Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound

Post Reply New Topic

Whether a First Cause is sentient or not is not relevant to whether Naturalism is philosophically unsound or not.

Your tsunami of largely irrelevant accusations and glib assertions doesn't "prove" anything we don't already know; that is that you and your mates insist that everything that the media buffs sell as "science" is science simply because it suits some ideological prejudices we will call Naturalism for the purpose of this thread.

I am contending that Naturalism is philosophically unsound but, unfortunately, it is impossible to argue with turkeys who predictably respond to any stimulus with gobble gobble gobbledegook. How can you and your mates argue about a philosophical credibility of anything if you don't know what philosophy (science) is. You are simply demonstrating that you can't.

Your infantile credulity that insists that popularised media nonscience is all that is known about everything is something that is being indirectly challenged in this thread.

I invited readers to think about it. You obviously didn't even recognise what you were invited to think about quite apart from your apparent inability and/or unwillingness to do so.

A self-evident truth is where a proposition has no alternative but its contrary which is self-contradictory and thus absurd. I did not claim that the existence of God is self-evident.

"I exist"... alternative; "I do not exist". Absurd because you can't think you don't exist if you don't exist. A certain logical proof.

I'm wasting my time. There is no interesting and stimulating conversation to be had around here.

The only example of a Klein Bottle is a stupid Materialist with his head in his own arse.

Not in this thread, but you have in others.

Yes, I am usually busy at 3am.




Ding ding ding...

This is but one definition of "God".

Why?


I'll accept that any "god" must be transcendent (though I'd like to point out this means most theists are wrong about their conception of god). I'd like to see some evidence that "god" actually created the laws of physics. I'd also point out that there are many works of art in which the creator participates, but that's a red herring.


Does Moreland have any proof for his claim?

Evidence?

Reasoning?

You might be starting to spot a theme here...
1) That isn't a widely accepted definition of "god".
2) You can't say something "must exist" without evidence for it

Come back when you can demonstrate that the universe requires a Prime Mover.

Never ever. It's just another of your spurious assertions.

In case you missed it, I'm addressing a positive claim of absolute knowledge contained in the original post. The LCA argument was cited as a defence of this positive claim. If you're going to argue that the original post in the thread is off-topic, there's really no point in acknowledging your presence here.



Indeed. It is your artless non-answers which demonstrate the gaps in your knowledge.



Which "mates" would those be? If you were interested in facts rather than some half-baked narrative you've constructed out of whole cloth, you would be aware that I'm ideologically opposed to most of the atheists on WP on a variety of issues. How about you man up and address the subject matter instead of concocting ad hominem bedtime stories?



We haven't even established which branch of naturalism is being discussed, let alone heard a philosophical argument to support your contention. Let's examine your contribution to the thread so far.

Post #1 Ad hominem attack, bow out due to time constraints.
Post #2 An appeal that we redefine terms to suit your unsupported assertion
Post #3 An attempt to redefine "philosophy" (general) as meaning "natural philosophy" (specific).
Post #4 An ad hominem attack, an assertion that "materialism is a religion" and a second assertion that "theology has nothing to do with philosophy".
Post #5 Pithy strawman followed by some anecdotal discussion concerning your ability to express emotions or lack thereof.
Post #6 Ad hominem attack followed by an appeal to stay on topic.
Post #7 Personal attack with a second appeal to stay on topic.
Post #8 Second appeal to redefine terms, this time without any mention of which terms need to be defined and how they should be defined.
Post #9 Substance free sophistry with an attempt to narrowly define "science" - a term which I can think of at least 7 definitions for off the top of my head, none of which are compatible with the entirely unrelated derogatory term "scientism".
Post #10 Ad hominem attack followed by unqualified assertion that there is a "good logical case" for a sentient First Cause.
Post #11 Assertion of "leaping to conclusions" without qualification.
Post #12 Refusal to provide qualifier for #10
Post #13 Some entry-level philosophical musings.

Which brings us up to date.

I find it interesting that someone who has attempted to present himself as an authority on philosophy relies so much on logical fallacies.



Do I need to point out the self-evident fallacies in this asinine statement? Should I deign to provide my opinion on "media nonscience", you can be assured that I will not employ you as my spokesperson.

You've been on that pot for quite some time. Are you going to produce anything of note?

Been there, done that.

I have not the slightest intention of warming your leg by pissing in your pocket.

The "LCA argument" is refuted or falsified? Tell us about it. No glib assertions will be accepted as "evidence" of course.

Righto. "Prove", or at least demonstrate alleged "logical fallacies" worst first so I can respond.

I've had lots of experience arguing with idiots. The "ad hominem" accusation is usually the last "defence" that means "stop showing me up to be an idiot" or I'll denounce you to the anti-discrimination whatsis for not giving "equal rights" to perversity and error.

You still have shown no attempt to "prove" that Naturalism is not "philosophically unsound".

Wow!! !! David are you seriously complaining about Ad Hominem behaviour? What hypocrisy.

I see you still have not responded in an honest way to my post concerning your rationale for refuting evolution.

Ho hum. I'm not, never have, complained about any such thing.
Oh dear! Remind me! I've refuted the "evolution" hoax everywhere and every time.

Well it's admirable of you to admit you're not ready for potty training. Let us know when your diaper starts to itch.



Which version of the LCA argument? Again, you've provided nothing of substance. Make an assertion and back it up, otherwise your position can be dismissed out of hand as "lacks the courage of his convictions".



I'll provide you with one example, your first post in this thread. Anyone with an ounce of reason will understand why I haven't already quoted every single fallacy you've committed in this discussion, and why I refrain from doing so now.



Your opening statement in the thread is a clear shotgun ad hominem which leads directly into an unsubstantiated and vague strawman representation of any potential detractor as a "materialist" (which you commonly conflate with "Atheist"):



I doubt any reasonable person would accuse me of making a leap of faith were I to assert that the targets of this claim are those aforementioned Atheists - but that's not even relevant except as context for a larger picture, extant beyond the bounds of this thread. It is not necessary to identify the specific targets in order to call the foul in this instance.



This explains your piss poor debating skills. If you need some pointers, you need only ask.



When someone slips the occasional ad hominem into an otherwise logically sound and well reasoned argument, it can be overlooked. When someone posts virtually no positive assertions, refuses to back up contentions and resorts to ad hominem almost by default, it is a perfectly acceptable criticism of both the argument and the arguer to point it out.

You fall deep into the bowels of the second category.



We still haven't established which particular form of Naturalism is up for debate. As Lintar is the original poster, I suggest that it's up to Lintar to clarify this for us.

Yes, this is true. Philosophical assumptions (ex. the existence of objective reality) are the bedrock of all the sciences, and without which science would not even work.

Hey, I actually agree with this point

Yes, it certainly is the case that, 'there is no need for a diety inside our known and visible universe', but whoever suggested otherwise? Theists do NOT believe that God exists 'within the universe', for the God they believe to be real is responsible for that universe and (ultimately) all within it. Universes do not create themselves (nothing creates itself, actually) and so if one accepts the notion that the universe itself is not self-explanatory and eternal, then the only other option available is that something else, above and beyond our universe, was responsible for it coming to be.

No, wait, don't tell me - the claim about naturalism being philosophically unsound you dispute because you see no scientific evidence for it being so, and you do not consider argumentative evidence (i.e. logic) to be applicable to the claim. Am I right? So, you are basically saying that my claim that naturalism is unsound is itself unsound because you yourself fail to see that the claim itself (i.e. naturalism is unsound) is actually a philosophical claim, and not a scientific one.

Given certain true premises (ex. 'all that exists has an explanation, even if we do not currently know what that explanation is, for its existence, in either the necessity of its own being, or as a result of something external to it'), what follows logically in, for example a syllogism, is necessarily true. Naturalists like to believe that nature is all there is, and many if not most of them think this claim is a scientific one, when in fact it is not. They fail to recognise how false it is, if only because they can provide no justification for simply assuming there can be nothing beyond it. How do they know this? The simple answer is that they don't.

You yourself have now said twice that 'philosophy is not natural', whilst obviously failing to see that this claim itself is a philosophical one. You are using philosophy to denigrate philosophy.

Yes, I'll be more clear about this now.

According to the following source - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/

"The term ‘naturalism’ has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed ‘naturalists’ from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit’ (Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003).

So understood, ‘naturalism’ is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject ‘supernatural’ entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the ‘human spirit’."

'Reality is exhausted by nature', it says. In other words, the 'supernatural' is, by default, non-existent. How, I ask, can anyone possibly know this?

That which we are capable of observing is, within the philosophy of Naturalism, equated with that which is real, true, and beyond which... well, there is no 'beyond' according to them. '...the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality', is just another way of saying that if the practice of science, with all it's never-mentioned limitations, doesn't support a given hypothesis then the hypothesis in question is non-scientific and therefore false. How can this position be justified?

What about mathematics, logic, and philosophy? Do they not form the very basis of what science actually is? Yes, they do, but according to this particular philosophy they don't really matter on their own. Scientific paradigms are based upon philosophical beliefs, not scientific ones. The belief that what we experience is actually real is not testable or falsifiable, and yet we all accept this (non-scientific) belief, but according to the strict tenets of Naturalism we shouldn't.

I wanted to add so much more to the above, but this stupid, useless computer is playing up. Internet services in this backward country is absolutely appalling, worse than it is on the moon.

We have not yet defined what you mean by naturalists. I consider myself to be one, yet I would not say "all that is, is natural". I say instead that, at present, all we can know is natural, and we cannot prove nor disprove the supernatural. However once someone claims the supernatural has entered the natural realm, then all known possibilities for this event occurring via known natural causes must be eliminated before anyone can begin to entertain the possibility that a supernatural event has occurred. Even then, once all known natural causes have been ruled out, it must be put into the "we don't know what happened" category. We simply cannot say that the event has been ruled out by "all there is to know".

Ruling in the supernatural because the event could not be explained via natrual causes has been shown to be fallacious throughout human history. In light of this I find it ironic that people holding to my posistion are now being attacked and characterised as small and closed minded by people who simply cannot "know" what it is they are claiming to know.

As for the practice of setting up a false axiom, based upon flawed logic, and then extrapolating this to show that evidence and knowledge gained via observation, math and experiment is wrong.