Naturalism

[olavisjo]

.
Is naturalism true?

• Naturalism
  • 2 : a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance;
    specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena

[Bust Nak]

But all of them do exist, so naturalism is false.

How can you sure they do? You might just fooled by the illusion thrown up by your naturalistic brain.

If the world were governed by naturalism we would all be like computers, we would faithfully follow our programming, it would be impossible to intend to do anything beyond what we were programmed to do.

So? My programming happens to say freely do as you intend to do. There is no need to go beyond what we are programmed to do to have free will.

In "The Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality" Professor Alexander Rosenberg says...

• That the brain no more has original intentionality than anything else does is the
  hardest illusion to give up, and we probably won’t be able completely to do so till
  neuroscience really understands the brain.

I disagree with him. Naturalism is compatible with intentional, even determinism is compatible with freewill.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 1 by olavisjo]

Is naturalism true?

It has a lot of support and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it is false.

There is no logical contradiction if it is true. The evidence supports it. Evidence for other views are weak or unconvincing (except to people who presuppose the existence of the supernatural).

Most notably, the evidence for naturalism is very solid because of the strength of the scientific method. IMO, it tips the scales to naturalism being the Best Explanation.

[Ooberman]

.
If naturalism were true then none of the following would exist.

1. Intentionality
2. Meaning
3. Truth
4. Moral Praise & Blame
5. Freedom
6. Purpose
7. Enduring
8. Personal Existence

But all of them do exist, so naturalism is false.
So some form of super naturalism must be true, and that super naturalism is what is commonly referred to as God.

Source: Time code 1:04:00 to 1:08:06 here...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/cr ... university

Those are all possible under naturalism. Your assertions are rebutted.

BTW, he explains those starting at 1:12:45.

WLC is being a slick willy and trying to dupe stupid people.

In other words, WLC is not very smart and he completely misunderstands philosophy. He's an orator. He's a debater, not a thinker.

[austin12345]

You gave your opinion and until you have an argument there is no reason to believe what you say is true.

[Ooberman]

Even if we allow ourselves to restrict the definition of naturalism to the narrow one that denies free will, (a serious bit of liberty-taking) it's still not valid to decide something can't be untrue just because we wouldn't like the consequences if it was.

It is not that we don't like the consequences, it is because we observe that we have free will that we know naturalism is false.

You can respond to this post or not, the choice is entirely yours.

Is it?

Please demontrate the principle at work behind your assertion.

As far as I know, philosophers and scientists are still not sure about Free Will.

Are you just going to decide for all of us that it exists, and in the way you need it to exist for your view to be true?

[Ooberman]

You gave your opinion and until you have an argument there is no reason to believe what you say is true.

I haven't seen anything but opinions in this thread. Did I miss something?

[charles_hamm]

If the world were governed by naturalism we would all be like computers, we would faithfully follow our programming, it would be impossible to intend to do anything beyond what we were programmed to do.

So? My programming happens to say freely do as you intend to do. There is no need to go beyond what we are programmed to do to have free will.

There is a slight problem with your statement here. If your programming says "freely do as you intend to do" then your programing already assumes you have free will and intentions prior to being programmed. If you didn't then your programming would need to program you with free will and give you intentions which means all you would be doing is going by whatever you were programed with. That is not free will and since your intentions were provided to you, they are not really your own. To have true free will you would need to be able to disobey your programing. If you violated your programing then the question becomes, were you ever programed in the first place? If you did have free will then there would be no need to be programed. Free will could also allow you to choose not to be programed in the first place. Your scenario assumes you are being programed, but you had free will and intentions prior to programing. As I said above, you could simply choose not to be programed.

[charles_hamm]

.
If naturalism were true then none of the following would exist.

1. Intentionality
2. Meaning
3. Truth
4. Moral Praise & Blame
5. Freedom
6. Purpose
7. Enduring
8. Personal Existence

But all of them do exist, so naturalism is false.
So some form of super naturalism must be true, and that super naturalism is what is commonly referred to as God.

Source: Time code 1:04:00 to 1:08:06 here...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/cr ... university

Those are all possible under naturalism. Your assertions are rebutted.

Can you tell me which scientific laws explain meaning, truth, freedom and purpose?

[olavisjo]

How can you sure they do? You might just fooled by the illusion thrown up by your naturalistic brain.

We might also be a brain in a vat and all this is an illusion, but not likely.

Naturalism is compatible with intentional, even determinism is compatible with freewill.

Argumentum ad verbum moretum.

[Ooberman]

.
If naturalism were true then none of the following would exist.

1. Intentionality
2. Meaning
3. Truth
4. Moral Praise & Blame
5. Freedom
6. Purpose
7. Enduring
8. Personal Existence

But all of them do exist, so naturalism is false.
So some form of super naturalism must be true, and that super naturalism is what is commonly referred to as God.

Source: Time code 1:04:00 to 1:08:06 here...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/cr ... university

Those are all possible under naturalism. Your assertions are rebutted.

Can you tell me which scientific laws explain meaning, truth, freedom and purpose?

No, but it's not logically contradictory that science could explain them. (Plus, I couldn't explain the scientific laws that do a lot of things in this universe - my ignorance doesn't make your religion true).

But, more importantly, saying "God Did It" doesn't answer your question.

Can you tell me the Divine Laws behind those things?

Remember, a Law gives us great predictability. So, when you mention the reason God has for, say, meaning, then you must make it predictable that if certain conditions are true, then meaning obtains.

Why do we have meaning? Is it a supernatural energy in our brain, or is our brain supernaturally tweaked to naturally create meaning?

We can play this game all night.

The truth is: we don't know, and smarter people than us are puzzling over it. Theists don't get to win because they say "God Did It."




So, to answer your question properly, please tell me the reason science couldn't explain those things? Is there any logical reason, if there were no gods or supernature, that nature (whatever it is) couldn't explain those things?

Please answer this so we can continue.