composed of has a possibility of being Created. You cannot disprove this by evidence. You have no evidence about the origin of matter and its physical properties. Zero evidence.

Naturalists try to hide this reality. They say instead "we have no way of knowing since we have no evidence."

Hiding the truth about Naturalists walk by faith. It takes a former Naturalist to present this massive weakness.

It's not that it's impossible, just that it's unlikely. And certainly unproven.

 

[bhsmte]

You have no evidence about the origin of physical matter. No evidence that it was not created. No proof that matter has always existed. No proof about one or the other: that means zero evidence.

As a Naturalist you stand and walk by faith. The matter we are composed of has a possibility of being Created. You cannot disprove this by evidence. You have no evidence about the origin of matter and its physical properties. Zero evidence.

Naturalists try to hide this reality. They say instead "we have no way of knowing since we have no evidence."

Hiding the truth about Naturalists walk by faith. It takes a former Naturalist to present this massive weakness.

Heiss,

This has all been addressed and questions to you have been ignored. Repeating the samething, while ignoring questions asked of you, is not the way to progress a discussion.

 

[Johnnz]

Heiss,

This has all been addressed and questions to you have been ignored. Repeating the samething, while ignoring questions asked of you, is not the way to progress a discussion.

Much the same from your side too.

John
NZ

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I've read about 10 pages in this thread, and my only question is... Matt Mariott, is that you?

 

[bhsmte]

Much the same from your side too.

John
NZ

Please give examples.

 

[durangodawood]

Give it up, people.

If there's a "walk of faith" going on here, its that sooner or later Heiss is gonna see the light and address the actual content of your objections.

 

[pjnlsn]

Give it up, people.

If there's a "walk of faith" going on here, its that sooner or later Heiss is gonna see the light and address the actual content of your objections.

i expect so

 

[Tomk80]

Much the same from your side too.

John
NZ

Which of his questions have I ignored? Tell me, and I'll give an answer.

 

[KCfromNC]

Enough diversion. This is about Naturalists and Naturalism. Got it?

Hey, you're the one who was pretending that subjective experience or personal revelation was a valid alternative. Why so upset that people want to explore that claim? No need to get all defensive if you can't answer my questions - no one is perfect.

There is NO EVIDENCE that what is applied to the Scientific Method WAS NOT CREATED. Got it?

There is NO EVIDENCE that you don't owe me $10,000. Got it?

 

[Heissonear]

Give it up, people.

If there's a "walk of faith" going on here, its that sooner or later Heiss is gonna see the light and address the actual content of your objections.

"Move along, nothing to see here"

Just that the foundation of Naturalism is based on faith, that's all!

You cannot prove otherwise.

Of course you want to move on. Your foundation has been exposed.

To say the least you have some serious problems continuing your dogmatic evidence only "proof please" push toward Christians on this forum.

Ad hominem is an age old debate tactic. Sweeping major issues under the rug is another.

Debate tactics do not win over truth seekers.

The very elements we are composed of have been created. And you have no evidence otherwise. Just jokes, opinions, and fairy tale bent perception of a Creator. You make it a point to exclude Him at all cost and every opportunity.

Your weaknesses are being exposed.