Naturalism is Philosophically Unsound

Post Reply New Topic

Have we? as far as I am aware the "Big Crunch" hypothesis is still alive, although the "cold death" hpothesis seems more likely




Given the above description of multiverses I am drawn to the conclusion that you have not really read up on the subject, and do not fully understand how the hypothesis works. I am not going into what would, by necessity, be a very lengthy explanation, but trust me the concepts of virtual particles not to mention multiverses are not mere brain farts thought up by someone musing about physics.



Belief has little to do with it, acceptance of the evidence whether you like it or not is what is important. The evidence and the predictions coming from cutting edge particle physics point to what you are choosing not to believe.


Magic has nothing to do with it and the fact that we are beginning to understand the process and make predictions about it means that it may not be inexplicable


Again you are determining as fact, a belief that it would appear fly's in the face of what is becoming known. For someone who is very quick to jump on others for making absolute claims you would appear to very comfortable with them


Yes this is possible, most likely probable, so what?



Once again you are drawing absolute conclusions where they are not warranted. To do this you are assuming that this is the only universe, which is a massive conclusion. Why should this be the only one. As I have said the argument used to be that God made the earth for us because the probability that such a place could exist was "astronomically low" then we discovered the galaxy, then we discovered the observable universe and suddenly the probability that earth like planets exist whilst still highly improbable, become very very plausible. To make the claim that you seem to be doing that the chance that this universe exists in the manner it does is so vastly improbable is to make the same mistake.

So yes I agree if you belief there is an objective purpose and direction to the universe, that life has a reason other than life itself, that there is only one universe. Then yes the probability for the existence of god becomes near to 1. But to do this you are making massive assumptions and you are denying predictions coming from experiment and observations which would seem to refute some of your most fundamental assumptions. As many have pointed out before the physicists making these predictions and grappling with the issues are no fools, and the suggestion that they are involved in some group clandestine cover up is simply asinine.

A bit of mutual back-slapping should help to sustain your interest in the unsustainable.

It seems to me that you equate "the free and honest expression of ideas" with the imposition of "ideas" initiated and sustained by the popular media.

That an "idea" is relentlessly promoted in the popular media is no guarantee that it is in any way representative of truth or science.

I know from long experience that "well-reasoned and rational" means nothing other than it agrees with your ideological prejudices.

And once again David your post is nothing but rhetoric. Is there any danger that you might post something with substance. Heck you couldn't even start this thread, you persuaded Lintar to do it. Why are you so afraid to be open about the reasons for what you believe, why have you never accepted the challenge to give examples and collaborative evidence to support your claims.

So "assuming" that there is one, easily observable, Universe is credulous but assuming that there "may" be unobservable "multiverses" is "science"?

No wonder that "science" has degenerated into a playground for the insanely egomaniacal.

So what would you have me do, Arty? Define science? Define philosophy? Define Naturalism? Refute nonscience?

All a waste of time because you insist that anything that does not support your ideological prejudices is ipso facto "inadmissible evidence".

I am hoping for the day when you and your mates congregate in the F'n Ord-inary's crèche and I can get around to a proper argument with Lintar.

Appreciated. As is the response itself.



Even if the statement "all atheists are materialists" was true, it would not support your claim that "atheists accept materialism without question". Materialism is not a 'Theory of Everything'. In other words, an atheist who was also a materialist would likely be one on the grounds that "materialism is our current best explanation of reality". The question is not whether near-death experiences are categorically the result of neurochemistry, it's whether that is a more plausible explanation than "I believe the light at the end of the tunnel was God".



I have to disagree with your definition of naturalism in that case. There are a multitude of branches within naturalism, but the core principle would be "only natural laws and forces operate in the world". Anything beyond this, i.e. Ethical Naturalism or Absolute/Metaphysical Naturalism, can be said to stem from this core principle, but they do not necessarily inform it.



As demonstrated by the quote within a quote, it was you who challenged it on the grounds of scientific 'truth', which is as disingenuous as responding in the manner you did here.



It isn't necessary to demonstrate that it's "untrue", but it would be valuable if it were demonstrated to be "true". I think you're rather missing the function and purpose of science.



- One-off historical events - see http://bicepkeck.org/
- Subjective personal experiences - https://hbr.org/2012/01/the-science-behind-the-smile I rather like the optician metaphor.
- Morality - http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_sci ... anguage=en
- Beauty falls under the category of subjective personal experiences, as do qualia.
- Consciousness http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/5/198 ... 5.abstract



I was asking you to elaborate on the suggestion that naturalism fails to acknowledge multiple forms of evidence, not that evidence takes many forms.



Personal recollections of an event can be compared to footage from a camera, the recollections of other witnesses of the event and multiple re-tellings of the same event by a single witness.



Scientism was coined as a derogatory term. That some scientists have wittily embraced it as a mock badge of honour doesn't really legitimise its use in this context.



You've yet to provide an example of anything that cannot be tested using the scientific method, so perhaps these practitioners of "Scientism" have a valid point.



Which is perfectly fine, but you're effectively arguing against what you might call "Natural Extremism". It's almost like arguing against Islam due to the actions of terrorists.



Naturalism would still be a viable method of explaining the properties of the simulation, as long as it followed consistent rules that were measurable by the characters within said simulation.



Je pense donc je suis.



That was a general statement designed to demonstrate that positive assertions of God actually are irrational, rather than a suggestion that you had made a positive assertion of the existence of a god. If you have a concept of "god" that you think is plausible, I encourage you to present it here.



Agnostic atheists (i.e. the overwhelming majority of atheists) do not need to demonstrate that the notion of a god is flawed as they are making no positive assertions. The burden of proof is on those who claim the existence of a specific god with specific characteristics.

http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/narcissistic.htm



Your misconceptions, whilst amusing, are hardly relevant.



Which of the specific ideas that I personally hold to did you wish to contend?



Oldavid said, with no apparent understanding of the inherent irony in such a statement.

You couldn't accurately define my personal ideology even were you to spend the next week researching everything I've posted on WP.

If "adifferentname" is not a speech-writer for a politician he has missed his true vocation. Uh oh! It seems that there is already another missive.

Incredible! All I wanted to do in that quiz was to quiz the inventors of the "questions" "What do you mean by that silly, misleading waffle?" Anyhow, according to that stupid nonsense I scored 3/(pick a number).

Anyhow, Mr anameforallseasons. You've made your point... "science" is a consensus of opinion of mass media sycophants. Anyone who disagrees will be tarred and feathered.

Well you could start by demonstrating how particles physics and the predictions it is making is "nonscience"

You'd better start by distinguishing between "particles physics" and particles fantasy.

You see, Arty, I'm in the spectrum and I can't be relied on to run with popular fads.

Once again you are evading a simple question. Provide corroborating evidence for.your assertion that contemporary particle physics is A. A fad and B. Nonscientific

Most Buddhists do not believe in a deity, but believe in a supernatural reality, reincarnation, etc.


Whilst I'll happily go along with that, I would also suggest that there is no reason to believe in the supernatural. Rational persons do not believe in things without evidence, and by definition, there can be no evidence for the supernatural (otherwise it would be "natural").


I would strongly dispute "consciousness", we know roughly how that happens. Detach someone's brain from their body and they'll stop being conscious. Even subjective personal experiences and beauty can be tested empirically to an extent.


When you cannot know something, believe the null hypothesis.



OK, using what I think is your definition of "God":

1) All acts require time
2) God exists outside of time
3) Therefore, God cannot act
4) Creating the universe is an act
5) Therefore, God did not create the universe

The concept of a transcendent, eternal God that created the universe is self-contradictory.

(When I was first genuinely introduced to the concept of an eternally transcendent God, I was struck by how well it fitted with the idea of a perfect God, and I definitely see how that would appeal to people. However, perfection, eternity and transcendence are incompatible with creation)

Naturally.



The true test is whether you're egotistical enough to take it in the first place. That you saw fit to criticise the adequacy of the questions in an online quiz designed to evaluate narcissism is hilarious.



As the only weapons in your meagre arsenal seem to be logical fallacies, I advise you to invest in a white flag.

I don't recall ever having made such an assertion. And I think it very unlikely that I would do so, since I am very much fascinated with quantum mechanics and "particle physics" whatever that is.

However, with your history, it is very likely indeed that you would randomly apply specious accusations to me if it seemed convenient to you.

Anyhow, I can't see what "particle physics" has to do with the philosophical unsoundness of Naturalism.

Ok. Given that you have so far denied all attempts to characterize your understanding of what constitutes "real science" would you please, in your own words, enlighten us?