Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One 369 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  OldSoul

  But, by far, humankind still persists in believing in more than physical reality. So, if we take the view that norm is determined by the majority, i.e. by a mean derived from the whole, whose thinking is really abnormal?

  I am not claiming that the thinking is automatically justified by popularity. I am claiming that your denial or disagreement with the validity of my experiences is not in keeping with humankind's thinking, and that is the authority you appealed to in your post.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  Daunt

  I don't think you've taken in what I was saying yet. I am not saying that the perceptions of humankind should judge reality but what we have observed to be demonstratable has not yet suggested a God figure. I am not appealing to the authority of man but am only commenting on what mankind has tested so far. The beliefs of man does not fit into this because it is not testable as I've exclaimed a few times now. What we have tested and demonstrated as a race so far (ei. biology, astronomy, genetics, all sorts of fields of sciences) has not suggested a God anywhere yet.
  
  Perceptions or beliefs of scientists or non scientists does not matter in this, just what we have tested to be true.
• 

  OldSoul

  Since science has restricted its experimentation to a field which prevents analysis of the entire scope of my reality, why should I imagine that in 10,000 years they will discover anything outside its self-limiting scope?

  Is it likely that Science will discover God when they aren't looking for God? I say, given our history, they will more likely discover a strange invisible "something" that exerts tremendous force on physical bodies, can cause planets, stars, and galaxies to come into existence, and can even bend light. When they find this something, they won't know what it is, but that won't stop them from giving it a name. They'll make up a name for it.

  What is gravity?

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  Daunt

  Sure in 10,000 years we might find something, but that's why I say current. Currently we have no more proof of Santa Claus than this God figure and that is not an exaggeration on my part. And until we find such a force that can bend light and form planets that we do not have a concrete explanation for then we will be at a standstill. However, I know I say these things a lot but the teapot on mars is just as likely as God existing at the moment. And it's not possible to have a good estimation of the possibility of something that has the power to do these things without us being able to explain it because we just have not seen a case of that yet.
  
  You can bring up possibilities for eternity but it can be atributed to any supernatural phenomena that we can make up in our heads. FSM is a perfect example.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  old soul,

  i wasn't saying that you personally are delusional any more than you were saying that kid-A personally has a "limited perspective". i was just playing devils advocate in turning your argument around. i'm sorry if i offended you.

  on to the matter at hand:

  Since science has restricted its experimentation to a field which prevents analysis of the entire scope of my reality, why should I imagine that in 10,000 years they will discover anything outside its self-limiting scope?

  why do you preclude your reality from the scope of scietific methodology?

  self-imiting scope? science is NOT self limiting. the speculations and hypotheses of people claiming extra ordinary interactions (from a realm that would be the domain of science should it exist, since humans [carbon based units] have interacted with it!) are self limiting, since they are unfalsifiable.

  science is concerned with "everything". everything. meaning everything that exists. even stuff we have little clue regarding like abiogenesis. but it is concerned with everything, no matter how may dimensions it may be a part of. who said that science is limited to four dimensions?

  so it is not self limiting at all. if there were a god. or if there were a "spirit realm", then it would be the scope of science. why? because it means that it has interacted with us, or someone has claimed that it has interacted with us. and this is the scope of science.

  but so far, no god has showed herself. this means that while science has no data on her existence, it is still awaiting ANY data.

  and you'd think that there would be some data at least. since god (or any spirit thing) is interacting with SO MANY humans, even in this 21st century. and THAT"S the clincher: there is no evidence so far. and yet, science is concerned with everything that exists.

  trust me. i get it when you say that your experiences are outside the realm of scientific observation. but i say "too bad, you must play by the rules anyways". the idea that your experiences are outside of the realm of science is an oxymoron of sorts, since science is concerned with everything that is real. if there is a god, then no matter what dimension or crazy warped thing she is, she IS real.

  religions? they're institutions. what do they have that science does not? they have been talking with god (or any spirit anything) for mellenia, and yet science cannot see her anywhere. what does that say? why religion and not science? why individuals, but not individuals working critically within a methodology? this, i dare say, speaks volumes about the existence of anything spiritual. scientists are just people trying to understand the universe. they're not out to kill god. they're out to find truth, and use that truth to the furtherance of our species.

  if anything, a god that actually cared about us, would say:

  "hey. you know what? those scientists have been doing a lot more for mankind than i have, curing diseases and what not. good on them! i should really show my manifest reality to the scientific community so that all may be saved and see my glory."

  you do believe in god don't you?

  at any rate, science may not be able to explain your experiences. but since you are an organism on planet earth, i am sorry to say that it's explanation still does fall under the auspices of science, sooner or later.

  TS
• 

  rem

  >> at any rate, science may not be able to explain your experiences. but since you are an organism on planet earth, i am sorry to say that it's explanation still does fall under the auspices of science, sooner or later.
  
  There is a high probability that people with such "extra-dimensional" perceptions are simply delusional. We really do know a lot about the brain and perceptual illusions. It is very likely that such a person has succumbed to such known phenomena. Where pure materialistic science breaks down in explanatory power, Occham's razor comes in as a powerful tool.
  
  It's just pragmatic... otherwise you can spend page after page debating whether or not angels really do fit on the head of a pin.
  
  rem
• 

  OldSoul

  Ockham's Razor? Please, use it. What is gravity?

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  Leolaia

  If you asked Newton, gravity is an attractive force that behaves in predictable ways. If you asked Einstein, gravity is a property of space-time curvature (i.e. not attraction by a force but a warping of the surrounding matrix). If you asked a quantum theorist, well, there practically is no gravity at the quantum level where strong and weak forces instead predominate in unpredictable (but probabalistic) ways. Is gravity God? Well, if so, then God would not be omnipresent or omnipotent at the quantum level.

  Maybe you want to talk about strong nuclear force that keeps atomic nuclei together. And the mesons that serve as carriers of the force? Hmmm. Those must be the quadrillions of angels transmitting God's force to subatomic particles...wonder how many fit on a pin? Actually...I heard they're midichlorians. And if you listen carefully, you'll hear them speaking to you if you learn to quiet your mind (shameless Star Wars reference).
• 

  Abaddon

  OS

  Suppose everyone was color-blind to green, but LittleToe could see it. Does green exist? Certainly. Could he prove that to you? Would he be wise to talk openly about what he saw?

  No.

  Wrong and wrong.

  LT would be able to demonstrate quite simply (using prisms and some form of photoelectro cell) that the 'gap' in the rainbow of colurs generated when you shine white light through a prism we had assumed didn't have anything in it, actually had light in it we were unable to see. He would then be able to make huge amounts of money by travelling the world talking about the colour green.

  The 'we might not be able to 'measure' god so we can't say lack of proof is indicative of non-existence, whilst possibley true, is also possibly true to Zeus, Athene, Santa, etc. ad nauseum. At a certain point one has to decide a class of object ('spirit' entities lacking in physical proof) might actually conform to single objective reality (not being real in any physical sense).

  However, if one can have feelings that make you act as if something was real (like 'national pride' doesn't actually exist in any concrete fashion, but is manifested and unarguably exists in people's actions), then they are real without actual existing in the sense the computer in front of you exists.

  Belief in god creates god.
• 

  hooberus

  >> A theory such as "that God created the basic animal types separately and distinctly" (which is thus potentially able to generate predictions about what will be and will not be found in the living and fossil world), does not also require that God is also defined "out of a personality or any capacity for creativity" - It is simply a potentially falsifiable/predictive theory as to how creation occurred.
  
  There's the thing, Hooberus... you've just described exactly the opposite of a falsifiable theory. Basically the creation theory as you describe it is not falsifiable until you take God's intelligence away because it's impossible to have predictions.

  
  I disagree, -the above theory can make predictions- for example: Combining the observed fact that in the living biota discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent and that all 30 phyla of living animals are separated from each other by a discontinous gap (Mayr What Evolution Is page 189) with the previous theory that: "God created the basic animal types separately and distinctly" we are thus thus able to generate predictions about what will be and will not be found in the living and fossil world such as: 1) All future animals discovered will be shown to belong to separate and distinct phyla in the living world 2) All animal phyla will be found to remain separate and distinct in the fossil record and not emerge other phyla. And, as I said previously, such a theory does not also require that God is also defined "out of a personality or any capacity for creativity" - It is simply a potentially falsifiable/predictive theory as to how creation occurred.

  There's nothing to guarantee that you wont have some strange chimera of an animal *in principle* if you have an intelligent creator - it doesn't logically follow.

  There is nothing in Evolution to guarantee that you won't have "some strange chimera of an animal *in principal*" either - In the event of finding such a creature evolutionists would simply invoke things such as "lateral transfer" evolution (DNA transposition) between the different and diverse lineages in order to "explain" such a creature.

  That's why Evolutionary mechanisms are falsifiable - you can't just make up unfalsifiable exceptions to the rule to get out of sticky situations.

  Some evolutionary mechanisms are falsifiable (and have been), others may not be. Evolution itself (as in the claim of the historical evolution) is quite conformable to "exceptions" (by its proponets) "to get out of sticky situations." See ReMine's "The Biotic Message" for numerous examples.
  
  

  By the way, what *has* creation predicted and how has it helped increase our knowledge and understanding in various scientific disciplines?

  The previous creation prediction of the separate and disctinct basic animal types has been born out in the living world and in the fossil record. (For example the various phlya of animals retain their disctinctiveness throughout the fossil record. http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/CATALOG/FIGH.html)
  
  

  What tangible benefits has this theory brought to mankind?

  Perhaps you should first ask this of evolution. What "tangible benefits" has evolutionary theory brought to mankind that would not have been discovered had it not been for the existence of the theory?