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

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
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.

Yes I phrased that sloppily. Blame the cat..........

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth

the world just is -- and that's that.

do you believe, it has always been, or did it come into existence some time back ?

[marplots]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

do you believe, it has always been, or did it come into existence some time back ?

I think it came from accretion of rocks and space junk stuff. But the question would probably best be asked of an astronomer. They have the expertise here. Kind of how you'd go to a geologist if you wanted to know something about volcanoes. I'm only going by what little I've read.

Is the question important on other than a curiosity basis? In other words, does the question hold any more force than, "Why does my yard have more dandelions growing on it than my neighbors?"

So that's a question you might ask yourself. Why are origins important? Suppose I never find a good answer, how would that uncertainty affect my life?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

do you believe, it has always been, or did it come into existence some time back ?

Coming into existence makes definitely no sense as that implies some sort of time. We were however talking about the world, of which any sort of time would be a part. The other thing, "has always been" ... hmmm. Let's just say is.

(And please, please, please not this Kalaam trash again.)

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally Posted by marplots

I think it came from accretion of rocks and space junk stuff. But the question would probably best be asked of an astronomer. They have the expertise here. Kind of how you'd go to a geologist if you wanted to know something about volcanoes. I'm only going by what little I've read.

Keep in mind that there are several different definitions of "world". The one I was using was more "all of existence". And that's what Gibhor replied too.

"World" as in "planet Earth" is something else.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

do you believe, it has always been, or did it come into existence some time back ?

God doesn't exist, you are scientifically illiterate, and god doesn't exist.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by slingblade

God doesn't exist, you are scientifically illiterate, and god doesn't exist.

But..... does god exist?

Do I have to go get the peanut butter jar again?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by devnull

But..... does god exist?

Do I have to go get the peanut butter jar again?

I'll settle for this:



Go to it you two.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

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

Does it matter, the universe behaves the way it does, if it behaved differently then we would still go with naturalism.

Words like naturalism really don't matter. It all acts the same in the long run.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

the question is, what caused them into existence ?

We don't know

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

do you believe, it has always been, or did it come into existence some time back ?

The worlds looks to be about 5 billion years old, the universe 13.7 BYA, before that, we don't know.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth

Keep in mind that there are several different definitions of "world". The one I was using was more "all of existence". And that's what Gibhor replied too.

"World" as in "planet Earth" is something else.

Sorry, that's the one I'm familiar with. I don't yet have much of a handle on the whole universe. I hear it's huge though.

But honestly, why wouldn't he just ask someone who has spent the time learning about this? And why wouldn't he believe them? Those people are probably a bit insulted -- they spend the majority of their adult lives studying this stuff and it just gets hand waved away? For shame.

[temporalillusion]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Spoiler Alert

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

This.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

In answer to the OP, because everything we've looked at so far can be explained in a naturalistic way. Some, like abiogenesis, even in so many different naturalistic ways we do not know which is the one that actually happened.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

do you believe, it has always been, or did it come into existence some time back ?

I have no idea, nor does anyone else. However, there is no evidence at all that the same thing happened PLUS the spontaneous occurence of an all powerful, supernatural, reasoning and moral being existing outside of everything.

Why do you find the second option more logical?

[Dinwar]

Quote:

do you believe, it has always been, or did it come into existence some time back ?

If, by "the world" you mean the planet Earth, the leading theory is that it came together as a result of clumping within the disk from which the Sun formed. This period is known in geology as either the Hadean (meaning hellish--fire, molten brimstone, the whole works actually existed back then) or the Heavy Bombardment (after the fact that Chixilub-size impacts were happening at least every couple of years). This is the same time period during which the Moon formed, from the collision of the Earth and a smaller--but still planet-sized--body. This all started, according to radiometric dating from asteroids that formed concurrent with the Earth but in different (calmer) regions of the solar system, approximately 4.6 billion years ago, plus or minus a few tens or hundreds of millions of years--so, say 4 to 5 billion years ago. During the Hadean the Earth was at least partially liquid at the surface; however, by 3.9 billion years ago the Earth had cooled enough for permanent liquid water to form at the surface. We know this because chemical trace fossils (isotopic signatures which require metabolic processes to form) have been found in rocks 3.9 billion years ago.

If you mean the universe, the best evidence that I'm aware of is that it cooled form a superhot plasma state approximately 15 billion years ago. It all occurred at every point in the universe, as evidenced by the cosmic background radiation. As for what came before that, we simply do not and, according to my understanding of the current theories, cannot know anything. The distance light has traveled since the Big Bang acts a bit like the event horizon of a black hole, in that it can move but we cannot know what's on the other side. And as AronRa said, asking what happened before the Big Bang is akin to looking for a place south of the south pole--the question is nonsensical, because time started at the Big Bang and you're therefore asking "What happened at a time before time?"

Originally Posted by marplots

But honestly, why wouldn't he just ask someone who has spent the time learning about this? And why wouldn't he believe them? Those people are probably a bit insulted -- they spend the majority of their adult lives studying this stuff and it just gets hand waved away?

While I'm not a Precambrian geologist, my research area has been hand-waved away often enough that I can speak to how this sort of thing affects us. You're right, it's incredibly insulting. It takes a great deal of time and effort to understanding this sort of thing, not to mention the risks involved. One reason my wife and I both decided to avoid volcanology is the death rate. Anyone who handwaves away geology should let that sink in for a minute--PEOPLE DIE gathering the information they can't be bothered to look up. And it's not as if this information is particularly difficult to obtain. I got my copy of "A Brief History of Time" and "The Universe in a Nutshell", combined, for $5. Paleontologica Electronica is an open-access journal that discusses paleontology, and while the publications of GSA and AAPG are behind paywalls they're certainly accessible enough to anyone curious about the subject. The United States Geological Survey does get into Hadean stuff on occasion, and their publications warehouse makes many of them free.

Woo peddlers are either frauds or incredibly lazy. And they pretend to be peers of people who devote their time, effort, and their very lives to the study of the universe and this planet. What woo peddlers do is akin to punching the firemen trying to put out the fire consuming your home.

Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth

How about something that does not fit with naturalism and is totally boring?

I hate to admit it, but I honestly can't think of something non-woo and non-naturalistic. Everything I come up with that violates the principles of naturalism is a type of woo. Do you have any examples? I'm genuinely curious to see some.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

/bow Dinwar

I suspect the OP will ignore or handwave it away, but your posts always make me want to look deeper into paleontology. Now if only I could find the time

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by devnull

But..... does god exist?

Do I have to go get the peanut butter jar again?

Can we try it with Nutella this time? Please?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I hate to admit it, but I honestly can't think of something non-woo and non-naturalistic. Everything I come up with that violates the principles of naturalism is a type of woo. Do you have any examples? I'm genuinely curious to see some.

Not really, no. No examples. I would be incredibly hard to come by anyway. How would we know about it if it does not interact with the natural world? Still, the possibility can't be ruled out 100%. And, what I find somewhat revealing is, that any boring, uninteresting or just un-woo non-natural things are much more likely than anything woo. And yet, time and again the point is being made that you have to be, uhh, open-minded all kinds of whacky things and ... meh.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by marplots

Is the question important on other than a curiosity basis?

Its a fundamental question. Either the universe exists since eternity ( in one way or form, or the other ), or it had a beginning. That are the two possibilities that are possible.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth

Coming into existence makes definitely no sense as that implies some sort of time. We were however talking about the world, of which any sort of time would be a part. The other thing, "has always been" ... hmmm. Let's just say is.

(And please, please, please not this Kalaam trash again.)

Well, then you believe, the universe exists without beginning ?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

We don't know

Are you happy with this answer ? do you not wanto to go beyond, and at least, if we cannot know in the sense to find one day definitive proof, at least figure out what makes most sense to believe ?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

In answer to the OP, because everything we've looked at so far can be explained in a naturalistic way.

May it can, but are the explanations compelling ? I would like to see these explanations, and understand, why they are compelling to you.

Quote:

Some, like abiogenesis, even in so many different naturalistic ways we do not know which is the one that actually happened.

But what makes you believe, the origin of life has no author ?

Quote:

I have no idea, nor does anyone else. However, there is no evidence at all that the same thing happened PLUS the spontaneous occurence of an all powerful, supernatural, reasoning and moral being existing outside of everything.

So you stick to nihilism ? happy with that ?

[nvidiot]

Admitting a lack of knowledge does not imply a lack of curiosity regarding said knowledge.

Positing definitive answers without evidence, or suggesting that "belief" is a suitable alternative is not viable as a methodology.

More directly to the point, I don't think you know what "Naturalism" actually is or means.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Well, then you believe, the universe exists without beginning ?

Well, I said "world". That emcompasses anything there is, including of course the universe and, if such things existed, Gods too.

Plus, if I recall correctly, you previously asked about coming into existence. Coming into existence and having a beginning are not necessarily the same either.

But, as I previously said, the world just is. And that is that.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Are you happy with this answer ? do you not wanto to go beyond, and at least, if we cannot know in the sense to find one day definitive proof, at least figure out what makes most sense to believe ?

It'd be great to know the answers. That's why scientists are doing science in order to answer these questions scientifically using science.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

If, by "the world" you mean the planet Earth, the leading theory is that it came together as a result of clumping within the disk from which the Sun formed.

i was actually referring to the universe, but since you answered in regard of the earth, does this theory seem plausible to you ?

Truth being told, that is a very UNlikely scenario :

http://creation.com/the-naturalistic...ngly-difficult

Quote:

But if an inquiring person were to ask how the planets actually formed from the dust, he would get a surprising answer:

‘But if you ask how this dust actually started to form planets, you might get an embarrassed silence. Planets, it seems, grow too fast—no one knows why the dust clumps together so quickly’1 [emphasis mine].
This, among other theoretical processes in the big bang scenario, is actually held by faith. (The formation of stars has similar challenges as planet formation.2 The main difference is that stars accumulate more mass from the dust cloud. Since star and planet formation have similar problems, for the sake of simplicity, I will only discuss the naturalistic origin of planets.) A recent article in New Scientist admits that forming a planet naturalistically is exceedingly difficult.3

There are four stages in the supposed evolution of planets:

Edited by Locknar:

Edited, breach of rule 4.

Sigurdsson is likely correct that all hypotheses for planet formation are wild guesses. It is even more likely that his guess is even wilder than most, as many astronomers believe. That leaves nothing to explain the development of the planets, at least using natural processes over long periods of time. A straightforward reading of the evidence at hand and the state of the many hypotheses and problems is that planets did not form naturalistically but were supernaturally created.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Its a fundamental question. Either the universe exists since eternity ( in one way or form, or the other ), or it had a beginning. That are the two possibilities that are possible.

How do you know those are the only two options?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by nvidiot

Admitting a lack of knowledge does not imply a lack of curiosity regarding said knowledge.

Positing definitive answers without evidence, or suggesting that "belief" is a suitable alternative is not viable as a methodology.

More directly to the point, I don't think you know what "Naturalism" actually is or means.

But stating that you do know the answer i.e. "God did it" does imply a lack of curiosity regarding said knowledge.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

i was actually referring to the universe, but since you answered in regard of the earth, does this theory seem plausible to you ?

Truth being told, that is a very UNlikely scenario :

http://creation.com/the-naturalistic...ngly-difficult

So what if it is a very "UNlikely (sp) scenario" if it is correct? If you come across a dead body in the middle of a field it is very unlikely that the person has been killed by a bolt of lightening, yet that could be the answer. Something being unlikely or not does not effect the actual truth value of that something.

[Reivax]

Given what I know, what seems most reasonable? Naturalism.

[Reivax]

"The naturalistic formation of planets [SEEMS] exceedingly difficult"

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Its a fundamental question. Either the universe exists since eternity ( in one way or form, or the other ), or it had a beginning. That are the two possibilities that are possible.

Oh come now, we don't know, its that simple. It may also have come into existence looking as though it was eternal.

If you want to know the speculative physics and the actual physics the answer if the universe looks to be 13.7 billion years old, there are many different speculations as to what it may or may not have come from.

If you like the expanding space time bubbles, then this bubble is still 13.7 BYO, we don't know about the rest.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Well, then you believe, the universe exists without beginning ?

This universe appears to have a beginning 13.7 BYO, what the context is, we don't know.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

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

But we do know that nature exists, to the extent that we can know anything at all. Everyone should "believe in" nature and natural causes. The question is whether there is anything more than that. To which my answer is always "I don't know, do you have any reason to think so?"

If naturalism is the assertion that there is nothing supernatural, then nobody should be a naturalist. Indeed, there are no circumstances under which anybody ever could reasonably be a naturalist. It is and always will be possible that the supernatural exists.

I'm happy to believe in the supernatural. Somebody simply needs to give me a reason to do so. Thus far, nobody has.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Are you happy with this answer ? do you not wanto to go beyond, and at least, if we cannot know in the sense to find one day definitive proof, at least figure out what makes most sense to believe ?

No, as I stated I really don't care. I can barely visualize the number 1,000, like a crowd of 1,000 people or 1,000 pennies.

I can sort of hold my mind on the idea of 1,000 years, but not really.

93,000,000 miles, how big is that?
4.3 light years how big is that?
If the sun was grain of sand (.5 mm) the nearest star is like 9 miles or 14 km away.
The center of our galaxy is 58,000 mile or 94,000 km away

The Andromeda galaxy is ~2.5 megalight years away (2.1 mi./3.3 km = 5,250,000 mi or 7,499.997 km. in scale) and the are more galaxies than we can count and they have 100,000,000,000 stars in each one.

I am amazed by the universe as it is, wow.

So no, I don't want /need an answer to a question that we can't find right now.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Are you happy with this answer ? do you not wanto to go beyond, and at least, if we cannot know in the sense to find one day definitive proof, at least figure out what makes most sense to believe ?

GIBHOR, I don't think people are going to feel that this is a fulfilling debate unless you acknowledge what they've already said to you; Can you give a summary of the debate so far so that we may see if your perception of it matches with ours?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Are you happy with this answer ? do you not wanto to go beyond, and at least, if we cannot know in the sense to find one day definitive proof, at least figure out what makes most sense to believe ?

How does making up an untestable explanation help?

[JoeBentley]

The idea that science is "Happy not knowing" is laughable to the point of being sad.

As Joobz said handwave explanations like God, the Paranormal, the Supernatural, Navel Gazing and other woo aren't answers, they are just slapping a more theatrical label on not knowing.

When a Scientist says "I don't know" it means just that, at this point we just don't know. It leaves the door open both in possibility and in desire for us finding the information further down the road.

When a Woo Slinger says "Woo did it" it still means they don't know, but it also means they aren't intellectually honest enough to admit it, and since they've invented a copout answer they are no longer looking for the real one.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

But we do know that nature exists, to the extent that we can know anything at all. Everyone should "believe in" nature and natural causes. The question is whether there is anything more than that. To which my answer is always "I don't know, do you have any reason to think so?"

If naturalism is the assertion that there is nothing supernatural, then nobody should be a naturalist. Indeed, there are no circumstances under which anybody ever could reasonably be a naturalist. It is and always will be possible that the supernatural exists.

I'm happy to believe in the supernatural. Somebody simply needs to give me a reason to do so. Thus far, nobody has.

Well, if we're going down this route, then as soon as anyone finds good evidence for the supernatural existing, then it ceases to be supernatural and becomes, instead, natural. Really, by definition, the only thing that can exist is the natural.

[MarkCorrigan]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that yes, in some form all that makes up the universe as we know it has always existed.