• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Naturalism's Design Argument Against Naturalism.

Ariston

Newbie
Nov 1, 2013
399
24
41
✟23,239.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, thank you all for your thoughts and critiques. Though I did not find the objections to be very compelling, and it still seems to me that my argument if properly understood goes through, I appreciate you all hearing me out.

@KnowtheSilence

Think about your sentence and perhaps yo can see my point,

"But they don't come from the same process. They both come from natural processes, but the processes themselves have differences that allow us to differentiate between them and apply a label to one that we can't apply to the other."

You seem to be saying that what distinguishes the two process that are in one sense the same in that they are both natural is a label. What I want to emphasize is that, if atheism were true, regardless of the label by which you distinguish them, the distinction could not be actual but is rather illusory. That is since on naturalism, if organisms are the result of nature alone, then it is not tenable to think that human thought and action is the result of anything besides nature alone. And if that is true, then the Taj Mahal, your computer, the jet engine, ect. must necessarily be explained as a result of naturalistic processes alone. However, as this is absurd, naturalistic belief is untenable. So then the question that I submit to you is this: Do you think that your responses to me, as well as your computer are merely the result of natural causation alone. If the answer is no, then you have a defeater for naturalistic belief.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 16, 2014
311
106
✟29,822.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You seem to be saying that what distinguishes the two process that are in one sense the same in that they are both natural is a label.
It's not just the label, though. Seeing and hearing are both sense experiences, but you can still make distinctions between the two. The thought process of someone designing something and the process of a species being shaped by natural selection are both natural processes, but you can draw distinctions between the two. These distinctions are deeper than *just* the labels we apply.

What I want to emphasize is that, if atheism were true, regardless of the label by which you distinguish them, the distinction could not be actual but is rather illusory.
Why is the distinction illusory?

That is since on naturalism, if organisms are the result of nature alone, then it is not tenable to think that human thought and action is the result of anything besides nature alone. And if that is true, then the Taj Mahal, your computer, the jet engine, ect. must necessarily be explained as a result of naturalistic processes alone.
Right.

However, as this is absurd, naturalistic belief is untenable.
How is this absurd?

So then the question that I submit to you is this: Do you think that your responses to me, as well as your computer are merely the result of natural causation alone. If the answer is no, then you have a defeater for naturalistic belief.
Yes.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟553,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If a naturalist thinks that we are solely the result of a chemical process and then a long biological process, then it so seems that on the particle level, we are reducible to energy and particles. Now if no single particle has the ability to freely choose, then no cohesion of particles has the ability to freely choose.

Quarks aren't red. Fire trucks are. By your argument, that would make the latter fact require direct intervention by the supernatural. Is this the level of interference in the natural world you're trying to sell?
 
Upvote 0