The Naturalist

[durangodawood]

And this is? I am not sure scientists know the cause of the natural realm, although they seem to know a lot about stuff threrein.

They dont even know if is HAS a cause. It could be eternal.
.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think one of the more arrogant thoughts that science holds is that nature is too complex for a single 'supernatural' force to have created, yet they believe in their own mysterious force that is entirely 'natural'. Curious.

 

[durangodawood]

I think one of the more arrogant thoughts that science holds is that nature is too complex for a single 'supernatural' force to have created, yet they believe in their own mysterious force that is entirely 'natural'. Curious.

"Science" doesnt hold that thought. Nor do most scientists.
.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think one of the more arrogant thoughts that science holds is that nature is too complex for a single 'supernatural' force to have created, yet they believe in their own mysterious force that is entirely 'natural'. Curious.

Science doesn't hold that thought.

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for any supernatural forces, therefore they can not be included in theories.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is that naturalism cannot account for origination; not of the universe, not of the earth; not of life and not of time.

And yet scientists are using naturalism to try and find those answers. No scientist is using supernaturalism in their research, even those scientists who believe in the supernatural. At one time we did not have a scientific theory for the origin of lightning.

What you are arguing for is a God of the Gaps, and your god can only shrink over time as our knowledge of nature increases.

It cannot account for the origination of anything because by natural law matter/ energy cannot be created, only changed in form.

So why can't the energy in our universe be a changed form of energy from a state that existed prior to our universe?

So if his world is limited to the physical sensations, he must remove from it abstract thought which does not follow physical limitations.

Abstract thought is limited by our brains which is physical.

He must also contend that every single supernatural event seen, heard or recorded must be false because there is no room for such things in the natural world.

What evidence would allow us to accept them as true?

So by the numbers, hundreds of millions of people give witness to miracles.

Just as hundreds of millions give witness to lightning and claim that it comes from a lightning god.

This is a problem for a naturalist, because in his world there can be no miracles.

Until you present evidence of miracles you simply don't have an argument.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Science doesn't hold that thought.

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for any supernatural forces, therefore they can not be included in theories.

Isn't evolution such a force? Doesn't science believe in an 'organizing' force of some kind? If not how do they explain 'organization' without an 'organizer'?

 

[Loudmouth]

Isn't evolution such a force? Doesn't science believe in an 'organizing' force of some kind? If not how do they explain organization without an 'organizer'?

The organizer are the forces, the forces which science does not believe in, but has ample tests and evidence to support their existence.

Can you please show me the supernautral force in Newton's Laws of Gravitation, the laws that govern the organization of matter due to gravity?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

In this forum alone there are people who have experienced the supernatural.

I have never experienced a miracle or the supernatural. And I have never heard of a miracle or supernatural experience that stood up under proper scrutiny.

My challenge to all those who deny God's existence remains the same, though most lack the courage to take me up on it. The Bible says that if you seek God you will find Him. Those who deny His existence have never looked for Him.

A false and remarkably stupid statement.

 

[Tomk80]

The organizer are the forces, the forces which science does not believe in, but has ample tests and evidence to support their existence.

Can you please show me the supernautral force in Newton's Laws of Gravitation, the laws that govern the organization of matter due to gravity?

Note also that the "forces" in evolution logically follow from the circumstances. Organisms procreate, so they increase in numbers. Food sources are limited, so the organisms have to compete for resources, both within their species and with other species. Natural selection is the logical result of these processes. Similarly, DNA replication is not 100% accurate, so mutation of the offspring is the logical of this.

To think of these processes as "forces", as if they exist independently of the organisms, rather than being the logical result of the circumstances is wrong and misleading.

 

[Heissonear]

The problem with naturalism is that it assumes something which is entirely incorrect and denies anything which contradicts the assumption that natural law is the dominant force of the universe. That's a view that is held by a relatively small portion of individuals. While veracity isn't found in consensus, neither is it found in minority opinion.

The problem is that naturalism cannot account for origination; not of the universe, not of the earth; not of life and not of time. It cannot account for the origination of anything because by natural law matter/ energy cannot be created, only changed in form. So faced with the logical question, "how did all this begin," the truthful naturalist can only respond "I don't know." While he may subscribe to the latest theory du jour of spontaneous auto-creation, if he has any reason at all he knows it to be folly.

So if his world is limited to the physical sensations, he must remove from it abstract thought which does not follow physical limitations. He must also contend that every single supernatural event seen, heard or recorded must be false because there is no room for such things in the natural world. In fact, the very process of dreaming flies in the face of naturalism because you see, hear, smell touch and taste things which do not exist.

So let's look at the numbers.

Craig Keener cites a large variety of sources that give us numbers for different groups, and he often refers to hundreds of millions of miracle witnesses (Miracles [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011], 762). One survey found that 48 percent of people in the United States claimed to have witnessed at least one miracle (238). Even among noncharismatic Christians alone in the United States, more than a quarter claim to have witnessed a healing (505-506). Surveys and other sources have found that half or more of converts to Christianity in China claim healing, their own healing or somebody else's, as one of the reasons why they converted (264, 297, 300-302). Keener notes that "In sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, 56 percent of Christians claim to have witnessed or experienced divine healing." (313) He cites data showing that most doctors claim to have witnessed one or more miracles among their patients (427-428, 721). In some countries, half or more of Christians claim to have witnessed an exorcism (813).

So by the numbers, hundreds of millions of people give witness to miracles. This is a problem for a naturalist, because in his world there can be no miracles. Even a single miracle proves his entire world view false. How about hundreds of millions? Let's say that most aren't actually miracles and let's limit it to things science cannot possibly explain. How many are left? A million? A thousand? The problem with taking an absolute view and pretending that the physical world is all that exists is that even a single contradiction disproves the theory. It's the scientific method, remember? You can't have an absolute law with even a single contradiction. That's an incredible amount of faith you put in that world view.

In this forum alone there are people who have experienced the supernatural. Being among them myself, it's easy to see why I see a purely naturalistic universe as a scientific impossibility. The denial it takes to live in such a world speaks volumes about your faith, though it is perhaps misplaced.

My challenge to all those who deny God's existence remains the same, though most lack the courage to take me up on it. The Bible says that if you seek God you will find Him. Those who deny His existence have never looked for Him. It's like saying that I don't have a 1/2" wrench in my toolbox without ever looking. It's the voice of ignorance proclaiming something to be a fact and yet having never investigated it fully. The problem with looking for God is that you might find Him. That would toss a monkey wrench into everything that you believe. The search for God, however, would add credence to your contention that He doesn't exist.

People who proclaim that there is nothing beyond the natural world who have never looked for anything beyond the natural world have no evidence to buoy their assertation. A wise man seeks his own answers and believes the result of his own investigations. There are people on this forum who don't THINK you're wrong, they KNOW you're wrong because they've had personal experiences to prove it. Why not ask them?

KWCrazy,

You are right on target, word for word. This is recognized now since I've learned more than being just a Naturalist. Like you have found, God is, always has been, and is dynamic in this present world.

But this thread is about how a day has come, The Day of The Naturalist. With the substantial increase in scientific information, instrumentation, critical evaluation of natural processes and multitudes of earths features, like sedimentary rock, glaciation, paleontology, and the like the earth appears old. To those who trust what they see and what science has shown as real, not fake, Naturalist now have firm ground to stand on. Faith in God to explain accurately how the mountians have formed, the soil horizons have developed, and like is now understood through earths processes in motion. Many Christians discount the reality Naturalist now have. A new age in time is upon mankind. A Naturalist stands in reality of the nature around us. As use of the five senses and Scientific Method has brought about.

We must allow Naturalists to be Naturalists. They are not dumb, rather most are very intelligent and very bright. Their day has come. They have a right to question all truths and facts believed before, in centuries past. And in doing so they have exposed significant error.

This thread is about Naturalists.

But as you have pointed out there Is more, particularly what the five senses cannot grasp.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

But as you have pointed out there Is more, particularly what the five senses cannot grasp.

If it cannot be sensed in any way then it is indistinguishable from make believe.

 

[CabVet]

Craig Keener cites a large variety of sources that give us numbers for different groups, and he often refers to hundreds of millions of miracle witnesses (Miracles [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011], 762). One survey found that 48 percent of people in the United States claimed to have witnessed at least one miracle (238). Even among noncharismatic Christians alone in the United States, more than a quarter claim to have witnessed a healing (505-506). Surveys and other sources have found that half or more of converts to Christianity in China claim healing, their own healing or somebody else's, as one of the reasons why they converted (264, 297, 300-302). Keener notes that "In sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, 56 percent of Christians claim to have witnessed or experienced divine healing." (313) He cites data showing that most doctors claim to have witnessed one or more miracles among their patients (427-428, 721). In some countries, half or more of Christians claim to have witnessed an exorcism (813).
source

I wonder why you didn't paste the rest of the text from that source. Oh, no, I don't, I know exactly why you didn't paste it. I will do it for you, here:

That sort of information still leaves a lot of questions unanswered about the quality of the miracle claims. And because of Keener's Christian background, interests, and other factors, he has more access to data on Christian than non-Christian miracle accounts. Some of his polling data and other sources cover both Christian and non-Christian claims, but many don't. And even where we think a miracle has occurred, we still have to ask whether it's Divine, demonic, or human. One miracle may be a direct act of God, whereas another is empowered by a demon and another is the result of a paranormal human capability. Estimating how many people in the modern world claim to have witnessed a miracle still leaves a lot of questions unanswered. But it's one line of evidence among others that we should take into account.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

/snip/

The problem is that naturalism cannot account for origination; not of the universe, not of the earth; not of life and not of time.

/snip/

How much are you willing to wager that it will be hard working women and men of science who figure these things out, and not a spiritual shaman?

 

[Loudmouth]

KWCrazy,

You are right on target, word for word. This is recognized now since I've learned more than being just a Naturalist. Like you have found, God is, always has been, and is dynamic in this present world.

Based on what observations?

But as you have pointed out there Is more, particularly what the five senses cannot grasp.

What evidence do you have for these things that the five senses can not grasp?

 

[KWCrazy]

And yet scientists are using naturalism to try and find those answers. No scientist is using supernaturalism in their research, even those scientists who believe in the supernatural. At one time we did not have a scientific theory for the origin of lightning.

I'm not saying that the supernatural falls into the realm of scientific research. It doesn't. I'm stating that a purely naturalistic view of the universe is only valid if there is no evidence of anything supernatural. With the existence of even a single supernatural occurance, naturalism fails.

What you are arguing for is a God of the Gaps, and your god can only shrink over time as our knowledge of nature increases.

Not at all. Science is the gap. God is lord of the universe. The gap is man's understanding. As he grows to learn more about the physical world he draws further from reality; that there is more to our existence than can be proven scientifically.

So why can't the energy in our universe be a changed form of energy from a state that existed prior to our universe?

My contention is that all energy came from God; that the matter which formed the universe came into being when God said "Let there be..." It is as scientific as any other theory of origination, nad has the added value of being consistant with the word of God.

Abstract thought is limited by our brains which is physical.

However, a physical mind cannot decree a purely physical universe. Not understanding something doesn't change its nature.

What evidence would allow us to accept them as true?

It depends on your definition of evidence. If your grandfather told you about an encounter with an angel while in combat during the war, you might believe it because you know your grandfather would never lie about such a thing. If you require physical evidence of something which is non-physical, you may never have your evidence. Each of us weighs the evidence we have and makes our decisions accordingly. However, if 85% of Americans believe in miracles, there has to be another reason other than that they are superstitious and ignorant.

Just as hundreds of millions give witness to lightning and claim that it comes from a lightning god.

Witnessing lightning gives evidence of its existence. It's origin is another matter. If I see a strange flying object in the sky it is unidentified until it is identified. That doesn't mean it wasn't a helicopter, but it doesn't mean it was, either. It neither precludes nor proves the existence of anything else until we learn it's origins.

Until you present evidence of miracles you simply don't have an argument.

That would depend on whether you accepted eyewitness accounts or not. The definition of what is admissible falls to each of us. I may believe in something that I have seen whether or not you have a photo of it. Hoever, simply saying that things don't exist because they haven't been proven to you is not scientific. Saying that you've not seen convincing supportive evidence of something is different from saying it doesn't exist. By the latter standard i can deny the existence of many things.

 

[Loudmouth]

[/color]
I'm not saying that the supernatural falls into the realm of scientific research. It doesn't. I'm stating that a purely naturalistic view of the universe is only valid if there is no evidence of anything supernatural. With the existence of even a single supernatural occurance, naturalism fails.

Where is the evidence?

Not at all. Science is the gap. God is lord of the universe.

And yet here you are using the gaps in our knowledge to argue for the existence of God. Go figure.

My contention is that all energy came from God; that the matter which formed the universe came into being when God said "Let there be..." It is as scientific as any other theory of origination, nad has the added value of being consistant with the word of God.

How is it scientific? Where is your evidence?

However, a physical mind cannot decree a purely physical universe. Not understanding something doesn't change its nature.

How does it make it supernatural?

It depends on your definition of evidence. If your grandfather told you about an encounter with an angel while in combat during the war, you might believe it because you know your grandfather would never lie about such a thing. If you require physical evidence of something which is non-physical, you may never have your evidence. Each of us weighs the evidence we have and makes our decisions accordingly. However, if 85% of Americans believe in miracles, there has to be another reason other than that they are superstitious and ignorant.

You are claiming that there is physical evidence in the form of miracles. So where is it?

Witnessing lightning gives evidence of its existence. It's origin is another matter.

So lightning has a supernatural origin?

That would depend on whether you accepted eyewitness accounts or not. The definition of what is admissible falls to each of us. I may believe in something that I have seen whether or not you have a photo of it. Hoever, simply saying that things don't exist because they haven't been proven to you is not scientific. Saying that you've not seen convincing supportive evidence of something is different from saying it doesn't exist. By the latter standard i can deny the existence of many things.

You are hearing me wrong again. Why consider something to be true if there is no evidence for it? For all I know, Leprechauns and fairies are real. I guess it could be possible. However, until I see evidence for leprechauns and fairies I see no reason to believe that they are real.

 

[TLK Valentine]

[/COLOR]
I'm not saying that the supernatural falls into the realm of scientific research. It doesn't. I'm stating that a purely naturalistic view of the universe is only valid if there is no evidence of anything supernatural. With the existence of even a single supernatural occurance, naturalism fails.

How fortunate, then, that there is no evidence of the supernatural -- only anecdotes.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Cue back pedaling in 3...2...1...

[/COLOR]
I'm not saying that the supernatural falls into the realm of scientific research. It doesn't. I'm stating that a purely naturalistic view of the universe is only valid if there is no evidence of anything supernatural. With the existence of even a single supernatural occurance, naturalism fails.

Not at all. Science is the gap. God is lord of the universe. The gap is man's understanding. As he grows to learn more about the physical world he draws further from reality; that there is more to our existence than can be proven scientifically.

My contention is that all energy came from God; that the matter which formed the universe came into being when God said "Let there be..." It is as scientific as any other theory of origination, nad has the added value of being consistant with the word of God.

However, a physical mind cannot decree a purely physical universe. Not understanding something doesn't change its nature.

It depends on your definition of evidence. If your grandfather told you about an encounter with an angel while in combat during the war, you might believe it because you know your grandfather would never lie about such a thing. If you require physical evidence of something which is non-physical, you may never have your evidence. Each of us weighs the evidence we have and makes our decisions accordingly. However, if 85% of Americans believe in miracles, there has to be another reason other than that they are superstitious and ignorant.

Witnessing lightning gives evidence of its existence. It's origin is another matter. If I see a strange flying object in the sky it is unidentified until it is identified. That doesn't mean it wasn't a helicopter, but it doesn't mean it was, either. It neither precludes nor proves the existence of anything else until we learn it's origins.

That would depend on whether you accepted eyewitness accounts or not. The definition of what is admissible falls to each of us. I may believe in something that I have seen whether or not you have a photo of it. Hoever, simply saying that things don't exist because they haven't been proven to you is not scientific. Saying that you've not seen convincing supportive evidence of something is different from saying it doesn't exist. By the latter standard i can deny the existence of many things.

 

[Heissonear]

Naturalism is based on what is natural. If ones five senses cannot detect a phenomenon, and it cannot be confirmed or proven through experimentation, and therefore has no physical evidence, a naturalist will and should reject it.

A person does not need religion, superstition, or supernatural to explain the natural. Leaning on one's brain and intelligence, and careful use of the scientific method allows accurate understanding. Religion that promotes the supernatural to explain natural events is no longer needed.

 

[Upisoft]

In human history the naturalists see themselves as the pinnacle of life.

Everything else you say about naturalists is more or less a good description of myself. Though the quoted part is not true for me. I don't think that I or humans are the pinnacle of life. I see myself just different.

So, by your definition I'm not naturalist. What am I? Can anyone answer this question?