Vlad
Why keep digging when instead you could readily look up what the terms you keep abusing actually mean and entail?
If nothing else the awareness of where you've gone wrong might be better for your "soul" than simply throwing obscenities at the people who make arguments you don't like and can't respond to don't you think?
philosophical naturalism is a philosophical proposition not a scientific one. You are on the wrong track talking about the probability of it.
To even suggest a probability of it suggests the circularity of the argument.
If it is probabilistic what is the probability of it? Show your working.
What would be the point of explaining it to you again? You’ll no more understand and respond to it now than you have any of the countless times it’s been explained to you in the past. Instead you’ll just resort to one or several of the panoply of avoidance techniques you always us – ignore it, misrepresent it, throw abuse at your interlocutor, distract with irrelevancies etc in the hope that no-one notices.
Trouble is, people do notice – which is why you have the reputation you have here.
In the sure and certain knowledge that you’ll never, ever respond to what’s actually being said here for the very last time it is though:
1. You Vlad have decided that a universe-creating god has paid you personally a visit.
2. There are many naturalistic reasons that might instead explain the phenomenon you experienced, but you have no interest in understanding or eliminating any of them because you much prefer the causal explanation you find more satisfying. Nor moreover are you at all concerned by the remarkable co-incidence of the very god to which you’re most enculturated also just happening to be the only real one.
3. So far, this is no-one’s business but your own – you’re as free to hold a personal, subjective belief in anything that takes your fancy as anyone else is free to hold a personal, subjective belief in anything else that takes their fancy. Next though you overreach by asserting your (but only your) subjective belief also to be an objective fact for the rest of us too.
4. This is when your problems begin. When asked why anyone should find your story to be any more credible than those of, say, the Sufi or the leprechaunist after countless times of asking you finally come up with the notion that you “intuit” this supposed objective truth. Why you think your confidence in your intuition has anything to say to objective truths is anyone’s guess, as for that matter is your misplaced confidence that – while you can apparently accurately intuit your beliefs – those with other superstitious beliefs held on the same basis must have faulty intuition. And that’s it – no method, no process, no
anything to bridge the gap from the subjective to the objective.
5. When this is pointed out you try various basic logical fallacies in response but, when they’ve been unravelled, you spit the dummy and instead go nuclear by laying waste to
any method to distinguish the more probably true from the more probably not true. Essentially it’s just “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” nihilism.
6. Now this causes you various further problems – even if everything is just guessing, why should your guess be privileged over any other for example? – but more fundamentally it’s wrong in principle in any case. To make the “argument” you have to misuse terms like “philosophical naturalism” so as to bend them to the conclusion you want to reach. By corrupting its meaning you then assert something like, “philosophical naturalism says that the natural is all there is but that’s a conclusion itself based on philosophical naturalism which is circular thinking, therefore you’re guessing as much as I am”. That’s the closest I can get to it anyway as your attempts to articulate it are so incoherent, but it’s near enough.
7. Now the problem here of course is that philosophical naturalism says no such thing. Philosophical naturalism is merely
indifferent to claims of the supernatural – there are no cogent definitions, no means reliably or consistently to access these spooks and ghoulies, no method to distinguish the claims from guessing, nothing to test, no means of falsification etc. with which it could engage. For all the philosophical naturalist knows some or all or none of the claims of the supernatural
could be true, but so far at least no-one’s ever been able to offer a method or make a case for any of them being more probably being true than not true.
8. By contrast methodological materialism underpinned by philosophical naturalism (the real one, not your straw man version of it)
does offer a method to sort the more probably true from the more probably not true: ‘planes fly, bricks don’t; medicines cure, witch doctors don’t; apples fall to the ground, magic carpets don’t levitate etc. Now all these things are of course provisional models of the way the universe works – no-one claims them to be definitive or final explanations – but through inter-subjective experience they do give us a probabilistically better grip on reality than your “whatever pops into my head is true for you too” ludicrousness.
Now we both know that you won’t understand any of this, or if you do that you’ll ignore it, misrepresent it, hurls abuse at it etc as is your way but there it is nonetheless. Engage with it or not as you wish, it’s up to you.
