Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound

Post Reply New Topic

So you don't accept the proposition that 'one cannot prove that something does not exist', that many (though certainly not all) atheists like to remind us of. Good. Neither do I accept it.



'Studying nature' is just that - studying nature. When one studies nature, one confines oneself to the study of the physical reality many of us believe began with a bang. God does not exist within this 'nature' you seem to believe science rules out the possibility of. God isn't natural. How could it be, if it is ultimately responsible for the natural realm in the first place? What kind of 'evidence' would convince you that God was real anyway? Any at all? Physical evidence is, in any case and in spite of what creationists may say, completely irrelevant to the question of how and why there is what there is, for it goes without saying that whatever it was (or is) that is ultimately responsible for the universe and all we know, it could not have been, or be, something that is limited by it in any conceivable way.



Full of holes? Could you provide examples, because the ones you provide are not what you seem to think they are. An infinite regress of physical events actually IS impossible, for if our universe had no beginning because it was temporally eternal, we would not now be here in this moment of time, because there would stretch behind us eternity. An actually infinite number of events cannot be traversed, because it would take an infinite amount of time to do so. Then of course there is the ever-increasing level of disorder (entropy) that gives time its directionality, and which clearly tells us that there could not stretch an infinite amount of time in the past. Olber's Paradox tells us why the night sky is black, rather than white-hot, which would be the case in a (literally) past-eternal universe.

'Deity' is not assumed in the Leibnizian Argument; it merely comes to the conclusion, based upon the premises given, that there simply must be an explanation for why there is what there is. This explanation need not be any deistic 'god'. In other words, it merely establishes that the universe is not inexplicable, did NOT just magically pop into existence from literally nothing, and for no reason.



Postulating a 'causeless deity' is not a leap, of faith or anything else, because reason and simple logic tell us that if a 'deity' (i.e. ultimate source of being, foundation of reality - call it what you will) exists, it would have to be, by definition, transcendent to the natural realm and therefore atemporal. To believe in a 'god' that came to be via some kind of mechanism or whatnot, would be more than utterly pointless. No one believes in created gods, as the Oxford mathematician John Lennox likes to point out whenever he can.



So this is the 'big one', is it? The very best argument for atheism, is it? I really hope not, because it's about as lame an argument as one can have.
First of all, you haven't even hinted at what kind of 'evidence' you would accept as being sufficient to convince you that God was real. Secondly, and as I stated before, it's not about (physical) evidence (which, by the way, is almost always open to subjective interpretation anyway), but about what is logically compelling and reasonable to believe given a particular set of circumstances. Thirdly, 'absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence', as the cliche goes. Even if I utterly fail to convince anyone of anything here, and my arguments fall apart, all that will demonstrate is that I haven't convincingly presented my case.



No, we don't 'dismiss' arguments, we try to effectively demonstrate why they don't work. You have not done this, so I look forward to your attempts to do so

The scientific method is not all there is though. That was one of the points I raised earlier. Do you realise that many scientific discoveries were actually made via means other than the method you seem to think is the most important thing in the world? Intuition, inspiration and even dreams have all played their role. Beauty too.

'Science can however falsify religious claims about the natural wotld...' - Yes, it can, but so what? There are many claims it cannot be used to falsify. I'm not concerned with religion in any case, but whether or not a case can be made for the claim that logical positivism is a philosophical paradigm that one should never accept due to its self-destructive tendencies. Religion is for the plebs, the mindless masses who care more about the Kardashians than about the things that really matter.

Science can only explain what we can observe and understand to-date.

I think it is ridiculous to think that we have the ability to perceive everything that exists. For some reason, people seem to buy into this notion that if we cannot perceive it, it doesn't exist.

Science constantly provides new ways to observe new things. Who knows? Perhaps one day we will discover a proof of the existence of God - something we can finally perceive. But to think that it doesn't exist NOW because we can't see it is misguided.

It wasn't too long ago when we learned that there are sounds and colors beyond normal (unaided by technology) human perception.

Yeah, I used to be a 'PASTAfarian most of the days too..

But truly, per the general concept of Rastafarian ways of Christian-like philosophy, in practice, with a so-called original gnostic context, are relatively speaking great compared to modern Christianity, as 'it' focuses on the Now of 'Heaven' on this Terrestrial Earth, as an achievable result now IN REAL LIFE PRACTICE.

And while I do not agree that 'they' have THE ONE SON OF GOD BACK IN BLACK OR WHATEVER, or the still homomophic patriarchal leaning beliefs, THEY do tend to keep the common sense of the so-called Gnostic Thomas Gospel of Jesus THAT REALITY IS real, GOD IS ALL NATURAL, AND LIVES WITHIN HUMAN BEING AS WELL as outside, above and so below, and so-called heaven CAN BE NOW, FOR FOLKS WHO MASTER MIND AND BODY BALANCE NOW, AND not in some fairy tale of gift of heaven after life for repeating JOHN 3:16, and having to exclaim one believes it literally, as such, to get a TICKET SOMEWHERE OUT OF REALITY, AFTER DEATH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari_movement

While death is a reality, the fear of death is an unnecessary illusory fear, for those who have mastery in human relative free will over mind and body balance.

Truly, for all practical intents and purposes, in life without fear of death, death does not exist in life.

And obviously, that SEEMS TO BE what the real so-called Gnostic Jesus dude meant when he states humans can escape death.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

Sure they can, with a mind and body balanced to extinguish the fear of death, instead, to never truly experience death in life.

And sadly, most humans do not take the time and effort to cultivate and grow human relative free will through physical intelligence to regulate human emotions and thoughts to do JUST THAT.

I AM NOT afraid of death, as it simply NEVER ENTERS MY MIND.

I CONTROL THAT AS I FOR ONE have developed the relative human free will to do JUST THAT.

And on top of that I've been TO MUCH worse places than death, documented as such, where the wish for death was my only salvation for a pain of numbness of life much worse than pain, even so-called ETERNAL HELL FIRE PAIN.

DEATH IS A GIFT, I for one, have NO FEAR OF AT ALL.

AND THAT'S an excellent place to truly live ALWAYS NOW..

AND for people who are afraid of death, where only fairy tales work to extinguish that fear, more power to 'em as fear s**KS MUCH, MUCH, more than myths.

Yeah, I am quite choosy over which aspects of any theology floating around my head I'm willing to subscribe to. I'm only willing to look at monotheism as a diffuse presence rather than a hovering metropolis made of jewels & expensive dead things hiding behind the next cloud, hence my Rasta leanings. I prioritize herbal meditation over idol worship, although I must admit Haile Selassie was a very impressive guy. Same goes for polytheistic mythos; all religions at their cores are about anthropomorphizing nature, which reflexively is what nature did to bring humanity about.

Truly, it's just common sense and requires NO modern schooling to attain this all natural philosophy of life.

Humans all barefoot and naked with unshaved bodies, dirty, cold and huddled with the warmth of each other CAN easily determine what the truth is.

The truth is an Interdependent relationship of all that is IN connection.

It's that simple.

Modern society takes 'us' away from that and leads to all kinds of bizarre illusions separating many of 'us' at core of what WE CAN be in flow WITH nature, as just part of the whole, and a fractal reflection of the whole too.

I mean, 'DUH', even a wave 'knows' that, without any sentience, AT ALL, per above so below, IN PARTICLES OF WAVES TOO..

I FOR ONE, choose to LIVE WITH THE 'FIELD', INSTEAD of against 'it', in TRUE FIELDS OF human DREAMS COME TRUTH.

AND THAT IS SOMETHING our so-called 'primitive ancestors', who still live today, PRACTICE IN THE RAIN FORESTS OF TRUTH, TOO..

And in regard of 'THAT' my favorite 'NEW AGE' illustration of JUST THAT
PER THE 'Emerald Forest'..



That's the way I like it baby, all natural, All FREE LIVING WITH NATURE AND CONNECTING WITH OTHER HUMANS IN FLESH AND BLOOD CONNECTIONS, in ecstatic trance dance, JUST LIKE MY FLORIDA 'NATIVE FRIENDS', WHO DO STILL RAVE DANCE WITH ME!

AND I'VE NEVER ever felt any younger, in both strength and grace; subjectively and empirically assessed as such.

To be free IS NICE and POTENTIALLY LITERALLY DIVINE in metaphor of course, too..

TO LIVE IN CHAINS OF CULTURE, JUST s**KS, in my opinion, including mechanized GRADE SCHOOL science limiting ways of thought, WITHOUT TRULY CREATIVE ART, WITHOUT AN INSTRUCTION BOOKLET, PAMPHLET, OR YouTube Video..

i GUIDE my SELF, as I ego, per i me, with a little !spiritual! help from 'my friends', and Mother Nature TRUTH..

Unfortunately also organized religion has done a lot to say that the only truth of the holy books of the west is the most simple and literal. That tends to lead people of this mindset to then see anything more philosophically complex as the results of apology.

No, I do accept it, philosophically.

I think you can prove that prayer is no better than placebo, and therefore that no god is answering prayers. Therefore, the Christian God, who answers prayers, doesn't exist. This is convincing evidence for the non-existence of God, but not "proof" as such.

So, when you study the real world, you find nothing to convince you that God exists. Why, then, would anyone ever believe in God? QED.

Evidence that would convince me of God's existence:

- Booming voice from the heavens.
- Reliable answers to prayer
- Unbelievers being struck down
- A holy book that accurately recorded historical events such as the evolution of life in such a way that people of the time it was written could not have known (or, if you like, genetic, geological, palaeontological and biogeographic evidence which supported the Genesis account)
- A natural occurrence which could not be explained (for example, if that flagella or the woodpecker's tongue really were irreducibly complex)

I could probably give you some more with a little thought. Now, if I may reverse the question - what would convince you there is no intervening deity?

Your bolded logic can just as easily be applied to an Eternal God... It's quite obviously rubbish. If you were right, then nothing would ever exist in an infinite universe.

Entropy doesn't give time its direction. If anything, the reverse is true. However, you are making assumptions. We don't know that point singularities don't just sometimes (extremely rarely, but law of truly large numbers...) occur within existing universes. We don't know that the universe hasn't eternally oscillated between expansion and contraction, allowing the basic forces of the universe to overcome entropy.


No, at best it shows that there is ultimately a "cause" for the universe that does not rely on any other cause. That need not be a "necessary being", which Leibniz leaps to. Indeed, it might just be a "magical pop".


Lots of people believe in created gods! You don't even have to think for very long to come up with examples. Mars is the son of Jupiter, Jupiter is the son of Saturn, and Saturn is the son of Caelus. The same is true of their Greek equivalents. There are created Norse gods, Egyptian gods, Hindu gods...

Moreover, if something is atemporal, it cannot move between states - it cannot go from "creating" to "creator". It cannot interfere with our world. Most deities are held to do so, including the Christian God.

If you want to postulate a Prime Mover with no other qualities traditionally associated with deities, then by all means - but we've no reason to believe that it is a conscious Prime Mover, or a supernatural one.


Fine, then believe in unicorns, 9/11 conspiracies, the tooth fairy, twelve-legged elephants, microscopic chocolate teapots orbiting very close to the sun, and invisible dragons in your office. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right?

The fact is, we don't believe in things unless we have evidence that they exist.


They can be dismissed because they make ridiculous leaps (the big one being jumping to "and that thing is God" at the end). I have never seen a Cosmological or Teleological argument which did not make this leap, and could therefore be said to "work" at all. Teleological arguments are particularly dead now that we know how evolution produces the appearance of design.

In the case of Leibniz' cosmological argument, it is necessarily true that the set of all objects holds a property if all the objects it contains also hold that property? Is it really a contingent fact that there are contingent things? If a necessary creator creates contingent things, does that not make is a necessary fact that there are contingent things? If the creator is not actually necessary... then we're back at square one.

As for Ontological Arguments, they define things into existence without any evidence. Sorry, that doesn't work.

Your examples are not outside of the scientific method.

Here are the steps in the scientific method:
1)make observations- ask a question about those observations
2)propose a hypothesis
3)design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis
4)do the experimental results support the hypothesis? If not, go back to step (1). Sometimes the difference between expected and actual results can help in making a new hypothesis.

The intuition, inspiration and dreams can be and often are parts of steps (1) and (2). But you can't just stop there and scientists never do. Moving on to step (3) after the intuition/inspiration/dream is what separates the scientists from the philosophers and mystics. Philosophers and mystics stop at step (2) and treat their hypothesis as fact without actually testing it.

An illustrative joke...

The Dean of a university addressed the Chairman of the Physics Department.

"Why do you need so much money? The Maths department doesn't ask for this much, and the Philosophy department asks for even less!"

"We need that money to for equipment, books, paper, pencils and erasers. If you look at the Maths budget, they don't need the equipment."

"What about the Philosophy department?"

"Well, sir ... philosophers don't need books ... nor do they ever need erasers!

Hopefully, you are not stating that as absolute, per philosophers and mystics stop at step 2, and treating their hypothesis as fact, without actually testing it,

As obviously there are folks who are philosophers, mystics, and scientists; ALLINONE.

I 'hate' to think you believe there is a limit on human nature this way.

But truly, the human experiment/FULLER EXPERIENCE that is driven by human NATURE IN EMOTION, is unique, and not a fully repeatable one with any control group anywhere.

'We' can break things down to observable units..

But truly, not all emotional powers are observable external OR INTERNAL units of measure.

AND TRULY, AS A PERSON WHO technically loses their emotions due to illness, who experiences a very rich internal environment of emotions, NOW, I can say without pause that a person who does not experience the type of rich internal PRO-SOCIAL emotional that I am innately blessed with WILL NEVER EVER UNDERSTAND THIS AS THERE IS NO REFERENCE POINT TO UNDERSTAND IT WITHOUT RICH NUANCED EXPERIENCED PRO-SOCIAL EMOTIONS.

IN FACT, 85 PERCENT OF FOLKS DIAGNOSED ON THE AUTISM SPECTRUM, as assessed by 'science', have difficulty describing complex emotions with human language; even the simplest emotions like joy and sadness, PER THE medical TERM, ALEXITHYMIA.

There is THIS biological and or environmental problem in innate human nature that makes assessing the reality of others who do experience rich nuanced emotions literally and metaphorically impossible.

When emotions go, there is not even a memory of IF A PERSON EVER FEELS A LAUGH OR SMILE, AS EMOTIONS ARE THE GLUE OF MEMORY OF EMOTION ITSELF.

IN OTHER WORDS, when a human being loses their emotions due to illness or chronic PTSD type emotional trauma, they fall into A BLACK HOLE OF EMOTIONAL DEATH, until IF THEY RISE OUT OF THAT BLACK HOLE of no emotions BACK IN EMOTIONAL life like the metaphorical Phoenix, RISING from Death.

The most horrifying thing I can imagine now, is the life of either a full blown or partial so-called internal life of a SO-CALLED psychopath, as I know precisely why, now, they enjoy inflicting pain on others, because that's all they can feel; pleasure over pressing the HURT BUTTON ON SOMEONE ELSE FOR SELFISH GAIN.

WHENEVER I SEE PEOPLE CALLOUSLY PERSONALLY ATTACKING OTHERS HERE LIKE TOYS, IT RINGS THAT BELL FOR ME.

But seriously, a person who does not experience the rich internal emotional life that gives a wondrous intrinsic OXYTOCIN-like feeling in connecting to others that is often indicated in medical literature, AS missing from SOME folks on the Autism spectrum, they WILL NEVER EVER TRULY UNDERSTAND WHY FOLKS SIT IN A CHURCH HOLDING HANDS SAYING A COMMON PURPOSEFUL MANTRA OR CREED ARE TRULY 'just' DOING IT.


THEY DO IT BECAUSE THERE IS AN ELIXIR OF COMMONLY SHARED FEELING EMOTION THROUGH COMMON PURPOSE IN CONNECTING HUMAN BEINGS THAT FEELS BETTER THAN ANY PSYCHOPATHIC LEANING PERSON WITH A LACK OF THIS COMMON CONNECTING FEELING WILL EVER FEEL IN LIFE, IN A LIFE THAT TRULY IS LIKE LIVING IN A DEEP PIT OF BLACK HOLE WITH NO ESCAPE.

I'VE SEEN BOTH SIDES NOW, in feeling and non-feeling, and truly no matter how callous ACTING AND FEELING, the folks ARE who ARE IN the black-hole OR how callously THEY personally attack other people in an attempt to see their toys jump, I TRULY feel sorry for them, as truly they have never lived, no matter why they are destined to live this way, per either innate or environmental FACTORS.

But again, if you do not feel what I am talking about, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE POINT TO UNDERSTAND IT.

THERE IS only a reference point for folks who feel some nuance of this, to actually remember what it might have been more fully like, before the environment of culture and chronic stress extinguished the true elixir of humanity out of their bright-lit soul to a black-hole soul that can never be filled simply by living and loving other human beings; regardless if the common purpose to do that in SOCIAL COOPERATIVE bonding is a football game, politics, RELIGION, ETC.; no matter the myth or fact that bonds human nature in common purpose IN TRUly FEELING SOUL AWAY FROM AN EMPTY BLACK HOLE SOUL.

FEELING IS LIFE.

ANYTHING ELSE IS JUSTS A ROBOTIC APPROXIMATION.

AND truly there are not many 'empaths' in life who have lost almost all their emotions and gained them back stronger than ever before; so in all seriousness, you may NEVER EVER HEAR THIS POINT OF VIEW AGAIN, PARTICULARLY, HERE.

MOST PEOPLE, WHO go through what I WENT THROUGH, KILL THEMSELVES EARLY ON, in what is described as the suicide disease in more ways than one, as it takes the emotional life away from a person almost immediately, as the only thing that can be felt is WORSE THAN excruciating NEVER ENDING PAIN FROM WAKE TO SLEEP, in my case for five years, and documented in medical literature, as A worse fate than the much more temporary problem of dying on a cross, per crucifixion, IN SPECTRUM OF FEELING PAIN.

For folks who do not experience pro-social emotions, in a way they've already died on a cross that they have no idea even exists.

I would like to find a way to change that but I'm not sure it's even possible.

And truly that's proof that at least in this lifetime, as a singular one, if there is a GOD, GOD IS NOT FAIR.

I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THERE IS MORE TO EXISTENCE THAN THAT BUT IF NOT, THERE IS NO ESCAPE IN LIVING LIFE, AND ONLY THE REALISTIC CHOICE TO GRIN AND BEAR IT, FOR folks who live in


THE OTHER PLACE of death in life, wittingly or NOT.

PERHAPS it's harder when one vaguely remembers they were alive BEFORE IN FEELING SOUL.


This may not be an easy to thing to hear, AND OR ABSORB, true.

But sometimes the TRUTH CAN TRULY SET ONE FREE,

IF one IS TRULY LUCKY/fortunate, IT SEEMS,

WITH THE WAY this life looks on the outside, AND INSIDE, at least,

to me....

Life is no science project AND NEVER TRULY WILL BE, FULLY EXPERIENCED.

And honestly, the folks who think it is, from 'Dawkins to Hitchens to Hawking', likely have/HAD
THIS PROBLEM

TOO...

AND YES, HARD TO impossible to UNDERTAND, UNLESS ONE has been in their SIMILAR shoes....



too....

TRULY AN EMPTY and beyond sad PLACE TO BE.....


If there is Karma, perhaps it is/WAS theIR destiny per what EVER Karmic rEaSon..


I ain't going back, and I'M LIVING LIFE LIKE THERE IS KARMA, AS IT'S NOT WORTH TAKING ONE CHANCE IN AN INFINITY OF GOING BACK TO DEATH IN LIFE.

PERIOD.

And finally, in this thread, I just want to say thanks, as without the help of the diverse minds that do exist here, dark and light, or whatever, I would have never been able to create this, LINKED BELOW, in 4880 words, total.

http://katiemiafrederick.com/2015/03/23/playing-not-specstating/

Perhaps, some folks can understand some of it, and some folks like my wife, can understand none of it.

But she has no REAL HUMAN problems in life, as without a so-called exceptional IQ of over 130 like me, she is never lost to begin with, as she is not saddled with the often TRUE CURSE OF exceptionally HIGH standard I.Q., where SPECS CAN BECOME REALITY INSTEAD OF PLAYING THE GAME OF HUMAN life, as it is simply evolved TO BE, AS IS.

I much rather live an all natural TRUE life, NOW, like my wife always has, and at least in some part, NOW, I have that ability to enter that world OF PLAY, more fully now, AS before I am lost to the SPECS OF CULTURE, IN DEVIL OF DETAILS IN byPRODUCTS OF MODERN CULTURAL LIFE.

AND for those of you who haven't made it to age 54, with an exceptionally HIGH I.Q., towing a personal philosophy of perfectionism, perhaps you haven't experienced, REAL LIFE human HELL, YET.

Some folks call it Autistic BURNout, or WHATEVER, as linked and detailed below.

http://katiemiaaghogday.blogspot.com/2013/04/burnout-on-autism-spectrum.html

BUT TRUST ME, IT EXISTS, BEEN THERE, DONE IT, FOR 66 months or so.....

Seriously, 'you' don't want go there,

If at all possible, if 'you' haven't gone yet,

and escaped like me.....

Getting back to the philosophical... which is entirely incomprehensible to crude matter (and most convincingly evidenced by the babbling of crude material(ists) around here) I would suggest that "supernatural" should be replaced with metaphysical. Supernatural is rather outside the realm of philosophy and the term is liable to weird conjectural notions by nutcases for whom a mind is a confusion of swirling atoms. Metaphysics is not at all "unnatural" or "supernatural" but is integral with life and sentience in all its forms.

Also, a scientific method of investigation is not restricted to an empirical investigation of physical phenomenon. It is a method that should be applied to all logical process. In fact an undefined (in specifics) scientific method was used by Aristotle as a means of ascertaining the veracity of conclusions about the nature of reality.

Aristotle was not a Materialist... he realised that sentience is itself a metaphysical thing. Logic is a metaphysical thing.

Naturalism (in its Materialistic sense) is absurd. It requires something that it decrees does not exist (because it is not material) to prove itself non-existent. (Obviously not a bother to non-sentient swirling atoms).

Human emotions, per internal human process, cannot be fully empirically measured, so by formal definition, human emotions are beyond empirical measurement, alone, to fully measure the essence experienced of human emotions; therefore, human emotions are metaphysical, unless one does not experience AN emotion IN question, at all.

And yes, IT is definitely possible not to experience THAT PART OF metaphysics THAT IS a major POTENTIAL cause of human suffering, misery, and even premature death, per the human condition.

WITHOUT the metaphysical work of human emotional ART,
IT can otherwise be, a stagnant science of systemizing mind.

And that's not discussed much in philosophy OR SCIENCE OR EVEN METAPHYSICS, and 'DUH, I WONDER WHY'....

In other words, 'IT' CAN BE A 'SELF-FULFILLING' PROPHECY OF SORTS, LACKING nuanced FULLER, pro-social METAPHYSICAL emotions.

Atheism is not one homogeneous group. Science and naturalism are not the same.

I agree with Fnord, by definition science should not concern itself with meta-physics, except to try explain the behaviour of animals, through such belief systems the hold.

I wonder why some religious people spend so much time attacking science, then are surprised when it comes back on them.

Moral imperative, is something that is part of our behavior in forming and regulating societies an living in large groups.

The question I always ask when there is a post like this is what does the idea of having creator, have to do with all the other beliefs that go-together with various religions? Lets assume there was a creator. Theocracy makes the assumptions like:

viewtopic.php?t=266591#p6244088
viewtopic.php?p=6196991#p6196991

None of which have noting to do with explaining creation or the natural world.

"Naturalism" is not a philosophy, or creed, ideology, or religion.

It is a methodology. And it is a foundation of the scientific method.

The methodology of "assuming" a naturalistic explanation for what is observed.

You can be open to the possibility of a supernatural explanations, but you have conduct your experiments with the

assumption of naturalistic causes. To prove anything, even a supernatural cause, you have to knock down the alternative

explanations by seeking naturalistic agents for what is observed.