I lack a belief in Naturalism / Do I have a Burden proof?

[leroy]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?


Obviously I am being sarcastic, I am using the same type of fallasious reasoning that atheist use when they say “I don’t assert that God doesn’t exist, I simply lack a belif in God” (therefore I don’t have a burden proof)

We can all use creative semantic games to avoid the burden proof , but the truth is that we all have to provide justification for our world views

 

[Left Coast]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

It would be helpful if you could define what you think "natural" means.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

If you make any claim and someone asks you to clarify and support it, than yes, you have the burden of proof. If one cannot support or does not want to support the topics they bring up, it's best not to, well, bring it up.

Why do you not believe in naturalism?

(Usually, when someone says 'you have the burden of proof' to a nonbeliever, they want him or her to answer the question he or she didn't originally propose. It's a fallacy to direct one's attention from not being able to/not wanting to explain one's statement by telling the other to make a counterclaim to the one he or she never actually made)

But those things have to do with god since god can't be seen, heard, touched, felt, and sensed physiologically. I think people get it when it comes to naturalism and things they can see and experience without religious bias. But when made into a spirit-ual or religious claim, no one supports their argument but directs that person outside themselves so the other person/thing can do the explaining for them.

 

[epronovost]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

Well no. It would be ridiculous to ask of anybody to prove that they doubt something. We might ask for precision as to why or what precisely makes you doubt and we could later judge if your doubt is reasonnable or could be dismissed, but you don't have to prove a doubt.

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

You can read the following words. That's a proof of naturalism. In fact, there is not a single being, thing or event as of now that isn't natural so far or that isn't investigated using some form of scientific enquiry and method.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Hmm... What event causes you to question naturalism specifically? Where does it fall short for you? I'm curious to know what you feel a better explanation for that event would be, and how it has proven to be more reliable than the track record that naturalism has.

 

[Quintessence]

Do you care if you have the so-called burden of proof? It's not like anyone can make you take it. In most discussions, that phrase is simply used as a way to try and get one up on the other person. Animal superiority posturing, basically.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

I suppose its a chicken or the egg type argument.

Did natural bring about 'artificial?

I can't picture anything artificial, as a precedent givin what has been produced artificially is within the natural realm.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

I'm a methodological naturalist, if that counts.
I don't care too much about 'burdens of proof' but in terms of evidence I would simply offer the fact that we can't really measure or test 'non-natural' things. Whether they exist or not is basically beside the point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….

What do you mean by "natural?"

I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

The only people who have a burden of proof are those wanting to convince people who disagree with them. Does this describe you?

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

I can't give you any evidence for whatever you're calling "naturalism" until I know what you're referring to with the term.

 

[Polymath257]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

Good. No problem being skeptical and no problem with saying you lack a belief. No burden of proof that I can see.

Now, where do we go from here?

If the goal is to understand what is around us, we need to come up with methods for doing so (If not, ignore this). What do you propose?

 

[paarsurrey]

I lack a belief in Naturalism / Do I have a Burden proof?

The point is, does one feel a burden on one's soul? If there is none, then no need to give any proof, Right, please?

Regards

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

Understanding Supernaturalism as the idea that everything is caused by supernatural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that supernaturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in supernaturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some supernaturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for supernaturalism?

 

[paarsurrey]

I suppose its a chicken or the egg type argument.

Did natural bring about 'artificial?

I can't picture anything artificial, as a precedent givin what has been produced artificially is within the natural realm.

Yes, G-d who has bestowed traits to humans to discover and invent, everything humans do is within such limits, is artificial ,but in broader sense it is still natural, as I understand. Right, please?
I agree with one here. Right, please?

Regards

 

[MonkeyFire]

You hate nudist? Am I reading that right. Imo nature is Heaven.

 

[bobhikes]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

If it's a belief and you keep it to yourself you have no burden. If you wish to challenge another's belief you need to present proof.

 

[shunyadragon]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

Yes you have the burden of objective verifiable evidence that there is an alternate explanation than Naturalism that has consistent and predictable results.

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

This forum is zeros and ones in a digital computer format. The Naturalist basis of science is the reason our computers and the internet work.

Also hundreds of years of Science base on the objective verifiable evidence that has demonstrated that Naturalism explains the nature of our physical existence is consistently and predictably verified. There is no other explanation available to explain the evidence..

 

[Nakosis]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

As long as you are not making claims about something (naturalism) no one is going to ask you to support something you are not claiming.

Naturalism is a premise. A proposition used as a basis from which other conclusions are drawn. Evidence for it would be showing that what we know of the universe is in fact knowable, objectively testable. The ability to show that a methodical process done by either you or I gets consistent results.

That however is not proof the supernatural does not exist. The idea that the supernatural does not exist is part of the premise of naturalism, the part that cannot be proven.

 

[Heyo]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

You don't have a burden of proof.

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

I don't have proof for naturalism as that is an axiomatic belief system.
There is however all the evidence you want with no respectable counter evidence. The assumption of naturalism has shown to be useful in almost every instance it was applied to.

 

[Bear Wild]

Understanding Naturalism as the idea that everything is caused by natural mechanisms……….I am not asserting that naturalism is wrong; I simply lack a belief in naturalism …….. Do I have a burden proof? (I assume not)

So if there is some naturalism in this forum, can you provide evidence for naturalism?

This makes no sense. Everything we know about is caused by natural mechanisms including the way your brain decided to write the contrary. You have agreed with many scientific findings in many discussions which are based in naturalism so you must in part believe in naturalism. Since there is no way to study the supernatural (by definition it is not a part of the natural world) then your brain operating with natural mechanism can allow you to believe in something supernatural. The supernatural is untestable, unmeasurable, and outside of human existence except in a persons belief. In other words all evidence we can discover is a part of the natural world and represents all of the evidence we know. Now I would like to know how you propose we can find evidence for something supernatural using natural techniques we have available to us!

 

[leroy]

This makes no sense. Everything we know about is caused by natural mechanisms including the way your brain decided to write the contrary. You have agreed with many scientific findings in many discussions which are based in naturalism so you must in part believe in naturalism. Since there is no way to study the supernatural (by definition it is not a part of the natural world) then your brain operating with natural mechanism can allow you to believe in something supernatural. The supernatural is untestable, unmeasurable, and outside of human existence except in a persons belief. In other words all evidence we can discover is a part of the natural world and represents all of the evidence we know.

Naturalism is the view that everything (not just sometings) has a natural cause………….the fact that somethings are “natural” doesn’t prove that everything is natural

Do you have any evidence for naturalism?



Now I would like to know how you propose we can find evidence for something supernatural using natural techniques we have available to us![/QUOTE]

Ohhh shifting the burden proof?