Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Simply put, it works. Taking a naturalistic approach to the world has shown to have far more predictive power, and model reality far better than any non-naturalistic approach.
Can you point to a non-naturalistic approach that explains disease better than germ theory, physics better than the Standard Model, or physiology better that biological evolution? I can't...
Simply put, it works. Taking a naturalistic approach to the world has shown to have far more predictive power, and model reality far better than any non-naturalistic approach.
Can you point to a non-naturalistic approach that explains disease better than germ theory, physics better than the Standard Model, or physiology better that biological evolution? I can't...
-NoCapo
someone has to *observe* a thing, so that it is a known, repeatable, observable, phenomenon (like gravity, magnetism, optical refraction, chemistry etc.), before being dismissive toward others who are "incredulous" about it.
"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, there's a big difference between "not believing" that an actual animal, plant, phenomenon etc. *exists*, versus believing a certain "just so" story about HOW it came to exist.
That is the THING that we are incredulous about - a *certain scenario* (Neo-Darwinism) that's only *imagined* about how various amazing abilities of animals and plants happened all by themselves, defying known and reasonable principles of Natural Selection, among others (I've written elsewhere about this; no time to rehash it tonight).
The atheist is "incredulous" that God could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is our Creator. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know what *isn't* there?
What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of these things. Remember: ORIGIN is not the same as OPERATION. To study how biology works today, is entirely different from giving a *plausible* account of how it came about in the first place.
--------
If someone is giving you an *implausible* story of how something could have happened, you have every right to be "incredulous" about the story, until they show how it's plausible.
There is a big difference between 'not believing' something that can be demonstrated every day, and 'not believing' something that has NEVER been demonstrated - ever - such as Abiogenesis.
THEY are the ones who have the explaining to do, after they have removed (for purely philosophical reasons) all the abilities of Intelligent Agency (God) out of their toolkit. They are just left with primordial gases, and lots of time for things to bump around.
They are the ones who need explain all we see today, on the basis of that empty toolkit. You are not wrong to ask that from them.
Holy subject Change, Batman! You went from "why naturalism" to fussing about abiogenesis!
Let me address naturalism first. The core issue is that while we do not have answers for everything, and every discovery just leads to more questions, naturalism is the assumption that has allowed us to make any sort of progress in understanding the world around us. Every answer we have about how the universe works is due to this assumption.
So when trying to decide what assumption, what philosophical basis, is likely to provide good answers about the reality around us, naturalism is the clear winner, with an astounding amount of clear, testable answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elshamah
If someone is giving you an *implausible* story of how something could have happened, you have every right to be "incredulous" about the story, until they show how it's plausible.
Absolutely! And my point is that is it vastly more plausible to use the philosophical assumption that has given us virtual our entire understanding of reality as we know it, and to extend those assumptions and mechanisms to explain other phenomena, than to postulate some entity for which there is no evidence, who operates outside of everything we know about the world, and which does not create any testable models or predictions about reality.
What you are doing is proposing that we take specific areas of reality and label them with a sign, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!", so that you can keep gaps for God. My point is that we have tools for reasoning and understanding reality that demonstrably work. There is no reason to assume that they are suddenly faulty, and that a philosophical framework that has never produced useful results, empirically speaking, should be substituted in its place.
It is ok to be skeptical of modern explanations of abiogenesis, or the origen of the universe. Quite frankly, we don't know how it happened. We have some guesses, some ideas, but it is an open question. But to discard everything we know about how reality works is just silly. We have clear evidence of biological evolution, speciation, and the like, the evolutionary model itself can be validated apart from biology, as it can be used for algorithmic optimization ( genetic algorithms) in a similar way to its biological application. The underlying physics that points to the initial singularity and the age of the universe is solid, being the basis for your computer, your GPS, and a host of other applications.
Bottom line, a naturalistic view of the world has gotten results, good, repeatable, reliable results. There is no reason to assume that it has somehow reached its limits and is now no longer useful. That is indeed, and implausible assumption.
someone has to *observe* a thing, so that it is a known, repeatable, observable, phenomenon (like gravity, magnetism, optical refraction, chemistry etc.), before being dismissive toward others who are "incredulous" about it.
Many things are amenable to direct observation, many are not. When they are not, indirect observation is useful. When indirect observation is unobtanium, as with, say, historical claims, then we go with preponderance of evidence. It's also critical to extrapolate unknowns from knowns, rather than the inverse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elshamah
"Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, there's a big difference between "not believing" that an actual animal, plant, phenomenon etc. *exists*, versus believing a certain "just so" story about HOW it came to exist.
That is the THING that we are incredulous about - a *certain scenario* (Neo-Darwinism) that's only *imagined* about how various amazing abilities of animals and plants happened all by themselves, defying known and reasonable principles of Natural Selection, among others (I've written elsewhere about this; no time to rehash it tonight).
Well since you don't want to rehash it than neither will I. If you really care to understand there are about 4,627 threads that have beat this subject to death, which you can freely peruse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elshamah
The atheist is "incredulous" that God could exist, beyond and behind our entire space-time continuum, who is our Creator. But there is nothing ridiculous about that - especially if you can't personally examine reality to that depth - how do you know what *isn't* there?
I know of no atheist who claims to have personally examined reality to that depth, any more than you claim to have personally examined reality to that depth to justify any of your disbeliefs -- in, say, leprechauns or magic fairy dust. I don't personally know any atheist who claims to be able to disprove god either, any more than you can disprove leprechauns or magic fairy dust.
Besides, you have it entirely backwards. No one is obligated to believe any thing until it is proven. No one is obliged to justify unbelief until belief is shown to be justified, either. When there is no valid evidence then unbelief is the rational default.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elshamah
What IS ridiculous (IMO) is trying to imagine a *naturalistic origin* of these things. Remember: ORIGIN is not the same as OPERATION. To study how biology works today, is entirely different from giving a *plausible* account of how it came about in the first place.
Yours is entirely an argument from incredulity. Because of the time scales involved, evolution is not necessarily intuitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elshamah
If someone is giving you an *implausible* story of how something could have happened, you have every right to be "incredulous" about the story, until they show how it's plausible.
The question is, what would it take to show you it's plausible? My guess is that it would have to be shown to be plausible in a way that does not contradict your particular religious dogma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elshamah
There is a big difference between 'not believing' something that can be demonstrated every day, and 'not believing' something that has NEVER been demonstrated - ever - such as Abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is at present a hypothesis, not a theory. Feel free to not buy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elshamah
THEY are the ones who have the explaining to do, after they have removed (for purely philosophical reasons) all the abilities of Intelligent Agency (God) out of their toolkit. They are just left with primordial gases, and lots of time for things to bump around.
They are the ones who need explain all we see today, on the basis of that empty toolkit. You are not wrong to ask that from them.
Aside from the fact you are copying and pasting boilerplate referring to THEM in a forum full of THEMs, I must say that I feel I have no explaining to do at all. You have explaining to do because you are making a bunch of assertions and assumptions because they are pleasing to you and conform to your theology, yet you are offering nothing of your own.
So ... what is YOUR theory? Please present it, along with your research and substantiation. We await with interest.
Holy subject Change, Batman! You went from "why naturalism" to fussing about abiogenesis!
Let me address naturalism first. The core issue is that while we do not have answers for everything, and every discovery just leads to more questions, naturalism is the assumption that has allowed us to make any sort of progress in understanding the world around us.
How so ? please explain.
Quote:
Every answer we have about how the universe works is due to this assumption.
Again : how so ?
Quote:
So when trying to decide what assumption, what philosophical basis, is likely to provide good answers about the reality around us, naturalism is the clear winner, with an astounding amount of clear, testable answers.
well, i have not seen it substantiated yet... go ahead.
Quote:
It is ok to be skeptical of modern explanations of abiogenesis, or the origen of the universe. Quite frankly, we don't know how it happened.
We have clear evidence of biological evolution, speciation, and the like
micro evolution and speciation, yes. macro evolution, no no.
Quote:
, the evolutionary model itself can be validated apart from biology, as it can be used for algorithmic optimization ( genetic algorithms) in a similar way to its biological application. The underlying physics that points to the initial singularity and the age of the universe is solid, being the basis for your computer, your GPS, and a host of other applications.
what caused the universe into being ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
