Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2013, 10:11 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(16-03-2013 02:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 01:43 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  And almost certainly never will.

Au contraire, mi amigo. The prophet Hofmann has opened doors. Big Grin
Had to look him up, you certainly know your Medicinal Gurus. Bowing

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 10:21 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(16-03-2013 10:11 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 02:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Au contraire, mi amigo. The prophet Hofmann has opened doors. Big Grin
Had to look him up, you certainly know your Medicinal Gurus. Bowing

hehehhehe .., Pharmacology for the motherfucking win. .... hehehehe

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 12:08 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible




Hey, Aseptic.

Quote:And almost certainly never will.

Likely, yeah. Which is a good thing for us all to be mindful of.

Quote:Improbable, yes. Unprovable, yes. But possible.

Sure. But it says nothing about philosophical naturalism.

Hey, Girly.

Well, sure, I suppose that acid trips can open doors to other realms. But egghead pocket-protector scientists are nowhere near cool enough to drop acid Cool

Hey, God.

It would exist. It just wouldn't look or act the same.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 02:17 AM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2013 02:23 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(16-03-2013 07:24 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, EKills.

In this particular case, you asserted that ONLY creationists with biblical agendas make the argument in question. God provided a list of scientists from various fields making the same argument. That's a straight up refutation of your assertion.


Fair enough that my assertion was a bit too broad, so just amend that from 'only' to 'almost only' and I still stand by my assertion. However, argument form authority and quote mining are not helpful. How easy is it to do and how often is Darwin quote mined to support Creationism?

So GodExists gave one source (which is not the source of the quotes), from an explicitly Christian web blog. The article was written by a ranking member of the Church of England. That not to say that he has a bad argument on that alone, but on paper he has no scientific credentials and clearly has both bias and an a priori agenda. It is an apologetics blog for fuck's sake, he's arguing for fine tuning because... God.

All of the quotes are only one or two sentences, ripped out of any additional context, and without citation. That is quote mining.


And their quotes are ultimately pointless. I don't care that Francis Crick and Ken Miller believe in God, I don't care that Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss don't. It's that Dawkins and Krauss have better logic and argumentation for their stance, which is why I side with them over Crick and Miller. All of them are very smart men in their fields, and have contributed greatly to science. But to me it seems clear that the those in favor of the God hypothesis are not applying the same level of skepticism and scientific rigor to their faith as to their professional work.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 02:54 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(17-03-2013 12:08 AM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:Improbable, yes. Unprovable, yes. But possible.

Sure. But it says nothing about philosophical naturalism.

Actually, it says a lot, but maybe you're thinking too small. Run with it a bit:

If it's possible that, given a whole lot of (or maybe infinite) big bangs/big crunches, each of which sets its own laws of physics, there will be a whole lot of (or maybe infinite) universes, all different. Eventually one of them might (or did, since we're here) have a good combination to support life. It could be universe #57, or #7,291, or #837,911...

Or it could be universe #1.

Nobody knows.

But it could be universe #1. Just randomly, just maybe, but it could be.

So the interesting thought is, if it's possible that infinite universes could produce a lucky combination of physical laws capable of sustaining life, and if it's possible, however improbable, for it to happen on the first try, then it's also possible that a non-infinite universe could produce the same lucky combination too - even if that universe only gets one big bang and never crunches, never repeats.

Fully naturalistic, philosophical, and plausible - one universe, one big bang, one lucky combination of physical laws. Entirely possible with zero intelligent guidance.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
17-03-2013, 05:32 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 08:06 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 11:21 AM)FlyingPizzaMonster Wrote:  Size and gravity: On our own planet, there are life forms that can survive the extreme pressures deep in the ocean. We would be crushed at those depths, and they would explode if pulled to the surface. Adapting to a lighter or heavier planet is no different than adapting to higher or lower pressures.

Atmosphere: Even the moon has an atmosphere (although an extremely thin one). As for its composition see my comment under "Oxygen"

Oxygen: anaerobic bacteria do not require oxygen. Even the life we know of can exist without this

"Rare earth" minerals: what makes you think we inhabit the only place with the byproducts of exploding stars

The sun and distance from the sun: there are quintillions of suns. Ours is pretty average.

Water: I'll concede that one. Life forms that are based on water as a solvent require liquid water. However, water is extremely abundant- comets are mostly water. Look up the "oort cloud". Also, who is to say that water is the only solvent that can exist?

Distance from sun, distance from galactic center: Mars and Venus are theoretically in the habitable zone. If their atmospheres were somewhat different, they would be able to support liquid water.

Volcanic activity,radioactivity: what makes you think these are so rare. Volcanoes have been observed elsewhere in the solar system.

Protection from radiation (your categories of "magnetic field" and "ozone layer"): We are not completely protected from radiation as sunburns and skin cancer show, but we have adapted some protection (pigment and hair). In fact some of this radiation is essential for life as we know it (photosynthesis). We are simply adapted for the amount of radiation that we get on the Earth. As for our specific protections, any spinning planet will have some magnetic field, any planet with an atmosphere will have some shielding (some forms of shielding may be better, and some worse than ozone). Any planet with an ocean will have major shielding below the surface.

Seasons: Not unique to Earth. Any world whose orbit is not 100% symmetric or whose axis has any tilt whatsoever will have seasons. Mars has dry ice polar caps that grow and recede. Also seasonal variation is not necessary for life, as life thrives in the tropics where there is very little difference in seasons.

The moon and tides: Without it we'd have a faster and wobblier spin, different day lengths and different seasonal patterns. Weather patterns would be different, and life would certainly be DIFFERENT. Not nonexistent, just different.
this was just a small selection......

feel free to invent more pseudo explanations for all these fine tune parameters :

http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tun...e-universe

Let me make this very simple for you, idiot troll. You have STILL not answered the question posed to you on page ONE of your idiot thread. DEGIGN is a process. It requires the movement from time 1 to time 2. Non-designed to designed. Get it. That's what "designed" means. A "design" "happens" BEFORE the fact of the thing designed. Existence requires absolute linnear time. You have no clue what goes on, if anything, outside this universe. You can only speak of what happens INside it, at this point. Space and TIME are a part of your (supposedly) "designed" universe. Spacetime are relative, as proven by Einstein, to speed and accelerration. and NOTHING "happens" (by definition) outside spacetime. You STILL have not explained how a god, which NEEDS TIME to design his crap, can DO THAT, BEFORE he creates time. So please stop your nonsense of "design" until you have taken care of the basics, and explained how a god can "exist" BEFORE she creates time, and how and why that makes any sense. Until and unless you can, all the rest is a waste. Do it, or shut the fuck up. (Even your little Billy Craig knows it presents a problem, so maybe go ask him. He has no answer either, but go ask the idiot. Maybe you'll learn something. I doubt it.)

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 08:40 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Sup, EKills.

Quote:Fair enough that my assertion was a bit too broad, so just amend that
from 'only' to 'almost only' and I still stand by my assertion.

All you've done is switch from a sweeping generalisation, to a generalisation. It's still both misleading and false.

Personally I've never seen Darwin used to support creationism. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I've just never seen it and can't understand how something like that would work Blink

Hey, Aseptic.

It's improbable, but possible, and use your imagination here, that I can teach my penis to whistle.

What you've offered is interesting. It is. You clearly put some thought into it. But it's no kind of proof.

So if we're discussing arguments that explain philosophical naturalism, in the strictest sense, it's an argument, but it's a science fiction one, not a scientific one.

It doesn't bother me in the least that you propose it, but we just have to make sure that it's not presented as or received as and actual scientific explanation.

In the end, yeah, it's entirely possible that this is the only universe (as Susskind once said, 'The word universe was never meant to be pluralised') and it's entirely possible that the rules wound up what they are randomly in the first try. Sure. But we can't actually prove any of that.

I mean don't get me wrong. The tuning of the universe is what it is. And it is such that it supports life. How that tuning came about is anyone's guess.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 08:59 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(17-03-2013 08:40 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Sup, EKills.

Quote:Fair enough that my assertion was a bit too broad, so just amend that
from 'only' to 'almost only' and I still stand by my assertion.

All you've done is switch from a sweeping generalisation, to a generalisation. It's still both misleading and false.

Personally I've never seen Darwin used to support creationism. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I've just never seen it and can't understand how something like that would work Blink

Hey, Aseptic.

It's improbable, but possible, and use your imagination here, that I can teach my penis to whistle.

What you've offered is interesting. It is. You clearly put some thought into it. But it's no kind of proof.

So if we're discussing arguments that explain philosophical naturalism, in the strictest sense, it's an argument, but it's a science fiction one, not a scientific one.

It doesn't bother me in the least that you propose it, but we just have to make sure that it's not presented as or received as and actual scientific explanation.

In the end, yeah, it's entirely possible that this is the only universe (as Susskind once said, 'The word universe was never meant to be pluralised') and it's entirely possible that the rules wound up what they are randomly in the first try. Sure. But we can't actually prove any of that.

I mean don't get me wrong. The tuning of the universe is what it is. And it is such that it supports life. How that tuning came about is anyone's guess.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt





Tuning: Process in which one or more parameters of a device, process, or model are adjusted upwards or downwards to achieve an improved or specified result.

Who or what tuned the universe?

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
17-03-2013, 11:32 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Inquisitive squirrel observes his surroundings and finds food based off his observations.

[Image: weekpics-31613-5.jpg]

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 02:23 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(16-03-2013 05:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 04:10 PM)Godexists Wrote:  it would not exist. No

Untrue. This particular, precise, exact universe would not exist, but something else would.
if you define nothing as something else, then yes. If you define it as a other universe , then no. The cosmological constant must be right on a razors edge......
but if you atribute miraculous atributes to chance, than you have a go.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: