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

[mikkel_the_dane]

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



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..

All of our existence is not physical. Some of it is mental. E.g. that I say no, the physical world is not everything, is mental and have no objective meaning, because meaning is subjective.
If everything must be observable or testable using scientific instruments, the the former claim is not such one. Because it meaning is not observable nor understandable using scientific instruments.
You can see as overserve or understand through scientific instruments the meaning of this sentence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

This sentence for its meaning is objectively testable yet it is a part of the universe. So it is supernatural, right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't have a burden of proof.

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.

What do you mean by naturalism?

 

[Michael16548]

You DO NOT have a burden of proof for not believing in "naturalism."

You could falsify what you're calling "naturalism" by producing or demonstrating something that is "unnatural", or has "unnatural" causes. Obviously this is a pretty tough task - which may leave the idea of "naturalism" in the same category as God - that being among those things that are "unfalsifiable." Which is fine - "naturalism" is a pretty hyperbolic idea, and would assume that anything and everything we come across is among the category "natural." I don't know that we can definitively state that unless the term natural" has a very succinct meaning that encompasses anything and everything we can now or might in the future discover - which is itself a tall order.

So there it is - I can easily admit that "naturalism" can be denied, and there are no consequences to that denial or disbelief, except what one might incur on themselves when trying to express various ideas without that as a starting point in some arenas of discussion/thought. Oh well. Now... can you display the same nonchalance with respect to anyone's denial of your ideas of God? I highly, highly doubt you can. It would, indeed, be a shock and an amazement.

I found what you wrote very interesting but I have to disagree.
Naturalism and faith is only about perspective. You can take any example and defend it from both points of view. And that, in my opinion, is the fundamental problem between Science and Faith. Take a pencil and let it go (yes, I like this example) Science will tell you that the reason why it fell is because both bodies are attracted, and the reason why it fell to the ground is the reason because the Earth has more attractive force than a pencil. Religion will tell you that it fell because it is God's will and the pencil fell to the ground because the gods decide that it is so. This is why there is no point in talking about these things, because the final decision of what is true is up to you. No matter how far we go with science, as long as you can answer all the arguments, it's God's will. There is no reason to argue about it.
This is my personal philosophical position and I don't care who believes what just feels unfair to me to want answers when your faith gives none. Or is unable to give space that it may be wrong

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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!

No, the world can't be reduced to evidence. That I can deny that, is evidence of the limit of evidence:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You DO NOT have a burden of proof for not believing in "naturalism."

You could falsify what you're calling "naturalism" by producing or demonstrating something that is "unnatural", or has "unnatural" causes. Obviously this is a pretty tough task - which may leave the idea of "naturalism" in the same category as God - that being among those things that are "unfalsifiable." Which is fine - "naturalism" is a pretty hyperbolic idea, and would assume that anything and everything we come across is among the category "natural." I don't know that we can definitively state that unless the term natural" has a very succinct meaning that encompasses anything and everything we can now or might in the future discover - which is itself a tall order.

So there it is - I can easily admit that "naturalism" can be denied, and there are no consequences to that denial or disbelief, except what one might incur on themselves when trying to express various ideas without that as a starting point in some arenas of discussion/thought. Oh well. Now... can you display the same nonchalance with respect to anyone's denial of your ideas of God? I highly, highly doubt you can. It would, indeed, be a shock and an amazement.

I can. My belief is nothing but my belief in God. I have no problem with that, because it works for me. That is all that is needed for it to work.

 

[gnostic]

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

That’s the wrong way to view EVERYTHING.

If it is a matter of just personal belief...then it is bloody “personal”, therefore you don’t have to prove a thing.

Concerning theism vs atheism, or with theists vs atheists, then it matter of belief or the lack of belief in the question, then neither sides require proof or evidence.

But your topic isn’t just about theism vs atheism, but it is the idea of “naturalism” that you are challenging, you are challenging the concept that “nature” can be understood through “natural mechanisms”.

Then the questions are -

• Why would you challenge naturalism?
• What alternative are you replacing the natural mechanism with?
  • (eg Is this alternative “supernatural phenomena”? Or perhaps you were talking about “miracle”? If this is what you to replace or challenge Naturalism with, then YES, the burden of proof would fall upon you.)

If you are offering alternative to natural processes to understanding nature, then yes, then yes the burden of proof falls upon you.

Are you offering alternative concept? Are you offering a hypothesis?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I found what you wrote very interesting but I have to disagree.
Naturalism and faith is only about perspective. You can take any example and defend it from both points of view. And that, in my opinion, is the fundamental problem between Science and Faith. Take a pencil and let it go (yes, I like this example) Science will tell you that the reason why it fell is because both bodies are attracted, and the reason why it fell to the ground is the reason because the Earth has more attractive force than a pencil. Religion will tell you that it fell because it is God's will and the pencil fell to the ground because the gods decide that it is so. This is why there is no point in talking about these things, because the final decision of what is true is up to you. No matter how far we go with science, as long as you can answer all the arguments, it's God's will. There is no reason to argue about it.
This is my personal philosophical position and I don't care who believes what just feels unfair to me to want answers when your faith gives none. Or is unable to give space that it may be wrong

Well, as long as you understand the limits of methodological naturalism and these limits to science, you can use science all you want: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[shunyadragon]

All of our existence is not physical. Some of it is mental. E.g. that I say no, the physical world is not everything, is mental and have no objective meaning, because meaning is subjective.


If everything must be observable or testable using scientific instruments, the the former claim is not such one. Because it meaning is not observable nor understandable using scientific instruments.

You can see as overserve or understand through scientific instruments the meaning of this sentence.

As far as the objective verifiable evidence is concerned the 'mental' is derived from the brain. There is no evidence of anything on the contrary.

When the brain dies mental activity ends.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because there is no evidence for naturalism

No, it is an axiomatic assumption. So is God BTW.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As far as the objective verifiable evidence is concerned the 'mental' is derived from the brain. There is no evidence of anything on the contrary.

When the brain dies mental activity ends.

Yeah, but not reducible to the physical. That is the limit of that. There is e.g. no Natural Scientific Law of morality, because it is subjective. And that you subjectively think that subjectivity is a problem, is a result of your subjectivity.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, as long as you understand the limits of methodological naturalism and these limits to science, you can use science all you want: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

The limits of science are two fold: (1) Science cannot prove things in the absolute sense. It can falsify theorems and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence. (2) Philosophical and Theological assumptions, and beliefs without physical objective verifiable evidence cannot be falsified by hypothesis nor theories. It is the fundamental difference between the objective and the subjective.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, but not reducible to the physical. That is the limit of that. There is e.g. no Natural Scientific Law of morality, because it is subjective. And that you subjectively think that subjectivity is a problem, is a result of your subjectivity.

Yes, it can be reducible to the physical by the present state of the evidence, and beyond this it is subjective and beyond the perview of science. There is absolutely no other explanation, at present for any alternative.

Still waiting . . .

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The limits of science are two fold: (1) Science cannot prove things in the absolute sense. It can falsify theorems and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence. (2) Philosophical and Theological assumptions, and beliefs without physical objective verifiable evidence cannot be falsified by hypothesis nor theories. It is the fundamental difference between the objective and the subjective.

So are the subjective a part of the physical word? And if not, then where does it exist? Or is the world objective?

 

[Michael16548]

Well, as long as you understand the limits of methodological naturalism and these limits to science, you can use science all you want: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

ok you just step on wrong mine it will take while but you will get reply

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, it can be reducible to the physical, and beyond this it is subjective and beyond the perview of science. There is absolutely no other explanation, at present for any alternative.

Still waiting . . .

So it is reducible and not reducible, because beyond that is subjective and beyond science. That doesn't make sense. Try some other words.

 

[shunyadragon]

So it is reducible and not reducible, because beyond that is subjective and beyond science. That doesn't make sense. Try some other words.

You are unethically misrepresenting my posts, and you are making a vain attempt at 'arguing from ignorance.' ALL mental activity is currently explainable by science, unless you can provide a falsifiable hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence that supports an alternative explanation. The limits of science have been explained. You of course, can propose subjective arguments to explain the nature of mental activity, but this of course, is not science.

Still waiting . . .

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I found what you wrote very interesting but I have to disagree.
Naturalism and faith is only about perspective. You can take any example and defend it from both points of view. And that, in my opinion, is the fundamental problem between Science and Faith. Take a pencil and let it go (yes, I like this example) Science will tell you that the reason why it fell is because both bodies are attracted, and the reason why it fell to the ground is the reason because the Earth has more attractive force than a pencil. Religion will tell you that it fell because it is God's will and the pencil fell to the ground because the gods decide that it is so. This is why there is no point in talking about these things, because the final decision of what is true is up to you. No matter how far we go with science, as long as you can answer all the arguments, it's God's will. There is no reason to argue about it.

Well... you picked a pretty poor example in defense of your position here. And this is because an understanding of "gravity" as is proposed within a scientific understanding is INFINITELY more useful to ANYONE AT ALL than is the idea that goes "Because God wills it." With the idea behind gravitational attraction being "because God wills it", this gives you absolutely none of the useful information that can ultimately describe the rate of acceleration gravitational force will cause between two objects, or can predict that objects gravitate toward other objects of larger mass, or can describe precisely why the orbits of heavenly bodies are (in a general sense) maintained over long spans of time. None of that comes along with "because God wills it." So the idea that "God wills it" is pretty useless from an explanatory standpoint. Besides this, you would always have to be on your guard that God might change "what He wills," wouldn't you? What if tomorrow, the pencil (and everything else) falls "left?" Hahaha... If God wills it, it is good! Am I right? Oh... no... no, that's just terribly wrong now, isn't it?

This is my personal philosophical position and I don't care who believes what just feels unfair to me to want answers when your faith gives none. Or is unable to give space that it may be wrong

And by "[my] faith" are you referring to "science?" My, but you are barking up the wrong tree. I only ever pay homage to science because I am a "just the facts" sort of person - and a great many other "disciplines" (if you care to call them that) that have developed over the course of human development tend to be lacking in that area. I, personally, don't feel I need to care what "science" has to say on a topic unless it accurately models or predicts the behavior of the systems being described. That is, unless it correlates incredibly strongly with the reality I experience, and therefore has use in this reality as I experience it. I'm not one to deny cogent, carefully-procured evidence of such items (again - referring to items with a HIGH correlation to the reality I experience).

Besides this... "science" (or rather, the purveyors of such) tend to be very willing to admit they are wrong - if someone can bring forward the EVIDENCE that they are, indeed, wrong about something. When the evidence that comes through is absolute garbage (like the "evidence" for God), what do you expect them to do? Discard all their heard-earned items of useful knowledge and what? Start worshipping "God?" Hahaha... oh man. There's a hearty laugh for you.

 

[epronovost]

These sentences are not natural since they are caused by members of humankind.

And humankind is a part of nature.

So what do you mean by naturalism?

ever tried this google thing or better yet, openning a philosophical dictionnary? Common you can do some of the legwork and avoid turning into some sort of bloviating and "sea lionning" pedant.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I can. My belief is nothing but my belief in God. I have no problem with that, because it works for me. That is all that is needed for it to work.

Consider me shocked and amazed - especially coming from you, who have time and time again come after me for stating not much more than that I do not believe in any sort of deity, and don't believe the people who claim that any exists. If that's "nonchalance" then maybe I have been using the term incorrectly all along.

 

[Quintessence]

@epronovost

??? I didn't say any of that stuff you quoted me as saying ???

??? Are you expecting me to ... uh... respond to things I didn't say ???