• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The flaw of scientific naturalism and Atheism

I like how Northern Light thinks that self-proclaimed psychics should be the ones to judge the James Randi challenge. The very same psychics who offer no objective evidence to prove the validity of their claims. And then supposedly a better than 50% result on a single test proves psychic phenomena.

The detractors of science don't seem to know very much about it.
 
RGacky3 said:
If an atheist says "give me evidence for God" ... yet is a scientific naturalist, he's essencially assuming t hat no evidence is possible.

Scientific naturalism is the assumption that all phenomenon have a natural explination, that either we know or that we will know .... if you're a scientific naturalist (as many atheists are), NO evidence COULD exist for a God, because any evidence that MIGHT exist MUST be explained naturally, and if you can't explain it naturally, then there must be a natural explination that we just don't know.

You're essencially saying "show me evidence for God, but anything you show me will always have a natural explination whether we know it or not."
Click to expand...

The whole argument is meaningless, because it is based on the artificial distinction between "natural" and "supernatural". "Nature" is simply everything that is. If God or gods do exist they are "natural". They might possess some features incomprehensible for us at our present stage of development, but those features should - in principle - have "a natural explanation" - as a part of nature.
 
Northern Light said:
God is not something that can ever be proven scientifically.
Click to expand...

Two questions.

(1) How on Earth can you possible know that?

(2) "Proven scientifically" - as opposed to what other kinds of proof?
 
Northern Light said:
This has nothing to do with the philosophical underpinnings being discussed. Try again.
Click to expand...

If someone claims that god moves the ocean, but several other factors, such as the position of the moon, are proven to influence ocean movement, it strongly suggests a lack of godly involvement, since there is no evidence of godly influence. Not 100% proven, but close enough to make a reasonable assumption. It certainly indicates that there is no reason to believe the god theory was just made up.

Ocean movement
proven causes: moon, weather, earthquakes, volcanoes (probably many more I don't know about since I'm not an oceanographer.)

unproven causes, with absolutely no evidence: god

But who are you going to believe, your own eyes and scientists, or some guy who claims to be have special powers or insight, but can't prove it?
 
Last edited:
RGacky3 said:
If an atheist says "give me evidence for God" ... yet is a scientific naturalist, he's essencially assuming t hat no evidence is possible.

Scientific naturalism is the assumption that all phenomenon have a natural explination, that either we know or that we will know .... if you're a scientific naturalist (as many atheists are), NO evidence COULD exist for a God, because any evidence that MIGHT exist MUST be explained naturally, and if you can't explain it naturally, then there must be a natural explination that we just don't know.

You're essencially saying "show me evidence for God, but anything you show me will always have a natural explination whether we know it or not."
Click to expand...

That's because there's never any evidence that says "this is God", all the evidence is "this is caused by God, this could be God, I feel like this is God, it could only be God".
 
Cyrylek said:
The whole argument is meaningless, because it is based on the artificial distinction between "natural" and "supernatural". "Nature" is simply everything that is. If God or gods do exist they are "natural". They might possess some features incomprehensible for us at our present stage of development, but those features should - in principle - have "a natural explanation" - as a part of nature.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement for the most part, except that a supreme being or God, though responsible for nature might remain beyond human understanding if this being is unlimited. We have no way of measuring, calculating, explaining, defining, referencing or quantifying something completely beyond comprehensible parameters.

Let's say this being is an infinite source of pure conscious energy with no characteristics that are perceivable by human senses, formless, timeless with no center or boundaries? There could be a quantum field of conscious energy that emanates thru the entire universe and interacts with the brains of animate beings to give them their cognitive abilities to perceive self. Similar to the Higgs field that permeates the universe to give particles their mass. It would help explain the particle/wave function collapse.
 
It is often said that when the word "quantum" is thrown into an argument by anyone other than a practising theoretical physicist, the argument is no longer worth continuing as the opposing sides don't speak the same language.
 
Somerville said:
It is often said that when the word "quantum" is thrown into an argument by anyone other than a practising theoretical physicist, the argument is no longer worth continuing as the opposing sides don't speak the same language.
Click to expand...
I'm not a practicing theoretical physicist but I'd like to think I've kept track of the field enough over the years not to make any blunders when I broach the subject of "basic" quantum mechanics. ;)
 
For those who believe God exists, how do you know that? And, if you believe in God, and belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God, how do you know that? Perhaps it all comes down to how you define God. Einstein and I share a common view on this subject of whether God exists.
 
RGacky3 said:
If an atheist says "give me evidence for God" ... yet is a scientific naturalist, he's essencially assuming t hat no evidence is possible.

Scientific naturalism is the assumption that all phenomenon have a natural explination, that either we know or that we will know .... if you're a scientific naturalist (as many atheists are), NO evidence COULD exist for a God, because any evidence that MIGHT exist MUST be explained naturally, and if you can't explain it naturally, then there must be a natural explination that we just don't know.

You're essencially saying "show me evidence for God, but anything you show me will always have a natural explination whether we know it or not."
Click to expand...

If something is supernatural, (meaning above / outside of nature), then, by 'nature' it would not present evidence in a natural world.

So, yes, scientific naturalism is accurate in explaining that there is no evidence.

To say that supernatural beings / things can leave natual evidence would open the doors to all imaginable supernatural possibilities...like magic, for example.

You see the problem here?
 
RGacky3 said:
If an atheist says "give me evidence for God" ... yet is a scientific naturalist, he's essencially assuming t hat no evidence is possible.

Scientific naturalism is the assumption that all phenomenon have a natural explination, that either we know or that we will know .... if you're a scientific naturalist (as many atheists are), NO evidence COULD exist for a God, because any evidence that MIGHT exist MUST be explained naturally, and if you can't explain it naturally, then there must be a natural explination that we just don't know.

You're essencially saying "show me evidence for God, but anything you show me will always have a natural explination whether we know it or not."
Click to expand...

The greater fallacy is that of a purely "natural" explanation. Everything natural is a cause and/ or effect... The fallacy comes from the beginning... The "big bang", maybe before... At some point you must have a "causeless effect" and so the beginning MUST be a mystical explanation.

Saying we cannot KNOW what was before is just accepting ignorance...

But look at the implications from quantum physics, where matter at the quantum level exists as a "wave-form potential" until it is "observed" (by consciousness or "conscious detectors"). So, if there was no consciousness at the start of the physical universe, then there is no universe, only a "wave-form potential" universe.
 
I know this was not at me, but a few comments...

Hard Truth said:
1. That critique of the Randi offer is filled with lies. Read the Randi foundation website for yourself and read news stories etc that do not come from con artists and the delusional. Don't like Randi's rules: find some other legitimate scientists and do your own experiment and publish it.
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical that randi would pay even if shown "indisputable" proof... I saw one where they "tricked" someone with a dousing rod, he found the pipe he was supposed to find but emptied the water at the last minute.

I found that odd, not that I believe dousing rods work, but that if they do work, is it the water that the Rods react to, or something the water is affecting that causes the Rods to expand.

However, that case was legitimate in that the guy did fail the test...

2. You wrote "Science should stop trying to certify whether or not God is real..." When I challenged you to you cite an example. "There aren't any because science and spirituality don't mix.." Why are you calling on science to stop doing something that it isn't actually doing?
Click to expand...

Yes, science and philosophy are somewhat antagonistic... However, there's going to be a time where science will intersect with philosophy / religion/spirituality.

3. Reality can be defined and most people know what it is. It is what everyone can perceive and agree on. Even most religious and spiritual people agree on most of the things that scientists and others consider real. Playing games and claiming that reality is variable is primarily a ploy to deceive others and sell concepts from someone's imagination that are not real and not provable because they are only fiction.
Click to expand...

Physical reality, for most intentions is an illusion. A virtual sandbox where consciousness can evolve through a confined physical incarnation.

Your ideas are wrong and dangerous because they encourage gullible people to be conned.

By the way I studied cold reading techniques and had no problem convincing people that I had psychic abilities with just a little bit of study and practice.

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- A judge in San Francisco sentenced four thieves Friday. They're convicted of swindling Chinese seniors in what police call the "blessing scam."
The four were convicted by a jury on grand theft charges earlier this month. This is the second conviction the San Francisco District Attorney's Office has obtained on these fraud cases.
They approached Susan Wong, who spoke exclusively to ABC7 News earlier this week. She said the women tried to befriend her, they chatted for a long time, then one of them said she was clairvoyant.

"Number three told me there's going to be calamity in my household," Wong said through an interpreter. "Your son is going to die in three days and my husband is going to get really ill."

The women said they could scare away the evil spirits if she gave them her jewelry and cash.

Instead, Wong went to police and led them to the thieves.

When they were arrested, police recovered $47,000 in cash stolen from another victim.

.....
Prosecutors say this was not an isolated case. In fact, two of them still face charges in New York and Los Angeles for doing the same thing.

........
These so-called "blessing scams" have occurred in other cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago. And as we mentioned, two of the thieves sentenced Friday have charges pending elsewhere.

But San Francisco is the first city in the country to obtain convictions on these fraud cases.

(Copyright ©2013 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
"Blessing scam" suspects convicted of swindling Chinese seniors in San Francisco | abc7news.com
Click to expand...

Here's the main point I wanted to make:

Just because there are con artists out there does not mean that there is not a spiritual reality that lies beyond our human perception.
 
RGacky3 said:
If an atheist says "give me evidence for God" ... yet is a scientific naturalist, he's essencially assuming t hat no evidence is possible.

Scientific naturalism is the assumption that all phenomenon have a natural explination, that either we know or that we will know .... if you're a scientific naturalist (as many atheists are), NO evidence COULD exist for a God, because any evidence that MIGHT exist MUST be explained naturally, and if you can't explain it naturally, then there must be a natural explination that we just don't know.

You're essencially saying "show me evidence for God, but anything you show me will always have a natural explination whether we know it or not."
Click to expand...

This is just self satisfying logic that you did here.

You glossed right over the obvious: The naturalistic world is all that exists. Notice that word exist? Well if something exists then it can be proved to exist.

A god cannot be proved to exist because all that the concept really turns out to be is a story told by humans. Either someone claims that a god exists or they wrote it down as a claim, if it wasnt for humans the concept would not exist. When a Atheist like myself demands the the person claiming the existence of their god to provide proof, we are interested in knowing if its just more story telling or if you have something. Claiming that your god doesn't exist in the natural world is nothing more than moving the goal post. And when you do move the goal post like that the conversation is over and you have moved back to story telling.

AT best a person that believes in a god can say is that they believe in a god for no reason other than they want too. No one has any proof and most believers in gods believe there can be no proof hence the whole faith thing. SO believers have a faith that a god exists. Thats great for the believer and I support there freedom of belief, but dont try to tell me that your faith translates to a real thing. Dont get offended that I dont share your faith in your god. Dont try to tell me that i will be tortured by your god for not believing in your god.

Just face the facts no proof exists for a god or even a theory for the concept of a god. All that exists are stories that a god exists told by humans and nothing more.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
This is just self satisfying logic that you did here.

You glossed right over the obvious: The naturalistic world is all that exists. Notice that word exist? Well if something exists then it can be proved to exist.

A god cannot be proved to exist because all that the concept really turns out to be is a story told by humans. Either someone claims that a god exists or they wrote it down as a claim, if it wasnt for humans the concept would not exist. When a Atheist like myself demands the the person claiming the existence of their god to provide proof, we are interested in knowing if its just more story telling or if you have something. Claiming that your god doesn't exist in the natural world is nothing more than moving the goal post. And when you do move the goal post like that the conversation is over and you have moved back to story telling.

AT best a person that believes in a god can say is that they believe in a god for no reason other than they want too. No one has any proof and most believers in gods believe there can be no proof hence the whole faith thing. SO believers have a faith that a god exists. Thats great for the believer and I support there freedom of belief, but dont try to tell me that your faith translates to a real thing. Dont get offended that I dont share your faith in your god. Dont try to tell me that i will be tortured by your god for not believing in your god.

Just face the facts no proof exists for a god or even a theory for the concept of a god. All that exists are stories that a god exists told by humans and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Apparently you haven't seen the documentary "Oh GOD!". I think it was in the seventies... all about a case in state courts in which god takes the stand...
 
FreedomFromAll said:
This is just self satisfying logic that you did here.

You glossed right over the obvious: The naturalistic world is all that exists. Notice that word exist? Well if something exists then it can be proved to exist.
Click to expand...

Yes, and there are different ways to prove something.

Things that cannot be directly observed have to be proved through inference, just like a black hole.

A god cannot be proved to exist because all that the concept really turns out to be is a story told by humans. Either someone claims that a god exists or they wrote it down as a claim, if it wasnt for humans the concept would not exist. When a Atheist like myself demands the the person claiming the existence of their god to provide proof, we are interested in knowing if its just more story telling or if you have something. Claiming that your god doesn't exist in the natural world is nothing more than moving the goal post. And when you do move the goal post like that the conversation is over and you have moved back to story telling.

AT best a person that believes in a god can say is that they believe in a god for no reason other than they want too. No one has any proof and most believers in gods believe there can be no proof hence the whole faith thing. SO believers have a faith that a god exists. Thats great for the believer and I support there freedom of belief, but dont try to tell me that your faith translates to a real thing. Dont get offended that I dont share your faith in your god. Dont try to tell me that i will be tortured by your god for not believing in your god.
Click to expand...

Well, how are you going to prove god as a physical being when god (source consciousness) exists outside of our physical matter reality?

Just face the facts no proof exists for a god or even a theory for the concept of a god. All that exists are stories that a god exists told by humans and nothing more.
Click to expand...

"god" can be proven, but atheists will not accept that proof because it is contrary to their preconceived biases.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yes, and there are different ways to prove something.

Things that cannot be directly observed have to be proved through inference, just like a black hole.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can't really prove anything. You can disprove something. It's only through a theories surviving attempts to disprove it that it becomes regarded as a fact. Yet, even Einstein's theories are still being tested.



Well, how are you going to prove god as a physical being when god (source consciousness) exists outside of our physical matter reality?



"god" can be proven, but atheists will not accept that proof because it is contrary to their preconceived biases.
Click to expand...

I think you may run into trouble lumping all atheists together.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yes, and there are different ways to prove something.

Things that cannot be directly observed have to be proved through inference, just like a black hole.



Well, how are you going to prove god as a physical being when god (source consciousness) exists outside of our physical matter reality?



"god" can be proven, but atheists will not accept that proof because it is contrary to their preconceived biases.
Click to expand...

OMG you have proof?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
OMG you have proof?
Click to expand...

Yes, science has already proved god... It's not a brief explanation, but is quite thorough, and can be sourced by legitimate and well renowned scientists.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yes, science has already proved god... It's not a brief explanation, but is quite thorough, and can be sourced by legitimate and well renowned scientists.
Click to expand...

...to your satisfaction. I doubt very much if you will find scientific consensus on this issue.
 
Occam's Razor said:
...to your satisfaction. I doubt very much if you will find scientific consensus on this issue.
Click to expand...

I doubt very much that there will be any valid scientific rebuttal either...
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yes, science has already proved god... It's not a brief explanation, but is quite thorough, and can be sourced by legitimate and well renowned scientists.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see this scientific evidence.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yes, science has already proved god... It's not a brief explanation, but is quite thorough, and can be sourced by legitimate and well renowned scientists.
Click to expand...

Well proof is in the pudding.

Why be coy if you have a source that has proved the existence of a god why not just give us the source? Whoever these mysterious legitimate and well renowned scientists are would be famous. I mean really everyone should know their names.

A detailed explanation that proves that a god exists would be extraordinary news right up there with proof of aliens contacting Earth.

But really this isnt the conspiracy theory forum (or the Religious Discussions forum) you cant get away with so and so said scientists said blah blah blah.
So show what you have, but I suspect that you know already it isnt going to fly since you didnt even give us a link this time.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Well proof is in the pudding.

Why be coy if you have a source that has proved the existence of a god why not just give us the source? Whoever these mysterious legitimate and well renowned scientists are would be famous. I mean really everyone should know their names.

A detailed explanation that proves that a god exists would be extraordinary news right up there with proof of aliens contacting Earth.

But really this isnt the conspiracy theory forum (or the Religious Discussions forum) you cant get away with so and so said scientists said blah blah blah.
So show what you have, but I suspect that you know already it isnt going to fly since you didnt even give us a link this time.
Click to expand...

Did metaphysics become legit science while I was sleeping?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom