Atheists: Naturalism

[Marwan]

I have bent physical and natural laws, because in another dimension which goes outside the physical dimension, the laws don't apply anymore. I destroyed a demon in that dimension, barely. What happened was simply biblical and some after-life stuff.

The physical and natural world is falsehood.

We are not bodies, we have bodies, we are soul havibg a body. The soul exists. Certainly.

Reality is not physical.

It is Spirit.

 

[Marwan]

I have bent physical and natural laws, because in another dimension which goes outside the physical dimension, the laws don't apply anymore. I destroyed a demon in that dimension, barely. What happened was simply biblical and some after-life stuff.

The physical and natural world is falsehood.

We are not bodies, we have bodies, we are a soul having a body. The soul exists. Certainly.

Reality is not physical.

It is Spirit.

 

[Koldo]

I can imagine all manner of things -- give me an infinite amount of time, I'll imagine an infinite number of them. But why bother? Would they all be "true" because I imagined them?

Does it not make more sense to simply look around you, with every tool at your disposal (even inventing new ones so you can see better), and see what there is?

You have said and I quote: "if science can neither observe nor verify such an entity, then that entity can have no effect on the real world, as every such effect must leave a trace - a reaction"

But, as per my example, this is not necessarily the case.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You have said and I quote: "if science can neither observe nor verify such an entity, then that entity can have no effect on the real world, as every such effect must leave a trace - a reaction"

But, as per my example, this is not necessarily the case.

But your "example" was not a real example -- it was the product of your own imagination. You did not do any sort of test to arrive at your hypothesis.

 

[Koldo]

But your "example" was not a real example -- it was the product of your own imagination. You did not do any sort of test to arrive at your hypothesis.

Irrelevant. First, because even an hypothetical example suffices to contradict your statement. All I am saying is that it is possible for an entity to have an effect on the universe and yet remain undetectable. Second, because it is logically contradictory to demand testing if I am to present my hypothesis, since the testing itself would entail that science is already detecting this entity (which would entail that this entity is not of the undetectable kind).

I take a different approach. I don't claim that such entity couldn't possibly exist but rather that there is no justification to believe in it's existence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Irrelevant. First, because even an hypothetical example suffices to contradict your statement. All I am saying is that it is possible for an entity to have an effect on the universe and yet remain undetectable. Second, because it is logically contradictory to demand testing if I am to present my hypothesis, since the testing itself would entail that science is already detecting this entity (which would entail that this entity is not of the undetectable kind).

I take a different approach. I don't claim that such entity couldn't possibly exist but rather that there is no justification to believe in it's existence.

Your supposition (that an "entity" which you politely refrain from calling God) can do something to make a universe without leaving anything detectable behind is nonsense. It left a universe behind! And we can detect that.

But the same argument could be made for this: "there is a universe because a mommy universe and a daddy universe loved each other very much and..."

 

[Koldo]

Your supposition (that an "entity" which you politely refrain from calling God) can do something to make a universe without leaving anything detectable behind is nonsense.

I have called it God Z before.

It left a universe behind! And we can detect that.

Sure, but detecting the universe doesn't entail necessarily detecting God Z.

But the same argument could be made for this: "there is a universe because a mommy universe and a daddy universe loved each other very much and..."

Sure. I don't see the problem though.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But the same argument could be made for this: "there is a universe because a mommy universe and a daddy universe loved each other very much and..."

Sure. I don't see the problem though.

Of course you don't, because my little joke would imply a perfectly natural means of universe creation, and your paradigm doesn't allow for that. For a large portion of humanity, if it doesn't start with "god," it can never be a final answer, and so is rejected out of hand.

 

[Koldo]

Of course you don't, because my little joke would imply a perfectly natural means of universe creation, and your paradigm doesn't allow for that. For a large portion of humanity, if it doesn't start with "god," it can never be a final answer, and so is rejected out of hand.

I have no idea why you are saying any of this. I am an atheist, metaphysical naturalist, physicalist....

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have no idea why you are saying any of this. I am an atheist, metaphysical naturalist, physicalist....

Yet most of what you actually write suggests otherwise. Have you noticed that? Changing the name of "God" to Z or W doesn't take "God" out of your arguments -- only relabels it.

You say, in Post !!, that you are a metaphysical naturalist, and then you ask:

Imagine, for example, that god Z created young Earth Y (and the entire universe W) that seems like, even upon extensive examination, it is actually really old and also that it occurred naturally without any supernatural intervention.

All of that is inventive supposition as an attempt to answer questions for which there appears no obvious answer. The true metaphysical naturalist will say, "I don't know" when he doesn't know, and refrain from inventing hypotheticals to "fill the gaps" in his knowledge.

You, on the other hand, invent a "scenario", in which you actually try to make a case for why your scenario ought to be considered valid!

Why would you do that, if you are, as you say, "atheist, metaphyscial naturalist, physicalist..."? Well, I don't know for sure, but I think it's because you -- like so many others -- don't really believe the things that you suppose, because you were indoctrinated into them, you actually believe.

 

[siti]

I'm a methodological naturalist but not a metaphysical one. I don't rule out the possibility that entities or phenomena may exist that are beyond the domain observable and verifiable by science, and I believe metaphysical claims only concern science when they include measurable or observable aspects (e.g., denial of evolution).

So what would these "entities" and "phenomena" do if they are beyond the observable and verifiable? What possible difference could their "existence" make to anything if they can have no effect in or on the natural "world"? And if they do have an effect, then they or their effects are, presumably, at least potentially, both observable and verifiable...and thereby, their existence could be very reasonably inferred based on observational evidence even if not observed directly...which is what we do with (for example) sub-atomic particles...nobody has ever actually seen one after all.

I would probably say I'm an "ontological naturalist", which entails metaphysical naturalism, since if ONLY natural entities and processes exist, only naturalistic explanations can elucidate them, but I usually just call myself a physicalist, which more or less boils down to the same thing for all practical intents and purposes (not that there are any practical intents and purposes)...

...but, I also like to think of myself as (something like) a naturalistic pantheist...so not really being an atheist, am I allowed to vote...or would that send your poll up the pole?

 

[Heyo]

Poll for atheists.

Why or why not?

'In philosophy, naturalism is the idea that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe.[1] In its primary sense[2] it is also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, pure naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism. "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. Philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism.'

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I can't answer yet, as there is some undefined middle ground. If, by "metaphysical naturalism", you mean explicitly the belief that only natural laws, forces and fields exist, then I'm not a metaphysical naturalist.
If, by "not metaphysical naturalism", you mean someone who believes in the supernatural, then I'm not not a metaphysical naturalist (that's not a typo, it's a double negative).
For me there are the physical things, forces and fields and that is all that is real. The hard sciences deal with that stuff. Then there are abstract things, ideals and constructs like numbers, moral, laws, etc. The hard sciences don't deal with those, but they do exist, and we have tools like mathematics, philosophy and jurisprudence to talk about them. I don't believe in anything "supernatural".
Because of that middle ground, I have identified as a methodological naturalist, not an ontological/metaphysical naturalist.

What should I answer in the poll?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Poll for atheists.

Why or why not?

'In philosophy, naturalism is the idea that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe.[1] In its primary sense[2] it is also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, pure naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism. "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. Philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism.'

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I go for the option in between the two. Methodological naturalism.
For all practical intents and purposes, I assume that only natural forces operate in the universe. And I go by that assumption (again: for all practical intents and purposes) because it continues to be consistent with my experiences and observations.

I can't "disprove" the existence of supernatural forces, but I have zero reason to assume they exist.
I don't dogmatically rule out they exist, but until there is reliable evidence to show they exist, or that they are likely to exist, I see no reason to assume anything other then them not existing.



Another interesting point here.... is what actually counts as "supernatural"...
For all intents and purposes, it seems to be something that exists beyond the verifiable, beyond the observable, beyond the observable workings of the universe.

One could make the case that if tomorrow we obtain reliable evidence for the existance of "supernatural" things, then they'ld actually become part of our model of reality. That would then include them in the natural world as things that exist in reality, with some kind of effect on reality.

So demonstrating the "supernatural" exists, would actually make them natural.
In that sense, the "supernatural" seems to be nothing more then a buzzword, a placeholder label, for things beyond our comprehension and / or ability to discern. Which would turn the entire thing into some species of argument from ignorance.

Indeed, I have wondered in the past.... IF a god exists... that god would exist in some plain of existence. If not the universe, then some other "realm" / dimension / what-have-you. And that realm, and god, would then become part of existence. Part of the cosmos. It would be included in our model of reality and that god, also, would become part of the natural order of things.

So in that sense, one can wonder what "supernatural" actually really means. Imo, not much... aside from some species of appeal to ignorance.

 

[HonestJoe]

You might be a bit hasty in assuming a definition of 'real', here.

The correct definition of every word under this topic are commonly debated (including the words "correct", "word" and "debate" ). I'm not sure it matters in this specific example though; pretty much however you're defining "real", my point applies. The distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" exists entirely in our minds and isn't based on or reflected in anything actually observed in the universe.

 

[MikeF]

In that sense, the "supernatural" seems to be nothing more then a buzzword, a placeholder label, for things beyond our comprehension and / or ability to discern.

Would you agree that the "supernatural" is also a placeholder for things that are simply made up and do not actually exist?

 

[Koldo]

Yet most of what you actually write suggests otherwise. Have you noticed that? Changing the name of "God" to Z or W doesn't take "God" out of your arguments -- only relabels it.

I called it God Z. I never intended to take God out of my argument. I just didn't want it to present this god as representative of any given religion.

You say, in Post !!, that you are a metaphysical naturalist, and then you ask:

All of that is inventive supposition as an attempt to answer questions for which there appears no obvious answer. The true metaphysical naturalist will say, "I don't know" when he doesn't know, and refrain from inventing hypotheticals to "fill the gaps" in his knowledge.

But I am not presenting God Z as a way to fill any gaps. I am presenting it to explain why I disagree with the assessment I originally replied to.

You, on the other hand, invent a "scenario", in which you actually try to make a case for why your scenario ought to be considered valid!

Do you mean 'valid' as in presenting God Z as actually existing? Hell no. That's not it.

Why would you do that, if you are, as you say, "atheist, metaphyscial naturalist, physicalist..."? Well, I don't know for sure, but I think it's because you -- like so many others -- don't really believe the things that you suppose, because you were indoctrinated into them, you actually believe.

It genuinely feels like the whole thing completely flied over your head. Let me try again.

You have said and I quote: ". As far as I am concerned, the question of whether there may or may not be "entities or phenomena..beyond the domain observable and verifiable by science" is completely moot, for a very simple reason. And that reason is this: if science can neither observe nor verify such an entity, then that entity can have no effect on the real world, as every such effect must leave a trace - a reaction. If they cannot have effect on the real world, then they do not exist with respect to the real world."

I disagree that an entity to have effect on the real world must necessarily leave a trace. That's it. Why do I disagree? Because if it is possible to imagine an entity that both interacted with the world and left no trace, then it can't necessarily be the case that such entity doesn't exist. And I can imagine it. Do I believe such entity exists? No. Absolutely not.

 

[MikeF]

Why do I disagree? Because if it is possible to imagine an entity that both interacted with the world and left no trace, then it can't necessarily be the case that such entity doesn't exist.

The problem with that standard "because I can imagine it", is that what you imagine does not have to obey or conform to the properties and rules of reality, which, by the way, are not completely understood. The realm of what can be imagined is potentially infinite, but not everything that can be imagined is possible.

 

[Kfox]

Poll for atheists.

Why or why not?

'In philosophy, naturalism is the idea that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe.[1] In its primary sense[2] it is also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, pure naturalism, philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism. "Ontological" refers to ontology, the philosophical study of what exists. Philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism.'

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If something (previously believed to be supernatural) is proven to exist, it becomes a part of the natural world.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would you agree that the "supernatural" is also a placeholder for things that are simply made up and do not actually exist?

Yep. It's both.

That would be part of the argument from ignorance aspect.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course you don't, because my little joke would imply a perfectly natural means of universe creation, and your paradigm doesn't allow for that. For a large portion of humanity, if it doesn't start with "god," it can never be a final answer, and so is rejected out of hand.

Which is more than a bit ironic, since "god" can't ever be a final answer.