Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Materialism, Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 5:20:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm just wondering what the people on this site think of the debate between materialism, naturalism and supernaturalism. Materialism states that the entire world is simply matter in motion and naturalism states that all phenomena in the universe can be explained naturally without resorting to myth or superstition. Supernaturalism on the other hand states that there are forces outside of nature(such as god)that can interact with agents in the natural world(people, trees, dolphins). What do you all think?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 5:26:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think that humans have a deep need to explain all things in the most simple of terms, despite the complexity of all things, that proves such an effort to be futile.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 5:27:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Materialism and naturalism for the win?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 5:33:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 5:27:57 AM, tvellalott wrote:
Materialism and naturalism for the win?

None of them are provable. So I say Supernaturalism; it includes the most possibilities.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 5:50:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Materialim and naturalism can be tested and falsified(if something other than matter were discovered, if god were proven to exist). Supernaturalism makes many claims, none of which have been proven. And supernaturalism does provide more possibilities but only because the average person has a very large imagination.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 6:02:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Materialism and Naturalism apparently claim that there is nothing outside of natural forces, which, because of our limited perception, can't be proven any more than Supernaturalism.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 6:28:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Materialism and naturalism state that their is nothing outside of nature because there has not yet been brought any evidence to make belief in the supernatural intellectually viable. In supernatural matters people do not bring evidence to their arguments and when they try to it is often fallacious at best. If a person were to objectively prove god's existence, that would completely disprove naturalism. But as of yet there has not been brought any evidence of the supernatural. The evidence of naturalism is of course nature. The natural world is all that has been measured r observed. If someone were to objectively show supernaturalism at work(god answering prayers) that would be a start.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 6:30:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 6:28:38 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Materialism and naturalism state that their is nothing outside of nature because there has not yet been brought any evidence to make belief in the supernatural intellectually viable.

Ah, there it is. I rest my case.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 6:37:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 6:28:38 AM, socialpinko wrote:
The evidence of naturalism is of course nature. The natural world is all that has been measured or observed.

That's like giving someone a light bulb and telling them it's just a glass bulb with some wire inside. Of course that claim is provable because it's right there in front of you. That's all you can observe at the moment, that doesn't mean it has no potential. In this case it would be wrong for one to assume it's merely a bunch of glass and metal. But there's no way to prove that without a electricity. If supernatural things can exist, you must wait until technology is advanced enough to discover them. Until then, it is irrational to assume that either Naturalism or Supernaturalism are completely correct.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 7:11:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 5:20:38 AM, socialpinko wrote:
I'm just wondering what the people on this site think of the debate between materialism, naturalism and supernaturalism. Materialism states that the entire world is simply matter in motion and naturalism states that all phenomena in the universe can be explained naturally without resorting to myth or superstition. Supernaturalism on the other hand states that there are forces outside of nature(such as god)that can interact with agents in the natural world(people, trees, dolphins). What do you all think?

I honestly don't find these terms to be very apt philosophically.

I prefer to divide things into:

Physicalism: The position that only physical matter exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Dualism: The position that there exists both physical matter and spirit/mind substance. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Panpsychism: The position that only mind exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 7:16:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 7:11:17 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I honestly don't find these terms to be very apt philosophically.

I prefer to divide things into:

Physicalism: The position that only physical matter exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Dualism: The position that there exists both physical matter and spirit/mind substance. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Panpsychism: The position that only mind exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Well then...according to these definitions, I think the position that would make the most sense is Agnostic Dualism.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 7:17:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If there were supernatural entities(like god) there would at least be some evidence of their existence. Take the idea of the Abramic god. He supposedly actively interferes in human affairs what with answering prayers and punishing wrongdoers. However, through objective testing, scientists have studied intercessory prayer to see if people who prayed necessarily got what they prayed more more than those who did not pray. The results were the same all across the board. The results were completely random. People who prayed did not get what they asked for any more then people who did nothing. This is an example of supernaturalism lacking evidence where, if it were true would have left evidence that we can pick up on.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 7:23:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 7:17:56 AM, socialpinko wrote:
If there were supernatural entities(like god) there would at least be some evidence of their existence. Take the idea of the Abramic god. He supposedly actively interferes in human affairs what with answering prayers and punishing wrongdoers. However, through objective testing, scientists have studied intercessory prayer to see if people who prayed necessarily got what they prayed more more than those who did not pray. The results were the same all across the board. The results were completely random. People who prayed did not get what they asked for any more then people who did nothing. This is an example of supernaturalism lacking evidence where, if it were true would have left evidence that we can pick up on.

Which proves the idea that prayer doesn't work in the real world. Congratulations. The problem is that "supernatural" isn't a synonym for "God", no matter how many people attack it from that angle. It could mean any number of many phenomena, some of which has been supported by science.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 7:33:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I didn't say that disproving god's existence disproves all supernatural phenomena. I merely stated an example of a supposed supernatural truth and showed that if it were true then objective scientific analysis would reveal if the claim had any validity. You don't just subscribe to a doctrine because it hasn't been proven wrong or might someday be proven right. Unicorns might exist because we technically can't disprove it but that is no reason to believe in them. The way one comes about objective or real knowledge is to observe collected evidence(data of supposedly answered prayers compared to a control group of non-prayers) and draw rational and logical conclusions from that evidence(prayer does not work). This can even apply to alleged supernatural phenomena.
"It could mean any number of many phenomena, some of which has been supported by science." What specific cases do you cite by "supported by science"?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 7:41:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 7:33:37 AM, socialpinko wrote:
You don't just subscribe to a doctrine because it hasn't been proven wrong or might someday be proven right. Unicorns might exist because we technically can't disprove it but that is no reason to believe in them.

There is also no reason to not believe in them.

The way one comes about objective or real knowledge is to observe collected evidence(data of supposedly answered prayers compared to a control group of non-prayers) and draw rational and logical conclusions from that evidence(prayer does not work). This can even apply to alleged supernatural phenomena.

True; I just don't know of any particular studies done on other "supernatural" practices.

"It could mean any number of many phenomena, some of which has been supported by science." What specific cases do you cite by "supported by science"?

I have nothing to cite; it's 8:40 AM and I haven't been to sleep yet, so I'll let you find your own proof if you wish.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 8:00:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"There is also no reason to not believe in them."

You miss my point in that is not the way in which people obtain objective knowledge. By your definition of justified knowledge I shuld believe in an invisible Spaghetti Monster who acts in similar ways as the Christian god. Why would I believe something so preposterous you ask? oh, cause no one has disproved it.

"True; I just don't know of any particular studies done on other "supernatural" practices."
"It could mean any number of many phenomena, some of which has been supported by science."

You say that some supernatural phenomena are supported by science but then say that you know of no studies? And on top of that you expect me to take on YOUR burden of prood of evidence of the supernatural? You must be the definition of a logical fallacy.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 8:19:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 8:00:05 AM, socialpinko wrote:
You say that some supernatural phenomena are supported by science but then say that you know of no studies? And on top of that you expect me to take on YOUR burden of prood of evidence of the supernatural? You must be the definition of a logical fallacy.

You say "flying spaghetti monster" in the same context as "God"; God isn't just a concept in our world, but a concept that is our world. Naturalism relies entirely on the five senses, forgetting completely the spiritual "sixth" sense. Whatever this perceives could be real or not; we could define it as "God" or "the invisible pink unicorn". That doesn't change the possibility that it exists, if not in the physical world, then in whatever realm you would consider the "mind" to reside in. Does this make it not real? Maybe. Could it still be real? Maybe. Who knows?

Either way, I'd love to provide evidence for the supernatural, but I'm unable to find any at the moment. As I've said, I'm very sleep deprived, and under the influence of a certain psychoactive substance, so I've already forgotten what I've written in the first paragraph.

....What was this thread about again?............
...omgthecatistalkingtome....
.............pleaseleaveamessageafterthebeep........*beeeeeeeep*...........awioeufhgawEFg
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 8:30:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Naturalism relies entirely on the five senses, forgetting completely the spiritual "sixth" sense."

Naturalism also relies on a little thing called rationality. You don't seem to give it enugh credit. And no one has yet to prove the existence of a "spiritual sixth sense".

"That doesn't change the possibility that it exists"

Anything is theoretically possible but that does not mean it has any basis in either reality or rationality. While a pink unicorn fairy may possibly exist, the claim of it's existence is not supported by fact and therefore one is not intellectually justified in believing it. The same ges foor supernaturalism.

"if not in the physical world, then in whatever realm you would consider the "mind" to reside in. "

There is no reason to assume that our minds are somehow on a higher plane to where they cannot be explained in materialist terms.

"Either way, I'd love to provide evidence for the supernatural, but I'm unable to find any at the moment."

In this case, abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 8:47:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 7:16:55 AM, jmar8542 wrote:

Well then...according to these definitions, I think the position that would make the most sense is Agnostic Dualism.
de facto Agnostic Dualism
Basically, uncertain monomaterialism.

Do you any reason at all to believe in the existence of a spirit, paraphysical world?

Here's a great argument by Julien Offray de la Mettrie a French hedonist, and materialist, from the 18th century.
http://www.cscs.umich.edu...
'sup DDO -- july 2013
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 9:33:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 5:26:38 AM, innomen wrote:
I think that humans have a deep need to explain all things in the most simple of terms, despite the complexity of all things, that proves such an effort to be futile.

why do you think that?
signature
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 10:40:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 5:20:38 AM, socialpinko wrote:
I'm just wondering what the people on this site think of the debate between materialism, naturalism and supernaturalism. Materialism states that the entire world is simply matter in motion and naturalism states that all phenomena in the universe can be explained naturally without resorting to myth or superstition. Supernaturalism on the other hand states that there are forces outside of nature(such as god)that can interact with agents in the natural world(people, trees, dolphins). What do you all think?

Please debate me on materialism or naturalism. Please.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 10:54:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 6:28:38 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Materialism and naturalism state that their is nothing outside of nature because there has not yet been brought any evidence to make belief in the supernatural intellectually viable. In supernatural matters people do not bring evidence to their arguments and when they try to it is often fallacious at best. If a person were to objectively prove god's existence, that would completely disprove naturalism. But as of yet there has not been brought any evidence of the supernatural. The evidence of naturalism is of course nature. The natural world is all that has been measured r observed. If someone were to objectively show supernaturalism at work(god answering prayers) that would be a start.

Cool, it should be easy for you to give me a definition of "nature" and/or what counts as "natural" then.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 11:08:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 5:26:38 AM, innomen wrote:
I think that humans have a deep need to explain all things in the most simple of terms, despite the complexity of all things, that proves such an effort to be futile.

Exactly. That's why everything we can't explain is God, obviously.
President of DDO
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 11:49:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 5:20:38 AM, socialpinko wrote:
I'm just wondering what the people on this site think of the debate between materialism, naturalism and supernaturalism. Materialism states that the entire world is simply matter in motion and naturalism states that all phenomena in the universe can be explained naturally without resorting to myth or superstition. Supernaturalism on the other hand states that there are forces outside of nature(such as god)that can interact with agents in the natural world(people, trees, dolphins). What do you all think?

Materialism: there's only matter
Naturalism: there's only natural stuff.
Supernaturalism: GO HOG WILD - USE YOUR IMAGINATION! IT'S ALL REAL!

Seems to me that Naturalism is the obvious choice.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 1:40:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 11:49:07 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 2/27/2011 5:20:38 AM, socialpinko wrote:
I'm just wondering what the people on this site think of the debate between materialism, naturalism and supernaturalism. Materialism states that the entire world is simply matter in motion and naturalism states that all phenomena in the universe can be explained naturally without resorting to myth or superstition. Supernaturalism on the other hand states that there are forces outside of nature(such as god)that can interact with agents in the natural world(people, trees, dolphins). What do you all think?

Materialism: there's only matter
Naturalism: there's only natural stuff.
Supernaturalism: GO HOG WILD - USE YOUR IMAGINATION! IT'S ALL REAL!

Seems to me that Naturalism is the obvious choice.

Please define "natural stuff".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 1:49:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 11:08:56 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/27/2011 5:26:38 AM, innomen wrote:
I think that humans have a deep need to explain all things in the most simple of terms, despite the complexity of all things, that proves such an effort to be futile.

Exactly. That's why everything we can't explain is God, obviously.

no, not exactly.. why do you think this?
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 1:51:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 1:49:48 PM, badger wrote:
At 2/27/2011 11:08:56 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/27/2011 5:26:38 AM, innomen wrote:
I think that humans have a deep need to explain all things in the most simple of terms, despite the complexity of all things, that proves such an effort to be futile.

Exactly. That's why everything we can't explain is God, obviously.

no, not exactly.. why do you think this?

cos we'll never be able to make any real sense of anything?
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 1:53:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 1:51:57 PM, badger wrote:
At 2/27/2011 1:49:48 PM, badger wrote:
At 2/27/2011 11:08:56 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 2/27/2011 5:26:38 AM, innomen wrote:
I think that humans have a deep need to explain all things in the most simple of terms, despite the complexity of all things, that proves such an effort to be futile.

Exactly. That's why everything we can't explain is God, obviously.

no, not exactly.. why do you think this?

cos we'll never be able to make any real sense of anything?

that'd just be we can't make sense of things therefore we can't make sense of things, not therefore god.. why must sense be made? :) lol
signature