Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[ProfessorDavey]

Emphatically not.

Why not - you claim to be a theist, so it seems perfectly reasonable for you to be expected to demonstrate that god exists.

Let's establish philosophical naturalism using methodological naturalism first

Why - I don't think anyone on these MBs claims to be a philosophical naturalist so why should anyone be expected to demonstrate the veracity of a philosophy they don't subscribe to.

As I and others have pointed out given that we have overwhelming evidence of natural phenomena happening second by second based on physical laws that we can use to both predict what happens in the world and beyond and to engineer solutions to problems, it is perfectly reasonable to use those known natural phenomena as the basis for understanding our world. Pragmatic naturalism. That doesn't mean we categorically reject the notion that something might exist outside of those parameters (the supernatural or god) - but currently there is no evidence for the supernatural nor god. Therefore until or unless that evidence is produced I (and I suspect others) will work on an assumption of the natural phenomena and physical laws we know exist only. Come up with compelling evidence for supernatural or god and I will alter my view. But you don't seem to be bothered to try - see the first part of the post.

[Nearly Sane]

Most people around here are steeped in Philosophical Naturalism whether it's up to their necks or up to their waists.

No, thar's just you lying.

[Stranger]

Most people around here are steeped in Philosophical Naturalism whether it's up to their necks or up to their waists.

Your evidence for this assertion is what, exactly?

[ProfessorDavey]

Most people around here are steeped in Philosophical Naturalism whether it's up to their necks or up to their waists.

Really - I don't think I've ever heard someone here claim to be a philosophical naturalist - have you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

……………...in which case they're both dependent on some extra-universal ruleset.

None of which, in any way, justifies asserting that there's a 'god' in the equation to need to stratify.

O.

There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance here between 'an extra universal ruleset' and an 'extra universal ruler'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really - I don't think I've ever heard someone here claim to be a philosophical naturalist - have you?

The moment they defer to science and it's supposed success to justify a naturalistic slant to their views on the origins and provision of the universe and the so called 'apparent absence of God or the supernatural' they are appealing to philosophical naturalism. If philosophical naturalism was a smell they would be opening the windows by now.

[Nearly Sane]

The moment they defer to science and it's supposed success to justify a naturalistic slant to their views on the origins and provision of the universe and the so called 'apparent absence of God or the supernatural' they are appealing to philosophical naturalism. If philosophical naturalism was a smell they would be opening the windows by now.

Stop lying

[ProfessorDavey]

The moment they defer to science and it's supposed success to justify a naturalistic slant to their views on the origins and provision of the universe and the so called 'apparent absence of God or the supernatural' they are appealing to philosophical naturalism. If philosophical naturalism was a smell they would be opening the windows by now.

Not really - I defy you to find anyone who doesn't nod to naturalism and science in the vast, vast majority of their lives - including you. When you get in your car and it works that is naturalism and science in action - when you type one of you tediously non-sensical posts on your computer and it appears on my computer that is naturalism and science in action - when you pick up food in the supermarket, grown on farms that is naturalism and science in action.

We all rely on naturalism and science all the time in all of our lives, including you Vlad. Or does your car run on supernaturalism, does your computer not work on the fundamental principles of physics, is your food conjured up by supernaturalism Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really - I defy you to find anyone who doesn't nod to naturalism and science in the vast, vast majority of their lives - including you. When you get in your car and it works that is naturalism and science in action - when you type one of you tediously non-sensical posts on your computer and it appears on my computer that is naturalism and science in action - when you pick up food in the supermarket, grown on farms that is naturalism and science in action.

We all rely on naturalism and science all the time in all of our lives, including you Vlad. Or does your car run on supernaturalism, does your computer not work on the fundamental principles of physics, is your food conjured up by supernaturalism Vlad?

Yet again we see the confusion between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Philosophical naturalists.....

Can't justify Philosophical naturalism? Get the topic back onto methodological naturalism.....mix it up a little.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yet again we see the confusion between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.

But none of us claim to be philosophical naturalists, so why should any of us need to justify a philosophy we don't subscribe to.

And your comment:

'The moment they defer to science and it's supposed success to justify a naturalistic slant to their views on the origins and provision of the universe and the so called 'apparent absence of God or the supernatural' they are appealing to philosophical naturalism. If philosophical naturalism was a smell they would be opening the windows by now.'

Is actually just an appeal to methodological naturalism, which we all (including you) adopt, not to philosophical naturalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really - I defy you to find anyone who doesn't nod to naturalism and science in the vast, vast majority of their lives - including you. When you get in your car and it works that is naturalism and science in action - when you type one of you tediously non-sensical posts on your computer and it appears on my computer that is naturalism and science in action - when you pick up food in the supermarket, grown on farms that is naturalism and science in action.

Entirely irrelevant to the question whether there is a God or not.

[ProfessorDavey]

Philosophical naturalists.....

Can't justify Philosophical naturalism? Get the topic back onto methodological naturalism.....mix it up a little.

Why not aim that point at a philosophical naturalist then?

Yet you clearly claim to be a theist - so let's see you practice what you preach. If you expect philosophical naturalists to justify their beliefs (reasonable view, but there aren't any philosophical naturalists here as far as I'm aware), you as a theist and super-naturalist need to demonstrate that both god and supernatural phenomena exist. If you aren't prepared to do that then you are a hypocrite pure and simple.

[ProfessorDavey]

Entirely irrelevant to the question whether there is a God or not.

You're the theist - off you go - prove to us that god exists.

[Stranger]

The moment they defer to science and it's supposed success to justify a naturalistic slant to their views on the origins and provision of the universe and the so called 'apparent absence of God or the supernatural' they are appealing to philosophical naturalism. If philosophical naturalism was a smell they would be opening the windows by now.

Unmitigated drivel. The existence of an unknown is not a justification to fill the gap with your favorite unjustified assumptions. The absence of a scientific explanation is not evidence for the supernatural. If you want to claim that the supernatural exists, you need to properly define the term and then provide a justification.

Asking for reasons to take claims seriously is not philosophical naturalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why not aim that point at a philosophical naturalist then?

Yet you clearly claim to be a theist - so let's see you practice what you preach. If you expect philosophical naturalists to justify their beliefs (reasonable view, but there aren't any philosophical naturalists here as far as I'm aware)

Whereever people are starting from the assumption that there is only the natural that is philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is irrelevant since it does not provide evidence for that assumption. To mix them up and call the result ''naturalism'' avoids issues and is a piece of hand waving.

[Roses]

Whereever people are starting from the assumption that there is only the natural that is philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is irrelevant since it does not provide evidence for that assumption. To mix them up and call the result ''naturalism'' avoids issues and is a piece of hand waving.

Your posts are complete TWADDLE!

[ProfessorDavey]

Whereever people are starting from the assumption that there is only the natural that is philosophical naturalism.

And who does that?

My starting assumption is a need for evidence to consider that something exists. I apply that to natural phenomena and physical laws and - ping - ample evidence for me to assume they exist and to base my understanding of the world on that assumption.

I apply the same to gods and supernatural phenomena and - uh oh - no evidence whatsoever for their existence so I choose not to make my understanding of the world on a presumption of their existence.

But as I've said on many occasions - if you, or anyone else, comes up with compelling evidence for the existence of gods or supernatural phenomena then I will change my current view and incorporate an assumption of their existence into my understanding of the world. So far that has not happened.

[Nearly Sane]

Philosophical naturalists.....

Can't justify Philosophical naturalism? Get the topic back onto methodological naturalism.....mix it up a little.

You just can't help lying.

[Gordon]

Whereever people are starting from the assumption that there is only the natural that is philosophical naturalism.

Who do you have in mind, Vlad? You seem to be pouring petrol on your straw, so please be careful with matches.

Methodological naturalism is irrelevant since it does not provide evidence for that assumption. To mix them up and call the result ''naturalism'' avoids issues and is a piece of hand waving.

Only in your fevered imagination, Vlad.

[Outrider]

There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance here between 'an extra universal ruleset' and an 'extra universal ruler'.

Not really.  You can presume a ruleset from the fact we have rules, you can't presume a consciousness creating those rules you'd need to justify those claims.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

There seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance here between 'an extra universal ruleset' and an 'extra universal ruler'.

In what way are the fundamental physical laws which govern the processes and behaviours we see in the universe 'extra universal' - quite the reverse they are inextricably linked to the universe and, in effect, define how that universe exists. They are part and parcel of the universe - which is a world (or a universe) away from being 'extra universal'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really.  You can presume a ruleset from the fact we have rules, you can't presume a consciousness creating those rules you'd need to justify those claims.

O.

It would be unreasonable not to propose one. Anything 'extra universal' which is unconscious has the same burden of proof since it proceeds from an extension of naturalism to outside (extra) to the universe.

[Nearly Sane]

It would be unreasonable not to propose one. Anything 'extra universal' which is unconscious has the same burden of proof since it proceeds from an extension of naturalism to outside (extra) to the universe.

Drivel

[Enki]

It would be unreasonable not to propose one. Anything 'extra universal' which is unconscious has the same burden of proof since it proceeds from an extension of naturalism to outside (extra) to the universe.

You can propose whatever you like. As I am not a proponent of 'philosophical naturalism' I am ever willing to listen to your arguments and evidence that there is such a consciousness. So far, you have given me nothing to go on. The words 'busted flush' spring to mind.