Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-03-2013, 06:43 AM (This post was last modified: 14-03-2013 06:52 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(14-03-2013 06:06 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, GE.

First of all, I'd like to apologise for all of the forum members that have attacked you on a personal level just because you're a Theist and just because you don't seem to support evolution. They are what we in the industry like to call "assholes".



[Image: asshole+lord+noel.jpg]


I'm not being an asshole because he's a theist. I'm being an asshole because he's clearly a troll.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
14-03-2013, 07:29 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(14-03-2013 04:18 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 12:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And BTW, what a lazy ass. Every single one of the points above is addressed, and known thoroughly by experts in each field, with no gods required. Instead of going to find the answers for each, for himself, he comes here and expects it all to be handed to him on a silver platter, like a spoiled 2 year old brat. Waa waa waa. The answers to 3 - 10 in his list are well known to those educated in those fields. Go do your own homework, and after it's done, come and ask intelligent questions. If he can't be bothered to do the work, he can take a flying leap, and fuck off.
No God required ? then you should be able to provide evidence, that a book like Shakespeares Hamlet can arise by chance, without a intelligent author involved ?
that would be the equivalent of the information stored in DNA arise by chance.

Information is not "stored by chance". Thanks for proving you have no clue about Evolutionary Biology or Genetics. Troll. Your pathetic example is known in Logic, as the Fallacy of the False Analogy. Now go to school, sonny, and when you get to Biology 101 when you grow up, in a few years, teacher will explain to you how mutations, and Evolutionary Biology work.

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
14-03-2013, 07:30 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
The fine tuning argument is a positive claim. It is the claim that a universe that supports life is impossibly unlikely.

In order to support this positive claim you must:
1. Determine what universes exist, or could possibly have existed
2. Determine how many of these actual or possible universes support life

Without knowing how many universes there are or how many possible universes support life versus those that do not support life the claim cannot be substantiated. It is a straightforward argument from ignorance. The argument in fact runs like this:

a. The probability of a universe that supports intelligent life existing is so small as be statistically impossible
b. A universe that supports intelligent life does exist
Therefore, a God exists.

Problems:
* (a) is unproven and unfalsifiable. Without knowing how many universes exist and the actual ratio of life supporting to non-life-supporting possible universes the probability calculation cannot be made. All we can do is observe that our form of life could not exist in a universe that doesn't support DNA replication and the like.
* The conclusion is radically unsupported by the premises, and itself introduces contradictions. For example, how did God come about to influence the universe that we know exists and supports intelligent life? How did he come about, and if he could come about through a means that did not require fine tuning why should we think it impossible that we could come about by the same means? What if the highly improbable intelligent life universe did come about and our universe is part of a chain that began with them - their last acts being to transform their universe into a slightly more hospitable one before their species passed away?

So the argument is unfounded in its premises and its conclusion does not logically follow from its premises. You'll need to do a great deal more research before being able to close those loopholes. In the present form of the argument it is impossible to reasonably conclude the existence of God.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Hafnof's post
14-03-2013, 09:47 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Whoa, my coffee tastes like crap this morning! This troll is ignorant.

These are true statements relevant to my life and this thread. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 12:05 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(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
All of these are easily found in any university library. If you are too illiterate to understand the scientific journal articles and textbooks that describes the answers to your questions it will be pointless to try and explain them to you here anyway. Next.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Superluminal's post
14-03-2013, 12:14 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 09:35 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  I like a good challenging debate but you two are bringing up things that have already been refuted.

The cosmological constant can be 0, a very large positive value or a small negative value. So much for the changing of the constant throwing everything off.

Another note, even if our maths were completely off, reality would not change, because we have fine tuned models of reality doesn't mean those models will change reality. Rather than change reality we change our mathematical models to come closer to resembling reality, constants and all.

Second, probabilities are fun to play with, but to ignore all the forces that cause things to change states is the greatest blunder of the "It's so improbable therefore god" argument.

[Image: stzkUQJ.png]

Where has it been shown that if the cosmological constant where 0 or a very large number that a universe like ours would form?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 05:44 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(14-03-2013 12:14 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 09:35 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  I like a good challenging debate but you two are bringing up things that have already been refuted.

The cosmological constant can be 0, a very large positive value or a small negative value. So much for the changing of the constant throwing everything off.

Another note, even if our maths were completely off, reality would not change, because we have fine tuned models of reality doesn't mean those models will change reality. Rather than change reality we change our mathematical models to come closer to resembling reality, constants and all.

Second, probabilities are fun to play with, but to ignore all the forces that cause things to change states is the greatest blunder of the "It's so improbable therefore god" argument.

[Image: stzkUQJ.png]

Where has it been shown that if the cosmological constant where 0 or a very large number that a universe like ours would form?

The cosmological constant could be quite different, but that's rather beside the point.

There is no reason to assume the universe had to be like it is.

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
14-03-2013, 07:43 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(14-03-2013 05:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 12:14 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Where has it been shown that if the cosmological constant where 0 or a very large number that a universe like ours would form?

The cosmological constant could be quite different, but that's rather beside the point.

There is no reason to assume the universe had to be like it is.

I agree.

The question still remains why is the cosmological constant so precisely tuned to allow life? I only find two explanations credible. It is tuned by design, or there exist some sort of multi-verse. It didn't show it in the clip, but Susskind went on to say that if the multi verse were ever shown to be untenable physicists would be hard pressed to rebutt creationists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 07:48 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(14-03-2013 07:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(14-03-2013 05:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  The cosmological constant could be quite different, but that's rather beside the point.

There is no reason to assume the universe had to be like it is.

I agree.

The question still remains why is the cosmological constant so precisely tuned to allow life? I only find two explanations credible. It is tuned by design, or there exist some sort of multi-verse. It didn't show it in the clip, but Susskind went on to say that if the multi verse were ever shown to be untenable physicists would be hard pressed to rebutt creationists.
You still have the cart before the horse.

If the universe weren't conducive to our kind of life, we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.

And only a tiny fraction of the universe is habitable. Not so finely tuned. Dodgy

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
14-03-2013, 08:02 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(14-03-2013 07:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  You still have the cart before the horse.
Had to...

Your looking at the roll of a hundred dice after the fact and saying, wow, look at how they landed!? Must be some divine intervention because the chances of that combination are so low!

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: