Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[Nearly Sane]

Stranger when asked for reasons for God(s)free......''I give you...….The world!!!''

How we all laughed. You have to do better than that chummy. Besides, you've just betrayed your naturalism.....in my humble opinion.

Quarantine isn't helping your 'ability' to make sense

[Walter]

Stranger when asked for reasons for God(s)free......''I give you...….The world!!!''

How we all laughed. You have to do better than that chummy. Besides, you've just betrayed your naturalism.....in my humble opinion.

.....   'the fuck you on about ?

[jeremyp]

Quarantine isn't helping your 'ability' to make sense

.....   'the fuck you on about ?

Two contrasting ways of saying the same thing.

[Nearly Sane]

Two contrasting ways of saying the same thing.

Walter and I are just 2 different masks.

[SteveH]

God  free.

[Outrider]

When asked why people believe in god(s)free rather than God a laddie answered

''Evidence or reasoning for god(s)-free''

What then is the evidence and sound reasoning for life the universe and everything being gods free?

How can anyone offer evidence for the non-existence of something inadequately defined and insufficiently evidenced?  The onus is on the claimant of 'gods' to justify their claim; until, and unless, that happens, the reasoning for 'god(s)-free' is that you've still not made a sufficient case.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How can anyone offer evidence for the non-existence of something inadequately defined and insufficiently evidenced?  The onus is on the claimant of 'gods' to justify their claim; until, and unless, that happens, the reasoning for 'god(s)-free' is that you've still not made a sufficient case.

O.

Not completely sure on this as atheism seems to proceed from philosophical positions such as philosophical naturalism and empiricism.

[Outrider]

Not completely sure on this as atheism seems to proceed from philosophical positions such as philosophical naturalism and empiricism.

I'm not sure that it does - although I'm sure you could show your working on that if you wanted to - I think it tends to co-exist in people with that frame of mind.  Empiricism doesn't have anything, directly, to say about gods, it says things about evidence and what we can presume based upon it.  Anything that you want to presume based upon something other than evidence is beyond empiricism.

You've still come up with a definition of 'philosophical naturalism' for me to make any sort of informed commentary on what it might or might not imply.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not sure that it does - although I'm sure you could show your working on that if you wanted to - I think it tends to co-exist in people with that frame of mind.  Empiricism doesn't have anything, directly, to say about gods, it says things about evidence and what we can presume based upon it.  Anything that you want to presume based upon something other than evidence is beyond empiricism.

You've still come up with a definition of 'philosophical naturalism' for me to make any sort of informed commentary on what it might or might not imply.

O.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not sure that it does - although I'm sure you could show your working on that if you wanted to - I think it tends to co-exist in people with that frame of mind.  Empiricism doesn't have anything, directly, to say about gods, it says things about evidence and what we can presume based upon it.  Anything that you want to presume based upon something other than evidence is beyond empiricism.

You've still come up with a definition of 'philosophical naturalism' for me to make any sort of informed commentary on what it might or might not imply.

O.

I suspect Vlad is misinterpreting naturalism or even philosophical naturalism in practice, rather than theory, in the same manner he typically misinterprets atheism.

I suspect many people, including myself, will look at the world and recognise that there is overwhelming evidence for 'nature' and for natural and physical laws. As such we accept the world based on those natural and physical laws. By contrast there is no evidence for the supernatural - something that lies outside of the natural and physical laws and therefore I (and I suspect others) use a working assumption that natural and physical laws govern our world and our universe and that the supernatural does not exist. So call it pragmatic naturalism if you will - in other words until or unless evidence is provided for the supernatural I will presume it's non-existence and base my understanding with the world on the basis of natural and physical laws alone (for which there is overwhelming evidence).

So similar to atheism - I do not believe in the existence of god or gods because there is no credible evidence for their existence. Provide that evidence and I will change my opinion - likewise provide credible evidence for the supernatural and I will change my opinion on that too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect Vlad is misinterpreting naturalism or even philosophical naturalism in practice, rather than theory, in the same manner he typically misinterprets atheism.

I suspect many people, including myself, will look at the world and recognise that there is overwhelming evidence for 'nature' and for natural and physical laws. As such we accept the world based on those natural and physical laws. By contrast there is no evidence for the supernatural - something that lies outside of the natural and physical laws and therefore I (and I suspect others) use a working assumption that natural and physical laws govern our world and our universe and that the supernatural does not exist. So call it pragmatic naturalism if you will - in other words until or unless evidence is provided for the supernatural I will presume it's non-existence and base my understanding with the world on the basis of natural and physical laws alone (for which there is overwhelming evidence).

So similar to atheism - I do not believe in the existence of god or gods because there is no credible evidence for their existence. Provide that evidence and I will change my opinion - likewise provide credible evidence for the supernatural and I will change my opinion on that too.

I don't see what's pragmatic about what you have said. I think you are just trying to load up with virtue.
Unfortunately there are grey areas in naturalism for instance the origins of nature and things such as human morality which as a supposed evolved advantage is quite seriously undermined by what we can term immorality.

 I think therefore the assumption of explanation of everything ultimately through physical laws is inferior to an investigation beyond them rather than leaving how oneself is out of any understanding.

[Nearly Sane]

Not completely sure on this as atheism seems to proceed from philosophical positions such as philosophical naturalism and empiricism.

Mine doesn't.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't see what's pragmatic about what you have said. I think you are just trying to load up with virtue.
Unfortunately there are grey areas in naturalism for instance the origins of nature and things such as human morality which as a supposed evolved advantage is quite seriously undermined by what we can term immorality.

 I think therefore the assumption of explanation of everything ultimately through physical laws is inferior to an investigation beyond them rather than leaving how oneself is out of any understanding.

What is your method for investigation 'beyond physical laws'?  And you will need as ever to define your terms more clearly because you use terms in a horrible mixed up , confused and vague fashion.

[Gordon]

Not completely sure on this as atheism seems to proceed from philosophical positions such as philosophical naturalism and empiricism.

Don't think so: in my case it proceeds from encountering only unsound arguments for 'God' so that until such times as a sound argument for 'God' is ever presented then, for me, 'God' simply isn't a serious proposition

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see what's pragmatic about what you have said.

It is pragmatic as I base my understanding of the world on the things that evidence tells me exist. I am not concerned with things for which there is no evidence for their existence until or unless that evidence arises. That sounds pretty pragmatic to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you are just trying to load up with virtue.

In what way?

[ProfessorDavey]

Unfortunately there are grey areas in naturalism for instance the origins of nature ...

Not really - the origins of nature are explained very well with reference to underpinning physical laws.

and things such as human morality which as a supposed evolved advantage is quite seriously undermined by what we can term immorality.

Human morality and immorality are human social constructs - they arise from the fact that humans (along with many other species) are social animals and that has evolutionary advantage for a species that isn't particularly physically strong but has highly developed neurobiology. And that is explained by natural laws, which are explained by underpinning physical laws.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think therefore the assumption of explanation of everything ultimately through physical laws is inferior to an investigation beyond them rather than leaving how oneself is out of any understanding.

Fine - investigate 'beyond physical laws' all you like - come back to us when you have evidence that there is anything beyond physical laws because people have been searching for that for centuries and failed to provide any evidence. Indeed many things once considered to be supernatural (i.e. beyond physical laws) have, upon investigation, been proved to simply be phenomena governed by physical laws all along.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fine - investigate 'beyond physical laws' all you like - come back to us when you have evidence that there is anything beyond physical laws because people have been searching for that for centuries and failed to provide any evidence. Indeed many things once considered to be supernatural (i.e. beyond physical laws) have, upon investigation, been proved to simply be phenomena governed by physical laws all along.

Nothing against laws Professor.

But where do the physical laws originate? and why are they the way that they are. Since they could have been different either in magnitude or actual nature they can hardly be viewed as necessary.

On what then, are they contingent?

[Outrider]

But where do the physical laws originate?

I'm not sure that question makes any sense - until there were physical laws to define time and space, 'where' had no meaning.

and why are they the way that they are.

What reason do you have to think that there's a 'justification' - or the need for one - for natural laws?

Since they could have been different either in magnitude or actual nature they can hardly be viewed as necessary.

Could they?  How do we know, in the absence of explanations for how they've come about?

On what then, are they contingent?

Don't know. Do you?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nothing against laws Professor.

But where do the physical laws originate? and why are they the way that they are. Since they could have been different either in magnitude or actual nature they can hardly be viewed as necessary.

On what then, are they contingent?

Classic god of the gaps stuff - I never said we understand everything about those physical laws - indeed we are learning more every day. But just because we don't understand everything does not mean that there is something beyond those laws. If you want to argue that there is something that sits outside of the parameters of those physical laws then go ahead and provide some evidence. Over the centuries many have tried - none have succeeded and all the while 'god of the gaps' guff has been proven to simply be manifestations of physical laws.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Classic god of the gaps stuff - I never said we understand everything about those physical laws - indeed we are learning more every day. But just because we don't understand everything does not mean that there is something beyond those laws. If you want to argue that there is something that sits outside of the parameters of those physical laws then go ahead and provide some evidence. Over the centuries many have tried - none have succeeded and all the while 'god of the gaps' guff has been proven to simply be manifestations of physical laws.

Not God of the gaps, Just the origin of the laws.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not sure that question makes any sense - until there were physical laws to define time and space, 'where' had no meaning.

What reason do you have to think that there's a 'justification' - or the need for one - for natural laws?

Could they?  How do we know, in the absence of explanations for how they've come about?

Don't know. Do you?

O.

Exactly - sadly Vlad seems to have no understanding or imagination - in his world everything needs a justification and must have been somehow 'created'.

But as you point out those physical laws fundamentally define time and space so the notion of before or after - of beyond or outside - those physical laws is non-sensical.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not God of the gaps, Just the origin of the laws.

Origin is a concept predicated on a point in time - when something first emerged to appeared. But the physical laws define time so the very notion of origin is trumped by those physical laws.

It is a bit like asking where something that is infinite ends - is it a non-sensical question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly - sadly Vlad seems to have no understanding or imagination - in his world everything needs a justification and must have been somehow 'created'.

But as you point out those physical laws fundamentally define time and space so the notion of before or after - of beyond or outside - those physical laws is non-sensical.

Surely Tegmark is proposing something beyond physical laws namely mathematics and that all mathematical structures may have physicality. Based presumably on the uncanny success of maths in physics, an idea courtesy of the physicist Eugene Wigner.