Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-03-2013, 12:15 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 11:04 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  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.

We've all been down this path before. He's most likely just another drive-by theist troll that has a hard-on to start swinging his presuppositions around after reading a few articles on AnswersInGenesis.com, WayOfTheMaster.com, or anything from the Hovind's or similar fundamentalist ilk. So now he thinks he can stump us with some 'hard' questions, not realizing that it's going to take more than baseless claims to do so.


As for the OP, it's best if we get the Burden of Proof issue up and out of the way first; because if you cannot meet your burden of proof, save yourself the trouble and don't even bother posting anything more.




[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-03-2013, 12:23 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
All he can cough up, is "I've done my research". Heh heh.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
13-03-2013, 12:24 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 09:45 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  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?
We do not know, why there is life only on planet earth ( thats what scientific evidence suggests ), but life to be possible on earth, many parameters must be finely tuned. Over 120 are known to date.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-...e-universe

Quote:Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 12:36 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 12:24 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 09:45 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  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?
We do not know, why there is life only on planet earth ( thats what scientific evidence suggests ), but life to be possible on earth, many parameters must be finely tuned. Over 120 are known to date.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-...e-universe

Quote:Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.
Is this going to turn out into a copy paste thread?

Science is searching for proof of life outside our little planet.

Fine-tuning argument? So this is creationist talk.

[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, 12:39 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 12:24 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 09:45 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  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?

We do not know, why there is life only on planet earth ( thats what scientific evidence suggests ), but life to be possible on earth, many parameters must be finely tuned. Over 120 are known to date.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-...e-universe

Quote:Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.

We don't know that there is life only on earth. We only know of life on earth. Those are entirely different statements.

And 'fine-tuning' is an anthropocentric delusion; it has the cart before the horse. We are fine-tuned to the universe, not the other way around.

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
[+] 7 users Like Chas's post
13-03-2013, 12:44 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
What Chas is saying in his terse fashion, is that the universe is not designed for us. We evolved in one little tiny spec of the universe. Here, on this spec, the natural laws and natural elements and natural surroundings are such that life, here, on this spec, could only be like us. (By "us" I mean all life on earth). So life here has been fine tuned by evolution to be just right for the universe, or at least this little spec of it.

Not the other way around.

Sure, if the universal laws were different, even a tiny bit different, "life like us" would not be able to exist, but probably life that is not like us would evolve in that universe, and they would be sitting around arguing about how perfect it is that their universal laws were perfectly "fine tuned" just for them.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Aseptic Skeptic's post
13-03-2013, 01:04 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 12:24 PM)Godexists Wrote:  We do not know, why there is life only on planet earth ( thats what scientific evidence suggests )

There are quintillions of stars in the known universe, and planets are apparently extremely common. Earth is the only place CLOSE ENOUGH FOR US TO EXPLORE (i.e. a portion of our solar system-one out of 8 planets ) that has life. The rare earth hypothesis is an unfounded positive assertion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 01:04 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 12:44 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  What Chas is saying in his terse fashion, is that the universe is not designed for us. We evolved in one little tiny spec of the universe. Here, on this spec, the natural laws and natural elements and natural surroundings are such that life, here, on this spec, could only be like us. (By "us" I mean all life on earth). So life here has been fine tuned by evolution to be just right for the universe, or at least this little spec of it.

Not the other way around.

Sure, if the universal laws were different, even a tiny bit different, "life like us" would not be able to exist, but probably life that is not like us would evolve in that universe, and they would be sitting around arguing about how perfect it is that their universal laws were perfectly "fine tuned" just for them.

Thank you for translating that to human speech. 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
13-03-2013, 01:21 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 12:24 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 09:45 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  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?
We do not know, why there is life only on planet earth ( thats what scientific evidence suggests ), but life to be possible on earth, many parameters must be finely tuned. Over 120 are known to date.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-...e-universe

Quote:Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.

As a matter of fact, according to the Drake equation, there will be countless other life forms found. It's FAR too early to make that assessment. As far as "fine tuning" goes, to 80 decimal points, there will be life in the universe 0.0^80, ZERO percent of the time. That's ZERO (NO) "fine" tuning. The life of a black hole is 80 times the life of a star, (our sun). So your assumptions are WAY off base, and totally unfounded.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...m-Debunked
Scroll down, to #9. Take your time. Your nonsense is totally debunked.

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
13-03-2013, 01:47 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 12:24 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 09:45 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  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?
We do not know, why there is life only on planet earth ( thats what scientific evidence suggests ), but life to be possible on earth, many parameters must be finely tuned. Over 120 are known to date.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-...e-universe

Quote:Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.
You did not address the many failures and flaws in nature, including what I listed above. Then there are the unnecessary items including arm hair, fingernails, and the fact that my food passes by my breathing tube every time I swallow, exposing me to the very real risk of choking to death. The sun is dangerous, even lethal, to me, and something as simple as a scratch can lead to a lethal infection.

Again, I don't see the 'fine-tuning.' If you are a creationist, please say so, as I'm familiar with the creationist mindset and see no benefit to either of us in continuing this discussion.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: