How is Naturalism wrong as a philosophy? Where is the rationality in believing supernatural and spiritual forces exist instead of just natural ones?
How is Naturalism wrong as a philosophy...
Wyatt Garcia
Dylan Kelly
Wrong board, buddy.
Julian Williams
Go read some Ed Feser
Robert Ward
Naturalism provides no reason trust the validity of abstract reasoning or higher intellectual activities; it asserts that man is merely an animal who is limited to his survival instincts, which relegates all art, philosophy, etc. to the utterly absurd. If art, philosophy, etc. (human activities not congruent to animalistic survival) are not absurd, however (which is appears obvious), then the idea of human beings being merely cellular-survival beings is itself absurd.
As for the rationality of believing in the existence of the supernatural or spiritual, human history as far back as it goes, present-day experiences as well as, arguably, quantum physics all point to the perceived existence of something(s) invisible, abstract, ideal and yet as real as anything material.
The Evidence for God by Keith Ward is a good read which introduces the idea of the spiritual to a sceptical reader.
Kevin Mitchell
Try proving naturalism ITT.
Ian Reed
wow, such charity from you guys
David Ross
Alright, why have all these things people speculated for so long to be supernatural (like Ouija boards actually only being controlled subconsciously, or something like lightning which was once thought to be supernatural) become explained by science. That's why I'm here.
Jack Garcia
Science is the process and method of coming to conclusions from the natural, observable, measurable universe through observation, hypothesis, testing, controls etc. etc. Naturalism aserts (as I understand it) that the only valid method of coming to making truth claims are those derived from conclusions borne of working with the scientific method, i.e. within the abovementioned observable universe. First hurdle that philosophy has to overcome is scientifically verifying the claim 'the only valid way to reach truth is through the scientific method.' Can't be done.
Second, science is actually inherently limited in the types of conclusions it is able to reach about the world. Due to it's nature/the process, it cannot provide absolute certainty or provide a conclusion as being 100% certified truth. The best it can literally provide about the truth or falsity of any particular thing (a theory) is 'we haven't falsified this..yet.' New data is accrued which doesn't fit with the theories which have up until this point been accepted as fact, which means new theories are required to be developed to fit the new data and means the old theories are discarded. Your lighening is an example of that. That the earth isn't the centre of the solar system is another. It may be the case that there will be another paradigm shift and maybe we will start to acrue data that undeniably suggests the Earth is the centre of the universe, who knows. Point is, science does not and cannot make or provide us with absolute truth. It can only do what I said before, about telling us that a particular theory, which has been developed from our hypothesis and out of our observations, has not been falsified with all the tests we've run with all the data we have..yet.
Thirdly, the natural world includes time and space. As implied, look into the first mover/uncaused cause arguments. Essentially reason demands that there be a cause (who's inherent nature is uncaused and eternal by necessity, but look into the sources for more info on that) for existence outside of time and space, i.e. supernatural cause. And this isn't a cause only in a linear sense, but a no, THEcause for the here and NOW.
Finally as mentioned already your lightening example is just folk who had less data and so took the best theory they could think of to fit italso the natural world shows God's sheer awe inspiring power, majesty, creativity, beauty and inspires awe, Psalm 19:1: 'The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.'
Science and faith go perfectly hand in hand. Science without God, like everything, is meaningless and absurd :^)
Andrew Hill
Damn satan trips maybe it's all lies after all n naturalisms da truth feels bad man :^(
Adrian Cox
The soul is material as it is metaphysical. It’s called DMT
Jeremiah Mitchell
Gabriel Flores
...
Matthew Hall
The soul is the reason we have a rational mind in the first place
Landon Rogers
Your first paragraph was simply Russel's Teapot. Just because we can't disprove outright the existence of laws outside of natural ones doesn't make them true. Same with your second paragraph.
Also, even with a 'first mover' doesn't prove that the 'first mover' was a god.
Isaiah Moore
When will this meme die?
Nicholas Harris
Would really recommend the whole book. Along with his other lectures. Also i would be coming from the orthodox perspective. In that, we don't use Aristotle's First Mover, First Cause etc. We don't reason up to some first generic cause. Cause in Orthodoxy From what i understand, as im still new to, the orthodox faith, and still discerning. But that, is that we don't use these generics causes, and first movers. Because it's a bad argument. Anyone can use it, Mormoms, Protestants, etc. So, i'm sure you can see where that goes. Same with a lot of other arguments in Philosophy. Is that, they don't have bad points. But it's that they're starting from bad theology, or bad points. Or take another example. The resurrection argument. That's a classic apologetic error. That's a bad argument. Not because it's wrong to believe in resurrection, but because. That's a bad argument. I was trying to explain, this to some probably troll, but either way neopagan, semi atheist, i guess. Who just kept saying. *Where's my evidence!!, Prove the resurrection!* And i tried explaining to him. It's no use for me to makes those arguments when you've already determined from the outset, that no amount of *Evidence* Will suffice. The best thing to do, is go back to basic. Really question things we believe in. That's what got me, and to line up our theology, with our philosophy. That's the best i can do, as im still new. But hope this helps man.
Isaac Reed
Woops, wanted, to embed. This Video first. But that link should still take you to C.S Lewis. That's all i got man. I still got to read G.K Chesterson. Along with the orthodox position hopes this helps. In what, you're looking for.
Jonathan Morris
...
Samuel Ward
Nicholas Long
Comic reminds me of the Ending of the movie Dark Star where a bomb gets stuck in the bombay and plans to detonate. One of the spacecrafts crew tries to talk it out of detonating
Eli Howard
I thought naturalists were just the new code for "nudists"
Robert Perez
These were never arguing for the 'existence of laws outside of natural ones.' They were simply clarifying the limits of science, which (as I understand it) intrinsically linked to the foundation of naturalism as a world view or philosophy.
Well that would depend on your definition of God wouldn't it. You asked for proof or for an argument for the supernatural. The unmoved mover provides that. And besides it proves an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent creator being of the universe. Sounds like what a lot of us refer to as God to me.
Ian Sullivan
The burden of proof is on you for your claim.
Joshua Rogers
William Lane Craig used a similar argument, the Kalam in such a fashion that he logically proved that the "first mover" couldn't have been anything else than what we would call God. I'm sorry, but I don't remember it very well right now, so someone else can explain his reasoning.
Justin Thomas
Premise 1: All things that began to exist must have a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
Premise 3: An infinite regression of cause and effect cannot exist.
Conclusion: At some point in the chain of causality, one of the causes must be, itself, uncaused, and therefore lack a beginning to existence (see premise 1).
Premise 4: A cause must pre-exist what it causes.
Premise 5: Time and space began to exist at the moment the universe began.
Conclusion: The cause of the universe must exist independent of time and space.
Only two things can exist independent of time and space: abstract concepts and consciousness. Abstract concepts have no causal power, so it must be a consciousness. I don't know how to describe a consciousness infinitely existent independent of time and space and capable of creating the universe other than to call that consciousness "God."
Cameron Parker
But people have posited natural causes for lightning since antiquity, long before the concept of electricity and most people never believed in Oija boards (besides your contention that it is "proven" to be subconscious in all cases is false, the people who believe in it still contend that it's supernatural and their isn't strong proof otherwise, it's just that you've settled on a convenient rationalization for how you think it works). Pretty terrible examples of metaphysical concepts being disproved.
And yet it proves the existence of a metaphysical first mover, therefore naturalism is false. And besides, think for two seconds about the axioms underlying science, materialism, even the principles of logic. Are any of those things provable by their own standards? The inerrancy of logic can't be proven logically, it just leads to circular reasoning, you have no grounds to declare logic irrefutable if it isn't given to us metaphysically inerrant a priori, otherwise to declare that the rules of logic are certainly true is illogical.
The same is true of science, it's own axioms cannot be proven scientifically, only logically, and it is inherently bounded by the types of things it can quantify and measure, asking for a "scientific" proof of the metaphysical is nonsense since science is inherently the domain of measuring and testing the physical.
And that's leaving aside the hard problem of mind, that is that consciousness and subjective experience is obviously not material, ergo materialism is false. Every "scientific" explanation ,e.g. the mind is just "generated" by the workings of the brain, are absurd because
1) Even if they are "generated" by the brain they are still not synonymous with the material brain itself and therefore still metaphysical, since their could be no change in the energy or material content of the universe due simply to chemical interactions in the brain as opposed to anywhere else
2)This is an ridiculous just-so story to assuage the perturbed minds of materialists which has absolutely no scientific backing whatsoever, not even a plausible idea for a causal method, literally just "certain brain states tend to correlate with certain thoughts, therefore certain configurations of matter can generate metaphysical consciousness," Pure twaddle.
The bottom line is there is no logical proof which excludes revelation as a possible method of obtaining the truth, it's just your bald assertion which excludes it.
If you're generally interested and not just trying to be a pain, you might look into some Christian theology, only those who are called can come to god, and only those whose hearts are open can answer that call. Those who are determined to say that God is not real can always find a rationalization to do it, no proof could ever be sufficient to make them believe. Logic can get you to a "first-mover" but not to God, because God is love, not a being of brute matter or simple logic. So what if I can't logically prove the existence of love to someone who's never felt it? I absolutely KNOW the reality of it because I feel it, love is real, and inside you must know this as well. To let some moronic materialist's babble convince you of the non-existence of something THAT YOU PERSONALLY HAVE FELT THE CERTAIN EXISTENCE OF is just being a credulous idiot.
Love and morality are both real, and hence the moral truth of Christianity and the weight of the love of Christ for us in his sacrifice are their own witnesses.
Parker Hall
The claim you made was not a negative claim. DMT is found in all living things and the experiences detailed by its users are no coincidence.
Benjamin Allen
However, there is evidence that the human brain actually produces DMT. It's only been hypothesized by atheists seeking to explain spiritual experiences. And to say that spirit (pneuma) is DMT shows that you have know idea of the properties of pneuma, which is not a substance, or DMT, an entirely physical substance that can be analyzed in a laboratory.
Henry Diaz
*no evidence.
