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

[shunyadragon]

We're not talking about science (which is an abstract concept so doesn't claim anything) or scientists, we're talking about you. You stated that the "supernatural" exists "beyond our physical universe". I am simply asking you what you're basing those statements on given that you also stated that it can't be tested.

As per this discussion I am not claiming the 'supernatural' exists or not exists.

The topic is Naturalism, and science is the explanation of Naturalism from the perspective of Methodological Naturalism. What can or cannot be tested concerning 'Naturalism' is the purview of science. Yes, we are talking about science so please respond . . .

Science does not claim to be able to describe characteristics of the supernatural, nor the existence or nature of other possible spiritual worlds beyond ours, nor does in come to any conclusions as to whether the 'supernatural exists or not. Science is neutral and does not draw conclusions beyond what can be falsified based on the objective verifiable evidence by Methodological Naturalism.

Individual scientists may make statements of belief by subjective philosophical assumptions, but that is not science.

 

[HonestJoe]

As per this discussion I am not claiming the 'supernatural' exists or not exists.

Then why did you say it "is (i.e. exists) beyond our physical universe"? My core point here is that talking about "the supernatural" creates a circular argument since you can't say anything about something you're claiming can't be tested. It's like saying my invisible unicorn is pink.

Science does not claim to be able to describe characteristics of the supernatural, nor the existence or nature of other possible spiritual worlds beyond ours, nor does in come to any conclusions as to whether the 'supernatural exists or not. Science is neutral and does not draw conclusions beyond what can be falsified based on the objective verifiable evidence by Methodological Naturalism.

It isn't neutral because the supernatural isn't falsifiable, it is neutral because no viable hypotheses have been presented and zero meaningful evidence has been presented to support any of the "supernatural" beliefs, claims or assertions... yet.

What makes you assume that something like "spiritual worlds beyond ours" couldn't be studied via scientific method (note that doesn't necessarily mean by human beings today)? What makes you assume there is anything that can't be couldn't be studied via scientific method? What would be the impenetrable barrier to prevent someone (or something) performing such study?

 

[shunyadragon]

Then why did you say it "is (i.e. exists) beyond our physical universe"? My core point here is that talking about "the supernatural" creates a circular argument since you can't say anything about something you're claiming can't be tested. It's like saying my invisible unicorn is pink.

It isn't neutral because the supernatural isn't falsifiable, it is neutral because no viable hypotheses have been presented and zero meaningful evidence has been presented to support any of the "supernatural" beliefs, claims or assertions... yet.

What makes you assume that something like "spiritual worlds beyond ours" couldn't be studied via scientific method (note that doesn't necessarily mean by human beings today)? What makes you assume there is anything that can't be couldn't be studied via scientific method? What would be the impenetrable barrier to prevent someone (or something) performing such study?

The reasons are simple for all of the above. Science is indeed neutral and cannot propose a theory nor hypothesis that could falsify a theory nor hypothesis that the supernatural nor spiritual worlds beyond ours. If it could falsify such a hypothesis it would no longer be neutral. This just a matter of fact of Methodological Naturalism. The super natural and 'other spiritual worlds' beyond our physical existence, but science cannot confirm nor deny it at present.

Yes, as you said, "yet," and this is possible in the future, but highly speculative. There is no barrier to proposing research on these subjects, but no one has succeeded, and they remain the purview of theological naturalism and various schools of philosophy.

 

[Milton Platt]

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

Nope.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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 really do have a burden of proof. You are asserting that sometimes there are exceptions to the rules (miracles, for example). You must be able to document that something has actually happened that violated one of the laws of physics or one of the subsequent laws that spring from there. Without your proof, the default is back to the naturalist explanation.

 

[paarsurrey]

leroy said: ↑
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 really do have a burden of proof. You are asserting that sometimes there are exceptions to the rules (miracles, for example). You must be able to document that something has actually happened that violated one of the laws of physics or one of the subsequent laws that spring from there. Without your proof, the default is back to the naturalist explanation.

Friend @leroy simply lacks acceptance in naturalism. It is similar to Atheism, it lacks acceptance of God. Right, please?
Does it mean that burden of proof resides with Atheism, please?

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

leroy said: ↑
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)

Friend @leroy simply lacks acceptance in naturalism. It is similar to Atheism, it lacks acceptance of God. Right, please?
Does it mean that burden of proof resides with Atheism, please?

Regards

Naturalism does not imply Atheism. After all, it is God who created the laws of nature, and is thus responsible for everything that naturally occurs.

 

[Yerda]

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

If we were to adopt a particular framework that was to guide our investigations into the world and, further, that framework gave us the foundation for very successful investigating would you consider evidence that the framework is "true"?

Maybe you'd accept that it's "useful" if not "true"?

For clarity, I don't know if naturalism is true but it sure seems like a good way to think about the world before we poke it with instruments and what-have-you. It gives us clues about where to poke etc.

 

[paarsurrey]

Naturalism does not imply Atheism. After all, it is God who created the laws of nature, and is thus responsible for everything that naturally occurs.

G-d did not command the humans to be with "Naturalism", please, so friend @leroy is OK to lack acceptance in Naturalism. Right, please?

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

G-d did not command the humans to be with "Naturalism", please, so friend @leroy is OK to lack acceptance in Naturalism. Right, please?

Regards

Well it depends on what you mean by okay. I don't think he'll burn in hell for all eternity. On the other hand, I think he is wrong, and when you make mistakes there is a price to be paid.