Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
naturalism is the foundation of strong atheism, which declares, that God most probably does not exist. Please present good reasons, why you believe this world view to be the best explanation for our existence. |
The Principle of Parsimony.
:th: |
Because I haven't seen any evidence of the supernatural existing.
It may that the supernatural is unknowable to me (for one reason or another), but in that case it is irrelevant, and I might as well adopt the view of naturalism anyway, because it is as close to the truth as is possible from my perspective. If the supernatural ever does present itself to me, that's the time to change my views. Until then, here I stand. |
Quote:
This misconception seems to arise from atheists coming into contact with christians more than other religions, and christians being more interested in debating with atheists rather than members of other religions. |
Because I am reluctant to accept an unsupported, unproven claim as an answer to things I don't know. I would rather admit I don't yet know than put a band-aid of ignorance over it.
|
I do not believe that naturalism is a great explanation for our existence.
It is just that all the other explanations are so much worse. |
Quote:
|
The reason is extremely simple: Naturalism, as an explanation for phenomena, works. Science has pushed human knowledge so far beyond what the ancients thought possible that their world-view would shatter just from walking into my living room. Naturalistic explanations have allowed us to tame lightning and fire, and turn poisonous water into useful tools (the Great Black Swamp was known for having oil seeps, which poisoned the water--real nasty before we started using petroleum, but once we did it turned out to be quite useful). Naturalistic explanations gave us heart transplants, brain surgery, space exploration, and answers to some of the fundamental questions inherent in being human (Where did we come from? The African rift valleys. Why are we here? We evolved, then migrated. Not COMFORTING answers, but they are the correct ones). Naturalistic explanations also have the advantage of being universal. It doesn't matter if you like me or not, gravity attracts things. And I've convinced a number of people who were dead-set against me, by simply showing them facts.
In contrast, supernatural explanations can't even win a bet (the MDC). Prayer demonstrably doesn't work, and psi powers allegedly only work if no one doubts them. So our options are: the single most powerful assumption humans have ever made in terms of explanatory power, or something that I can shut down simply by saying "I doubt that". It's not a hard choice. |
Evidence, and the success of the scientific process in evaluating that evidence, are the reasons in a natural nutshell. :)
|
Quote:
well said, that pretty much sums it up for me. |
"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine"...J.B.S. Haldane.
That none of the 10s of 1000s of gods proposed so far have been found to exist doesn't eliminate the possibility there "might be something out there" that hasn't been discovered.... but probably will be. That "something" however is extremely unlikely to be what the god-shouters are looking for. |
Evidence.
|
I just love how this is even a question because it's basically just asking "Why do you think not making stuff up without evidence is a better way at looking at the universe then making stuff up without evidence?"
It's simple. Because all the navel gazing pretentious alternatives don't actually provide accurate data about how the world works. |
I have no reason to think otherwise. My understanding of the scientific explanation and the Divine explanation makes it seem much more likely that natural processes are responsible.
After all, I know natural processes happen; by contrast, Divine processes have yet to make themselves obvious to me. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
[QUOT=mijopaalmc]What atheism is is itself a subject of some debate.[/quote]This was said in response to this:
Quote:
You're arguing for a broad definition of "atheist". Twiler, on the other hand, is saying "Atheist doesn't simply mean that I reject Jesus". Your response was akin to me asking a mechanic what's wrong with my car, and my mechanic giving me the history of the automobile. There's a tenuous connection, and the information isn't necessarily wrong--it's just irrelevant to this particular situation, since it doesn't deal with the issue at hand. ETA: TL;DR version=context matters. |
Why naturalism? Lego. I never had astral blocks to build on.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
What data do you have that supports supernaturalism?
Arguably, all the knowledge we have about how things work comes from a naturalistic assumption. Naturalism works. All the explanations put forward by supernaturalism have been shown to be wrong, and short-sighted. They stop the quest for knowledge, saying "this is MY answer, and you'd better believe it". They stimy further inquiry, and beget only ignorance. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
*Sighs* And the begging the Woo begins.
GIBHOR before we get into this is every question we answer just going to be dropped down a metaphysical level and/or restated in a more convoluted way and lobbed back at us? Do you honestly have intentions of accepting any possible answer we could give you or are you just waiting for us to answer so you can just go "But what caused that / evidence do you have for that" ad nauseum? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But let's turn this around: The alternative assumption is supernaturalism (either supernatural entities are acting on our world, or they're not). What evidence is there of THAT assumption? Naturalism has empirical evidence to support it. What does supernaturalism have? Quote:
If you mean abiogenesis, the jury's still out--but only because we have too many viable theories. I'm not an expert, though, so I won't attempt to summarize the research. This is starting to sound more and more like a "Defend yourselves!" thread, and less and less like a friendly discussion. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But I will apply The Principle of Parsimony. You do know what that is don't you? Do you have an explanation? :boggled: If you are truly interested in having your question answered, I suggest that you either get an formal education or inform yourself. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Either reality is real or we're all having an unreasonably persistent shared delusion. I think the former is more reasonable conclusion and certainly the more useful one. In the last 500,000 years we've advanced from Og rubbing two sticks together to make fire to today. I don't understand why the Navel Gazers think we'd be better off if after 500,000 years we were still sitting around that fire trying to prove it's real or not. Actually I know exactly why, because it lets them think Woo. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
^^^ This Arguing with the OP is a mugs game. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.