Merged: Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

naturalism is more : it makes the assertion nothing else beyong our natural world exists. How can it be supported ?

Turtles obviously.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

thats not the quest of this topic.

We know that the Quest is the Quest.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

naturalism is more : it makes the assertion nothing else beyong our natural world exists. How can it be supported ?

Supernaturalism is more: it makes the assertion nothing else beyond the Supernatural world exists. How can it be supported?

Why do you have a problem with natural being an assumed all encompassing concept but not Supernaturalism?

Probably because "supernatural" is where your Woo lives. I've noticed that people that demand that the edges be spread just a little wider then "natural" only want it spread far enough to encompass their Woo, then they stop playing the "But what's beyond that?" game.

I'm sick of Woo Slingers and Navel Gazers playing this "But what's beyond that?" game because you only want to play it until their level of Woo is acknowledged then they magicall don't feel like digging anymore.

It's not so much "Turtles as the Way Down" as tsig said, it's "Turtle after Turtle until we get to my Turtle, then we can stop here."

[marplots]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

so please explain then, how did we get here ? may you start with cosmology, evolution of chemistry, and last not leas, bio chemistry ?

I'll do even better. I was told by my mother and father how it worked and I saw it work when my daughter and son were born. I haven't seen the births of everyone, but I assume they work pretty much the same way.

I haven't seen your birth either, and I'm willing to grant you may be an exception to the general rule.

This might seem shallow when it comes to explanations, but that's why naturalism is so powerful -- I am familiar with it, it happens a lot without any special conditions and it seems to happen whether I want it to or not, and whether I believe in it or not. The more esoteric realms of naturalism are all built from this same character and lineage.

The building of deeper understandings on previous ones is also a good property -- unlike mysticism, you don't have to "get it all" in one chunk, there's a stepwise progression and a logical framework. Still, even so, there are enough surprises to keep things interesting.

There's another attribute worth noting here. I stopped my explanation at what I had witnessed. However, if I like, I can delve deeper and unearth an explanation for that explanation and so on. I can also simply accept what I understand so far and just move on to other things that might interest me more. That saves time and brain effort. If I want to make a baby, I can just do the parts I already know about and be done with it.

[marplots]

Another thought. Doesn't the idea of the supernatural already accept the natural? It's an add-on, isn't it?

So the task then becomes: What part of the universe is best put in the natural category and what part the supernatural?

As far as I can tell, that's all we are doing anyhow. The other posters on the thread are only asking for examples of what doesn't fit in the natural category and how this was determined. If you create a category and don't have anything that goes into it, you might as well put it back on the shelf for later when you want to indulge in a little bit of "let's pretend."

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

so please explain then, how did we get here ? may you start with cosmology, evolution of chemistry, and last not leas, bio chemistry ?

Seriously? You're arguing a gap god? As if adding a supernatural/god/pixie dust layer adds anything to our understanding of those questions.

[JoeBentley]

It's not evening a Gap God. It's a "Make up Gaps that Don't Even Exist and the Put God In Them" God.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

So what data do you have on hand that supports naturalism ?

all of it.
I encourage you to type a search in pubmed.com or isiknowledge.com or scopus.com on any topic. You will find evidence supporting naturalism.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

the question is, what caused them into existence ?

Interesting question. As far as we can observe. Nothing is needed to explain the beginning of existence (assuming there is even such a thing).
Of course, there is nothing precluding that something DID start the universe. But of course, we have no evidence of such a thing so....

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Originally Posted by X

What data do you have that supports supernaturalism?

thats not the quest of this topic.

Oh, but it is.

There are only two answers here:

naturalism explains our existence.
or
Supernaturalism explains our existence.

You are attempting to draw out the obvious point:
There is no direct evidence that naturalism MUST be the answer to the origin of existence.

However, the counterargument is equally true.
There is no direct evidence that Supernaturalism MUST be the answer to the origin of existence.

as such, we are at a stalemate with the data. So we must infer from what we have already learned about the universe. Thus far, natural arguments have fit every single observable phenomenon. Indeed, this is so true that we are able to predict behaviors (e.g., fluid mechanics, heat transfer, orbital mechanics, ....) based upon our understanding of the observations.

So we must ask if nothing in the known universe requires a supernatural explanation, why would we expect the origin of the universe to require a supernatural explanation?


ETA:

By the way, Welcome back GIBHOR. I trust finals treated you well.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Along with every thing ever. Nothing is ever going to advance if we accept the mentality of all the pretentious Navel Gazers that watched the Matrix while stoned too many times and think going "But how do we know reality is real?" makes them the wise old man on the mountain.

Either reality is real or we're all having an unreasonably persistent shared delusion. I think the former is more reasonable conclusion and certainly the more useful one.

In the last 500,000 years we've advanced from Og rubbing two sticks together to make fire to today. I don't understand why the Navel Gazers think we'd be better off if after 500,000 years we were still sitting around that fire trying to prove it's real or not.

Actually I know exactly why, because it lets them think Woo.

Befoer Og rub stic need to define stic.




Philosophy invented


Og hits pioposopher wit stic.



Refutation invented

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

It's not evening a Gap God. It's a "Make up Gaps that Don't Even Exist and the Put God In Them" God.

This.

I've looked at the papers on biogeochemistry of the Hadean. They're incredibly complex, information-dense and more boring than you can imagine. The question "how did life arise?", from a geological perspective, is answered by careful and minute analysis of the geochemistry of incredibly ancient rocks, which means you have to discuss diagenesis, taphonomy, tectonics, geochemistry, etc. etc. etc.--a sure-fire wire to cure insomnia. But if you can push through all of that, the information is fascinating. We can actually look at a world so alien to our own that no on in sci-fi has made anything comparable--and we can examine microscopic life on a world so ancient that many people don't believe it's real!

The problem for woosters is, getting to the point where you can make sense of all this takes in incredible amount of time and effort. The information is there, but knowing what it means takes decades of study. The reason I don't pretend to know abiogenesis is because I know what goes into knowing it, and I haven't done it. If I wanted to, however, I could examine the literature, attend conferences, and learn it all.

The supernatural is a shortcut to circumvent that requirement. People don't want to put in the effort, so they make up stories to explain things. It's worse than laziness--it's arrogant, smug laziness. I'll gladly admit that I'm not willing to put forth the effort necessary to know the current state of abiogenesis--but I'm humble enough to follow that up with saying "...therefore I'm not an expert on it." People peddling the supernatural lack the willingness to say that last bit. They want to be experts, without going through the process of BECOMING experts.

And as someone who HAS gone through the process, and proven to my employers that I AM knowledgeable enough to pay to study the history of life on Earth, I take that rather personally. Saying that the supernatural explains where we come from doesn't just use bad logic--it also means that I have to contend with charlatans in my field. It makes my job infinitely harder, by putting unnecessary obstacles in my path. It's annoying.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by tsig

Befoer Og rub stic need to define stic.




Philosophy invented


Og hits pioposopher wit stic.



Refutation invented

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

What atheism is is itself a subject of some debate.

This was said in response to this:

If you looked at what Twiler was saying--basically, that atheism means that we don't believe in any gods--and what Twiler was responding to--someone suggesting that we simply reject the CHRISTIAN god--you'd realize that your various definitions of atheism simply don't matter, because no matter which one you pick the atheist applies it to ALL gods, not just the Christian one. Because Twiler's statement is equally applicable to all the definitions you gave, we can ignore them.

You're arguing for a broad definition of "atheist". Twiler, on the other hand, is saying "Atheist doesn't simply mean that I reject Jesus".

Your response was akin to me asking a mechanic what's wrong with my car, and my mechanic giving me the history of the automobile. There's a tenuous connection, and the information isn't necessarily wrong--it's just irrelevant to this particular situation, since it doesn't deal with the issue at hand.

ETA: TL;DR version=context matters.

Twiler provided a definition of atheism; I disagreed with it.

How is that off-topic is a thread about how naturalism entails atheism?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Twiler provided a definition of atheism; I disagreed with it.

No, Twiler provided a REFUTATION OF a SPECIFIC AND ERRONEOUS definition. Twiler's point wasn't, by any rational reading of Twiler's post, to define atheism--it was merely to point out that atheism includes other gods than the Christian god.

Quote:

How is that off-topic is a thread about how naturalism entails atheism?

I wasn't aware that that WAS the point of this thread. Many people have implied or stated that it's true, but the point of this thread is whether or not naturalism is a justified or proven assumption. Atheism is a side-issue, and a rather minor one at that.

[Donn]

"Stic happens." T-shirts invented

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by tsig

Befoer Og rub stic need to define stic.




Philosophy invented


Og hits pioposopher wit stic.



Refutation invented

Reminds me of Samuel Johnson.

"Matter doesn't exist? I refute it thus!" *stubs toe*

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

the question is, what caused them into existence ?

This is the god of the gaps fallacy.

The answer 'We don't know' is one of the best answers we can ever have. Because the real answer is 'We don't know, but we want to find out!'.

Otherwise, the answer given is 'We don't know. Therefore it must be god.'

The world is full of 'We don't know' answers, that have been answered over time, though it may have taken a long time to do so.

Where does lightning come from? Well, in ancient times, the answer 'We don't know, therefore, it happens when the gods are angry'. Well, now we know the answer with that much certainty, and it isn't a supernatural answer.

Naturalism comes around because of all these previous 'I don't knows', none of which have ever had a supernatural explanation. All have been naturalistic.

We follow the evidence, and the evidence has never pointed to a supernatural agent, so why should we start now?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Donn

"Stic happens." T-shirts invented

I get 10% of the gross. Capitalism invented.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Shalamar

This is the god of the gaps fallacy.

The answer 'We don't know' is one of the best answers we can ever have. Because the real answer is 'We don't know, but we want to find out!'.

Otherwise, the answer given is 'We don't know. Therefore it must be god.'

The world is full of 'We don't know' answers, that have been answered over time, though it may have taken a long time to do so.

Where does lightning come from? Well, in ancient times, the answer 'We don't know, therefore, it happens when the gods are angry'. Well, now we know the answer with that much certainty, and it isn't a supernatural answer.

Naturalism comes around because of all these previous 'I don't knows', none of which have ever had a supernatural explanation. All have been naturalistic.

We follow the evidence, and the evidence has never pointed to a supernatural agent, so why should we start now?

Because some people just aren't happy without a daddy.

[Donn]

Originally Posted by tsig

I get 10% of the gross. Capitalism invented.

"Stic 'em up!" Crime invented.




Og had some inventive grandkids.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

So your world view is based on a negative ? any positive evidence on hand for naturalism ?

Is there any evidence for any of the billions of gods humans have dreamed up? Or any other supernatural phenomena?

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

*Sighs* And the begging the Woo begins.

GIBHOR before we get into this is every question we answer just going to be dropped down a metaphysical level and/or restated in a more convoluted way and lobbed back at us?

Do you honestly have intentions of accepting any possible answer we could give you or are you just waiting for us to answer so you can just go "But what caused that / evidence do you have for that" ad nauseum?

Probably. This is a standard xian apologetic tactic.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

*Sighs* And the begging the Woo begins.

GIBHOR before we get into this is every question we answer just going to be dropped down a metaphysical level and/or restated in a more convoluted way and lobbed back at us?

Do you honestly have intentions of accepting any possible answer we could give you or are you just waiting for us to answer so you can just go "But what caused that / evidence do you have for that" ad nauseum?

Spoiler Alert

If you want to know how this thread ends, have a look at his other threads.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Spoiler Alert

If you want to know how this thread ends, have a look at his other threads.

We should see how many posts we can get out of GIBHOR before he turns and bravely runs away.

[X]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

naturalism is more : it makes the assertion nothing else beyond our natural world exists. How can it be supported ?

Incorrect.
Naturalism doesn't asset that things beyond the natural world exist.


I ask again: Why is assuming supernatural things better?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Donn

"Stic 'em up!" Crime invented.
...

You're under arrest and I'll take those profits, thank you. Corruption evolves.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Donn

"Stic 'em up!" Crime invented.




Og had some inventive grandkids.

Cops. Civilization invented.

I think we've reinvented recapitulation.

ETA cops have stics

[Donn]

It's all come unstuc.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Donn

It's all come unstuc.

The Woos Wonderland always vanishes when poked with the hard stic of reality.

ETA much like the "k" after a hard "c".

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Spoiler Alert

If you want to know how this thread ends, have a look at his other threads.

Yeah my fault. I really should learn to check out people's posting history before trying to engage them in an intellectual level.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Yeah my fault. I really should learn to check out people's posting history before trying to engage them in an intellectual level.

I would like to file for an exception to this rule. I intend to evolve in a positive direction.

[phunk]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

so please explain then, how did we get here ? may you start with cosmology, evolution of chemistry, and last not leas, bio chemistry ?

Do you have a theistic answer for the same question? You may start with what caused god.

[George]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?

Did you forget asking this a year ago or are you expecting a bunch of different answers?

'Explain our existence with naturalism'

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=203133

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by Shalamar

This is the god of the gaps fallacy.<snip for brevity>

Here's the worst part...the demand for a cause and using that as a form of infinite regress. The demand for a causer of the universe isn't even a definition that God fits. If you were to be specific to the actual line of Genesis that God created the Heavens and the Earth (out of sync with what actually happened but hey, Bronze Age myth isn't known for being factual -.-) that isn't synonymous with actually creating the Universe, just the Heavens and the Earth. Maybe the Universe was there and God said, nice Universe, I think I'll build my Condo here and call it Earth.

To equate Genesis to the Big Bang and the origins of the Universe is stretching the texts a bit too much already.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Is there any evidence for any of the billions of gods humans have dreamed up? Or any other supernatural phenomena?

.
Putting it in modern parlance... before one can "supersize" a meal, the meal must exist.
As there are no ways that prove the existence of anything not natural, there can't be a "supernatural".
Find something that can't be explained as merely human mental aberrations, then trot out the "super" part.
One shouldn't hold one's breath waiting for this event.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

naturalism is the foundation of strong atheism, which declares, that God most probably does not exist.

That does not seem to be quiet true. I am a strong atheist, yet I don't think of myself as a naturalist. I have little use for naturalism or supernaturalism or some such; the world just is -- and that's that.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

what do you think , why did i write STRONG ATHEISM ??

Yes, strong atheism as is "There is no God."

Does not say anything about naturalism, except you think that everything that does not fit naturalism is some kind of deity (~natural = divine). Which is rubbish if you ask me.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth

That does not seem to be quiet true. I am a strong atheist, yet I don't think of myself as a naturalist. I have little use for naturalism or supernaturalism or some such; the world just is -- and that's that.

There's also the possibility for someone to reject gods, because they think that other types of spirits are responsible. Ancestor worship is a great example--you KNOW they were human, because you're human, yet some cultures worshiped them. A person who worshiped their ancestors could be a strong atheist, but not accept the assumption of naturalism.

[JoeBentley]

Or on a broader cultural level look at the move of people from older traditional religions into new age woo. Neither are atheistic or naturalistic.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

There's also the possibility for someone to reject gods, because they think that other types of spirits are responsible. Ancestor worship is a great example--you KNOW they were human, because you're human, yet some cultures worshiped them. A person who worshiped their ancestors could be a strong atheist, but not accept the assumption of naturalism.

Of course. But you are already importing some kind of spirits. I wouldn't think you would have to go that far into ... errr ... woo territory. How about something that does not fit with naturalism and is totally boring?