Is there a single shred of evidence against naturalism?

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Is there any reason other than faith to believe in the soul, god, gods, pretty much any spiritual concept?

I used @1137 's thing to make my own thing. It's like hijacking a thread but instead of actually hijacking it we built a very similar thread right next door.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Is there any reason other than faith to believe in the soul, god, gods, pretty much any spiritual concept?

I used @1137 's thing to make my own thing. It's like hijacking a thread but instead of actually hijacking it we built a very similar thread right next door.

He does not understand that if he ignores that the negative stance is the default one that he must disprove every single other claim in order to have his own stand.

 

[1137]

He does not understand that if he ignores that the negative stance is the default one that he must disprove every single other claim in order to have his own stand.

I understand this, and solipsism is the default position.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I understand this, and solipsism is the default position.

Yeah I know. But I can work naturally from solipsism into naturalism, would you care to follow the steps with me?

 

[1137]

I believe both "soul" and "god" are easily understood within the theory of forms, which itself seems rather sound so far as I can tell. Of course it all depends on how we are defining these words. I don't like the term "naturalism" in this sense, as it seems to imply physical = natural, which puts the cart before the horse. Physicalism, however, is inherently and hopelessly flawed. It is riddled with problems at the foundational level, from the axiomatic self to property dualism, two way causality to the fact that physicalism must make the absurd claim that we can be more certain of matter than our own existence. The fact that we cannot, in any direct, scientific, physical way access the internal experience of a single thing outside ourselves, rather clearly suggests that these things are not physical. And physicalism has not come close to finding any magical mechanism by which consciousness comes from unconscious material.

 

[1137]

Yeah I know. But I can work naturally from solipsism into naturalism, would you care to follow the steps with me?

Well I've asked literally dozens of times over three threads now for exactly that, so yes?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Well I've asked literally dozens of times over three threads now for exactly that, so yes?

First you doubt everything even your own thoughts, after all everything that you see or think could be false or deceptions.

But in order to be deceived or have false thoughts, something that means that "you" must exist and be having thoughts. So therefore you are a thinking thing. That you can be 100% for sure of.

Here is the problem after this, you can never know for certain that the reality you perceive is real. But if it is not real then what else is there to act on? As there is no alternative it is best to act as if it is real. Whether the reality our senses pick up is real or not can not be certain.

Now from this point I can see no evidence to suggest that there is anything else demanding or suggesting for me to believe in it apart from what we can perceive in reality and the things that we know act on our perceivable reality.

If you have some evidence that we should add belief other than that I would be very happy to see it.

 

[1137]

First you doubt everything even your own thoughts, after all everything that you see or think could be false or deceptions.

But in order to be deceived or have false thoughts, something that means that "you" must exist and be having thoughts. So therefore you are a thinking thing. That you can be 100% for sure of.

Here is the problem after this, you can never know for certain that the reality you perceive is real. But if it is not real then what else is there to act on? As there is no alternative it is best to act as if it is real. Whether the reality our senses pick up is real or not can not be certain.

Now from this point I can see no evidence to suggest that there is anything else demanding or suggesting for me to believe in it apart from what we can perceive in reality and the things that we know act on our perceivable reality.

If you have some evidence that we should add belief other than that I would be very happy to see it.

How do you make the major logical leap from "we only know we exist, and can doubt everything else," to "only the physical universe exists?"

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

How do you make the major logical leap from "we only know we exist, and can doubt everything else," to "only the physical universe exists?"

When did I do that?

Nothing Exists--> Self Exists --> Physical Universe may or may not exist but we should act as thought it does.

In order to believe in something other than than the universe I can observe and the forces that act on it, I would need some sort of evidence.

 

[1137]

When did I do that?

Nothing Exists--> Self Exists --> Physical Universe may or may not exist but we should act as thought it does.

In order to believe in something other than than the universe I can observe and the forces that act on it, I would need some sort of evidence.

Can you define naturalism for me?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Can you define naturalism for me?

The lack of belief that anything exists that cannot be described by natural laws or the belief that everything that exists can be described by natural laws.

 

[1137]

The lack of belief that anything exists that cannot be described by natural laws or the belief that everything that exists can be described by natural laws.

What are natural laws? If our understanding of what's natural is incomplete, and gods somehow fit into that natural law, would you still be a naturalist? Do you think everything is made of "physical" things, aka able to be studied by physical science or explained solely by physical processes?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

What are natural laws? If our understanding of what's natural is incomplete, and gods somehow fit into that natural law, would you still be a naturalist? Do you think everything is made of "physical" things, aka able to be studied by physical science or explained solely by physical processes?

Yes and yes.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

I understand this, and solipsism is the default position.

God its so hot when you argue with him...

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

God its so hot when you argue with him...

.....................

 

[George-ananda]

Is there any reason other than faith to believe in the soul, god, gods, pretty much any spiritual concept?

Yes, and it would come from an analysis of the evidence and a consideration of the various worldviews out there explaining the evidence

What evidence? Here's the tip of an iceberg....Evidence

 

[Windwalker]

Is there any reason other than faith to believe in the soul, god, gods, pretty much any spiritual concept?

Why do any of these negate naturalism? Belief in the soul or God, does not have to mean belief in magical explanations for the origins of the natural world. These are two different areas of inquiry.

But as to evidence for the soul or God, sure. Go meditate. You'll have your answer, and then the question of how to talk about that, what to call that really is the only issue. Experience is evidence.

 

[1137]

Yes and yes.

So you are, indeed, a physicalist?

 

[metis]

If anyone wants to read a great justification for the position of naturalism, let me recommend reading about Baruch Spinoza Baruch Spinoza - Wikipedia or even Fr. Pierre Teilhard deChardin Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - Wikipedia .

 

[1137]

I believe both "soul" and "god" are easily understood within the theory of forms, which itself seems rather sound so far as I can tell. Of course it all depends on how we are defining these words. I don't like the term "naturalism" in this sense, as it seems to imply physical = natural, which puts the cart before the horse. Physicalism, however, is inherently and hopelessly flawed. It is riddled with problems at the foundational level, from the axiomatic self to property dualism, two way causality to the fact that physicalism must make the absurd claim that we can be more certain of matter than our own existence. The fact that we cannot, in any direct, scientific, physical way access the internal experience of a single thing outside ourselves, rather clearly suggests that these things are not physical. And physicalism has not come close to finding any magical mechanism by which consciousness comes from unconscious material.

So you ask for evidence against naturalism and get an unrefuted, basically untouched paragraph in the first hour. You ask for evidence for physicalism and three pages in there's nothing even close to support for it. Fascinating.