Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-03-2013, 09:29 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 08:32 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 05:11 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Please present evidence, that makes naturalistic explanations plausible in regard of :

the existence and origin of the universe
its fine tuning
existence of planets
chemical evolution
abiogenesis
sex
morals
conscience
the hability of speech
complex and codified information stored in DNA
You're expecting meaningful answers to all of that on a messageboard? Laughat Books have been written on those subjects - many great ones - I suggest you read some of those since you obviously haven't done so already.
pick just one issue..... and we'll give a closer look.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 09:45 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
I vote for 'fine tuning.'

I'm interested in why most of the universe is lethal to us, chaotic, and slowly expanding into nothingness (or so I'm told). Also, I view birth defects, species extinction, miscarriages, brain damage, living on a planet covered mostly with water and not having gills, cancer, and many other things as examples of 'sloppy tuning.'

Thoughts?

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like guitar_nut's post
13-03-2013, 09:49 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 09:29 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 07:13 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I like how he asks about sex when asexual reproduction would actually be more ideal (given a stable environment that a presumably loving god could provide).
So why then should evolution have chosen sex, rather than asexual reproduction, given that sex is much less efficient, and more complicated ?

Because it mixes the genes and provides greater variety for selection. It works better for survivability.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
13-03-2013, 09:50 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 09:29 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 08:32 AM)Impulse Wrote:  You're expecting meaningful answers to all of that on a messageboard? Laughat Books have been written on those subjects - many great ones - I suggest you read some of those since you obviously haven't done so already.
pick just one issue..... and we'll give a closer look.
What direction do you plan to take in this conversation?

How much research have you done in any of the subjects you mentioned?

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cheapthrillseaker's post
13-03-2013, 10:27 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 08:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 06:14 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Post Date: Today, 05:11 AM
Last Visit: Today 05:11 AM

Drive-by theist. Drinking Beverage



That's why I didn't do much more that browse Wikipedia, as I'm pretty sure it's not worth more effort than that. The OP just reeks of someone not looking to learn, but rather looking to pick a fight. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but I don't expect to be. Anyone truly curious and capable of creating an account and posting on this forum, would be more than able to use Google to find these answers on their own if they cared to.
i have done so, and the result of my research has been, that there is no serious evidence for a naturalistic world view. Provide me explanations that show that i might be wrong......
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 10:31 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 10:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 08:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That's why I didn't do much more that browse Wikipedia, as I'm pretty sure it's not worth more effort than that. The OP just reeks of someone not looking to learn, but rather looking to pick a fight. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but I don't expect to be. Anyone truly curious and capable of creating an account and posting on this forum, would be more than able to use Google to find these answers on their own if they cared to.
i have done so, and the result of my research has been, that there is no serious evidence for a naturalistic world view. Provide me explanations that show that i might be wrong......
Show us your research then. Putting the burden of proof on others when you only make claims really isn't the way to go about things.

Is your research peer-reviewed? Does your research include citations? It may be that where you got your information from isn't a reliable source. Or, if you're lucky, you might actually have something new and fresh to present, which would bring up a lively discussion. Thumbsup

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cheapthrillseaker's post
13-03-2013, 10:40 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
I'm open to talk about sex. I can explain how it works if this is an unfamiliar subject for you.

When a daddy bear and a momma bear really like each other.....

So you're looking for explanations for natural explanations ?
You think there is no evidence that this world, this universe is natural ?
Do you have some other un-natural explanation for your own birth ? Perhaps a stork theory ?

Are you 5 yrs old ? or have you watched the Matrix one too many times ?

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
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
13-03-2013, 10:40 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 10:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 08:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That's why I didn't do much more that browse Wikipedia, as I'm pretty sure it's not worth more effort than that. The OP just reeks of someone not looking to learn, but rather looking to pick a fight. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but I don't expect to be. Anyone truly curious and capable of creating an account and posting on this forum, would be more than able to use Google to find these answers on their own if they cared to.
i have done so, and the result of my research has been, that there is no serious evidence for a naturalistic world view. Provide me explanations that show that i might be wrong......
*yawns* Why should we have to prove anything to you? To challenge your faith? To try to sway you from what you believe? meh...You're just not worth the hassle. You come here with a presupposition based on your beliefs and faith. Nothing more. shoo fly.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
13-03-2013, 11:04 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 10:27 AM)Godexists Wrote:  i have done so, and the result of my research has been, that there is no serious evidence for a naturalistic world view. Provide me explanations that show that i might be wrong......

You have it backward.

We know about cosmology, including the big bang, nuclear fusion in stars and novas, accretion, formation of solar systems, etc., so we can explain the existence of the universe and the Earth naturally. We know about biology, including evolution, cellular meiosis, reproduction, DNA, etc., so we can explain how life evolved from simple forms to the complex life we see today. We know about psychology, including behavioral patterns and morality structures, etc., so we can explain human behavior and how we can be moral despite not believing in gods.

We have natural explanations for all of this.

Furthermore, we can look around and see the natural world, and the natural universe. We can see it, feel it, hear it, smell it, taste it. It's real. It might or might not be natural, but it's definitely real. Assuming it is natural is simple. It's default. "I see it, it exists, period." But assuming an extra cause is assuming one more step which is less simple and not default. "I see it, it exists, it must exist because something else, something supernatural that I cannot see, must have created it." Do you see how this second assumption is actually adding complexity, making it less plausible?

Of course you don't, you're a believer in God so it seems simpler to you to believe that. But look at the words I wrote. The first assumption is quick and short, only 6 words, not very complex. The second assumption is much longer, much more complex.

And since the only "proof" is one book, one old, dusty book, full of mistakes and mistranslations and incorrect junk science, it's hard to believe that this book is an accurate portrayal of God or that it justifies the more complex explanation.

The naturalistic explanation is easier, it's less complex, and it's fully explained if you really bother to find out. I'd love to see the sources you used in your "research" on these subjects.

"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
[+] 5 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
13-03-2013, 12:11 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2013 12:14 PM by FSM_scot.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 09:29 AM)Godexists Wrote:  So why then should evolution have chosen sex, rather than asexual reproduction, given that sex is much less efficient, and more complicated ?

It increases genetic diversity. Asexual reproduction basically creates
'clones' of the organism. If that organism is susceptible to a disease that disease will affect all of the organisms.

The mixing of genes that occurs with sexual reproduction increases the diversity of the offspring and reduces the susceptibility of harm from biotic factors. It increases survivability.

If you need proof of this you should look at antibiotic resistance in bacteria that exchange plasmids.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes FSM_scot's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: