It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Major Flaw in Hard Naturalism

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
But that is making the assumption that the situation is a either/or.

The argument is not one of negation but of an irreconcilable inconsistency.

From a historical perspective, naturalism as a philosophy, pre-dated the scientific method, by a significant time (millennia at least). There were naturalist schools well established in the 2nd Century BC.

To be clear, naturalism holds that all things can be explained from natural causes (i.e: non-supernatural).

As Incompleteness suggests, no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure, can demonstrate their own consistency.

Science also predates the scientific method. Science isn't constrained solely to the method. Though it is currently the best means to gather evidence in the name of science.




posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
But that is making the assumption that the situation is a either/or.

The argument is not one of negation but of an irreconcilable inconsistency.

From a historical perspective, naturalism as a philosophy, pre-dated the scientific method, by a significant time (millennia at least). There were naturalist schools well established in the 2nd Century BC.

To be clear, naturalism holds that all things can be explained from natural causes (i.e: non-supernatural).

As Incompleteness suggests, no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure, can demonstrate their own consistency.

Science also predates the scientific method. Science isn't constrained solely to the method. Though it is currently the best means to gather evidence in the name of science.


I would agree that science as a philosophy of discovery existed prior to the scientific method but naturalism is an offshoot from, and argument against, supernaturalism (in its many forms) and existed prior to science as a guiding principle.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Ok. Well the naturalistic ideas align with scientific observations. So regardless what came first, the chicken or the egg, they are intertwined now.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

But your invisible man who lives in the sky and loves everybody. But he needs money and if you don't give it to him you'll burn in hell for ever and ever.

That's rational?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Well there is clearly flaws in your logic because you haven't disproved naturalism in the slightest.


You've resulted to blanket statements again. All you have done so far is attack a straw man.





And further more, your "logic" even if it were true in no way proves your religion, or any religion for that matter, true.


I gave an argument for why it disproves atheism as well. Its not my logic. It would do you good to read this thread, which I wrote a a week ago or so explaining to people the logic has rules it doesn't simply mean what makes sense in Krazyshots head or Servant's head.




This is why I said I don't need logic to believe in it. Words can be confusing. Evidence is straight forward and never lies. Disprove a major field of science. Then we'll talk about the merits of naturalism.


I mean dude you can't even begin to interpret evidence without logical reasoning. I mean you continue to just jump around the main point the syllogism is making. You are reading it as confusing words when it is a series of propositions that follow from one another, and they are conveying an idea. Honestly, I don't think you are really trying to understand what I am saying. I think you are just here to make noise and let people know you don't like what I am saying, but that doesn't make naturalism consistent. Bury your head in the sand if you must, but anyone who can understand what I am saying can see you are missing the point or refusing to accept it.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I gave an argument for why it disproves atheism as well. Its not my logic. It would do you good to read this thread, which I wrote a a week ago or so explaining to people the logic has rules it doesn't simply mean what makes sense in Krazyshots head or Servant's head.

Yeah. I'm going to be honest with you. I'm not going to do that because I don't seen any merit in trying to use logic to disprove something that is believed due to hard evidence supporting it existing. And for atheism, that is just a default to the negative. Since there is no evidence of a god existing, I have no reason to believe in one. If you can prove otherwise. With evidence. Then I'll change my mind. Using logic isn't going to cut it. It just sounds impressive, but it doesn't prove anything.



I mean dude you can't even begin to interpret evidence without logical reasoning. I mean you continue to just jump around the main point the syllogism is making. You are reading it as confusing words when it is a series of propositions that follow from one another, and they are conveying an idea. Honestly, I don't think you are really trying to understand what I am saying. I think you are just here to make noise and let people know you don't like what I am saying, but that doesn't make naturalism consistent. Bury your head in the sand if you must, but anyone who can understand what I am saying can see you are missing the point or refusing to accept it.

Look. There is a simple law in science that makes your entire argument moot. Cause and effect. EVERY action has an equal and opposite reacion. So if an event happens in the universe. Call it human thought. Then SOME action had to cause it to happen. This action would have to be detectable on some level. If something exists that is "non-natural" or not from our universe, then it wouldn't obey the laws of physics. Yet there is zero evidence existing of anything disobeying the laws of physics. Every time we find such a case, the laws are reunderstood until we recognize that things DO work that way in the universe. If a non-natural event existed, we'd find it. Though the staggering amount of natural events we've discovered is surreal.

I really don't know what your gripe with naturalism is. It seems petty and more like an excuse to attack atheism since you can't directly prove god, and I'm not saying it is 100% true, but it certainly works as a better explanation than anything religion has provided. So how about getting on defining god we can prove once and for all if naturalism is true or not?
edit on 27-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
A simpler argument of the same bent goes as follows:

Any scientist will agree that like begets like. Elephants do not give birth to monkeys. Homo sapien sapiens is an intelligent species. From whence did the intelligence derive? Not deriding, nor agreeing with evolution. In either belief system one must believe that somewhere along the line, intelligence came from intelligence.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here is my understanding Krazy:

Naturalism comes in varieties. For example, the scientific method uses methodological naturalism. Essentially, this is an agreement to limit the scientific universe of discourse to the natural world. Properly and strictly It neither addresses anything outside of the natural world not does it comment on whether anything outside of the natural world exists. I think Science is correct in adopting methodological naturalism.

Metaphysical naturalism, the belief that nothing exists outside of the natural realm is, well a belief. So when a scientist adopts metaphysical naturalism, he steps outside of his role as a scientist to do so. When he works within methodological naturalism he works as a scientist and whether he's a theist or an atheist is irrelevant.

A form of "The Argument From Reason" is what's being presented in the OP. It was popularized by CS Lewis but as I recall it's existed in some form or the other for a long time. Standing alone, it's just an argument for something beyond the natural realm. If one accepts it as true, they would not necessarily have to reject atheism. There are atheists that believe in something outside of the natural world, that there is a supernatural realm within the universe



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

A much more profound flaw in naturalism is to point out a very simple fact. I'll start you out, then you figure it out by simply asking me a question in relation. Follow the lead I give you so you have the realization yourself.

Your hand produces a 2D shadow. Your body is 3D. The lower dimensional shadow always follows the higher. If the natural world is 1D - 3D as Space, what is Time above each moment? In other words, what produces your body as a shadow? Time. Where is the mind? 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D or above? In other words, what produces the cascading shadow? To answer this, you must be willing to see that your mind is not local to time and Space.

1D - LINE
2D - Branch
3D - FOLD

4D - Line of Time
5D - Branching of Time as indeterminate probability collapses (collapsing wave function)
6D - Fold of Time from the mind above

7D - Line of Thinking
8D - Branching of thought
9D - Folded Thought

10D - Absolute, containing all in all.

Those are the 10 dimensions of string theory, but science has not considered this yet. They are stuck on the first six being wave and particle. Mind is the third aspect of Light. See me in 10 years when they figure this out. Reality is a hologram. What I just showed you is perfect linear mathematics of geometry at right angles (orthogonal).

edit on 27-2-2017 by DayAfterTomorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam

That makes sense, but most scientists are atheists which is really just short for agnostic atheist. Sure by saying ATHEIST it kind of implies they are taking a stance on god not existing, but any scientist worth his salt will be quick to tell you that if presented the correct evidence of god's existence then they will change their mind.

This means that science and naturalism align currently because that is what the evidence is showing. If non-natural forces exist, and science detects them then science will deny naturalism. Because it couldn't hold true anymore with the evidence uncovered. Until that happens, though naturalism is the default explanation. Finding flaws in its logic isn't going to magically disprove it. You need a better explanation that accounts for all the evidence to supplant it.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



I sort of understand what you're saying and agree with some of it.

But Science, the science that has given us so many of the wonderful things we enjoy today, limits itself to the natural world. It doesn't look for, try to understand, or comment on anything supernatural. Science adopts methodological naturalism, properly, it has nothing to say about metaphysical naturalism. Scientists may make statements about metaphysical naturalism, but it would be similar to my dogs veterinarian explaining to me how he thinks I should go about tuning the engine in my car. They're both outside of their field of expertise and the increased credibility their profession might afford them while speaking about a topic relevant to their profession would incorrectly be carried over to their credibility on a topic outside their area of expertise.

As to logic itself. Logic is a rational movement of thought. It's the correct interpretation of data that moves science forward. Science has advanced quite well without requiring metaphysical naturalism. But without logic/rational thought processes science wouldn't even exist. So one can't just discard logic.



edit on 27-2-2017 by imwilliam because: spellin



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn




But your invisible man who lives in the sky
But He does not live in the sky ...So telling yourself silly false stories to make a point is mute . changing mute to moot but either will work at this point
edit on 27-2-2017 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn




But your invisible man who lives in the sky and loves everybody. But he needs money and if you don't give it to him you'll burn in hell for ever and ever. That's rational?



Maybe if you understood Christianity as it is held by an instructed adult and not a six year old child we could discuss it, but until you can elevate your understanding of the doctrine above that of a child I don't think I can help you.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Yeah. I'm going to be honest with you. I'm not going to do that because I don't seen any merit in trying to use logic to disprove something that is believed due to hard evidence supporting it existing.


There is no hard evidence supporting naturalism. You cannot even begin to experiment or interpret evidence without rational thought as wiliams has been explaining to you. You continue to make this vague statement about evidence supporting naturalism. What evidence do you think supports naturalism?

You also seem to think that truth can only be known thru empirical evidence, but the very proposition, "truth can only be known thru empirical evidence," cannot itself be backed up by evidence. So if empiricism is true it cannot be known to be true as Bertrand Russell said,"... empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting. For, however it may be formulated, it must involve some general proposition about the dependence of knowledge upon experience; and any such proposition, if true, must have as a consequence that [it] itself cannot be known. While therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so. This, however, is a large problem". You seem to be fond of self refuting ideas because you never take the time to see if your beliefs are actually internally coherent. They aren't, which is a problem you need to address if you want to be rational.

If you throw out logic Science is going to be hampered as you lose the law of identity, and the law of noncontradiction. Why aren't Scientist trying to discover square-circles or married bachelors ? You see logic tells us what can possibly be and so narrows are search in scientific endeavor. Again I have to ask what hard evidence is supporting naturalism? You just keep making that sweeping statement without backing it up




Look. There is a simple law in science that makes your entire argument moot. Cause and effect. EVERY action has an equal and opposite reacion.


I mean dude its like the OP hopped in a 747 and just left you at the airport. If your belief that every action has an equal and opposite reaction is based solely on the physical events inside your brain it isn't trustworthy. You need to abstract one more level back. I am not talking about conclusions of Science but the process of rational thought, which you cannot just throw out man.
edit on 27-2-2017 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-2-2017 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I sort of understand what you're saying and agree with some of it.

But Science, the science that has given us so many of the wonderful things we enjoy today, limits itself to the natural world. It doesn't look for, try to understand, or comment on anything supernatural. Science adopts methodological naturalism, properly, it has nothing to say about metaphysical naturalism. Scientists may make statements about metaphysical naturalism, but it would be similar to my dogs veterinarian explaining to me how he thinks I should go about tuning the engine in my car. They're both outside of their field of expertise and the increased credibility their profession might afford them while speaking about a topic relevant to their profession would incorrectly be carried over to their credibility on a topic outside their area of expertise.

I don't buy that. I feel like if something can be analyzed, natural or otherwise, science will attempt to understand it. For instance. Right now the science of the mind is small, but we are growing our understanding of it all the time. Eventually me will probably understand what drives conscious thought and maybe even our own rationality.

I truly believe that if something is real then it can be quantified.


As to logic itself. Logic is a rational movement of thought. It's the correct interpretation of data that moves science forward. Science has advanced quite well without requiring metaphysical naturalism. But without logic/rational thought processes science wouldn't even exist. So one can't just discard logic.

I'm not trying to discard logic here and that is something the OP misinterpreted about me. I love logic. I just don't approve of declaring something false just because you have logic supporting your reasoning. Evidence trumps logic any day. If evidence disagrees with your logic, then either your logic is flawed or it is incomplete.

For now, there is no direct evidence that naturalism is false. This is because there is zero existing evidence of non-natural forces. Therefore, naturalism cannot be simply discounted with words or counter logic.
edit on 28-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

But your invisible man who lives in the sky and loves everybody. But he needs money and if you don't give it to him you'll burn in hell for ever and ever.

That's rational?


No, not invisible, not a man, not located in any single location (the sky), does not love everybody, does not require money. Hell is a prison for satan, not humans, and if any humans end up there it has to do with their sins and not their selfishness.

You seem to be misinformed.

edit on 28/2/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: imwilliam

That makes sense, but most scientists are atheists which is really just short for agnostic atheist. Sure by saying ATHEIST it kind of implies they are taking a stance on god not existing, but any scientist worth his salt will be quick to tell you that if presented the correct evidence of god's existence then they will change their mind.

This means that science and naturalism align currently because that is what the evidence is showing. If non-natural forces exist, and science detects them then science will deny naturalism. Because it couldn't hold true anymore with the evidence uncovered. Until that happens, though naturalism is the default explanation. Finding flaws in its logic isn't going to magically disprove it. You need a better explanation that accounts for all the evidence to supplant it.


Naturalism holds that there is no supernatural.

The evidence for naturalism would be that there is not even a single piece of evidence of the supernatural in the universe, ever.

We have explored so little of the universe and have also found suggestions of the supernatural (or at least the unexplainable from a naturalistic view).

We do not have the only evidence that could 'prove' naturalism.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

If you were to put all the evidence for naturalism in a bucket next to all the evidence for supernatural in another bucket, the first bucket would be the only one that has anything in it. Since it is true that one cannot disprove a negative we cannot therefore just say that the supernatural doesn't exist, but by using Occam's Razor we can say that it takes an assumption to believe in the supernatural. Therefore it is likely untrue.

This is where the basis for agnosticism comes from. The OP is wrong. We don't disbelieve in the supernatural because it is the default position of the naturalistic worldview. We do because it aligns with the given evidence. That's it. The best and only way to change our mind would be to produce evidence of the supernatural. That would end speculation once and for all between the natural and the supernatural.

Using logic to poke holes in the naturalistic worldview doesn't automatically make you correct though.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



I don't buy that. I feel like if something can be analyzed, natural or otherwise, science will attempt to understand it


Look, science operates under the assumption that there isn't anything except the natural world (methodological naturalism). It will not accept any explanation that isn't a natural one. EVER Full Stop. Science is a wonderful way of exploring the natural world, it's a horrible tool for exploring even the possibility of a supernatural realm within the universe and it is so by design.

Whether you realize it or not, you're claiming science can do something that science says it can't do and doesn't even want to talk about.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

If you were to put all the evidence for naturalism in a bucket next to all the evidence for supernatural in another bucket, the first bucket would be the only one that has anything in it. Since it is true that one cannot disprove a negative we cannot therefore just say that the supernatural doesn't exist, but by using Occam's Razor we can say that it takes an assumption to believe in the supernatural. Therefore it is likely untrue.

This is where the basis for agnosticism comes from. The OP is wrong. We don't disbelieve in the supernatural because it is the default position of the naturalistic worldview. We do because it aligns with the given evidence. That's it. The best and only way to change our mind would be to produce evidence of the supernatural. That would end speculation once and for all between the natural and the supernatural.

Using logic to poke holes in the naturalistic worldview doesn't automatically make you correct though.


The existence of natural processes is not a disproof of supernatural ones in the same way that the existence of articulated lorries does not disprove the existence of motorbikes.

Naturalism is not the belief that there are natural processes.

No matter how many natural processes are in your first bucket, it doesn't prove naturalism until there are no further proofs possible.

Naturalism is the belief, exclusively, that there are ONLY natural processes.

Science cannot produce natural reason for some things (there is all sorts of quantum weirdness that is measurable but defies even mathematical explanation as to why the outcomes are the way they are). So science, while it makes naturalistic assumptions (that there are reasonable and natural processes behind its measurements), is not naturalism.

Naturalism as a guiding philosophy, goes way beyond science. It says things that are are unsupported by science, because true science is limited in scope and will always remain so.

Science (defined in mathematical terms) tells us that because naturalism is an axiomatic system, it can never be internally consistent - the OP is one particular expression of that.

edit on 28/2/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join