Naturalism and "Everything has to be proven experimentally"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-06-2016, 02:16 PM
Naturalism and "Everything has to be proven experimentally"
So I asked the pastor of my church via e-mail to remove me from the church's e-mailing list and provided him with the following question (translated from another language):
"I would like to know which concrete things assure you that Christianity and its God are real. What is the strongest proof for you of the existence of an almighty God?"

He replied with a link to an AII article by Dr. Jason Lisle encouraging me to read it 'till the very end, because he thinks it's good: https://answersingenesis.org/is-god-real...ce-of-god/

I am going to reply to him with the following review of the text by Michael (Q) The Producer (please let me know if you know who this guy actually is): http://lislesbestargumentforgod.blogspot.com/

He also added a couple of thoughts (possibly derived from AII article). I wanted to post one of his thoughts here in order to get your opinions on it before I reply to him (translated from another language):

"Naturalism (everything has to be scientifically explained) argues that "everything has to be able to be proven experimentally" which is illogical, because the claim itself that "everything has to be able to be proven experimentally" cannot be proven experimentally."

1) I am really poor in understanding philosophy and philosophical arguments
2) I fail to tell if his claim is reasonable to begin with

Thank you in advance!!

Packmax

"Smart people are good at reconciling what they believe in with what reality tells them." - Not Hodor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2016, 03:07 PM
RE: Naturalism and "Everything has to be proven experimentally"
"Naturalism (everything has to be scientifically explained) argues that everything has to be proven experimentally" - that is a philosophical position I guess, but it's... not something that is a settled thing that all scientists subscribe to - some kinda hippocratic oath.

It's... the statement is riddled with bullshit anyway. You don't "prove" stuff experimentally. You *can* disprove stuff. If the planets circle the Earth, there are expectations for the trajectory that they trace out in the night sky. Since the prediction doesn't match the observed result, "planets go in circles around the Earth" is disproved as a hypothesis.

He's trying to cast doubt on the veracity of scientific conclusions based on a seemingly complicated argument that at its base it's poorly thought out or something. Also he kinda made up the strawman that he's then attempting to knockdown, not very convincingly.

People can and have written books on the philosophy of science. It is nowhere near being as simple as the caricature he's drawn.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like morondog's post
08-06-2016, 03:41 PM
RE: Naturalism and "Everything has to be proven experimentally"
Damn it all.

Ken Ham! It's peddling books and newsletter posts by Ken Ham.

OK. I'm going to read threw this very quickly.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2016, 04:17 PM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2016 11:27 AM by Commonsensei.)
RE: Naturalism and "Everything has to be proven experimentally"
Quote:Christian: “Everything with a beginning requires a cause. The universe has a beginning and therefore requires a cause. That cause is God.”

Atheist: “Even if it were true that everything with a beginning requires a cause, how do you know that the cause of the universe is God? Why not a big bang? Maybe this universe sprang from another universe, as some physicists now believe.”

It show's in this rebuttal that the Christian has no responce. The next statement after the "Atheists" is tackling living organism. Not the start of the universe.

The other thing that I hear from C-stains is the Kalam argument. Everything with a beginning requires a cause. That is..except for...God because he always was. Because, you know he's God. And doesn't need that.

So if it's conceivable that their "god" doesn't need a first cause to exists? Why is it inconceivable that the universe can't also?

Quote:Christian: “The living creatures of this world clearly exhibit design. Therefore, they must have a designer. And that designer is God.”

Atheist: “The living creatures only appear to be designed. Natural selection can account for this apparent design. Poorly adapted organisms tend to die off, and do not pass on their genes.”

Christian: “But living creatures have irreducible complexity. All their essential parts must be in place at the same time, or the organism dies. So God must have created these parts all at the same time. A gradual evolutionary path simply will not work.”

Like I said earlier even in this make believe argument the Atheists questions are avoided.

Oh clearly everything is designed. And so expertly too. Like giving whales feet and finger skeleton bones that they never use. Or the laryngeal nerve on the Giraffe that needs to lope the long way. Or the human pancreas that dose nothing except cause great pain if it's infected.





A half decent engineer or designer would correct these problem. Or have corrected these problems from the start.

Quote:Atheist: “Just because you cannot imagine a gradual stepwise way of constructing an organism does not mean there isn’t one.”

Christian: “DNA has information in it—the instructions to form a living being. And information never comes about by chance; it always comes from a mind. So DNA proves that God created the first creatures.”

Atheist: “There could be an undiscovered mechanism that generates information in the DNA. Give us time, and we will eventually discover it. And even if DNA did come from intelligence, why would you think that intelligence is God? Maybe aliens seeded life on earth.”

[Image: 58d38fcd1fd4173b0028a11d06beb247.jpg?itok=ASxDDxjy]

What about RNA?

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Commonsensei's post
08-06-2016, 04:26 PM
RE: Naturalism and "Everything has to be proven experimentally"
(08-06-2016 02:16 PM)packmax Wrote:  "Naturalism (everything has to be scientifically explained) argues that "everything has to be able to be proven experimentally" which is illogical, because the claim itself that "everything has to be able to be proven experimentally" cannot be proven experimentally."

The argument looks valid but unsound. His premise that naturalism claims everything has to be proved experimentally is just plain wrong. According to OED naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." So his argument is trash and should just be dismissed out of hand.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like GirlyMan's post
08-06-2016, 04:29 PM
RE: Naturalism and "Everything has to be proven experimentally"
(08-06-2016 02:16 PM)packmax Wrote:  So I asked the pastor of my church via e-mail to remove me from the church's e-mailing list and provided him with the following question (translated from another language):
"I would like to know which concrete things assure you that Christianity and its God are real. What is the strongest proof for you of the existence of an almighty God?"

He replied with a link to an AII article by Dr. Jason Lisle encouraging me to read it 'till the very end, because he thinks it's good: https://answersingenesis.org/is-god-real...ce-of-god/

I am going to reply to him with the following review of the text by Michael (Q) The Producer (please let me know if you know who this guy actually is): http://lislesbestargumentforgod.blogspot.com/

He also added a couple of thoughts (possibly derived from AII article). I wanted to post one of his thoughts here in order to get your opinions on it before I reply to him (translated from another language):

"Naturalism (everything has to be scientifically explained) argues that "everything has to be able to be proven experimentally" which is illogical, because the claim itself that "everything has to be able to be proven experimentally" cannot be proven experimentally."

1) I am really poor in understanding philosophy and philosophical arguments
2) I fail to tell if his claim is reasonable to begin with

Thank you in advance!!

Packmax

Most theist I have met or read make a common error in their thinking. They think that anything which is not proven is taken on faith. But this ignores the fact that not all ways of validating knowledge are of the deductive kind. Validation is a wider concept than proof and it includes induction and sense perception. We don't have to do an experiment each day to prove that our coffee is really coffee and did not change to rat poison while we slept. We just taste it.

If we had no way to validate knowledge other than scientific experiments then science would not be possible. fortunately we do have several different ways and philosophical knowledge is validated inductively as well as by direct perception. I don't have to do an experiment to "prove" that I exist or that I'm conscious. These things are directly observable.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
08-06-2016, 04:41 PM
RE: Naturalism and "Everything has to be proven experimentally"
(08-06-2016 04:29 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  If we had no way to validate knowledge other than scientific experiments then science would not be possible. fortunately we do have several different ways and philosophical knowledge is validated inductively as well as by direct perception. I don't have to do an experiment to "prove" that I exist or that I'm conscious. These things are directly observable.

"Induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy." - C.D.Broad Smile

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
09-06-2016, 11:27 PM
RE: Naturalism and "Everything has to be proven experimentally"
(08-06-2016 04:26 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-06-2016 02:16 PM)packmax Wrote:  "Naturalism (everything has to be scientifically explained) argues that "everything has to be able to be proven experimentally" which is illogical, because the claim itself that "everything has to be able to be proven experimentally" cannot be proven experimentally."

The argument looks valid but unsound. His premise that naturalism claims everything has to be proved experimentally is just plain wrong. According to OED naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." So his argument is trash and should just be dismissed out of hand.

The first thing that an idiot does when out of an argument is to reach for a Bible or a dictionary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 11:33 PM
RE: Naturalism and "Everything has to be proven experimentally"
(08-06-2016 02:16 PM)packmax Wrote:  So I asked the pastor of my church via e-mail to remove me from the church's e-mailing list and provided him with the following question (translated from another language):
"I would like to know which concrete things assure you that Christianity and its God are real. What is the strongest proof for you of the existence of an almighty God?"

He replied with a link to an AII article by Dr. Jason Lisle encouraging me to read it 'till the very end, because he thinks it's good: https://answersingenesis.org/is-god-real...ce-of-god/

I am going to reply to him with the following review of the text by Michael (Q) The Producer (please let me know if you know who this guy actually is): http://lislesbestargumentforgod.blogspot.com/

He also added a couple of thoughts (possibly derived from AII article). I wanted to post one of his thoughts here in order to get your opinions on it before I reply to him (translated from another language):

"Naturalism (everything has to be scientifically explained) argues that "everything has to be able to be proven experimentally" which is illogical, because the claim itself that "everything has to be able to be proven experimentally" cannot be proven experimentally."

1) I am really poor in understanding philosophy and philosophical arguments
2) I fail to tell if his claim is reasonable to begin with

Thank you in advance!!

Packmax

Naturalism is a damn fine way to mess things up, it's trial and error, and there is no other way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 02:57 AM
RE: Naturalism and "Everything has to be proven experimentally"
(08-06-2016 04:41 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-06-2016 04:29 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  If we had no way to validate knowledge other than scientific experiments then science would not be possible. fortunately we do have several different ways and philosophical knowledge is validated inductively as well as by direct perception. I don't have to do an experiment to "prove" that I exist or that I'm conscious. These things are directly observable.

"Induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy." - C.D.Broad Smile

And so much the worse then for philosophy. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: