Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism

General discussions
fai
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:56 pm

Re: Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism

Post by fai » Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:07 pm

Adonai88 wrote: What kind of sucess are you talking about ? And how should that sucess evidence philosophical naturalism is true ? please explain the correlation.
what planet are you on? I'm on planet science (the one that works) :lol:

that's a reference to a famous cartoon http://xkcd.com/54/, and NOT a personal insult :P

It's reasonable to observe MN leads to PN, on the basis the the world unfailingly appears to work as an inanimate machine. If you want to believe in a mindless uncaring Deity go ahead and contradict Occam.
funkyderek
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism

Post by funkyderek » Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:48 pm

Adonai88 wrote:Of course we do not have empirical evidence, but you can certainly use reason, to answer my question, no ?
Certainly in our universe nothing comes from nothing. But that doesn't tell us about the universe itself. As time and space (or spacetime) began at the Big Bang, it may be that there's no meaningful way of talking about what happened before it. Common sense does not necessarily apply when it comes to the deep questions of cosmology.
One thing we can be reasonably certain of is that whatever preceded the Big Bang could not have been intelligent, as all examples of intelligence that we have ever encountered have come into existence by a long and gradual process of evolution.
So on what do you base your certainty ? on empirical evidence ?
Yes, and reason. The empirical evidence is that the only examples of intelligence we know of have come about through slow evolution. Reason tells us that the chance of intelligence existing without such a process is so vanishingly unlikely as to be essentially impossible.
not if the cause of the universe is uncaused. How can intelligence and consciousness arise trouh dead matter ? please explain.
Intelligence - at least the only examples of intelligence we know of - arises through a process of evolution by natural selection. This has been thoroughly and convincingly demonstrated. No other method of intelligence arising has ever been observed.
But let's say the Big Bang was somehow started by an intelligent being. (It obviously wasn't
How is that obvious to you ?
There were no intelligent beings at the time. There was nowhere - and indeed nowhen - for them to be. Nor is an intelligence needed. If you insist on believing that something must have been there to light the fuse, there's no reason to assume that something was intelligent.
It seems rather you are desperate to defend your belief, no intelligence exists transcending our universe ?
Not at all. I would be amazed and overjoyed to discover a form of intelligence beyond our planet. It would raise all sorts of wonderful questions and issues, and I would thoroughly enjoy learning the answers to some questions we can only speculate about.
You, on the other hand, have not only decided - without evidence - that such an intelligence exists; you have named it, given it a personality (and a gender, of all things!), and convinced yourself that you know what it - he - wants. Not only that, but what you've managed to come up with is so petty and provincial that it could have been dreamt up by Bronze Age goatherds. As, in fact, it was.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

Image

Image Image Image Image
Adonai88
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:45 pm

Re: Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism

Post by Adonai88 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:07 pm

funkyderek wrote:
Certainly in our universe nothing comes from nothing. But that doesn't tell us about the universe itself. As time and space (or spacetime) began at the Big Bang, it may be that there's no meaningful way of talking about what happened before it. Common sense does not necessarily apply when it comes to the deep questions of cosmology.
Therefore outside of our universe, irrational things can happen ? like a square be equal a circle ? or 1 + 1 = 3 ? you don't believe that, do you ?
So how could you believe, that from abstolutely nothing, which has no potentialities, something can arise ? that is irrational.
The empirical evidence is that the only examples of intelligence we know of have come about through slow evolution.
First, if its empirical, then it becomes a proven fact. Second : prove your assertion, that intelligence comes only through slow evolution. Good luck.
Reason tells us that the chance of intelligence existing without such a process is so vanishingly unlikely as to be essentially impossible.
If its a empirical proven fact, we do not need reason anymore to deduce that. btw. Einstein would not agree with you at all.

Intelligence - at least the only examples of intelligence we know of - arises through a process of evolution by natural selection. This has been thoroughly and convincingly demonstrated. No other method of intelligence arising has ever been observed.
Please show the experiment that demonstrated this.
There were no intelligent beings at the time.
How do you know ?

There was nowhere - and indeed nowhen - for them to be. Nor is an intelligence needed. If you insist on believing that something must have been there to light the fuse, there's no reason to assume that something was intelligent.
why not ?

You, on the other hand, have not only decided - without evidence - that such an intelligence exists;
how do you probably KNOW i have no evidence to back up my faith ?
Bik
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:02 pm
Location: Baile Átha Cliath

Re: Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism

Post by Bik » Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:54 pm

Adonai88 wrote: how do you probably KNOW i have no evidence to back up my faith ?
If you have evidence then you don't need faith but please go ahead and produce your evidence.
"Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion." Superintendent Chalmers
funkyderek
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism

Post by funkyderek » Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:12 pm

Adonai88 wrote:Therefore outside of our universe, irrational things can happen ? like a square be equal a circle ? or 1 + 1 = 3 ? you don't believe that, do you ?
No, I don't. Although, interestingly you do. You believe that everything must have a cause, including the universe. But you also believe in a being who is an exception to the rule - the very rule that you use to demonstrate that being's necessity.
So how could you believe, that from abstolutely nothing, which has no potentialities, something can arise ? that is irrational.
Even within our universe particle and anti-particle pairs come into existence all the time and are usually (but not always) annihilated preserving the average nothing. There's nothing irrational about it, even if it contradicts our everyday experiences. As I said before, and cannot stress enough, common sense is not sufficient for the deep questions of cosmology.
First, if its empirical, then it becomes a proven fact. Second : prove your assertion, that intelligence comes only through slow evolution. Good luck.
That's not the assertion I made. I said that "the only examples of intelligence we know of have come about through slow evolution". That remains true, although in the near future, I expect we will also encounter examples of intelligence that have been created by humans.
Reason tells us that the chance of intelligence existing without such a process is so vanishingly unlikely as to be essentially impossible.
If its a empirical proven fact, we do not need reason anymore to deduce that.
You're making even less sense than usual. We need reason to deduce things for which there is no empirical evidence. As it is impossible to prove a negative, all we can do is make reasoned deductions based on the evidence we do have. Intelligence requires a certain level of complexity. It is absurdly unlikely that a sufficient level of complexity could simply exist by itself without some sort of self-organising process.
btw. Einstein would not agree with you at all.
That is both irrelevant and untrue.
Intelligence - at least the only examples of intelligence we know of - arises through a process of evolution by natural selection. This has been thoroughly and convincingly demonstrated. No other method of intelligence arising has ever been observed.
Please show the experiment that demonstrated this.


An experiment? Are you remotely serious? At some point you're going to have to put up or shut up. If you can provide me with evidence of a single example of intelligence that has not evolved, please do so.
There were no intelligent beings at the time.
How do you know ?
I don't - indeed, can't - know for sure. But there is no evidence for an intelligence, no plausible scenario by which such an intelligence could come to be and nothing that requires it.
If you insist on believing that something must have been there to light the fuse, there's no reason to assume that something was intelligent.
why not ?
Because no intelligence is required. Think about whatever it is you think needed to be done by a god before the Big Bang and replace that god with an unintelligent but complex machine (a robo-god if you will). What could God do that Robo-God could not?
how do you probably KNOW i have no evidence to back up my faith ?
Because unless you're some sort of colossal moron, you would have presented it by now.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

Image

Image Image Image Image
Adonai88
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:45 pm

Re: Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism

Post by Adonai88 » Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:22 am

funkyderek wrote:
Adonai88 wrote:Therefore outside of our universe, irrational things can happen ? like a square be equal a circle ? or 1 + 1 = 3 ? you don't believe that, do you ?
No, I don't. Although, interestingly you do. You believe that everything must have a cause, including the universe. But you also believe in a being who is an exception to the rule - the very rule that you use to demonstrate that being's necessity.
it seems you do not carefully read what i write. Not everything must have a cause, but everything that beginst to exist, needs a cause. The universe makes no exeption here.

Even within our universe particle and anti-particle pairs come into existence all the time and are usually (but not always) annihilated preserving the average nothing.
They don't arise from absolutely nothing....
There's nothing irrational about it, even if it contradicts our everyday experiences. As I said before, and cannot stress enough, common sense is not sufficient for the deep questions of cosmology.
Virtual particles are frequently misunderstood as coming from absolutely nothing. That is not the case.

John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.
That's not the assertion I made. I said that "the only examples of intelligence we know of have come about through slow evolution". That remains true, although in the near future, I expect we will also encounter examples of intelligence that have been created by humans.
You have still not shown empirical evidence to back up your claim. Where is it ?
Reason tells us that the chance of intelligence existing without such a process is so vanishingly unlikely as to be essentially impossible.
You're making even less sense than usual. We need reason to deduce things for which there is no empirical evidence. As it is impossible to prove a negative, all we can do is make reasoned deductions based on the evidence we do have. Intelligence requires a certain level of complexity. It is absurdly unlikely that a sufficient level of complexity could simply exist by itself without some sort of self-organising process.
Again. You make a lot of assertions. Prove them to be true.

That is both irrelevant and untrue.
It is not only relevant , but also true.

Einstein, A. (1944). Remarks on Russell's theory of knowledge. In P. A. Schlipp (ed.) The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell (pp.277-291). New York: Tudor.

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional space-time relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages (e.g., English, French, Navajo, etc.). Between the two realms, we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

An experiment? Are you remotely serious? At some point you're going to have to put up or shut up. If you can provide me with evidence of a single example of intelligence that has not evolved, please do so.
you say that is a proven fact. you provide the empirical proofs.
I don't - indeed, can't - know for sure.
Ahhhh - we come to see the facts now. You can't prove for sure...... So why do you make baseless assertions then ???!!!!!
But there is no evidence for an intelligence, no plausible scenario by which such an intelligence could come to be and nothing that requires it.
You said you had proves. Now your story sounds a little different.......So how about instead of making empty claims, you answer straightforward the question of this thread ?

Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism. What makes you believe nature , our universe, is all there is ??
Because no intelligence is required.
Why not ? Nothing than baseless assertions on hand ?

Think about whatever it is you think needed to be done by a god before the Big Bang and replace that god with an unintelligent but complex machine (a robo-god if you will). What could God do that Robo-God could not?
http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2 ... -universe/

Self-existence because whatever is the cause of the universe must ultimately be uncaused. If it is not, then the argument just moves back one step. There has to be a first uncaused cause.
This cause cannot exist in the time/space/material universe because then it would exist within the very universe it created. That is impossible.
The cause must be incredibly powerful to have created the entire universe and all of its physical laws.

The cause must be personal because an impersonal force would be deterministic and mechanistic, not possessing free will. A mechanistic being only operates according to the programming it received from something else. But if the cause of the universe received programming from something else, then we have again not provided the answer to the cause of the universe. We have just found a middle-man. The cause had to make a choice to create and only beings who are personal can make choices.

http://www.carm.org/failure-atheism-account-existence

Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.

Because unless you're some sort of colossal moron, you would have presented it by now.
[/quote]

Its not my intention to present it at this thread, because this thread is not about that issue. Its about YOU presenting good reasons for philosophical naturalism. So far, you have failed quit obviously. Wanna try harder ?
Adonai88
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:45 pm

Re: Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism

Post by Adonai88 » Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:30 am

Bik wrote:
Adonai88 wrote: how do you probably KNOW i have no evidence to back up my faith ?
If you have evidence then you don't need faith but please go ahead and produce your evidence.
Of course i need faith, since evidence is not absolute proof. Evidence are scientific facts, based on which you can make deductions. But these are always interpretations, which can be different one from the other.
Feardorcha
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism

Post by Feardorcha » Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:37 am

If i read in the bible about heaven, about the new jerusalem , about angels etc. i can imagine in a limited sense these realities, so they are meaningful to me.
These imaginings may be 'meaningful' to you but that doesn't make them realities.
Are my imaginings reality for you? Really?
paolovf
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 3:58 pm

Re: Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism

Post by paolovf » Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:49 pm

funkyderek wrote:That's not the assertion I made. I said that "the only examples of intelligence we know of have come about through slow evolution". That remains true, although in the near future, I expect we will also encounter examples of intelligence that have been created by humans.
I agree with you here and I think it's an important point. Putting aside any sort of man-made, virtual intelligence, the only form of intelligence and indeed cognitive function that we know of has resulted from evolution. That is plain and simple and is indeed evidence based; if anyone has any sound alternative please be so kind as to present it.

But taking a step back for a moment, it is evident from all our scientific understanding that the fundamental laws of nature appear to function without an intelligent driver. I'd put conciousness and cognitive function under this umbrella too since they are governed by these laws. Even issues such as morality, memory, ethics, free will, etc which have traditionally been dealt with by philosophy and tied with the supernatural, are now being dealt with in a more scientific way in the spaces of Cognitive Philosophy and Evolution, i.e. are being understood and explained within the context of our universe.
Therefore, using reason, since I have no more evidence at hand beyond our current scientific understanding, I cannot think of one single instance in which a contribution (external to our universe) is required for anything I see around me, let alone an 'intelligent' one. While I can pose the hypothesis that an external entity or world is required for the existence of our own, unfortunately it is (at this point in time) a very weak hypothesis for the reasons I've discussed.
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Re: Please present good reasons for philosophical naturalism

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:53 pm

paolovf wrote:I agree with you here and I think it's an important point. Putting aside any sort of man-made, virtual intelligence, the only form of intelligence and indeed cognitive function that we know of has resulted from evolution.
I'd say man made artificial intelligence has also resulted from evolution. Humans had to evolve to be able to create artificial intelligence.
"The fact of your own existence is the most astonishing fact you will ever have to face. Don’t you ever get used to it." - Richard Dawkins... being shrill and offensive again I suppose.
Post Reply