Atheism< Return to subforum
well i am anon denominal Christian I believe that Jesus is God
To sum up what I am trying to figure out from you, can we indirectly conclude design (just design, not a specific designer) from scientific observations?
It depends what you mean by "can". If you mean can as in
(like, "can I have another piece of cake?") Then yes, we could, if that's what was factually consistent with reality, then we could, it's a distinct possibility. And I believe this is the question you are asking, so:
However, if you mean "can" as in
is it the case that
(like, "can you smell that?"), then No.
Also, I want to apologize. I did respond to your other comment, but it was eaten up by an unfortunate clicking mishap, and since it was a paragraph long, I was not prepared to rewrite it. I hope this answers your question.
If you mean can as in could? (like, "can I have another piece of cake?")
Then yes, we could, if that's what was factually consistent with reality, then we could, it's a distinct possibility. And I believe this is the question you are asking, so: Yes.
Then that answers my question.
Thumbs up from:
| Oct 26 2016 10:48 PM
Science *does* have a philosophy of methodological naturalism
No, no it doesn't. It's impossible for concepts to posses philosophies, because concepts don't think. People think.
Simiarly, whilst science is just a model of thought, it only exists under the ideal that methodological investigation of phenomena in the natural world can lead to demonstrative models of those phenomena.
You're assuming naturalism to prove your point; that's meaningless.
Also, you're conflating Materialism with Naturalism
No, materialism is placing value of material things over spiritual things, while naturalism is the outright rejection of the spiritual at all.
Logic is a rational conclusion from Methodological Naturalism...
Logic itself is not a conclusion from anything. If logic is a conclusion, then that would mean that you reached that conclusion without logic, since it was your conclusion. So you didn't use logic throughout your whole argument, if what your saying is true. The only exception to this is circular reasoning.
...being "immaterial" doesn't affect its observation...
Well since you acknowledge that the immaterial exists, I am now confused as to what you really believe in.
And, despite the fact that I **explicitly** defined what I mean by Methodological Naturalism, you still don't seem to understand what it means.
No, I understand it, and I reject it as false. Because you attach the word "methodological" before naturalism, that doesn't make it scientific. It's a philosophy, that doesn't make any sense.
At this point, I can only explain that as wilful ignorance on your part.
You don't seem to know what your own terms mean. Methodological naturalism needs to have the belief of naturalism in order to exist. You still haven't proved naturalism, and you later acknowledged that the immaterial exists. So it seems you have confused beliefs.
Scroll up and read what "Methodological Naturalism" means, because until you do, I can't help you to understand what I'm saying
Oh I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you do. You said that methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism were different things, but you later called "methodological naturalism" a philosophy. So I don't think you even understand what you're saying. Either way, to engage in methodological naturalism, you first have to believe in naturalism. It's a prerequisite. But since you say that I don't know what it is, I'll quote what you said:
That's what Methodological Naturalism is, the assumption that we can only learn about reality through study
If that's the definition, then God is the conclusion of it. Since God's invisible qualities are clearly seen.
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:19-20 KJV
You didn't read what I wrote. Science
have a philosophy. Read my last post, it explained this. Also, I don't assume naturalism, I explained this. Then you tell me that "Methodological Naturalism" is the same thing as "Philosophical Naturalism. No it isn't
I explained this.
If you're going to keep
what I am saying, then I might as well ignore you entirely. Stop telling me what I'm saying, and actually
what I am writing, and you might learn something. Methodological Naturalism does not presuppose naturalism any more than "Human Nature" presupposes Nature. At this point, if you still don't understand this, you're an idiot.
As for your other random comments. No, I don't acknowledge that the immaterial exists; that's an assumption of Mysticism on your part. I don't assume naturalism or mysticism, I merely consider that which can be observed.
You say you "reject" Methodological Naturalism because "it's naturalism". and
Because you attach the word "methodological" before naturalism, that doesn't make it scientific
No, the definition of "science" is what makes it scientific. I suppose you believe that Alternative Medicine is the same thing as Medicine then? And Cosmetic Surgery is the same thing as Surgery? Believe it or not, adjectives
the meaning of words. You can reject it all you want, but you'd still be wrong.
As for logic, yes, you can observe logic; logic is objective, and testable, the fact that it's objective is what makes it testable. If I believed as
do, then we must assume we cannot learn unless we already knew everything. Logic is a structured model of thought, but even an irrational person can discover this model of thought, through thinking, by observing that which occurs incrementally, discovering the logical outcomes of that which occurs, and uncovering it methodologically. That's what Methodological Naturalism is in practice, observing and reaching conclusions from them (or, in other words, unbiased Scientific Observation).
Finally, we get to something interesting. If you believe that God can be discovered through Methodological Naturalism, then please give me the evidence that supports this claim. Because I actually believe that is true. If God exists in reality, then Methodological Naturalism will be one of the ways that we uncover this fact to be true.
But, you say God can be concluded from it? Please, provide me this proof.
Also, you end with a bible quote. So, I think it would be fitting to end with another quote:
"Billy - I don't believe it!"
I gazed up through the holes in the net and recognized Dr. D. and Sheena. They struggled to pull us aboard the dinghy.
Sheena stared down at me and the mermaid in amazement. Dr. D.'s eyes were wide, and his mouth hung open.
"You've found her, Billy!" he said. "You've actually found the mermaid!"
"Just get me out of this net!" I cried. Somehow, I didn't feel so great about capturing the mermaid anymore.
Ch. 15 p. 61
(See? I can quote books too. It doesn't mean that mermaids exist.)
| Nov 5 2016 9:54 PM
Whether you like it or not, methodological naturalism is just philosophical naturalism in practice. It's the same thing.
Anyway, I'm not interested in semantic debates. We were originally talking about God. If you don't believe God is real, then how was the world created?
| Nov 5 2016 9:57 PM
And by the way, I did read your posts multiple times. I just don't agree with it. So I'm not ignoring what you're saying.
No, it's not. I don't care if you're interested in semantic debates or not, because if you are going to say that Philosophical means the same thing as Methodological, you are wrong, I will continue to explain that you are wrong for as long as you are wrong, because that is the main reason why you cannot. The word Naturalism does not mean what you think it means. It is an artistic term related to realism in portraiture or a deterministic view of literature/fiction; or a subjective term relating to an individual's respect for nature. - Naturalism is just attachment and association with nature.
It is not "Philosophical Naturalism", that is its own beast entirely. So when you say that Philosophical Naturalism is the same thing as Methodological Naturalism, it's like saying that a Mean Person is the same thing as a Nice Person; it depends on the context, sure, but in this context, the adjective creates a fundamental difference between these terms.
And in this case, that foundation is presupposition. One of these (Phil') has presupposition; the other (Meth')
The reason I say you are ignoring what I am saying is because you just said . . . hell, I'll copy and paste:
Whether you like it or not, methodological naturalism is just philosophical naturalism in practice.
That is an outright lie.
I do not abide by Philosophical Naturalism, I cannot agree with it, it is not what I believe. But I do agree with Methodological Naturalism. So EVERY SINGLE TIME you tell me what I believe, and claim that I believe in Philosophical Naturalism when I have said again, again, and again
"I do not agree with the ideology of Philosophical Naturalism."
you are ignoring the exact words that I am saying.
You're ignorant and close-minded, and until you can understand what I am saying, you are wasting my time.
As for How was the world created? Gravity and time. It's simple physics.
the main reason why you cannot
understand the point I am trying to make*
I meant to say.
Also, if I don't respond for a while, it's because I am partaking in NaNoWriMo. So, if I do not respond for over two weeks, please don't take that as disrespectful. I disagree with your ideas, and I am passionate about mine, but I do appreciate the conversation and I hope it is not construed as disrespect.
| Nov 8 2016 4:30 PM
Small aside - congrats on NaNoWriMo! You should make a thread telling us about your novel sometime.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
God does not exist, I assert at with 100% confidence. (And I am an atheist). I actually held two debates on this, on debate.org just now. Here's the latest one:
Crow: if you would have asserted that there is a tea-pot on the back side of the moon, I would say the assertion is arbitrary, because it does not contradict any metaphysics. But God as an all powerful being is a logical impossibility, that contradicts metaphysics, and therefore, he can not exist. In the debate I only took one line of reasoning to expose a contradiction, but there are many variations.
"You can avoid reality, but you can not avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." -- Ayn Rand
You seem to be assuming metaphysical naturalism in your debate. Your reasoning being that the natural world is all that exists. Since the natural world is all that exists, and God is supernatural, then God does not exist. It is a faulty assumption in this case since existence would be defined as containing logic and mathematics. Also, monotheists don't accept naturalism.